Michael Barutciski: The Trudeau government claims it will reduce immigration, but how serious is it really?
2024/11/27 Leave a comment
Good overview and call for a strengthened annual plan that included a legislative requirement to include temporary residents and asylum seekers. Striking that he missed the false assumption that all temporary residents would leave when their visa expired:
….On a positive note, the immigration minister’s commendable decision to include temporary residents in the annual report should be standardized and turned into an obligation by legislative amendment. If such a requirement were already in effect, it could have helped avoid the unintended consequences of the recent explosion in this category.
The legislative obligation to report data should also be extended to include information on asylum seekers. Although the government cannot plan future asylum claims, the numbers in recent years have become significant. According to the latest statistics, Canada is on track for a new record of around 180,000 asylum seekers in 2024. This information should be included in the report, along with data on source countries. Such a legal requirement would make it more difficult for the government to distract attention from its own visa policy decisions by misleadingly invoking global trends. Canada has become a global outlier because it is receiving a high number of asylum seekers who also happen to come from countries that are not typical refugee-producers (e.g. India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya).
The government’s overly generous visa issuance and weak enforcement have not only contributed to an explosion in asylum claims, there are now possibly over half a million migrants unlawfully present in Canada according to the immigration minister. Other estimates are significantly higher. It is time for Parliament to require the annual report to include data on removals and deportations given that this is now an important challenge regarding the system’s integrity. By not addressing these issues, doubts will be raised about the government’s commitment to implementing reductions and meeting targets for other lawful categories.
Unfortunately, the excessive focus on branding lends a superficial tone to the report. Even though it is full of data relating to gender distribution, this latest version omits basic information on countries of origin for permanent residents or any other category. This follows a worldview in which a person’s cultural background is not seen as particularly relevant according to Canada’s welcoming multicultural policy, while actual integration challenges and diaspora difficulties are simply ignored.
To sum up, while Canada is experiencing unusual controversies regarding its immigration policy, the minister responsible for this file has reported to Parliament with a promotional document that signals a temporary change of course. Many of the deeper challenges concerning future immigration planning are left unaddressed. Is the government tolerating visa overstayers and choosing less-skilled migrants because it does not want to conduct mass deportations? More data presented to Parliament will allow a better discussion.
In the meantime, the new White House administration arriving in January will only complicate matters as Canada attempts to gain control of its borders in an evolving global context in which protectionism and national interests are amplified.
