The concerns of various pundits and politicians earlier this year that New Zealand might struggle to attract immigrants turned out to be premature. In fact, the country’s population has been boosted to the extent it should be a bigger election issue than it is.
In the 12 months to July, total permanent migrant arrivals were 208,400 – exceeding previous levels by quite a margin. Accounting for permanent departures, the net population gain from immigrants has been 96,200.
That breaks all previous records, and even accounts for a return to the consistent pattern of a net loss of New Zealand citizens (39,500 in the same period). There is every indication the country will hit an annual net gain of 100,000 people.
At this rate, inward migration will provide a net annual population gain of 2% for 2023. Once natural increase is added (births over deaths being more than 20,000 a year), the overall rate will be around 2.3% to 2.4%. By contrast, the OECD average is less than 0.5%.
Auckland is beginning another period of rapid population growth, reversing the decline seen in 2021. The city’s growth accounts for around half of the country’s total net migration gain. Combined with a natural increase of around 7,000 to 8,000, it means the city will have significant population growth, even allowing for a net migration loss to other regions.
Some of this surge can be explained by the return to relative normal after pandemic restrictions were lifted. But there’s a range of other factors pushing people to New Zealand, including anti-immigrant politics and general disenchantment in other countries.
New Zealand is seen as a desirable destination. In a recent US survey Americans ranked New Zealand second on their list of “best countries” – ahead of the US itself
Immigration and productivity
In 2021, at the request of the finance minister, the Productivity Commission examined the ways immigration settings would contribute to the “long-term prosperity and wellbeing” of the country.
The Immigration – Fit for the Future report released in 2022 provided a very complete review of the data and issues. While it indicated that immigration and immigrants have positive effects and outcomes for New Zealand, it also pointed to a lack of consistency and strategy, and little public accountability.
Key findings included what the commission referred to as “an infrastructure deficit” as investment failed to keep up with population growth. It also described a “reliance risk” on migrant labour that had “negative consequences on innovation and productivity”.
In the trade-off between a reliance on migrant labour or investing in new technologies, the concern is that migrant labour presents an easy win, with little incentive for employers to innovate.
Yet the significant implications of the current immigration surge for planning and productivity are noticeably absent from this election campaign
The missing election issue
Mostly, the main parties are positive about the role and contribution of immigrants (unlike some countries where anti-migrant sentiment has been rising). But the parties are also mainly concerned with policy detail, not the bigger picture.
Labour, National, ACT and the Greens all propose family and parent visas. This is to be welcomed, as migration works best when extended families are involved. And there is a general recognition that talent recruitment needs more attention.
Specifically, Labour wants Pasifika and other migrants who have been in New Zealand for ten years or more to gain residency. The Greens propose a review of refugee and asylum-seeker policy. National wants a new visa category for highly educated migrants. And ACT would require a regulatory impact analysis for all immigration policy.
For its part, New Zealand First refers back to its policies from the 2020 election. This includes statements about the negative impact of “cheap labour undermining New Zealand’s pay and conditions”, something the Productivity Commission found little evidence of.
But the party also suggested greater attention should be given to a more regionally dispersed population and the establishment of a 30-year population plan. Somewhat by default, then, New Zealand First highlights the gaps in other parties’ policy recommendations.
Where is the population strategy?
A more robust and constructive election debate would have addressed those big gaps more directly.
What should be New Zealand’s annual target for migrants, both permanent and temporary? How do we meet the challenges created by the current high volume, including the processing of applications, potential for migrant exploitation, and the stress on services and infrastructure?
More broadly, shouldn’t we be looking at immigration policy in the context of all the elements in play? This would mean factoring in the rapid ageing of the population, declining fertility and very different regional demographic trajectories (with some places experiencing population stagnation or decline).
Asked in a recent radio interview about the housing and infrastructure challenges of immigration and record population growth, National leader (and potentially next prime minister) Christopher Luxon argued the numbers were a “catch-up” from the COVID years:
We’ve got to make sure immigration is always strongly linked to our economic agenda and where we have worker shortages.
This only emphasises the lack of a genuine national plan. Now that the workers kept out by COVID are flowing into the country in large numbers, the Productivity Commission’s observations and suggestions are more relevant than ever.
Otherwise, New Zealand risks allowing immigration to be the default answer to much harder questions about innovation, productivity and the development of a long-term population strategy.
Un peu plus d’un an après avoir atteint pour la première fois son objectif, Ottawa envisage d’augmenter la cible d’immigration francophone hors Québec pour renverser le « déclin des communautés francophones » au Canada.
« Quand on regarde les gens qui parlent français, que ça soit à l’intérieur du Québec ou hors du Québec, le français est menacé dans une mer d’anglais », a reconnu le ministre canadien de l’Immigration, Marc Miller. « Je suis totalement d’accord que le français est menacé en Amérique du Nord », a-t-il ajouté, tout en refusant de dire si la langue de Tremblay est en « déclin » à travers le pays.
Or, depuis la modernisation en juin de la Loi sur les langues officielles, le gouvernement fédéral s’est engagé à rétablir le poids démographique des communautés francophones en situation minoritaire à ce qu’il était en 1971, soit 6,1 %.
