David: L’implacable loi du nombre [#cdnimm and declining demographic weight of Quebec]

Noting the impact on population-based transfer payments:

Selon des documents du ministère fédéral des Finances obtenus par La Presse en vertu de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information, une somme de 87,3 millions sera soustraite des sommes versées au Québec dans le cadre du Transfert canadien en santé, déjà jugé très insuffisant par le gouvernement Legault, et du Transfert canadien en matière de services sociaux, qui sont calculés au prorata de la population. Inversement, l’Ontario, qui accueille une proportion beaucoup plus forte d’immigrants, aura droit à des versements additionnels de 91 millions.

Même si on a fait tout un plat des 5 à 7 millions versés aux Kings de Los Angeles, une baisse de 87 millions peut sembler peu de chose, dans la mesure où les transferts fédéraux au Québec vont totaliser 31,5 milliards en 2023-2024, mais elle risque de devenir de plus en plus importante au fur et à mesure que l’écart entre le nombre d’immigrants accueillis au Québec et dans le reste du Canada continuera d’augmenter.

S’il est vrai que de plus en plus de Canadiens, d’un océan à l’autre, s’inquiètent des conséquences économiques de seuils d’immigration trop élevés, notamment l’aggravation de la crise du logement, le gouvernement Trudeau maintient toujours un objectif annuel de 500 000 nouveaux arrivants permanents au cours des prochaines années, alors que le Québec a fixé le seuil à 56 000. À ce rythme, le pourcentage d’environ 22 % de la population canadienne qu’il représente aujourd’hui chutera rapidement.
* * * * * 
Les formules qui déterminent les transferts fédéraux aux provinces sont basées sur des calculs qui ne tiennent pas compte de considérations comme la capacité d’intégration, d’ailleurs très difficile à évaluer de façon précise, ou encore la protection de l’identité.

Il ne faut sans doute pas voir dans la baisse des sommes versées au Québec une stratégie machiavélique pour le forcer à aligner ses politiques d’immigration sur celles d’Ottawa, sous peine d’être pénalisé, mais l’effet est le même.

La loi du nombre est implacable. Il était déjà manifeste que la volonté du Québec de maintenir les seuils d’immigration à des niveaux compatibles avec sa capacité d’accueil entraînait une diminution de son poids démographique et politique au sein de la fédération. Il apparaît maintenant qu’elle a aussi un coût financier.

Il est nettement plus difficile d’intégrer un nouvel arrivant à une société dont la langue est aussi marginale que le français l’est en Amérique du Nord, et le gouvernement fédéral verse au Québec des sommes substantielles à cet effet, mais on ne peut pas lui demander de le dédommager pour les immigrants qu’il refuse d’accueillir ni d’adapter ses objectifs en fonction des intérêts du Québec. Il appartient plutôt aux Québécois de juger si tous ces aspects sont compatibles.

Source: L’implacable loi du nombre

LOP: Immigration Policy Primer

Useful primer:

This document provides an overview of the various factors and players that shape Canada’s immigration policy, sheds light on the legislative framework and the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of government, and presents a few of the essential components and instruments in this field.

In 2021, Canada welcomed 406,000 permanent residents, and the country plans to gradually increase its intake levels to 500,000 new admissions per year by 2025. These new levels will then be maintained into 2026. The increase aims to support various national priorities, such as solving the labour shortage, meeting humanitarian commitments in response to global crises and family reunification. These priorities reflect the objectives in Canada’s immigration policy as set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Those include, but are not limited to, economic development, granting refugee status to persecuted people and promoting the integration of permanent residents.

Canada’s immigration policy is implemented by the federal government in partnership with the provinces and territories, with which it shares jurisdiction in the area of immigration. However, that sharing is not equal because the roles and responsibilities differ from one province or territory to another; however, it still enables all of them to play a more active role in selecting immigrants from the economic immigration category in order to better meet the specific needs of their labour market.

As for federal jurisdiction, the IRPA is the main statute governing immigration, while the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations are an important policy instrument that specify immigration procedures and processes. The federal government can also issue ministerial instructions to more flexibly and effectively manage the processing of immigration applications and to introduce pilot programs. In addition, it can establish operational guidelines that help ensure that the immigration policy is consistently applied, even though they don’t have the force and effect of law. Those guidelines are distributed in the form of instructions, operational bulletins or manuals for guidance.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada also performs an essential function. It is an administrative tribunal divided into four divisions with various mandates, such as processing claims for refugee protection made in Canada and detention reviews. Regarding those, the courts of justice regularly issue decisions that affect implementation of the immigration policy.

