Why Trudeau got tough on immigration

2023/07/13 Leave a comment

One interpretation (although I always thought the impact of the tweet, in comparison to other more substantial factors, was overstated):

“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” In hindsight, this tweet by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2017 was ill-advised. It was written in response to Trump’s executive order banning refugees and visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries. Critics point to it as the trigger for a surge of asylum-seekers at the Canadian border.

If it were true that people were escaping to Canada from the US because they feared being deported under Trump’s harsh immigration policies, then the flow of immigrants heading north would have slowed when President Biden took office. According to government data, in the period between the tweet going out and the pandemic, which slowed crossings to a trickle, almost 60,000 people made “irregular border crossings” into Canada. But afterwards, the influx returned, reaching over 20,000 in 2022, Biden’s first year in office. By February of this year, more than 10,000 people had already crossed over into Canada.

Nor were refugees put off America by President Trump. Since 2020, the number of migrants going the other way — crossing into the US from Canada — has also shot up. Last year, Homeland Security apprehended more than 100,000 migrants crossing from Canada. (For context, in 2018 US authorities arrested only 558 people on the northern border.) There is no end in sight to these “irregular crossings”, and the public has been expressing its dissatisfaction with lax immigration controls on both sides of the border.

According to the two nations’ Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which has been in effect since 2004, refugees have to apply for status in the first “safe country” they reach. So, they cannot apply for asylum in Canada at official border crossings with the US. However, a loophole in the agreement enables migrants crossing at unofficial border points to claim asylum after they cross. And along the 9,000km-long border, there are many places to do so, the most infamous being Roxham Road, where New York state meets Quebec.

That is, until March 25, when Roxham Road was shut down by the Canadian government. Trudeau made the announcement on the afternoon of March 24, and the policy took effect at 12:01am the next day: “To address irregular migration, we are expanding the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply not only at designated ports of entry, but across the entire land border, including internal waterways, ensuring fairness and more orderly migration between our two countries.” Biden was in Canada at the time, on his first official visit since winning the presidency. It later transpired that the neighbouring countries had signed an amendment to the STCA a year earlier, but hadn’t made the news public because officials feared untold numbers of migrants might rush to cross the border before the changes could be enacted. Now, both countries can turn away asylum seekers, no matter where they cross.

This was a shock to Canada’s reputation as an immigrant-friendly country. Here, eligible refugees receiving generous welfare benefits including government-assisted housing, healthcare, work permits, and financial support. A path to citizenship is available to anyone who can secure permanent residency in the country. But there is a feeling, among some Canadians, that migrants have started exploiting vulnerabilities in the system. Almost 70% of Quebec residents — the province that Roxham Road leads into — said they wanted this irregular entry point closed. With social services in the province overwhelmed by asylum-seekers, the federal government started transferring migrants to Niagara Falls in Ontario, which saw welfare services pushed to the brink as well. Since 2021, the Immigration Department has paid $94 million to book out entire hotels for months, in order to accommodate asylum-seekers.

The ease with which people could illegally enter through Roxham Road, according to analysts, was “almost an invitation for undocumented migrants to try their chances at obtaining asylum in Canada”. Specifically, migrants from Nigeria, who make up a big chunk of all those who cross over from Roxham Road. The majority actually possess a valid US tourist visa, flying into New York before making their way to Canada. “I went to search Google and I figured out this is what everybody is doing,” one Nigerian migrant said while crossing the border. A “disproportionate” number of Nigerians claiming asylum are doing so on the grounds of LGBT persecution, which is met with more sympathy in Canada than in the US. But concerns have been raised about the similarities in such applications, and one investigation by a Nigeria-based publication revealed how some Nigerians make up stories in an attempt to secure asylum. This has left some aid organisations worrying that legitimate claims are now more likely to be doubted.

Some migrants still have their hearts set on America, however. Those from Mexico and India make up the bulk of illegal crossings from Canada to the States, with many flying into Canada for the sole purpose of getting across the world’s longest international border without detection. Mexicans, who since 2016 can fly visa-free to Canada, often spend thousands of dollars flying into Toronto and paying smugglers to get to the US — hence Biden’s motivation to renegotiate the STCA.

And this phenomenon burst into the public consciousness when, in January 2022, the bodies of four Indian nationals (two of them minors) were found frozen to death in Manitoba, near the American border. The Patel family had come to Canada on a tourist visa, but hoped to reach family in Chicago. A documentary last year suggested that, in Gujarat, the Patels had been a comfortable, upper-middle class family with no financial troubles or experiences of racial or religious persecution. Why, then, would they risk crossing illegally into the US in the middle of winter with two young children?

Migrant rights groups almost always lay the blame for tragedies at the feet of unscrupulous smugglers and harsh government policy. Few acknowledge that the people who decide to illegally cross an international border almost always have agency. And for middle-class migrants, it’s usually not about security; it’s about status. In developing countries, attaining the “American Dream” — or another Western nation’s equivalent — is still highly aspirational. And while everyone has the right to build a good life for themselves, migrants who can pay their way into one North American nation in order to cross over into the other, depending on their preference, undermine faith in the immigration system.

Which is a problem for Trudeau. His Liberal government plans to welcome half a million new immigrants into Canada every year till 2025. (Like most developed nations, Canada has an aging population, a low birth rate, and is facing a labour shortage.) Almost 50% of Canadians already think this target is too high. If Trudeau doesn’t want public opinion turning against his plans, he needs to reassure the electorate that his government has a strong handle on who is being welcomed across our borders.

Amending the STCA is meant to signal that the government is aware of the growing unpopularity of irregular border crossers, who are seen as jumping the queue, leaving those without financial means further down the list — not to mention those waiting in refugee camps around the world. John Manley, one of the architects of the original STCA, supports the new changes, claiming that most migrants around the world are in much greater danger than those who have already found their way to the US. But there has been backlash from refugee rights advocates, with the Canadian Council for Refugees, among others, arguing that the STCA is unconstitutional. But last month, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled otherwise.

The closure of Roxham Road sent a message to all those who want to migrate to Canada that the way to do so is through official channels. Two days later, the Government of Canada launched a survey to poll Canadians’ opinions. Trudeau was, apparently, ready to listen to how Canadians feel about this issue. While some advocates have been arguing that closing the loophole will have pushed people into the hands of smugglers, it’s still too early to tell what the effects of the new changes will be, though data on the past three months’ of irregular border crossings should be imminent. But whatever the outcome: the Prime Minister won’t be promoting Canada’s immigration policies on Twitter any time soon.

Source: Why Trudeau got tough on immigration

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Les cibles de Québec en immigration ralentissent le regroupement familial, confirme Ottawa

2023/07/12 Leave a comment

For once, not Ottawa’s fault:

Les longs délais pour parrainer l’immigration d’un conjoint vivant à l’étranger sont bel et bien causés par les cibles de Québec dans la catégorie du regroupement familial, qui sont plus basses qu’ailleurs au Canada.

S’il faut patienter 14 mois dans le reste du pays, l’attente s’étire maintenant jusqu’à 24 mois au Québec, puisqu’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC) se voit forcé de fixer « des objectifs de traitement des demandes distincts », confirme ce ministère au Devoir.

Des centaines de familles déchirées ont lancé un cri du coeur la semaine dernière, dans une pétition en ligne et lors d’une manifestation samedi après-midi à Montréal. Plusieurs ont aussi confié au Devoir les difficultés d’être séparés de conjoints, maris ou épouses alors que des bébés sont récemment venus au monde.

36 800 

C’est le nombre de personnes en attente d’une résidence permanente dans la catégorie du regroupement familial au Québec, selon le MIFI. 

Les délais pour les demandes de parrainage faites à partir du Québec ont brusquement changé le 22 juin dernier, bondissant de 14 à 24 mois. Auparavant, plusieurs familles pensaient voir « la lueur au bout du tunnel », raconte la consultante en immigration Johanne Boivin-Drapeau, mais depuis, elle reçoit plutôt des « appels de gens en pleurs et désespérés ».

Toutes ces personnes ont déjà franchi la première étape du processus d’immigration, qui consiste à recevoir un certificat de sélection du Québec. Ces dossiers déjà sélectionnés sont ensuite transmis à IRCC.