Mercredi soir, le conservateur Joël Godin et le bloquiste Mario Beaulieu ont vigoureusement questionné le ministre fédéral de l’Immigration, Marc Miller, en comité permanent des langues officielles. Venu témoigner sur l’immigration francophone au Canada, le successeur de Sean Fraser a indiqué souhaiter établir la cible à 6 %, pour « répondre à l’enjeu du déclin des communautés francophones en situation minoritaire », une « priorité phare pour les prochaines années ».
Un sujet sur lequel il s’est dit prêt à collaborer avec Québec, alors que Mario Beaulieu l’interrogeait sur le risque de puiser dans le bassin d’immigration du Québec. « Les bassins d’immigration francophones [ne] sont pas illimités, donc il faut essayer de se coordonner pour pas se nuire mutuellement, mais vous semblez être ouvert à ça, j’en suis content », a répondu le porte-parole en matière de langues officielles pour le Bloc québécois, après que M. Miller lui ait assuré que le Canada n’allait pas « voler quoi, à qui ce soit ».
Des mécanismes plus robustes
« J’aimerais monter à 6 [%], mais ça, c’est une augmentation de 50 % d’une cible qui a été difficilement réalisable, donc ça va prendre de l’ambition, ça va prendre des mécanismes qui sont en place pour assurer la pérennité du système, quitte à pouvoir l’augmenter par la suite. »
Malgré le peu d’ambition que représentait l’ancien objectif, selon le ministre, les « mécanismes qui étaient en place pour pouvoir atteindre le 4,4 % n’étaient pas aussi robustes qu’on aimerait les voir ». M. Miller a reconnu qu’il y avait notamment « de l’effort à faire en termes de personnel et de ressources ».
La révision envisagée de la cible est encore loin du taux réclamé depuis avril 2022 par la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA). La FCFA souhaiterait que le gouvernement fédéral mette en place une cible de 12 % dès 2024, afin d’atteindre les 20 % d’ici 2030.
S’appuyant sur une « étude statistique », la FCFA clame qu’« aucun chiffre sous la barre des 10 % ne suffirait à freiner le déclin démographique de la francophonie ». « Soyons très clairs, une telle cible [de 6 %] ne serait ni suffisante, ni acceptable pour nos communautés », avait-elle écrit lors de la rentrée parlementaire.
Alarmist but the ongoing hardening of public opinion significant. Valid questions given nature of flows are driven by economic forces, not political persecution:
Il y avait quelque chose de burlesque. Comme dans une scène de Marcel Pagnol. Pendant que le pape, perché sur les hauteurs de Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde, vantait les vertus de la belle et grande « mosaïque » culturelle de Marseille, le bon peuple ébahi se demandait s’il avait bien entendu. Ce pape n’avait-il jamais entendu parler de Socayna, 24 ans, fauchée par une rafale de Kalachnikov alors qu’elle vivait paisiblement avec sa mère au 3e étage d’un immeuble ? Une « balle perdue », comme on dit. Derrière le village Potemkine qu’on lui avait aménagé, ne pouvait-il pas comprendre que si Marseille était la capitale française de l’immigration, elle était surtout celle des guerres de gangs et du trafic de drogue ? Portés par la grâce, les papes ne vivent pas tout à fait dans notre monde.
Les chefs d’État et de gouvernement du Conseil européen qui se réunissent aujourd’hui à Grenade ne peuvent malheureusement prétendre avoir accès aux mêmes voix célestes. Au menu, l’adoption d’un nième Pacte sur l’immigration et l’asile. Un texte que les 27 se sont finalement décidé à adopter tant la colère est grande de Lisbonne à Budapest contre une Union européenne qui n’est plus qu’une passoire. À huit mois des élections européennes, alors que les demandes d’asile ont augmenté de 30 % au premier semestre, l’immigration pourrait en effet susciter en juin prochain une véritable bronca dans les urnes.
Parmi les chefs de gouvernement qui sentent la soupe chaude, on trouve l’Allemand Olaf Scholz. « Le nombre de réfugiés qui cherchent à venir actuellement en Allemagne est trop élevé », avoue-t-il sur un ton qui ressemble étrangement à celui de la première ministre italienne, Giorgia Meloni, dont le pays est pourtant en première ligne.
Le parti d’extrême droite Alternative pour l’Allemagne (AFD) compte désormais 78 députés au Bundestag et 20 % d’intentions de vote dans les sondages. Le double de son résultat de 2021. Le plat pays ne fait pas exception. Ce sont 56 % des Belges qui soutiennent la décision de la secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration de ne plus accueillir les hommes seuls dans les refuges au profit des familles avec enfants uniquement. De telles mesures sont largement plébiscitées dans des pays aussi différents que la Pologne ou les Pays-Bas. Tout indique qu’on a changé d’époque.