Source: Immigration Policy Primer

Pierre Poilievre pledges to tie immigration levels to homebuilding – Financial Post

Given current housing starts, less than 250,000, and for illustrative purposes, 3 persons per housing unit, this would mean a total of 750,000 permanent and temporary residents, less than half the current amount.

An easy understandable slogan but, like so many by all parties, more complex than presented given the various interested groups and the hard decisions around trade-offs:

The Conservative politician who’s trying to take down Justin Trudeau said that if he’s elected, he would link Canada’s immigration levels to the number of homes being built.

Pierre Poilievre took aim Friday at Trudeau’s housing minister, Sean Fraser, arguing that when Fraser was immigration minister, he oversaw soaring numbers of new arrivals without ensuring the country could properly accommodate them.

“We need to make a link between the number of homes built and the number of people we invite as new Canadians,” Poilievre said, speaking at a news conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba.He said his Conservative Party “will get back to an approach of immigration that invites a number of people that we can house, employ and care for in our health-care system.” He cited data showing that Canada is now completing fewer homes than it did 50 years earlier, when its population was around 22 million. It’s close to 41 million today

There were 219,942 new homes completed in Canada in 2022, the most recent year for which complete data is available, compared with 232,227 in 1972, when the country was going through a construction boom.

Poilievre did not say whether he would roll back Canada’s permanent resident target or curb the number of temporary newcomers, such as foreign students. In the past, he has declined to say that he would scale back immigration.

Canada accepted about 455,000 new permanent residents in the 12-month period to Oct. 1 while bringing in more than 800,000 non-permanent residents, a category that includes temporary workers, students and refugees. Canada’s population growth rate of 3.2 per cent means it’s growing faster than any Group of Seven nation, China or India.

Many economists have also criticized the government for failing to ensure services have kept pace with Canada’s immigration targets.

Trudeau has fallen far behind Poilievre in public polling, and the high cost of housing is likely part of the explanation. His government has unveiled several measures meant to boost home construction, and they’ve pledged to examine reforms to programs that allow temporary immigrants.

The prime minister told reporters in Guelph, Ont., on Jan. 12 that there’s no “magic solution” to the housing shortage and touted his government’s program to transfer millions of dollars to cities that speed up development approvals.

“Construction workers and availability of labour is a challenge we’re facing, which is why we continue to have ambitious immigration targets,” he said.

Source: Pierre Poilievre pledges to tie immigration levels to homebuilding – Financial Post

Trudeau botched immigration surge, Canada’s top bank economists say – Financial Post

Hard to make a stronger condemnation than this:

Canada’s current immigration policy — among the most open in the world — is now causing economic damage and needs to be reconsidered, according to the country’s top economists.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to dramatically increase immigration — and allow a flood of temporary workers and international students — without providing proper support has created a laundry list of economic problems, including higher inflation and weak productivity, chief economists at Canada’s biggest banks said Jan. 11 during a wide-ranging panel discussion in Toronto.

“Frankly I’m surprised we screwed it up because we sit in such a privileged position in Canada,” Beata Caranci, chief economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank, told a packed audience at an Economic Club of Canada event.

Unlike many other countries, including the United States, Canada is not dealing with poorly controlled flows of migrants across its land borders and has had time to think about the implications of its policies, Caranci said. “We designed our own policy, we put it in place, we implemented it, and we still screwed it up.

Source: Trudeau botched immigration surge, Canada’s top bank economists say – Financial Post

Canadian Immigration Tracker – November 2023 update

No major changes from October.

The one element to flag is the sharp increase in the number of asylum claimants, from a monthly average of about 10,000 January to June 2023 to about 15,000 July to November, largely driven by the easing of visa restrictions, with close to two-thirds of claims being “inland.” Given the large number of Mexican claimants, averaging more than 2,000 per month in 2023, there will continue to be calls to reimpose the visa requirement on Mexicans, as well as more general calls to restore the previous visa restrictions.

Highlights on slide 3.

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshows/canadian-immigration-tracker-key-slides-november-2023/265358086

Government was warned two years ago high immigration could affect housing costs

Public service providing “fearless advice” while government, as is its right, rejected it in favour of ongoing increases in permanent and temporary immigration. Advice to former immigration minister Fraser who now, ironically, and perhaps deservedly so, is now the housing minister who has to clean up this mess (not doable in substantive terms before the election).