Mais « comme IRCC reçoit plus de demandes de la catégorie du regroupement familial destinées au Québec que ce que le MIFI [ministère québécois de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration] lui permet de traiter, un arriéré se forme », explique une relationniste du ministère fédéral. Avec comme résultat cette « disparité dans les délais d’attente ».

C’est en effet Québec qui fixe le nombre maximal d’immigrants qu’il souhaite accueillir dans la catégorie du regroupement familial, soit 10 600 pour l’année 2023. Tant le provincial que le fédéral assurent que ce seuil n’a pas encore été atteint, mais les données des mois de mai et de juin ne sont pas encore disponibles. L’an dernier, ce nombre avait été atteint au plus tard le 30 septembre, selon des documents officiels.

Année après année, IRCC a donc « trop de dossiers par rapport à la cible permise par Québec ». L’arriéré est d’environ 36 800 personnes dans cette seule catégorie, a indiqué le MIFI au Devoir.

Un seuil qui reste similaire

Cette tendance à accumuler les demandes en attente présage aussi des années à venir, car le gouvernement de François Legault a déjà fait part de son intention de ne pas accueillir davantage de familles ; même le seuil d’entrée total devait passer à 60 000 personnes.

En effet, dans les documents soumis en vue des consultations sur l’immigration qui doivent se tenir cet automne, le nombre de places destinées au regroupement familial reste de 10 400, peu importe le scénario.

Ce sont d’ailleurs les participants au programme de regroupement familial que François Legault avait accusés de mettre le Québec sur la voie de la « louisianisation » en 2022. La moitié d’entre eux ne parleraient pas français à leur arrivée, selon les données que le premier ministre avait alors avancées. En vertu de la récente réforme des programmes d’immigration annoncée par Québec, leurs dossiers devront ainsi bientôt inclure un plan d’intégration comptant des cours de francisation.

Quant aux demandes de visas de visiteur déposées par des conjoints vivant à l’étranger, le fédéral assure que leur traitement est déjà accéléré, comme annoncé le 26 mai dernier, y compris pour les « demandes dans l’inventaire ». Les témoignages recueillis par Le Devoir montrent plutôt d’autres disparités de traitement : plusieurs demandes sont refusées sous le motif que la personne a des « liens familiaux significatifs au Canada », selon les réponses consultées.

Source: Les cibles de Québec en immigration ralentissent le regroupement familial, confirme Ottawa

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Sous les hauts cris des puristes, entendez-vous battre le cœur de la langue française?

2023/07/11 Leave a comment

Of note, countering overall Quebec narrative:

Écoutez de plus près. Le Québec n’avalera pas sa langue de sitôt. Un collectif de linguistes francophones somme les prophètes de malheur de tourner sept fois leur langue dans leur bouche avant de crier à l’agonie du français, tant ici qu’ailleurs.

Le français va très bien, merci. Le titre résume en une boutade l’essai de 65 pages publié chez Gallimard et coécrit par 18 spécialistes de « la langue de Molière ». Pour renverser cette vision voulant que le français se meure, commencez donc par oublier cette expression, clament les auteurs. La langue de Molière n’est plus la langue de Molière depuis la mort de Molière. La langue du dramaturge du XVIIe siècle est devenue avec le temps, naturellement, la langue des Tremblay, Laferrière, Booba.

« Si on lisait vraiment Molière dans le texte original, on verrait qu’il y a beaucoup de différences, des mots qui sont disparus, des structures grammaticales vraiment différentes, des prononciations très différentes. Cette expression, à mon avis, illustre bien cette langue fantasmée », explique en entrevue la Québécoise Julie Auger, l’une des membres du collectif des « linguistes atterré·es ».

Le français n’a jamais été aussi vivant qu’aujourd’hui, si l’on compte le nombre de locuteurs dans le monde. Même au Québec, la place décroissante du français comme langue parlée à la maison ne traduit pas un déclin, renchérit la professeure de linguistique à l’Université de Montréal.

« Oui, la proportion de Québécois qui parlent français à la maison continue de diminuer, mais ce n’est pas au profit de l’anglais. C’est au profit des langues que les néo-Québécois ont apportées. Pour moi, ça, ce n’est pas un danger. »

Rappelons que 94 % des Québécois peuvent aujourd’hui parler et comprendre le français, quelle que soit leur langue maternelle… exactement la même proportion qu’au début du siècle.

La prochaine génération de francophones grandit surtout sous la menace des pointilleux qui exigent un français parfait des nouveaux arrivants, souligne Julie Auger, alors que ceux-ci lui donnent un deuxième souffle. « Ces gens-là pourraient tout à fait choisir de ne plus parler le français et de ne parler que l’anglais, parce que, quand tu parles anglais, tu n’as pas ce genre de critiques. »

Quid du « franglais », vilipendé par des érudits près de chez nous ? « Si l’on tient au terme “franglais”, il convient bien mieux à l’anglais qu’au français, rétorque le collectif. […] On estime à près de la moitié la part du lexique anglais empruntée à l’ancien français ou au normand. » Et l’anglais « se porte bien ».

Le français ? Yes, sir !

Les langues ne sont pas en guerre les unes contre les autres, soutiennent les experts, car « ce que “gagne” l’une, l’autre ne le perd pas ».

Qui utilise encore le mot « bâdrer », emprunt de « to bother », passé dans l’usage québécois comme un synonyme de « déranger » ? Qui se souvient de l’époque où l’anglicisme « some » était employé comme un adverbe pour parler de quelque chose de gros ? Les néologismes passent, le français demeure.

Et si un anglicisme finit par coller au palais des Québécois, il ne remplace pas pour autant les mots qui y logent déjà. Il permet d’apporter une nuance de sens. Que serait le parler d’ici sans les subtilités des expressions comme cheap ou lunch (qui désigne plus un repas qu’on traîne avec soi qu’un repas à une heure donnée) ?

Le français, langue flexible et souple, « incorpore et digère sans problème » les emprunts depuis des siècles, rappellent les linguistes coalisés. Les ajouts tout neufs du créole haïtien et de l’arabe dans les discussions à Montréal ne font pas exception.

L’oreille attentive entendra toute de même quelques changements récents dans le dialecte d’ici. On utilise de plus en plus l’infinitif du verbe en anglais là où on le conjuguait avant à la française. Autrement dit, les Québécois commencent à deal avec ça plus qu’à « dealer » avec ça.

Cet effritement de la grammaire — « le coeur d’une langue », dixit Julie Auger — s’observe déjà chez les Acadiens. Est-ce bien ou mal ? La linguiste québécoise ne le dit pas. « Les linguistes en sont conscients, qu’il y a beaucoup d’études qui portent là-dessus en ce moment. On est vraiment en plein milieu de ce qui peut être un changement, et donc on est à l’écoute, on essaie de voir ce qui se passe. »

Le français, langue féconde

Le français va très bien, merci s’adresse aussi aux grands parleurs, petits faiseurs qui rêvent de réformer la langue de tout le monde.

« Depuis le XIXe siècle, [l’Académie française] ne suit plus l’évolution de la langue : elle s’est opposée à la réforme de l’orthographe prévue en 1901 pour accompagner l’accès de tous les enfants à l’école », lit-on dans l’ouvrage. « Son Dictionnaire, seule production officielle actuelle, en est à peine à sa neuvième édition et n’est pas du tout à jour. […]. Si l’Académie n’est pas à jour sur le vocabulaire, elle ne l’est pas non plus en grammaire. Sa seule Grammaire date de 1932 et a été tellement critiquée qu’elle n’a plus osé en publier d’autres. »

Les dictionnaires privés, réputés plus flexibles, peinent tout autant à suivre les changements sans fin du nouveau vocabulaire. Le Petit Larousse et Le Petit Robert recensent chacun 60 000 mots, tandis que Le Grand Robert en compile 100 000. Il faut se tourner vers la production participative du Wiktionnaire pour calculer l’étendue des néologismes francophones. Les internautes y ont consigné 400 000 entrées.