Difficile aujourd’hui de cacher que seule une minorité de ces migrants sont des réfugiés au sens propre. Ils pénètrent en Europe, d’où ils deviennent inexpulsables grâce à l’action conjuguée d’un système juridique hégémonique et d’une filière humanitaire qui fait la part belle — malgré elle — aux passeurs. Avec des profits de 35 milliards de dollars (en 2017), ce trafic d’êtres humains serait devenu le troisième secteur le plus lucratif du crime organisé selon l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations.
Peu importe ce qu’en pensent les élus, le 21 septembre, la Cour de justice européenne a privé la France du droit de refouler immédiatement les clandestins qui franchissent sa frontière avec l’Italie. Le même jour, elle empêchait l’Italie d’obliger les clandestins à résider dans un centre de séjour le temps de traiter leur demande.
Non seulement le migrant qui arrive à Lampedusa ne peut-il pas être refoulé vers son port d’origine, mais il ne peut pas être retenu le temps d’examiner sa situation. Une fois en France, il ne peut être renvoyé en Italie et peut donc y rester à demeure puisqu’à peine 5 % des obligations de quitter le territoire sont appliquées.
Le monde fabulé des « No Borders » existe déjà. Il se nomme l’Union européenne. On ne s’étonnera pas que la ministre de l’Intérieur britannique, Suella Braverman, elle-même fille d’immigrants, ait déclaré que la Convention de Genève n’était « plus adaptée à notre époque ». Grand amoureux de l’Afrique, l’ancien premier ministre socialiste Michel Rocard ne pensait pas autre chose lorsqu’il affirmait en 1989 que la France ne pouvait « pas héberger toute la misère du monde » et qu’elle devait « rester ce qu’elle est, une terre d’asile politique […] mais pas plus ». La même année, François Mitterrand avait estimé que le « seuil de tolérance » des Français à l’égard des étrangers avait été atteint… dans les années 1970 !
Trente ans et vingt lois plus tard, l’immense majorité des Français et tout particulièrement les classes populaires — qui comptent 10 millions de pauvres et sont les premières à souffrir de cette immigration — attendent toujours que leurs leaders s’en tiennent à leurs déclarations. Car, contrairement à nombre de politiques qui ont jeté le gant, les peuples croient encore à la politique. C’est pourquoi ils s’accommodent mal de dirigeants qui se prétendent capables de combattre le réchauffement climatique mais pas l’immigration illégale qui serait, elle, « inévitable », alors que des pays comme l’Australie, le Japon et le Danemark ont prouvé le contraire.
Dans un roman aux allures d’apocalypse, l’ancien grand reporter Jean Rolin, qui a couvert l’éclatement de la Yougoslavie, mettait en scène une traversée de la France déchirée par une guerre civile (Les événements, Folio). On n’en est évidemment pas là. Mais rien ne dit que ce refus de la politique n’est pas la recette du chaos.
Anthony Albanese says his government inherited a migration system that was “not fit for purpose”. That’s true. Just how Labor expects to fix the biggest issues in migration is still not clear after the release of its response to visa fraud and exploitation on Wednesday.
According to Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil, she is getting on with the job of cleaning up the mess left by one particular ministerial predecessor – Peter Dutton – who she claims presided over a failing migration system that facilitated “some of the worst crimes in our society”.
The government’s commitment is to crack down much harder on visa rorts and fraudulent agents while offering up some dramatic expulsions of criminal sex and drug traffickers.
Naturally, Dutton denounces all this as a distraction on the eve of the Voice referendum, arguing he cancelled 6000 visas of criminals – far more than O’Neil has managed. He won’t be taking lectures from Labor, he insists, given its previous record of “losing control of the borders”.
The Opposition leader also blames O’Neil for “presiding” over 105,000 asylum seekers without acknowledging most arrived in the Coalition era. Labor is about to announce reforms in this area too.
But beyond trading political barbs over criminality or abuse or asylum seekers, the larger policy dilemma for the government is surging legal net overseas immigration numbers.
These are running at well over 450,000 to the year to March relative to the official annual delivery of 190,000 permanent visas for migrants.
Immigration numbers are always a sensitive issue domestically, especially in Sydney and Melbourne which attract the majority of new migrants.
How this official 190,000 permanent annual intake will work with the much higher number of temporary visa holders remains to be explained.
Successive Australian governments have always expressed pride in a highly successful multicultural society given nearly 30 per cent of people were born overseas – far more than the comparable figures in the US (14 per cent), the UK (17 per cent) or Canada (23 per cent). Another 20 per cent plus of people in Australia have at least one parent born overseas in a country that has relied heavily on waves of immigration over generations.
Given the low unemployment rate and the extreme labour shortages, business certainly wants to encourage more immigration now, whether temporary or permanent. The union movement is traditionally reluctant to endorse this rather than providing more training and jobs for Australians. But when housing supply is so scarce and rents so expensive, the politics of today’s record numbers become ever more difficult generally.
Federal governments are careful never to express detailed opinions on what the long-term targets for net overseas migration should be, wary of reviving the “big Australia” debate and, more recently, of risking Australia’s lucrative export revenue from international students.
The intergenerational reports under both the Coalition and Labor simply nominated the figure of 235,000 as a Treasury “assumption”.