Eerily similar to some of my earlier opinion pieces, Increasing immigration to boost population? Not so fast.:

Federal public servants warned the government two years ago that large increases to immigration could affect housing affordability and services, internal documents show.

Documents obtained by The Canadian Press through an access-to-information request show Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada analyzed the potential effects immigration would have on the economy, housing and services, as it prepared its immigration targets for 2023 to 2025.

The deputy minister, among others, was warned in 2022 that housing construction had not kept up with the pace of population growth.

“In Canada, population growth has exceeded the growth in available housing units,” one slide deck reads.

“As the federal authority charged with managing immigration, IRCC policy-makers must understand the misalignment between population growth and housing supply, and how permanent and temporary immigration shapes population growth.”

Immigration accounts for nearly all population growth in Canada, given the country’s aging demographics.

The federal government ultimately decided to increase the number of permanent residents Canada welcomes each year to 500,000 in 2025, a decision that drew considerable attention and scrutiny. It means in 2025, Canada will welcome nearly twice as many permanent residents as it did in 2015.

The document reveals federal public servants were well aware of the pressures high population growth would have on housing and services.

“Rapid increases put pressure on health care and affordable housing,” public servants warned. “Settlement and resettlement service providers are expressing short-term strain due to labour market conditions, increased levels and the Afghanistan and Ukraine initiatives.”

Housing affordability has now become a political liability for the Liberal government. The Conservatives have gained considerable momentum over the last year as the party pounces on affordability issues, while avoiding the issue of immigration in particular. These pressures have forced the Liberal government to refocus its efforts on housing policy and begin to address the spike in international students with new rules.

Recent data shows Canada’s pace of population growth continues to set records as the country brings in a historic number of temporary residents as well, largely through international student and temporary foreign worker programs.

The country’s population grew by more than 430,000 during the third quarter of 2023, marking the fastest pace of population growth in any quarter since 1957.

Experts spanning from Bay Street to academic institutions have warned that Canada’s strong population growth is eroding housing affordability, as demand outpaces supply.

The Bank of Canada has offered similar analysis. Deputy governor Toni Gravelle delivered a speech in December warning that strong population growth is pushing rents and home prices upward.

Public opinion polls also show Canadians are increasingly concerned about the pressure immigration is putting on services, infrastructure and housing, leading to waning support for high immigration.

The Liberal government has defended its immigration policy decisions, arguing that immigrants help bring about economic prosperity and help with the country’s demographics as the population ages.

However, amid the heightened scrutiny of the Liberal government’s immigration policy, Immigration Minister Marc Miller levelled out the annual target at 500,000 permanent residents for 2026.

The documents from 2022 note that Canada’s immigration targets have exceeded the recommendations of some experts, including the Century Initiative, an organization that advocates for growing the country’s population to 100 million by the end of the century.

However, attention is now shifting from these targets to the steep rise in non-permanent residents. Between July and October, about three-quarters of Canada’s population growth came from temporary residents, including international students and temporary foreign workers.

That trend is raising alarms about the increase in businesses’ reliance on low-wage migrant workers and the luring of international student byshady post-secondary institutions.

Mikal Skuterud, an economics professor at the University of Waterloo who specializes in immigration policy, says the federal government appears to have “lost control” of temporary migration flows.

Unlike the annual targets for permanent residents, the number of temporary residents is dictated by demand for migrant workers and international students.

He also notes there is a link between the targets for permanent residents and the flow of temporary residents.

“To the extent that you increase permanent numbers, and migrants realize the way you get a PR is to come here as a temporary resident … then migrants are incentivized to kind of come and try their luck,” he said.

Skuterud, who has been a vocal critic of the federal government’s immigration policy, says the benefits of high immigration have been exaggerated by the Liberals.

He said that starting around 2015, when the Liberal government was first elected, a narrative developed in Canada that “immigration was kind of a solution to Canada’s economic growth problems.”

And while the professor says that narrative is one that people like to believe, he notes higher immigration does little when it comes to increasing living standards, as measured by real GDP per capita.

Public servants at IRCC are in agreement, the released documents suggest.

“Increasing the working age population can have a positive impact on gross domestic product, but little effect on GDP per capita,” public servants noted.