Et ça continue de monter, entre autres grâce aux initiatives créatives d’institutions bien de chez nous.

Pensons au Concours de créativité lexicale de l’OQLF, qui demande aux élèves québécois du secondaire de créer des mots de toutes pièces.

Les victorieux de 2023 :

« spectatriche », pour remplacer le terme « stream sniping », qui consiste à regarder la diffusion en ligne d’un adversaire lors d’une compétition de jeu vidéo pour obtenir un avantage ; 

« iconotypique », pour traduire le mot anglais « on-brand », qui qualifie ce qui est typiquement représentatif d’une marque ou d’une image publique ; 

« éphraser », pour dénommer le fait de retirer une phrase d’un texte. 

Parlez-vous fr@nçais ?

L’autre menace fantôme que dénoncent les linguistes, c’est le terrible Internet et ses codes abscons. Le numérique constitue « une menace » pour le français, entend-on d’ailleurs dans les échos de couloirs de l’Assemblée nationale.

Pourtant, le français trône à la septième place des idiomes les plus utilisés dans le cyberespace.

Et en fouillant cet énorme corpus de données brutes, on découvre que la tendance lourde est le passage vers un français de plus en plus normatif.

« L’utilisation d’“avoir” au lieu d’“être”, par exemple “j’ai tombé”, c’est quelque chose qui diminue avec le temps, indique Julie Auger. Le français montréalais s’aligne davantage sur le français standard. Par contre, un élément qui est non standard, mais qui est en croissance, c’est l’utilisation du “tu” interrogatif. »

On parle-tu bien français ? Bien ou mal n’est pas la question, à vrai dire. Le bon français, c’est celui que l’on parle. Point.

Le français va très bien, merci

Collectif d’auteurs, Gallimard, Paris, 2023, 65 pages

Source: Sous les hauts cris des puristes, entendez-vous battre le cœur de la langue française?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Sabrina Maddeaux: Housing and health crises eroding Canada’s pro-immigration consensus

2023/07/10 Leave a comment

More commentary based upon the Abacus poll and findings re concerns on housing, healthcare and infrastructure:

For about as long as most politicians and voters alive today remember, Canada has been a solidly pro-immigration nation. Until now, public opinion was effectively unanimous, at least outside of Quebec, that more newcomers represent an absolute good.

This allowed us the luxury of being rather superficial about immigration policy. It was far from a matter that decided elections — in fact, it’s such a historic nonstarter, pollsters rarely bothered to include it when asking Canadians about what issues mattered to them.

Any discussion of it was usually one note: how do we get more immigrants, quicker? Differences between parties’ approaches were barely visible to the human eye.

But public opinion can shift rapidly when voters’ lived experiences, or even perceptions of them, change. Indeed, a new poll by Abacus Data’s David Coletto suggests we may already be on that path.

This is why, particularly with housing and health-care shortages causing pain from coast to coast, it was never a good idea to take Canada’s pro-immigration consensus for granted.

As housing and health-care problems slipped into full-blown crises, the federal Liberals continued to do exactly that. Not ones to favour policy nuances and high on moral hubris, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government took the “more is always better” immigration ethos to the max.

While commentators, including me, and economists warned that this rapid-scaling approach may not be sustainable and risked souring Canadians on immigration, there’s been no sign anyone in power is listening.

Canada’s immigration targets soared to 500,000 a year, not including the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which totalled over 200,000 new approvals in 2022, or international student visas, which are limitless and counted just over 550,000 new students last year. That’s well over a million new people entering Canada per year.

To help visualize the magnitude, that’s an entire Calgary (population: 1,019,942) added each year. Or approximately two Hamiltons (population: 519,949), or three Halifaxes (population: 359,111).

Meanwhile, there’s a surgical wait list of 6,509 children at Toronto’s SickKids hospital, 67 per cent of whom are beyond the recommended window for care. Wait lists for family doctors are reaching the 10-year mark in some locales. British Columbia is offloading at least 5,000 cancer patients to the U.S. because untenable wait times could lead to preventable deaths.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) said last year that we need at least 5.8 million homes by 2030 for housing to become affordable again. A year later, many municipalities across the country aren’t anywhere near on pace to build their share of the pie.

It’s also more and more often newcomers themselves, particularly temporary workers and students, who suffer the brunt of housing shortages when they arrive. This has led to increasing exploitation, from employers confiscating passports to landlords taking rent in the form of sexual acts.

This is certainly not the Canada many newcomers imagined, and it shouldn’t be one we’re proud to offer more and more of them with visions of our own economic gain dancing in our heads.

Any realist would see something has to give. Canada can’t have it all when it comes to immigration while shortages of basic goods and services persist. While the shortages aren’t immigrants’ faults, and they shouldn’t be blamed for them, that doesn’t preclude us from acknowledging our immigration policies need a sober second look.

Coletto’s national Abacus Data survey taken this June reports 11 per cent of Canadians now rank immigration as a top three issue. More revealing, 61 per cent of respondents consider Canada’s 500,000-per-year immigration target too high. Thirty-seven per cent of Canadians classify the 500,000 target as “way too high.”

I can’t help but wonder what the response would be had Abacus’s question cited the true one million newcomers entering per year. As it stood, 63 per cent of respondents think the number of immigrants entering Canada is having a negative impact on housing, and 49 per cent feel the same way about the impact on health care. Only 43 per cent believe immigration is positively impacting our economic growth.

Many federal politicians seem afraid to touch the complex immigration file for fear of being branded xenophobic or racist by political opponents. Yet, Coletto finds even a majority of immigrants think current targets are too high.

Barring a miracle on the housing or health-care fronts, and if public opinion continues in this direction, lawmakers can’t avoid the immigration file much longer. The question should be, how can we responsibly tailor our immigration policies now, so that we can continue to grow the country robustly into the future?

Canada’s been lucky to enjoy so many decades without having to think too hard about immigration, but the longer we wait to do so, the tougher the eventual conversation will likely be.

Source: Sabrina Maddeaux: Housing and health crises eroding Canada’s pro-immigration consensus

Toronto Sun editorial also picks up on this theme:

The Trudeau government’s commitment to dramatically increase immigration levels is causing widespread concern among Canadians.
A recent Abacus Data survey of 1,500 adults from June 23 to 27 found 61% believe Canada’s target of admitting about 500,000 permanent residents next year is too high, including 37% who feel it is “way too high.”
Abacus Data CEO David Coletto said 63% believe current immigration levels — the government is planning to bring in about 1.5 million immigrants from 2023 to 2025 — are having a negative impact on Canada’s housing shortage.
Almost half are concerned about the impact on Canada’s health-care system

There’s still a large percentage of Canadians who agree with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s arguments that immigration is important to increase the number of available workers in Canada because of our low birth rate (50%) and to contribute to economic growth (43%).

The underlying concern to us is that the federal government should be setting its immigration targets in close consultation with the provinces and particularly with major cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton.
That’s because most immigrants don’t settle in “Canada” but in specific urban centres across Canada, stressing municipal and provincial governments in terms of providing public services.

While Canada’s annual admission levels of refugees are in a separate category from permanent immigration, the situation in Toronto illustrates the problem.

Toronto Mayor-elect Olivia Chow recently noted the city government this year will spend about $97 million accommodating refugee applicants who occupy about a third of the city’s shelter spaces.

Since this is the result of federal policies, Chow said, the Trudeau government needs to contribute to the costs of their care.
To be fair, the feds have given almost $200 million to shelter support for refugees in Toronto over the past five years, but the city says the ad hoc nature of these payments is unsustainable and they need to be made on a permanent and reliable basis.

Canadians have concerns about immigration levels not because they’re racists, but because they legitimately worry about their impact on already stretched municipal and provincial services across Canada

Since the Trudeau government is setting those targets, it also has a responsibility to consult with provinces and cities on how to accommodate them.

Source: EDITORIAL: Feds need to listen on immigration levels

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Sean Speer: Not all population growth is created equal

2023/07/10 Leave a comment

An odd and unclear column.

The first two points are factual: that immigrants are older than people born in Canada (even if many come with young children or have children once in Canada), and that it tends to be more concentrated in out urban areas.