“People are coming and they are staying for longer and in some instances they are not leaving,” she said. “We can’t run a sustainable migration system in that way.”
Yet, the obvious benefits in making it easier and quicker to expel criminals and dodgy long-term visa holders or blocking highly dubious international student applications will do relatively little to reduce overall numbers in Australia.
As of July this year, there are just over 2.5 million people here on temporary visas. This figure, though, includes around 700,000 New Zealanders who will now find it easier to get Australian citizenship after Labor agreed to this pathway for those who have lived here for more than four years.
As well as around 650,000 international students, 200,000 graduates, 330,000 visitors and 130,000 working holidaymakers, there are 130,000 temporary skilled workers and 190,000 temporary visa holders who are also employed.
Labor’s immigration policy reforms to be announced this month will focus on encouraging the particular skills the workforce badly needs while also allowing more temporary visa holders to become permanent residents.
Measures will include simplifying the plethora of categories and visas, reforming the current complicated “points” system and fast-tracking approvals for both highly paid professionals and for lower paid workers in aged care. Temporary visa holders won’t have to remain with their sponsor employer.
Yet how this official 190,000 permanent annual intake will work with the much higher number of temporary visa holders remains to be explained.
Some of those on temporary visas and already here, including international students, will be granted permanent status from that annual quota, for example. But many more temporary visa holders have been staying despite having no real prospects of being granted permanent residency while new temporary visa holders continue to flood in. There are 200,000 more international students who have arrived since the beginning of the year.
The government’s tougher compliance and education standards for student visas – as well as a reduction in work hours permitted – may reduce that imbalance over time. But it’s hard to imagine Labor can engage in mass deportation, especially when many of those here can legally extend their stay by enrolling in more courses.
Such training should logically fit with Australia’s desperate need for more skills and trained workers – assuming, of course, that the courses are appropriately tailored and adequate to address the real shortages.
So far, meeting that goal, too, has proven elusive.
Jobs and Skills Australia’s report released on Wednesday notes Australia faces a skills challenge not seen since the 1960s. It predicts that as well as building the necessary training and skills in the vocational and higher education sectors, the government’s migration reforms will allow skilled migration to effectively address labour shortages and boost productivity.
Earlier this year, IRCC received a report from one of its previous Deputy Ministers, Neil Yeates, on how IRCC can become a more effective and efficient department. Yeates’ report was commissioned by IRCC to evaluate whether the department’s current structure best enables it to achieve its mandate. The Deputy Minister is the senior-most civil servant in a government department. Serving in a non-political role, they oversee the management of their department, including implementation of policies and strategies and managing people and budgets.
IRCC’s current Deputy Minister, Christiane Fox, corresponds with the department’s minister, who is a politician, and is currently Immigration Minister Marc Miller. The Immigration Minister’s role is to implement the elected mandate of the government.
Yeates: IRCC’s organizational model is broken
In his report, which CIC News has been able to obtain a copy of, Yeates concludes “the current organizational model at IRCC is broken but is being held together by the hard work and dedication of staff.”
He recommends “a series of steps need to be taken to realign the organizational structure (including a major shift to a business line-based structure), reform the governance system, implement stronger management systems (especially planning and reporting) and facilitate the development of a culture to better support the department’s goals and objectives (including consideration of an overall review of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and measures to better leverage the experience and expertise of diverse staff groups).”
Yeates explains there are numerous reasons why IRCC’s current model is broken, but highlights two that stand out in particular: a difficult operating environment in Canada and globally; and secondly, IRCC has grown exponentially since its current organizational structure was introduced over 20 years ago. To highlight this point, Yeates notes IRCC’s total workforce has grown from 5,352 employees in March 2023 to 12,949 employees as of January 2023.
Fox: IRCC “felt like crisis”
In an interview last week with journalist Paul Wells, Fox, stated the Yeates report will influence significant changes the department plans to pursue. Upon assuming her role at IRCC in July 2022, Fox explained to Wells the new job “felt like crisis” and that her colleagues at the department were under duress and exhausted. She concluded that departmental changes were necessary, and while she didn’t want to make them immediately, she also didn’t want to wait two years.
In June 2023, Fox had a plan of action after receiving the Yeates report and consulting with public stakeholders including IRCC applicants. Since then, she has been gradually rolling out the changes.
IRCC reorganized to business-line model
Among the changes is that last week, the department was re-organized across the following sectors:
Asylum and Refugees Resettlement
Citizenship and Passport
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Information Officer
Client Service, Innovation, and Chief Digital Officer
Communications
Corporate Services
Economic, Family, and Social Migration
International Affairs and Crisis Response
Migration Integrity
Service Delivery
Settlement Integration and Francophone Affairs
Strategic Policy
Fox explains that, as was recommended by Yeates, the department is now being organized across lines of business. What this means is IRCC employees will be divided across the various clients that the department services, as well as divided in a way to be response to changes around the world. For example, the department has a new International Affairs and Crisis Response sector, which Fox noted to Wells is meant to help IRCC better plan for humanitarian crises and shape a plan of action. IRCC routinely deal with these, such as with Ukraine since last year, and recent Afghanistan and Syrian refugee resettlement initiatives, just to name a few examples.