Source: Government was warned two years ago high immigration could affect housing costs – Moose Jaw Today

Gurski: Canada’s open-door immigration policy shouldn’t mean anything goes

Valid note of caution. Encouragingly, Minister Miller was frank about this concern and the need for rigorous security checks as well as the difference between Ukraine and Gaza:

More to the point, the ongoing war in Gaza has spurred the Liberal government to announce special measures to help the family members of Canadians get out of the war zone. In theory, this is a bold and welcome move but does have a security nexus. Hamas is the ruling party in the area — and is a listed terrorist entity in Canada. Support for it in the wake of Israeli military action after the Oct. 7 terrorist attack in southern Israel is on the rise, in the region, worldwide and possibly in Canada. It is possible and perhaps even probable that Hamas members or supporters will attempt to join the queue. They cannot be allowed to succeed (I am sure CSIS is well aware of the likelihood). Imagine a scenario where a recent arrival carried out an attack in the name of Hamas on Canadian soil: I would prefer not to have to go there.

We do not want to become a nation where the anti-immigrant lobby gains influence and status. We see what is happening in Europe (for instance, the political party led by far-right, anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders recently won the most seats in the Netherlands) and it ain’t pretty. One way to avoid that eventuality is to allow our security agencies to do their job, then take their advice to heart. The consequences of not doing so are dire indeed.

Phil Gurski is President/CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting, and a firmer CSIS employee. http://www.borealisthreatandrisk.com

Source: Gurski: Canada’s open-door immigration policy shouldn’t mean anything goes

International students angered by failing grade say they feel exploited. Now the university is giving them a second chance

Emblemic of the failures of provincial higher education policies, institutional avarice and lack of federal guardrails for such abuse:

Failing marks for dozens of international students have led to a days-long sit-in at an Ontario university, with some frustrated students saying they’ve been left feeling as though the school is trying to milk them for more money.

In response to the controversy, Algoma University has re-evaluated the grades in one online course offered by its Brampton campus and, finding them “abnormally low,” has given dozens more students a passing grade. It’s also moved to offer the students a free makeup exam. 

The school says it deeply values academic integrity and fairness, and that for those students retaking the exam, it will be up to them to do the work and make the grade. It didn’t address the students’ suggestion that it was trying to extract more fees out of the affected students.

Source: International students angered by failing grade say they feel exploited. Now the university is giving them a second chance

Clark:To list Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group, Canada needs a better way

Agree, appropriate distinction:

….Simply designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization would mean any non-citizen draftee in the IRGC would be barred from Canada – visitors, students, immigrants – with only narrow grounds to appeal.

The IRGC is big, counting roughly 150,000 troops, according to University of Ottawa professor Thomas Juneau. That means there have been a lot of conscripts. They don’t have a choice of whether they are sent to the army, the police or the Revolutionary Guards. Mahmoud Azimaee, a statistician and former conscript who was declared inadmissible to the U.S. last year, believes there are probably 10,000 Canadians who are former IRGC conscripts.

Any new regulation or law must include a well-crafted carve-out for those people.

The U.S. Trump administration didn’t do that in 2019, and it was a mistake. But the Biden administration hasn’t touched it out of fear of being labelled soft on Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told a Congressional committee in 2022 that listing Iran as a terrorist organization didn’t add much in practice, except barring more people from entering the U.S. – chiefly conscripts. “The people who are the real bad guys have no intention of travelling here, anyway,” he said.

Source: To list Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group, Canada needs a better way

Steve Lafleur: It’s time to stop importing American debates, Canada. We’ve got our own country to run

Amen… Captures many of my pet peeves, reflecting a colonial mentality, although his comments on immigration oversimplify:

For the love of God, stop uncritically importing American political debates

Well, it’s here. 2024. U.S. election year. Which means that, regrettably, we’re going to be talking a lot more about Donald Trump—whether it’s because his legal troubles get the better of him, or he finds his way back into the White House. Maybe both. It’s almost too depressing to contemplate, but here we are. 

This has wide-ranging implications for Canada, and the world at large. The world will be watching—particularly America’s adversaries. Canada, Europe, and our allies need contingency plans in case America turns its back on the world.

I’m not here to talk about the geopolitical implications of letting Vladimir Putin walk through Europe, or the prospect of our closest ally potentially tearing itself apart over a geriatric nepo baby with a severe allergy to the law. I’m getting off track here.

Let’s try this again. Canadians will be rightly fixated on the American election. Who can blame us? But our cultural commonalities with the United States often make it tempting to uncritically import American debate. We’ll need to try even harder than usual to avoid that. No good comes of it. 

Canada is, in many respects, a collection of bi-national regional political cultures overlayed by a loose national culture. Vancouver is basically Seattle with Canadian characteristics, for instance. We often have as much in common with our regional neighbours south of the border as we do with Canadians on the other side of the country. 