But conclusion seems deliberately opaque, suggesting a concern over composition and change of Canada’s population, that can be read as either a dog whistle or flirting with a variant of the “great replacement theory,” even if not his intent.

“A prudent position would be to recognize the benefits of large-scale immigration without assuming that it can be raised to unprecedented levels or become solely responsible for the country’s population growth free from consequence. Maximalist ends without due consideration of the consequences of maximalist means is rarely the basis of good public policy. Immigration is no exception.”

—

Last week the popular American economics blogger Noah Smith publishedan essay entitled “Maximum Canada” in which he outlined the success of Canadian immigration policy and the benefits of a bigger national population. 

His observations follow similar commentary in recent months in favour of the so-called “Century Initiative” in which Canada aspires to reach 100 million residents by 2100. The basic premise is that a much larger population would boost Canada’s economic and geopolitical influence around the world, lessen its asymmetry vis-à-vis the United States, and create a bigger domestic market for trade and commerce.

These arguments are generally compelling. There’s certainly something of a correlation between population size and global influence. The exceptions are far outweighed by the rule. 

The main problem with this analysis however is that it’s too focused on population growth as an end and fails to properly scrutinize the means. Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne recently argued for instance that the target of 100 million Canadians by 2100 isn’t even that ambitious because it broadly tracks population growth patterns over the past several decades. As he explained: 

To get to 100 million in 77 years—two and a half times our current level—implies an annual growth rate of 1.2 per cent. By comparison, over the last 77 years, our population more than tripled, from 12.3 million in 1946. That works out to 1.5 per cent annually. To be sure, birth rates were higher in the 1950s and 1960s; population growth today comes almost exclusively from immigration. Fine: let’s take 1970 as our starting point. Average annual population growth: 1.2 per cent. The Century Initiative proposal is essentially a continuation of the status quo.

Yet there’s something qualitatively different about population growth that’s driven by a combination of natural growth (births minus deaths) and immigration and growth that solely comes from immigration. Smith, Coyne, and others fail to grapple with these key differences. 

It doesn’t mean that Canada shouldn’t aspire to have a larger population or even necessarily that we shouldn’t pursue an immigration policy that ultimately gets us there. But before fully signing onto “maximum Canada”, we need to account for the fact that all forms of population growth aren’t the same. (This isn’t, by the way, a normative judgement. It’s merely an observation about the practical differences between a society that draws on immigration to supplement its own natural growth and one that relies on it entirely.)

Let’s start with the data. Replacement level fertility is an average of 2.1 children per woman. As Coyne notes, Canada’s fertility rate dipped below replacement level beginning in the early 1970s. It’s now just 1.4 children per woman (see Figure 1).

Although the country’s fertility rate has been below the replacement rate for the past half century, its current rate represents an unprecedented low. As Figure 1 shows, it has steadily fallen to now below the G-7 average and is increasingly one of the lowest rates in the world.

Graphic credit: Janice Nelson

That means that immigration isn’t just doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to population growth. It’s now nearly solely responsible. Take 2022 for instance. Canada’s population grew by more than 1 million people—the largest single-year growth since 1957—and immigration was responsible for roughly 96 percent. 

Estimates are that immigration will reach 100 percent of population growth by 2032 and will remain the main driver for the coming decades. As a result, Statistics Canada projects that the overall share of Canada’s immigrant population (which consists of landed immigrants) will rise from 23.4 percent in 2021 (see Figure 2) to as high as 34 percent in 2041. 

Graphic credit: Janice Nelson

There are various ways in which immigration-driven population growth is different than natural growth. These differences will ostensibly produce outcomes that are distinct from past experiences and therefore may limit the utility of historical instruction. There’s an onus on proponents of the Century Initiative to account for them in their analysis and advocacy. 

The first is that it’s older. Although the immigrant population is generally younger than the average age of non-immigrant residents, it’s still self-evidently older than babies. The majority of immigrants fall within the core working age group (25 to 54). Just over one quarter are aged 15 and younger. Immigration-driven population growth may slow the rise of (and even temporarily lower) the country’s average age but it won’t, according to leading economist David Green, “substantially alter Canada’s age structure and impending increase in the dependency ratio.”

The second is that it’s far less geographically distributed. More than half of recent immigrants settle in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver and nine of ten settle in a census metropolitan area. Natural growth by contrast would presumably more closely reflect the general distribution of population across the country. Immigration-driven population growth should therefore be expected to impose even greater pressure on housing and other infrastructure in our major cities and contribute to a growing urban-rural divide in our economic and political outcomes. 

The third is that it will reshape the country’s culture. That may not be a bad development—particularly in the eyes of those who value diversity—but it still represents a qualitative difference relative to natural growth that requires a bit more attention. 

Consider two scenarios. First, there’s a strong possibility that it erodes the place of the French language and francophone culture in our national life as Quebec’s share of the total population declines and its conception of binationalism is fully consumed by multiculturalism. Second, it’s also possible that it could at times conflict with the goal of Indigenous reconciliation to the extent that immigration-driven growth produces a growing share of the population that can plausibly argue that it has no role or responsibility for the historic injustices faced by Indigenous peoples. (There are growing calls—including from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission—to expand newcomer education about the Indigenous experience presumably to mitigate this risk.)

These considerations don’t challenge the case that immigration has been a net positive for the country or that we should maintain high immigration levels in the face of aging demographics or even that we should aspire to a bigger population. They do however dispute the idea that the source of population growth is irrelevant. Natural growth and immigration-driven growth may produce the same number but their effects are necessarily different. 

What is envisioned by the Century Initiative and others is essentially without precedent. Immigration has never been solely responsible for such a run-up of Canada’s population. History cannot provide much of a guide. Only prudence can. 

A prudent position would be to recognize the benefits of large-scale immigration without assuming that it can be raised to unprecedented levels or become solely responsible for the country’s population growth free from consequence. Maximalist ends without due consideration of the consequences of maximalist means is rarely the basis of good public policy. Immigration is no exception.

Source: Sean Speer: Not all population growth is created equal

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Is racism behind denial of visas to African students?

2023/07/10 Leave a comment

Largely reflects the interests of education institutions and their financial pressures as much as concerns over differential treatment (given that immigration is inherently “discriminatory,” the question is more are their legitimate reasons and evidence to justify that discrimination):

In the five years between 2018 and 30 April 2023, officials at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada reportedly rejected 59% of the visa applications from English-speaking Africans and 74% from French-speaking Africans seeking to study in Canada’s colleges and universities.

In 2022, the disapproval rates were 66% for applicants from French-speaking African countries and 62% for applicants from English-speaking African countries.

Besides the higher rejection rate for francophone African students, the stats show a massively higher rejection rate for African students compared to students from Western countries. Refusal rates for Great Britain, Australia and the United States were 13%, 13% and 11%, respectively, while for France the refusal rate was 6.7%.

‘A certain rate of racism exists’

Referring to hearings held in 2022 by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (SCCI) during which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) admitted there was a problem, Etienne Carbonneau, director of research and support for internationalisation at Université du Québec in Québec City, said: “Let’s put it bluntly, we think there is a certain rate of racism that exists [in IRCC].

“By this I mean negative prejudices against, particularly, French-speaking African populations. When you look at IRCC’s responses, basically, the immigration officers who process the permit application files seem to be saying that they don’t believe the students.”

Both Carbonneau and Daye Diallo, senior economist at the Montreal-based Institut du Québec, underscored that while the high refusal rate of English-speaking Africans can also be attributed to racism at the IRCC, the impact on English universities such as McGill University in Montreal, or those in Ontario or elsewhere in the country, is not as severe.

“In Ontario, it [the rejection rate] is more than 50%. Serious too, but it is higher in Quebec. And because Quebec speaks French, the recruitment pools are more limited. In Ontario there are many students who come from Asia and English-speaking countries,” says Diallo, co-author, with Emna Braham, the institute’s executive director, of the study, “Portrait de l’immigration temporaire: attraction et rétention des étudiants étrangers au Québec”.