Fox also stresses the importance of IRCC taking more of a client focus moving forward whereby the department incorporates the experiences of its applicants more strongly into the decisions it makes.
IRCC’s operating environment
Yeates elaborates on the various forces impacting IRCC, the main ones being:
Hybrid Work Environment and COVID-19: The nature of work appears to be changing permanently due to the pandemic, and as such, more workers, including IRCC employees, are working remotely, with a general direction to return to the office 2-3 days per week. Yeates explains while work-from-home has been effective, it remains to be seen what the impacts will be on IRCC’s organizational culture.
Demand for IRCC Services: Demand for IRCC’s programs often exceeds the department’s processing capacity as measured by its service standards (the goals the department sets for itself to process applications for each line of business). Although IRCC has tools and resources at its disposal to manage its inventory, such as caps for certain programs, its inventories can grow very quickly whenever demand for its programs exceeds its processing capacity.
Growth of IRCC: As demand for IRCC’s program has grown, so too has its workforce. Yeates characterizes its workforce as “medium sized” in 2013, with 5,217 non-executive staff, which has more than doubled by 2023 to 12,721 staff. Executives at the department have grown from 135 employees in 2013 to 227 today. However, despite the program and staff growth, the organizational structure at IRCC, which was designed for a smaller department, has largely remained the same.
Immigration Policy Review: The dominant immigration narrative in Canada has not generally been challenged, and that the actual impact of immigration is not generally well documented. As such, an immigration policy review at IRCC may be beneficial in helping IRCC shape the department’s future direction.
Digital Transformation: IRCC has received significant funding for its Digital Platform Modernization, and such transformations are always challenging, particularly at a place like IRCC which has many significant responsibilities. However there is little doubt that IRCC needs to become a fully digital department.
Global Uncertainty: Global armed conflicts are on the rise, democracy is under threat, and factors such as climate change are impacting global demand to migrate, which will continue to have a significant impact on IRCC.
IRCC departmental culture is “committed”
While stressing the purpose of his report is not to be critical, Yeates observes IRCC currently has limited department-wide planning, lacks a multi-year strategic plan, and planning across the department is inconsistent, all of which pose a variety of challenges such as the inability to achieve the department’s goals and lack of accountability among staff.
IRCC staff described the departmental culture as “committed, collaborative, and supportive”, which has helped to overcome the department’s organizational structure, governance, and management systems shortcomings.
Moreover, Yeates pointed to a tension within the department between what he calls the “IRPA school” and the “client service school.” He observes that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced in 2001 with a framework to exclude applicants, with many reasons listed as to why an applicant may be denied. Immigration officers are trained to enforce IRPA, but little attention has historically been paid to the potential for these officers to have “unconscious bias” which may impact their decision-making.
On the other side are those who fall under the “client service school” and are willing to waive requirements and more open to compromise in order to improve the service that IRCC clients receive.
Highlights of Yeates’ recommendations
Overall, Yeates makes recommendations across four areas: Organizational Structure; Governance; Management Systems; and Culture. Highlights of the recommendations are as follows:
Organizational Structure Recommendations:
IRCC move to a business line organization
IRCC develop protocols for crisis and emergency management that identify Assistant Deputy Minister leads in various scenarios
Governance Recommendations:
The Executive Committee assume responsibility for finance and corporate services and absorb the functions of the Corporate Finance Committee
A new Operations Committee be established, chaired by the Deputy Minister’s Office, that will absorb the functions of the Issues Management Committee
That the membership of these committees be reconsidered as part of the re-organization process and that membership be no larger than 12
A review be conducted on the split of responsibilities between IRCC and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) under IRPA in order to rationalize and streamline roles and accountabilities
Management System Recommendations:
Deputy Minister lead a new planning and reporting regime
Develop a 3 to 5 year strategic plan
Undertake an annual planning cycle across all areas of the department, including HR, IT, Financial and Program plans
Implement a quarterly reporting regime
Ensure linkages with the department’s performance management work
Culture Recommendations:
Undertake a review of IRPA to determine whether amendments should be made to better support desired outcomes, including improved service delivery.
Review the training provided to staff involved in the administration of IRPA to ensure if reflects the desired philosophy and approach of the department.
Examine means to integrate the voices of IRCC’s diversity communities into the departmental governance regime
Another example of the need to have more honest discussions on immigration and illustration of the conceit that Canada has a “managed immigration system”:
In March, Washington and Ottawa agreed to close Roxham Road, the small alley in Quebec through which thousands of asylum seekers have entered Canada from the United States, bypassing customs. Nearly 40,000 people entered Canada through Roxham Road in 2022; there were a record 91,710 claimants last year.
So despite the closing, why has Canada already processed more than 80,000 applications from asylum seekers so far this year?