With a population largely strewn across the American border, an economy oriented towards southern exports, and a media ecosystem filled with American content, it’s easy to forget that Canada is its own country with distinct challenges, opportunities, and history. There isn’t always an off-the-shelf American policy solution that we can just slap a maple leaf on.

This may seem painfully obvious, but Canadian politicians have a long history of seemingly forgetting which side of the border we’re on. And it’s not getting any better. Whether it’s Danielle Smith fawning over Ron DeSantis or Justin Trudeau conflating Pierre Poilievre and Donald Trump, all indications are that our political class wants to keep cosplaying American politics. 

Canadians should demand better. We deserve our own policy debates focused on actual Canadian issues. It’s up to us to ask for it.

Take immigration, for instance. It’s hard to think of two immigration systems as different as Canada’s and the United States’. Canada has very high levels of legal immigration focused on highly skilled immigrants. Our biggest immigration problem is that we haven’t built enough houses to accommodate people. By contrast, America has relatively low levels of legal immigration, but a porous southern border that people cross through for a chance to pick crops or clean hotel rooms. 

Canada has high but selective immigration; America has low but chaotic immigration. It’s understandable that irregular crossing sucks up a lot of the political oxygen stateside, but it’s a relatively niche topic here. Frankly, temporary foreign workers are a bigger political challenge in Canada than illegal immigration (specifically, housing them). Different countries, different issues.

Let’s take another thorny example: diversity. Canada is a far more multicultural country than the United States. While large American cities like New York or even Houston have very diverse populations, there are vast swaths of the country that are largely white and Black, with a smattering of Latinos. This has an enormous impact on discussions of diversity—particularly when it comes to religion. If you encounter Muslims on a regular basis, it’s hard to fearmonger about them. There’s a reason why the “Muslim ban” happened in America, not Canada. 

The fact that diversity in Canada looks different than in the United States isn’t merely a statistical curiosity. It has implications for some of the cultural debates that are increasingly monopolizing our political discourse. 

Take the term BIPOC, for instance. It’s a term often used in American progressive circles that has managed to seep through the border. BIPOC—Black, Indigenous, People of Color—is a very specific American term. Note the order of the terms. Slavery was America’s greatest sin. Racial segregation persisted until the 1960s. Discrimination continues to this day. Of course, the historical treatment of American Indigenous People wasn’t much better. But sharing an acronym isn’t entirely unreasonable. 

In Canada, it’s not reasonable. The frequency, severity, and persistence of mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples is Canada’s most shameful legacy. Lumping Indigenous issues in with broader racial issues in Canada isn’t just silly, but insulting. Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples is one of the most important tasks facing the country. Indigenous issues deserve a more prominent role than the second letter of an acronym. 

Finally, there’s guns. A lot of them if you’re on the American side, but not so much here (unless you’re talking about farm rifles). Canada’s cities, contrary to the rhetoric, are much safer than American cities. The fact that we don’t have yahoos walking around with semi-automatic weapons probably helps. Nevertheless, firearms policy gets a surprising amount of oxygen on both sides of the political spectrum, even if it isn’t kitchen table talk. Conservatives take up gun rights issues to appease rural elements of their base, and Liberals use guns as a wedge issue. Despite the very different realities of firearms policy in Canada and America, sometimes it sounds like our politicians live a few hundred miles south. That isn’t to say there isn’t room for debate about firearms policy. But Canadian politicians should not make policy decisions based on American news stories, nor should they adopt gun rights rhetoric. Uncritically importing American gun debates isn’t going to make our policies smarter. It will almost certainly make them dumber.

Look, I’m not trying to dump on Americans here. For all its faults, America is one of the greatest countries on earth. They’ve led the peaceful post-war international order since the end of the Second World War. I desperately want America to continue doing so. But America is a unique country with a very different political, social, and historical context. Uncritically echoing American talking points doesn’t enrich our political discourse. Quite the opposite. We can, and should, think for ourselves. 

So, now that we’re in the backstretch of the white-knuckle ride to the 2024 election, Canadians need to be especially on guard against allowing the increasingly poisonous American political discourse to pollute our debates. By all means, tune in to the most bewildering show on earth. But, please, remember that we’re just viewers. We’ve got our own country to run. Let’s try to focus on that.

Steve Lafleur is a public policy analyst and columnist based in Toronto.

Source: Steve Lafleur: It’s time to stop importing American debates, Canada. We’ve got our own country to run