“We cannot go to India or China because Indians and Chinese are looking for training in English,” Carbonneau explained. “If I were at McGill University or University of British Columbia, and I saw that it was getting difficult on the Indian side [ie, recruiting from India], I would look to other markets. I don’t have that opportunity [recruiting for a French university].

“The potential for growth is really in French-speaking Africa, but this potential is cut off by the practices of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Presently, some 50% of French speakers worldwide live in African countries; by 2050, the continent will account for 50% of the world’s population growth.”

SCCI report evidence

The report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (SCCI), published in May 2022, titled Differential Treatment in Recruitment and Acceptance Rates of Foreign Students in Quebec and in the Rest of Canada, found evidence of racism both in the internal workings of the department and among IRCC’s visa officers vis-à-vis African applicants for study visas.

This evidence was contained in a report of a survey of IRCC conducted by the polling firm Pollara Strategic Insights following the international protests against the murder of George Floyd by members of the Minneapolis (Minnesota) police department in March of 2020, which sparked the Black Lives Matter protests.

Racialised respondents to the IRCC survey told Pollara that they “considered racism to be a problem in the department”, which, in its response to the report, IRCC acknowledged.

Pollara was told that some immigration officials referred to certain African countries as “the dirty 30”. Nigerians, the investigators were told, were considered “particularly untrustworthy”.

According to the SCCI, IRCC “acknowledged that due to the nature of its mandate to promote a strong and diverse Canada, it must hold itself to the highest possible standards so that the programmes, policies and client services are free from any racial bias”.

IRCC policy

IRCC reiterated this policy in an email that said, in part: “The Government of Canada is committed to the fair and non-discriminatory application of immigration procedures. We continually evaluate data and make concerted efforts to address the results and the differential strategies in order to improve our approaches so that we can overcome these issues.”

The email further explained: “The strategic review of the immigration policies and programmes will enable us to identify and address the issues relating to rejections and the International Student Program will be informed by this exercise.”

Among the steps IRCC has taken is the creation of a task force dedicated to the “elimination of racism in all its forms at IRCC”. This requires IRCC staff, including middle and senior managers, “to take mandatory unconscious bias training which is tracked”, and evaluate “potential bias entry points in policy and programme delivery [ie, deciding on visa applications]”.

As of May 2022, IRCC had “nearly two dozen projects under development to reduce and eliminate racial barriers – with a large focus on … African clients, due to the fact that this region historically faces longer processing times and lower approval rates”.

Nigerian students deemed ‘particularly untrustworthy’

While some IRCC staff considered Nigerians to be ‘particularly untrustworthy’, critics, including the University of Calgary’s Assistant Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Law Gideon Christian, who is also president of African Scholars Initiative, told the House of Commons committee that the 2019 pilot project, Nigerian Student Express (NSE), discriminated against Nigerians.

Pointing to documents he had obtained via an Access to Information and Privacy request, Christian showed that irrespective of whether the NSE improved processing times for Nigerian students by giving them the option to use a secure financial verification system, it discriminated against these students.

The NSE required Nigerians to provide different and more onerous financial data than did students from other countries that were part of the Student Direct Stream (SDS), Christian said.

Unlike students in the other 15 countries included in the SDS, such as China, Vietnam, Senegal, Brazil and Colombia, Nigerians seeking to study in Canada had to produce a bank statement showing that they had the equivalent of CA$30,000 (US$22,600) in their account for at least six months in the last year.

While testifying before the committee, Sean Fraser, minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship of Canada, defended the CA$30,000 figure, saying that it was fair because it did not include living expenses.

“The issue is that we don’t necessarily have financial partners on the ground in Nigeria, so having proof of funds of CA$30,000 is more equitable when you look across the requirements in other countries, where you have not only [the requirement to show] CA$10,000, but also the proof of funds to cover the cost of an international student tuition.”

In his testimony, Christian dismissed Fraser’s claim, noting that a “Nigerian is required to show proof of funds that are three times more than those of other SDS countries, and yet, when this applicant overcomes this high burden of proof, most of the study visa applications from Nigeria are still refused”.

Christian also told the SCCI that since all colleges and universities exempted Nigerians from English-language proficiency tests, “the language proficiency requirement imposed by the visa offices … exudes stereotypes and racism”.

SCCI Recommendation 4

The SCCI’s Recommendation 4 called for IRCC to reconsider the financial reporting requirements imposed on Nigerians and for IRCC to “remove the English-language proficiency required for Nigerian students”.

As with Canada’s English universities, French universities in Quebec recruit international students for a number of reasons. Carbonneau began by noting the importance of universities internationalising their student bodies.

“The career of a researcher who is from Quebec will involve collaborations with people who have been trained abroad and who have worked abroad. The integration of international students into our university programmes means that our Quebec students will have contact with people from other countries. They will be made aware of international issues and the issues of intercultural work and the taking into account of intercultural issues.

“We understand how the presence of international students, particularly at the graduate level, makes it possible to develop links between researchers and students that will be maintained over time.”

Recruiting in French-speaking Africa

International students contribute CA$22 billion (US$16.6 billion) to the Canadian economy and support more than 218,000 jobs, the SCCI heard. The portion of these funds spent in Quebec is part of the third reason Quebec’s universities recruit in French-speaking Africa. The other part is that the 217,660 French African students in the province’s colleges and universities help keep these institutions economically viable.*

The tuition for Quebec residents at the province’s French universities is approximately CA$6,000; international undergraduates payCA$30,000 more. Each international student also contributes some CA$15,000 to the province’s economy in living costs.

Since Quebec universities receive grants on a per student basis from the provincial government, for universities international students mean larger government grants.

According to Carbonneau: “We need students for the vitality of several of our university programmes. Quebec universities are funded per student, so when we have students, we have funding.”

Ontario’s universities, too, it should be noted, are hungry for international student fees. For the 2021-22 academic year, for example, the 22,728 international students at the University of Toronto, for example, paid on average CA$59,320 in tuition and fees, or a total of over CA$1.3 billion.

Recruiting university students from French Africa is also part of the government of Canada’s commitment to ensuring that approximately 72,000 of the nation’s immigrant target of 500,000 are French speaking. This policy was put in place to ensure that the percentage of French-speaking Canadians did not fall below the present 22.8%of the nation’s population of 40 million.

Although Fraser told the SCCI that “international students are excellent candidates for permanent residency” and that Canada has “increased our target efforts overseas to promote and attract francophone students and immigrants to Canada”, the committee heard of a number of roadblocks that prevented French African students from studying in Canada.

At the hearings, Alain Dupuis, executive director of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (Canadian Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities), stated that irrespective of the government’s immigration goals, “we are closing the doors to them”.

Investment certificate roadblock

Denise Amyot, president and CEO of Colleges and Institutes Canada, told the SCCI that one of the main roadblocks is a requirement created, not by IRCC policy, but by its visa officers: the guaranteed investment certificate to demonstrate financial sufficiency and SDS.

While this certificate may have streamlined the application process, it ignored the fact, Amyot told the SCCI, that the banking systems “in certain countries are not as well developed, and students rely more heavily on family networks in ways that may seem atypical from a Canadian cultural lens”.

Referring to the cases for which he knew IRCC’s reason for denying the application for a study visa, Diallo told University World News: “The reason in these situations is that the student does not have enough real estate; he does not have a house in his country of origin.” He then asked, pointedly: “How can an 18 year old own buildings?”

The guaranteed investment certificate is more than a proof of financial resources, Diallo further explained. It serves as a proxy for the applicant’s attachment to his or her home country: ie, as proof that he or she plans to return to their home country.

Similarly, applicants have been denied study visas because they have not shown that they have enough family in their home countries, or that they have not established a travel history that shows that they have left and returned to their home country.

This is a requirement that one brief to the SCCI mocked by asking” “How many kids of the age 15-20 years old from other countries have travelled out of their shores at such a young age? What counts as sufficient travel history? This remains unclear,” says Carbonneau.

For his part, Diallo says: “There are reasons like that that are given. But they are ‘reasons’ which, in our opinion, are not necessary. [For] these reasons, the official can say that he believes the student will not return home. But these are not facts. There are no statistics that say that African students are more likely to stay here illegally when their visas expire.”