Part of the answer, it appears, is that the international airports in Montreal and Toronto have become magnets for asylum claimants. According to Radio-Canada, immigration authorities quietly implemented a new policy to expedite temporary visa processing, including removing the need for proof that applicants will leave Canada at the end of their stay. This has reportedly made it easier for people who would normally have difficulty obtaining tourist visas to enter and then claim asylum upon arrival. This contrasts with decades-long policy characterized by restrictive visa rules and airline sanctions for travellers boarding with false documents.
Recently published statistics also show that immigration offices in Ontario and Quebec are receiving many inland claimants: migrants who entered Canada either legally or illegally, and then only afterward applied for asylum. This had already been happening when Roxham Road was open; in 2022, Canada received another 50,000 asylum claims from migrants who were already within the country. So far this year, the situation is similar.
The problem is that the government has not been forthcoming about these numbers or the policy that potentially led to them. There is no public data showing how many overstayed their visa-prescribed visits, or how many circumvented the recently tightened Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States. And this lack of transparency could leave Canadians to wonder if Ottawa is hiding that it has shifted to a relatively open-border approach.
Asylum seekers want to come to Canada because it is a rich country that offers unparalleled treatment, including generous benefits and almost-guaranteed citizenship for those granted protection; in many other regions, they often barely receive adequate food and shelter, and exist precariously at the whim of host governments. But interestingly, the influx of claimants in Canada is not necessarily related to global trends. Even though Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan are the top source countriesfor migrants in need of international protection, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board reports that our top source this year is Mexico; India is our fifth-highest source.
Unlike the U.S., Canada has not required visas for Mexicans since 2016, though we are well beyond the numbers that previously triggered the reimposition of visa requirements; Washington has asked Ottawa to reinstate them, to prevent entry to the U.S. from its northern border. And despite current diplomatic tensions with India, it has been our top source country for accepted permanent residents and temporary students – so it is odd that it is also a leading country of origin for asylum claimants.
Neither Mexico nor India is embroiled in political upheaval or armed conflict. So why are these among our top source countries?
A distinct vision of asylum policy appears to be emerging from the Trudeau Liberals: one that is generous, in allowing people from less privileged countries to enter Canada legally as a way of regularizing migration. The approach could also be seen as practical, in that it contributes to our demographic expansion by welcoming particularly determined individuals who would otherwise not be admitted under standard immigration streams. And it is politically attractive for humanitarian self-promotion.
But it remains to be seen whether an anxious public is ready to normalize yearly asylum claims that could number in the six digits. While reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate response to record numbers of asylum claims, a healthy liberal democracy will try to balance the basic dignity of asylum seekers and the legitimate interests of the host population. But it has become difficult in Canada to have honest discussions about our commitments. If the federal government is implementing policy changes on visa issuance, then it needs to be upfront about it, given the implications for resource planning, including at the provincial and municipal levels as well as among grassroots refugee organizations.
Canada’s immigration system has worked to date because it is highly controlled and focused on selecting migrants that advance the country’s needs. It is not intended to promote an ideological world view that believes there is global injustice resulting from a supposed birthright lottery that limits poor migrants from travelling freely. To maintain the country’s pro-immigration consensus in the real world, however, our leaders cannot view asylum in such a blue-sky way. But at the very minimum, they need to give us the information we need to have a real debate.
Michael Barutciski is a faculty member of York University’s Glendon College. He teaches law and policy with a focus on migration issues.
Ottawa is being urged to crack down on an immigration scam where people hoping to find jobs in Canada are being forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to potential employers – and a fee to immigration consultants – to find jobs here.
The federal Immigration Department last year altered regulations totry to put a stop to employers charging people fees for a job in Canada under theTemporary Foreign Worker Program, which is designed to fill jobs where no Canadians or permanent residents are available for the role.
But immigration experts say that, despite the clampdown by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, some temporary foreign workers are still being exploited and made to pay large sums to secure a job in Canada.
The Globe and Mail has spoken to immigration consultants, lawyers and immigrants concerned about the scamwhere would-be immigrants pay to get a Canadian employer to apply for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), a document showing there is a need for a temporary foreign worker. Once an employer obtains the LMIA from Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), the worker can apply for a work permit.
The Globe also found open discussions on social media, including by an immigration consultant, talking about people in India paying to obtain an LMIA job.
LMIAs are used to fill a wide variety of vacancies: unskilled jobs, including those in the catering, hospitality and retail sectors, as well as semi-skilled and skilled jobs.
The Immigration Department told The Globe and Mail it was aware of scams involving LMIA fraud, but had taken steps last year to guard against them with changes to regulations.
“Sectors identified as high risk for LMIA fraud receive an enhanced assessment to validate the employer’s business operations and the human resource needs,” the IRCC said in a statement.
Earl Blaney, a registered immigration consultant from London, Ont., said the demand for payment from migrants to get jobs in Canada was still “pervasive” and was also being used as a route to settling in Canada.
He said some foreign graduates who have studied in Canada but whose postgraduate work permits have run out are paying to stay in the country and get a semi-skilled LMIA job, such as a retail supervisor. Semi-skilled LMIA jobsconfer 50 points toward obtaining permanent residence, he said.
Mr. Blaney said the temporary foreign workers program was set up to address labour-market shortages but has led to “profiteering” by some unscrupulous employers and immigration consultants who are splitting payments from immigrants.
“The market rate is about $50,000, but they are selling them [LMIAs] for higher,” he said. “This is staple if you are trying to get to Canada. It’s pervasive. It’s not just India, its everywhere. It’s illegal for immigration consultants or lawyers to charge for this. But crooked consultants will start the process and they don’t even know if it is going to be approved by ESDC. If it is approved, the $5,000-$7,000 fee goes up to $40,000 to $70,000 to $80,000.”
Last year, the federal government brought in changes to regulations to make sure temporary foreign workers are not charged for their own recruitment.
“To mitigate concerns about the financial exploitation of temporary foreign workers, employers must commit to not charge or recover from workers any fees related to recruitment,” the IRCC said in a statement. “Employers must also ensure that any third party who recruits temporary foreign workers on their behalf does not charge or recover such fees from the temporary foreign workers.”
The changes to the regulations also ensure temporary foreign workers get an employment contract on their first day of work. It must match the offer of employment, with the same wages and working conditions.
But one immigration lawyer, whom The Globe is not naming as he feared reprisals, said some who paid to get an LMIA job have arrived here from India to find they have no employment, or have to work long hours for virtually no pay.
He said employers or consultants and lawyers are continuing to ask migrants to pay approximately $60,000 to $70,000 to come to Canada for employment.
He said individuals are often willing to pay such a high amount because they would otherwise not qualify for immigration through other pathways in Canada. The majority of the money goes to the employers and around $10,000 to $20,000 is taken by the lawyer or consultant who files the application for the LMIA, he said.
Work permit holders are willing to pay so much, and often struggle with rampant abuse in the hope of becoming a permanent resident, the lawyer added.
The IRCC said all employers submitting an LMIA application are subject to “a genuineness assessment.”
“The Government of Canada takes its responsibility to protect the health and safety of temporary foreign workers, as well as the integrity of the Temporary Foreign Worker [TFW] Program, very seriously. We are aware of cases where people are scammed. We have taken concrete actions to ensure this doesn’t occur,” it said in a statement.
Earlier this year Ottawa launched an inquiry into a scam involving international students who faced deportation after being given bogus acceptance letters from colleges by consultants.
Unfortunate choice of words that meets the standard definition of a political gaffe: telling the truth. However, she should at least acknowledge that the provinces are equally complicit, particularly Ontario as freezing fees and allowing private colleges encouraged much of the abuse;
As Canada’s population continues to explode in a clearly unsustainable — and unethical — fashion, the federal Liberals continue to insist there’s no problem. Typically, they do this moralistic backpatting under the guise of embracing diversity.
Except when the mask slips and they say the quiet part aloud, like when Immigration Minister Marc Miller called international students “an asset that is very lucrative” during question period last week.
The admission struck a vastly different chord than when he told CBC News last month that his chief concern was “the stigmatization of particularly people of diversity that come to this country to make it better.”
So, which is it? Are Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals chiefly concerned about the wellbeing of newcomers, or do they primarily view them as cash cows for post-secondary institutions and low-wage employers? Because right now, it can’t be both.
Statistics Canada recently reported Canada’s population grew by over a million people between July 2022 and July 2023, with nearly all the growth coming from immigration. Even more striking is the 46 per cent increase in temporary residents over the same time period.
Remember, these numbers are vastly undercounted — by around a million, according to some estimates. We won’t get more accurate numbers from Statistics Canada until sometime next month.
Canada has an increasingly poor reputation for the way those temporary residents are treated once here. Too often, they face exploitative work conditions, low wages and substandard living conditions, alongside scam artists and diploma mills looking to cash in on those who desire to live here permanently.
Miller was right when he said immigrants want to come to Canada and contribute to its betterment, but what was left unsaid is that we don’t seem to care much about their betterment as long as someone’s benefiting financially.
Just three weeks ago, a United Nations special rapporteur who specializes in modern slavery called our temporary foreign worker program a “breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery.” This was after a visit to Canada where he spoke to migrant workers who reported unsanitary living conditions, overtime with no pay, wage theft, no access to healthcare and fear of reporting abuse.
This week, the Senate concluded our temporary foreign worker program is “probably in need of a critical rethink” after studying the issue for months.
Meanwhile, the extent of the exploitation suffered by international students continues to be exposed. This week, another Senate report found foreign students were being misled, often intentionally by “education consultants” paid by Canadian colleges to recruit overseas, that studying in Canada will automatically lead to permanent residency.
Some of these “schools” — if they can be called that — don’t even have proper classrooms, instructors or class schedules, let alone accommodations or support services. Tuition is sky high and, while some students come from wealthy backgrounds, many more rely on their families taking out high-interest loans back home or re-mortgaging the family farm.
For these students, there’s more at risk than simply being unable to work in their chosen field or obtain permanent residency — their families have put everything on the line for what can be a cruel mirage of an opportunity.