Residency roadblocks

Notwithstanding Fraser’s statement that “international students are excellent candidates for permanent residency”, the very document applicants for study visas must fill out puts them in a ‘catch-22 situation’ with regard to what’s called ‘dual intent’, says Shamira Madhany, managing director and deputy executive director at World Education Services, told the parliamentarians studying the issue.

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows for international students to apply for permanent residency upon completion of their studies if “the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of their period authorised for their stay” and wait outside Canada for their permanent residency to be granted.

However, in practice, one witness told SCCI: “If a student has the misfortune to check that box, their chances of getting a visa are nil … The authorities believe that they really do not intend to study in Canada, and they want to stay in Canada.”

According to Carbonneau, this situation is absurd.

“A student who comes to study with us with the intention of immigrating, which is deemed desirable by our government in Quebec [the lone province to issue its own study document accepting the prospective student], is using his studies, a bachelor degree or a masters degree or a doctorate, to integrate into Quebec or Canadian society – and then immigrate.

“For us it is desirable. But for the Government of Canada, I think the second most frequent response is that the application is refused because the Canadian government is not convinced that the student will return to his country after graduation.

“It’s really absurd because on the one hand Canada really needs qualified immigrants. We also need qualified French-speaking immigrants. But, on the other hand, we tell them once they graduate our expectation as a Canadian government is that you return home.”

Reform required

In his appearance before the committee, Fraser admitted the system needed reform but pushed back against critics by saying that Canada “need to prevent a lot of students coming with the purpose of staying permanently by claiming asylum, for example, when we have different streams for people who are coming for purposes other than studying”.

While Recommendation 15 does not expressly refer to the minister’s statement, by implication it rebuked him by calling on IRCC to clarify the dual intent provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, “so that the intention of settling in Canada does not jeopardise an individual’s chances of getting a study permit”.

Organisations and individuals involved in recruiting in Africa are concerned that Canada’s high rate of refusal of study visa applicants is hurting the country’s reputation in Africa. Amyot told the SCCI that he had heard of students who waited months for decisions only to find out that their study permits had been rejected “often for unclear and unfounded reasons”.

“We live in a world where the competition to attract the best brains is very important. Canada cannot afford to have these difficulties. Canada must work to reduce refusal rates from French-speaking African countries that have students who want to come to Canada,” said Diallo.

“We have a poor image internationally because Canada does not grant visas and the reasons why Canada does not grant visas are not the right reasons.”

Source: Is racism behind denial of visas to African students?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Businesses are joining the growing chorus of concern about the high cost of housing in Ontario

2023/07/08 Leave a comment

Significant. But no mention of immigration pressures on housing:

Home prices in Ontario have reached a point where they are pulling money out of other sectors of the economy and creating more challenges for business, warns a new report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

As Ontarians spend more on housing, the report says, they have less money for other goods and services. The situation has resulted in “wide-ranging” implications for business in the province.

“We’re well past the stage of recognizing that this is a crisis,” Ester Gerassime, one of the report’s authors, told the Star. “There are economic implications for the business community, for our budgets at various levels of government. So, it’s important that we get this right.”

According to the report, titled “Home Stretched: Tackling Ontario’s Housing Affordability Crisis Through Innovative Solutions and Partnerships,” the cost of housing is so high it’s even impacting the ability to build housing. It argues that many in the labour force are unable to afford to live in the same communities where housing is needed.

Additional pressures, such as supply chain issues, are further hampering the ability to build enough housing to meet demand, the report says. Along with the pressure on businesses, the prices are resulting in low-income earners being pushed out of their housing and, in some cases, into homelessness.

Meanwhile, Gerassime said, other business are having trouble attracting and retaining talent, as workers avoid the increasingly large patches of the province where they can’t afford to live.

“Lots of individuals are moving to other provinces, out of Ontario,” she said. “Part of that is (due to) housing affordability.”

The provincial government wants to build 1.5 million homes by 2031 to help alleviate the pressures of the housing market. But Gerassime said it will take a “all-hands-on-deck approach” to meet that goal.

Recommendations in the report include building a labour force able to construct more housing, preservation of affordable housing and supporting innovation to find new solutions to the housing crisis.

Last week Re/Max released a report pushing for 15-minute neighbourhoods in Canada. Such planning would result in a mixed use of housing for all income levels within a 15-minute walk, bike, or transit time to all necessities.

The OCC’s report also advocated for building the “right types” of mixed housing developments as another solution to ease the real estate crunch. Such housing needs to include supportive units as well, Gerassime said.

“Addressing the housing affordability crisis is the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do,” she said, quoting a recent report from the Mental Health Commission of Canada. “For every $10 invested in supportive housing, we’d see an average saving of almost $22 dollars in health, justice and social services.”

Source: Businesses are joining the growing chorus of concern about the high cost of housing in Ontario

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

That time when Canada’s population and prosperity both boomed, unlike now

2023/07/08 Leave a comment

Worrisome trend and contrast, reflecting policy failures on a number of levels, particularly the excessive focus on population growth:

Canada’s economy has outpaced that of every other G7 country over the past year, but there’s a big, million-people-sized catch.

That’s roughly how much Canada’s population grew over the past 12 months – almost entirely from immigration – for a 2.7-per-cent increase, according to the latest estimate from Statistics Canada. And as a mounting number of economists have pointed out, the massive influx of people is juicing the economic numbers.

Once the surge in population is taken into account, Canada’s real gross domestic product per capita, a measure of prosperity for the average person, is still where it was at the end of 2017.

In a recent note, Bank of Montreal chief economist Doug Porter highlighted the sluggish pace of growth at a time when the population is expanding so much faster than in the United States. In the seven years since the Trudeau government’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth proposed measures to boost growth through infrastructure spending, more foreign investment and higher immigration levels, per-capita growth in Canada has underperformed that of the U.S. by close to 1.2 percentage points per year.

The Canada of the past offers its own contrast to the current prosperity rut. The last time Canada saw its population grow this fast was the decade after 1951, when annual population growth ranged from 2 to 3.5 per cent amid a baby boom and postwar immigration.

Yet thanks to rising productivity, Canada’s overall economic output grew even faster – despite a whopping four recessions during that period – with the result that real per capita GDP raced ahead.

The past also holds a warning for what could come next. In the latter half of the 1950s, as population growth accelerated even faster, per-capita GDP did begin to stall. Yet that was with an economy growing roughly three times faster than it is now.

Canada’s population growth will likely slow from its current frantic pace as immigration officials work through the pandemic backlog of applications, but not by all that much. Barring a vast improvement in productivity, Canada’s per-capita GDP – and our standard of living – appear headed for an outright decline.

Source: That time when Canada’s population and prosperity both boomed, unlike now

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Will immigration become a salient political issue in Canada?

2023/07/08 Leave a comment

Useful and informative polling. Money quote:

…leaders need to demonstrate there’s a coordinated, well-resourced plan to respond to the pressures created by growth. In my view, that has been sourly lacking from all levels of government.

This should also be a wake-up call to leaders from all three levels of government that if investments in infrastructure – like housing, healthcare services, and transportation – are not expediated to meet the growing population, opposition to immigration could increase thereby creating conditions for the rise of a more nationalist/populist political response.

—-

I can’t remember the last time immigration featured prominently in national political debates in Canada. This doesn’t mean that all Canadians hold decidedly pro-immigration attitudes. The lack of friction on the issue, in my view, is more likely the result of an elite-consensus on the value of immigration than a reflection of public opinion. We shouldn’t assume that none of the major political parties will never make immigration an issue.

In Quebec, immigration has been an issue that has animated the political debate but we haven’t seen anything similar in other parts of Canada. But we have seen immigration fuel divisive debates in the UK, France, the United States, and other democracies. Public sentiment about immigration and immigrants was a big factor in Brexit and the rise of Trump.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, my interest in the subject has been growing as the impact of the housing and healthcare crises becomes more intense and people start reflecting on what may be causing it or at the very least, making it worse.

At the same time, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the pace of population growth in Canada, with much fanfare over Canada’s population passing the 40 million mark a few weeks ago.