This immense pressure, combined with Canada’s too-often disappointing reality and dismal living conditions, has contributed to a reported increase in suicides among international students. One funeral home told CBC News this spring that they used to repatriate no more than two student bodies to India per month, but that number has more than doubled in the last year.
It’s worth noting Canada doesn’t actually track the number of international student deaths, let alone suicides, within our borders. Perhaps it’s more convenient not to know.
International students are also increasingly falling victim to sexual exploitation as they struggle to afford rent and other necessary expenses.
Trudeau’s Liberals can’t wash their hands of responsibility by blaming a few bad actors and calling it another day on the Hill. These problems have worsened significantly since 2015 when they came into power with a determination to turbocharge immigration at any cost, with no plan for sustainability. This was no secret among those paying attention, although many in politics preferred to look away.
The recent Senate report also went so far as to say the federal government itself is “perpetuating an inflated sense of hope” by not being clear with prospective students about the actual process of obtaining permanent resident status when advertising the advantages of studying here.
Canada sells its immigration program as a vehicle for hope. In reality, it’s become loaded with human tragedy and tales of horror. It appears the Liberals are fine with that, as long as newcomers continue to be lucrative assets for the right stakeholders.
Le niveau record d’immigrants temporaires cette année est surtout causé, au Québec, par la permission accordée par le gouvernement Legault aux entreprises de recourir aux travailleurs étrangers, réplique le ministre fédéral Pablo Rodriguez.
« Les gens qui sont là, c’est parce qu’il y a des entreprises québécoises qui nous [les] ont demandés », a indiqué au Devoir le lieutenant québécois de Justin Trudeau, jeudi.
Il tenait à répondre à la ministre de l’Immigration du Québec, Christine Fréchette, qui a demandé la veille au gouvernement fédéral de revoir ses cibles d’immigration, peu après la publication par Statistique Canada de données témoignant de l’explosion du nombre de résidents non permanents au Canada et au Québec.
Le Parti québécois a récupéré le dossier, jeudi, en anticipant une « minorisation » de la langue française. Le député Pascal Bérubé a fait valoir que le Québec n’a pas une capacité d’accueil suffisante pour toute cette immigration temporaire. Le Parti libéral du Québec est d’accord, parlant de « drapeau rouge » pour la capacité d’accueil, alors que Québec solidaire demande au contraire qu’on régularise leur statut pour en faire des immigrants permanents.
Validée par Québec
Pablo Rodriguez, qui est devenu ministre fédéral des Transports cet été, rappelle que la venue de travailleurs étrangers temporaires est validée par le gouvernement provincial. Les statistiques montrent que ces travailleurs formaient 43 % des 470 976 résidents non permanents qui se trouvaient au Québec le 1er juillet 2023.
« Il n’y a pas un seul dossier qui est ouvert par Ottawa tant que le demandeur n’a pas reçu un certificat d’acceptation du Québec, dit-il. Ces gens-là qui sont là, il faut vraiment faire attention à ne pas pointer du doigt, [et] comprendre que s’ils sont là, c’est parce que ce sont des entreprises de chez nous qui les veulent. »
Interpellée jeudi, la ministre Fréchette a invité le gouvernement fédéral à « être plus sensible à l’impact de ses cibles d’immigration ». « La majorité des immigrants temporaires sont [au Québec] grâce à des programmes contrôlés entièrement par le fédéral », a-t-elle affirmé dans une déclaration écrite transmise au Devoir. « Le Québec contrôle seulement les travailleurs admis via le Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires et les étudiants étrangers », soit le tiers des immigrants non permanents accueillis en territoire québécois.
L’élue caquiste invite le fédéral à se concentrer sur les demandeurs d’asile, qui représentent 31 % des résidents non permanents québécois malgré la fermeture du chemin Roxham. « Le gouvernement canadien doit s’assurer d’une répartition équitable des demandeurs d’asile à travers le Canada, a-t-elle dit. Il y a un examen de conscience à faire à Ottawa. »
Le Québec ne dispose pas de cible pour l’accueil de travailleurs étrangers temporaires. Ces nouveaux arrivants font pourtant explicitement partie de la stratégie du gouvernement Legault publiée l’an dernier, qui prévoit d’« appuyer les employeurs » pour augmenter la main-d’oeuvre temporaire.
Près de 7000 entreprises au Québec ont demandé d’embaucher des travailleurs étrangers temporaires l’an dernier.
Les temporaires deviennent permanents
Les autres catégories d’immigrants temporaires comprennent les étudiants étrangers, qui sont convoités par Québec, les membres de la famille qui accompagnent ces immigrants ainsi que les demandeurs d’asile. Ces derniers forment 31 % de tous les résidents non permanents du Québec, et la province ne peut pas en gérer le nombre.
Selon le décompte de Statistique Canada, 146 723 demandeurs d’asile étaient présents sur le territoire québécois en juillet dernier.
Le gouvernement fédéral a pour objectif d’accueillir 500 000 immigrants par année au Canada. Or, un grand nombre d’entre eux sont déjà arrivés physiquement sur le territoire, comme par un programme d’immigration temporaire.
Multicultural Meanderings 