Last month, I asked some polling questions on a national Abacus Data survey on immigration. My intent is to start tracking opinions every six months, because I think this issue has the potential to become more salient and prominent in our political debate – especially in the lead up to the next election.

The survey, fielded from June 23 to 27, 2023, sampled 1,500 Canadian adults online. The comparable margin of error is +/- 2.6%, 19 times out of 20.

Here’s a summary of what the survey found (full details below for paid subscribers):

  1. 11% of Canadians rank “immigration” as a top 3 issue. This is the first time I included in out list of response categories. The rising cost of living remains a top issue to more people (71%), with healthcare (48%) and housing (43%) rounding out the top 3.
  2. 61% believe that Canada’s target to welcome 500,000 immigrants next year is too high, including 37% who feel it is “way too high”.
  3. When asked whether the number of immigrants coming to Canada is having a positive or negative impact on several possible areas, 63% feel it is having a negative impact on housing, 49% feel this way about its impact on traffic and congestion, and 49% feel immigration is having a negative impact on healthcare.
  4. Half think immigration is having a positive impact on the availability of workers while 43% think immigration is having a positive impact on economic growth.

Digging Deeper on Public Attitudes towards Immigration

When I did a bit deeper into the data, these insights are particularly noteworthy:

  • 11% of Canadians rank “immigration” as a top 3 issue. This is the first time I included in out list of response categories. The rising cost of living remains top (71%), with healthcare (48%) and housing (43%) rounding out the top 3.
  • 14% of Conservative supporters, 14% of BQ supporters, 9% of Liberal supporters, and 5% of NDP supporters put immigration in their top 3 issues.
  • There is some, but not large, differences in perceptions about Canada’s immigration target by party support. Conservative supporters are the most likely to feel the immigration target of 500,000 is too high with 52% feeling it is way too high. Half of Liberal and NDP supporters feel the target is too high as well. BQ supporters are in between with 36% describing the target as way too high and 35% feeling it is too high (71% too high in total).

  • 35% of Canadians believe that the immigrant population is increasingly significantly in their community while another 24% think it is growing moderately. This views are consistent across the country and more pronounced among Conservative and BQ supporters, although a sizeable portion of NDP and Liberal supporters also feel this way.

  • Despite 61% feeling that Canada’s immigration target is too high, 41% think their community needs less immigration – a fascinating 20 point gap between the two measures. 18% of Canadians think their community needs more immigrants while 41% think the same amount of immigration as happening now works well. Atlantic Canadians (29%) are the most likely to want to see more immigrants. Views in Quebec are close to the national average.

  • There is a strong correlation between feeling the number of immigrants in one’s community is increasing and opinions about Canada’s immigration target. 67% of those who think the immigrant population in their community is increasing significantly also think Canada’s immigration target is way too high. This drops to 25% among those who feel immigration in their community is increasingly moderately, and 17% among those who think it’s increasingly slightly. Interestingly, 35% those who don’t think the immigration population in their community is growing at all think the immigration target is too high. This suggests there’s latent anti-immigration sentiment in communities where residents don’t perceive their too be much growth.
  • What might be impacting the overall negative impression of immigration? It’s clear the recent crises in housing and healthcare are definitely pain points. Half or more people feel that immigration is having a negative impact on both. If those issues get worse, I expect overall sentiment to immigration to also get worse.

  • Despite the friction that immigration is causing, the good news is only a minority (although a sizeable minority at 36%) believe that on balance, immigration in Canada is making the country worse off. 17% feel it is making Canada much worse off. In contrast, 29% feel immigration makes the country better while 29% think it’s impact is neutral.

  • To better understand the drivers of this view, I ran a simple regression model with views about immigration overall with several of the variables from the survey. That analysis finds that perceptions about the economic impact of immigration, its impact on crime and public safety, and its impact on fostering a sense of community are the largest predictors of one’s view on whether immigration has a net benefit on Canada overall. This suggests that the relatively short-term problems of housing and healthcare are not yet impact people’s overall views about immigration. Instead, the perceived economic benefits drive support or at least mute opposition to immigration while longer-term concerns (possibly driven by xenophobia or racism) about social cohesion and crime are major drivers for negative perceptions/attitudes about immigration.

The Upshot

The survey data suggests that the Canadian public is not overwhelmingly pro-immigration but also not overwhelming anti-immigration either. Friction about immigration’s impact on housing, traffic congestion, and healthcare is pretty widespread and deeply felt.

About 1 in 3 Canadians (36%) believe that immigration is making Canada worse off overall. This is not an insignificant minority but likely one that has existed for some time. The question is whether the relatively recent housing and healthcare crises push more people into this camp. If so, that could become a powerful political coalition.

The data reveals a gap in perception versus community need, with 61% believing Canada’s immigration target of 500,000 is too high, but only 41% feeling their community needs less immigration.

It’s noteworthy that Quebecers do not appear more resistant to immigration than others and younger Canadians are more open to it than older Canadians.

The survey’s results highlight the need for a strategic approach in managing public perception around immigration in Canada. Given the significant proportion of Canadians perceiving immigration’s impact as negative on housing and healthcare, politicians and policy-makers should engage in transparent discussions about the impacts of immigration on these areas, possibly linking it to other causes of strain on these sectors.

More important, leaders need to demonstrate there’s a coordinated, well-resourced plan to respond to the pressures created by growth. In my view, that has been sourly lacking from all levels of government.

This should also be a wake-up call to leaders from all three levels of government that if investments in infrastructure – like housing, healthcare services, and transportation – are not expediated to meet the growing population, opposition to immigration could increase thereby creating conditions for the rise of a more nationalist/populist political response.

Political managers should also highlight the economic benefits of immigration to sway the 52% of Canadians who view immigration’s impact on economic growth as either neutral or negative. This requires engaging economists, industry leaders, and community spokespeople to discuss how immigrants contribute to the economy through taxes, starting businesses, and addressing Canada’s aging population.

Politically, Conservative and BQ supporters show more resistance to immigration, suggesting the elite-concensus on immigration should not be taken for granted. Immigration could become a salient political issue that would allow the Conservatives and BQ to speak to voters who may not otherwise consider voting for those two parties. It could also serve as a powerful issue for the People’s Party.

Let’s not underestimate the potential political power of this issue. There may be a clear political majority who are worried about immigration and could be mobilized in reaction to their views. Immigration also has the potential to fundamental realign Canadian politics.

Too often, I hear people who assume Canada is immune to the political forces that have engulfed and divided other populations. That Canada is unique in its liberal, open-to-immigration, orientation. This data should cause those to reflect on that and consider the risk these numbers represent.

Finally, I am planning to track opinions every six months because I think we need to monitor these views more regularly. This continuous feedback loop will be crucial in understanding changing perceptions and adjusting messaging, especially in the lead up to the next election.

I welcome your thoughts and feedback and suggestions for future research.

Source: Will immigration become a salient political issue in Canada?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

John Ivison: As immigration doubts grow, Poilievre keeps the faith, Lawrence Martin: Canada’s best story might be immigration

2023/07/07 Leave a comment

Two similar takes, focussing on the welcome and rare, compared to other countries, support for immigration across political parties.

Starting with Ivison:

In mid-May, Bloc Québecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet put his Conservative counterpart, Pierre Poilievre, in a ticklish spot.

The Bloc introduced a motion denouncing the goal of an organization called the Century Initiative — co-founded by former ambassador to China Dominic Barton — to increase Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100. It is a goal consistent with the federal government’s immigration intake targets, the motion said; a goal that would diminish the French language and Quebec’s political weight, as well as adversely impact housing and health-care availability.

The Conservatives, always keen to curry favour in Quebec, supported the motion that called on the House to reject the Century Initiative objectives. That allowed NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan to claim Poilievre “wants fewer immigrants to come to Canada.”

“The Conservative leader is showing his true colours and giving Canadians a sneak peek into how a Conservative government would set the country back decades,” she said.

That would be big news, if true. It would suggest that the postwar consensus that has characterized Canadian attitudes towards immigration for the past four decades is under threat, and that a future Conservative government would dramatically reduce the number of permanent residents arriving in Canada every year.

The problem with Kwan’s claim is that there is no evidence to support it in anything Poilievre or his immigration critic, Tom Kmiec, has said publicly.

In his contribution to the debate on the Bloc motion, Poilievre criticized wait times for those caught up in the immigration backlog, and the failure by the government to speed up credentials recognition for foreign-trained doctors and nurses.

“It boils my blood, sitting for five hours in hospital with my daughter, who has a migraine headache, that there are not enough doctors and nurses, while the gatekeepers block them,” he said.

True, he took potshots at Barton and criticized the Century Initiative goals as a “Utopian idea.” But his plan is to make the system more dynamic, not blow it up. “We don’t need Utopian schemes, what we need is some common sense,” he said.

Kmiec’s critique has been focused on the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, which he pointed out has seen its budget double since 2016, yet still has a 2.4-million application backlog.

The Conservatives, he said, would put greater emphasis on employer-driven immigration streams and address critical labour needs, such as the 100,000 construction workers the province of Ontario says it is short.

There have been no attacks from the Conservatives on what Maxime Bernier has called “radical multiculturalism,” which the wild-eyed People’s Party leader defined as “the misguided belief that all values and cultures can co-exist in one society.”

Bernier will have noted that recent public opinion polls suggest around 40 per cent of respondents think the Trudeau government’s immigration targets — 500,000 permanent newcomers in 2025 — are too high. He will also be aware that Conservative voters are most concerned that immigration is a burden, not a benefit.

His party claims immigration should not be used to “forcibly change the cultural character and social fabric” of the country and that target numbers should be substantially reduced to between 100,000 and 150,000. They are arguments that will resonate with many Conservative voters.

Yet, on this issue at least, Poilievre has not pandered to his political base.

This is curious, given that there are growing calls from policy experts for the government to re-examine its targets, or at least rein in the number of temporary residents coming to Canada.

In 2022, there were 437,000 new permanent residents, in line with the government’s projected target. But there were also 1.6 million workers and students who arrived as temporary residents — far more than had been anticipated.

Statistics Canada projects the population of Canada will be as much as 43 million within five years, but those projections could prove off-base if the growth in non-permanent residents continues at the current pace.

Lisa Lalande, chief executive of the Century Initiative, said there are legitimate concerns about the deepening housing crisis and the accessibility of quality jobs. “Without planned, strategic investments, population growth will put a strain on the quality of life. We have always advocated for smart, planned population growth,” she said.

Mike Moffat, senior director of the Smart Prosperity Initiative at the University of Ottawa, tracked the impact on the housing market of 504,618 new arrivals in Ontario in 2022–23.

In a similar time period, 71,838 new units were built, almost half of which were one-bedroom apartments — a new home for every seven people.

“There is a real risk that Canada runs if it doesn’t get its housing situation in order — namely the consensus (on immigration) could crumble,” Moffat said.

He pointed out there is no cap on non-permanent residents.

In particular, the number of international students has soared, to the point where enrollment numbers for Ontario’s colleges suggest that half of all students this year will have come from overseas. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that a large number are essentially guest workers, registering for some classes online while spending most of their week working in coffee shops and gas stations. Since the federal government is responsible for issuing those entry visas, this is one area that one might expect to see Poilievre promise to clamp down.

Yet, in a speech to Parliament, he accused the government of allowing international students to be abused and exploited by “human traffickers and shady consultants.”

Poilievre’s reasons are not that hard to fathom. Aside from the fact that his wife, Anaida, arrived in Canada as a refugee from Venezuela, Poilievre is competing for the support of the votes of many recent immigrants to Canada in the suburbs around the big cities. Not surprisingly, they are very keen on maintaining high family reunification numbers.

He is also aware that the majority of Canadians are in favour of secure, economically driven immigration. For all the comparisons with Donald Trump — contempt for civility, “insiders” and experts — Poilievre is an economic conservative, not a culture warrior.

It all suggests that the Conservative leader is not “anti-immigration,” as Kwan claimed, and that the political consensus on bringing in hundreds of thousands of newcomers to this country every year continues, whoever wins the next election.

That is to Canada’s advantage. “Immigration has not been a political issue in past elections because the political parties, the business community and Canadians in general have recognized the importance of immigration to our long-term prosperity,” said Lalande. “If it does become a political issue, it’s to our detriment.”

Source: John Ivison: As immigration doubts grow, Poilievre keeps the faith

In the Globe, Lawrence Martin, Canada’s best story might be immigration:

In the run-up to Canada’s 156th birthday celebrations there were reports, based on what people were telling pollsters, saying that Canada has never been more divided.

It appears these people weren’t around in the late 1980s and early 1990s when Quebec was aflame, when the West was up in arms with the Reform Party, when our deficits and debt approached Third World-levels, when we faced a crippling recession, when the separatist Bloc Québécois was our Official Opposition party, when a Quebec referendum nearly tore the country apart.

Conditions are worse now than then? Who are they trying to kid?

As a measure of today’s alleged divisiveness, the pessimists may wish to consider the issue of immigration. By the numbers, Canada is growing in leaps and bounds, with more than 400,000 newcomers arriving annually. According to Statistics Canada, the country’s annual population growth rate is currently 2.7 per cent, the highest it’s been since 1957.

Such incoming waves can test the temper of any land. They have certainly done so in other countries. But how much prejudice, acrimony, or backlash have we seen in Canada? By comparison, a pittance. Our huge influx of newcomers has proceeded calmly, and peaceably – and it’s a tribute to the character of Canadians and the strength of the national fabric.

On Canada Day, praise for the country was not in abundance. In these times it’s the curmudgeons who hold court. But while there are plenty of things to grouse about, how we are doing on the critically important issue of immigration is not one of them.

We’re dwarfing our competitors, outpacing the population growth rate of the United States, Great Britain and other G7 countries by large percentages. Some countries’ populations have also stagnated or are tumbling, like that of Russia’s or China’s.

Canada’s large number of retiring baby boomers and its lower birth rate necessitate the great expansion. It is indispensable to nation-building.

The influx is accompanied by many problems, like housing shortages, that are not to be underestimated. But these hardly compare to the situations in the United States and the countries of Europe and elsewhere where the arrival of immigrant waves have become powder kegs, triggering bigotry, racism and hard-right movements that threaten stability and democracy.

Immigrants to Canada are not feared, but welcomed. Some have gone so far as to say we’re creating a multicultural Mecca. That’s a bit of a stretch. But how many other countries are doing better at cultivating a more diverse and inclusive society; an ethnic mosaic?

Politically, the country has become increasingly polarized. But immigration is one big issue that offers an exception. There is consensus among the major parties for the expansion.

With the influx, abetted by several government programs, comes an infusion of brains, talent, and creativity. While we once worried about a brain drain to the U.S., it’s now the U.S. that should be worried about a brain drain in our direction. The Trump administration viewed foreign-born scientists and engineers as a threat. Washington cut back on visas allowing highly educated foreigners residence, leaving an opening that Ottawa has happily taken advantage of.

Immigration from India is an example. In recent years, the number of Indians moving to Canada has tripled. At Canadian colleges and universities, the number of Indian students has boomed, while the number of science and engineering graduate students from India at American universities has steadily declined in recent years.

Where immigration may run into strong opposition is in its potential to exacerbate the housing shortage crisis. If Canada can’t adequately house its population, critics can reasonably challenge the advisability of bringing in so many newcomers.

But while he is a staunch critic of the government’s housing policies, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has steered clear of placing the blame on immigration policies. To go there would run the risk, given Canadian sensibilities, of charges of prejudice and racism. People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier has called for major decreases in immigration numbers, but the issue hasn’t helped him at the polls. This isn’t the United States.

The housing crunch and other stresses, such as fears in Quebec over the declining use of French, need to be weighed against the advantages. As economists attest, given our labour force shortages, newcomers are required to sustain Canada’s economic growth. New brain power is necessary if we are to improve our dismal record on productivity.

Throughout history, immigration has shaped Canada. It is doing so now on an even more imposing scale. Few issues are of more importance. It is our big story and it may be our best.

Source: Canada’s best story might be immigration

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →