Canada on track for 100 million immigrants but public support can’t be taken for granted: Century Initiative CEO 

While not walking back from their fundamental arguments, still a recognition of the reality of the government’s and CI’s approach and advocacy, as is their focus on “growing well” not just growth:

The chief executive of the Century Initiative says Canada “has reached the point of no return” when it comes to welcoming more immigrants, as its modelling shows Canada is on track to more than double its population to at least 100 million by the turn of the century.

But Lisa Lalande warned that existing high levels of public support for increasing immigration cannot be taken for granted.

“If public opinion shifts on immigration, policy will shift, and ultimately that will be detrimental to the future of the country,” she said in an interview.

The Century Initiative, a non-profit lobby group, wants to see Canada’s population grow from 39.5 million to 100 million by 2100. Ms. Lalande says more investment is needed to address problems such as housing shortages, so Canada “grows well” and can accommodate more people.

Current high levels of immigration and government policy decisions – such as making it easier for foreign students to get permanent residence – are putting Canada on track for the first time to meet or even surpass its target, the Century Initiative’s modelling has found.

Canada had record population growth of 703,404 people in 2021-2022, with immigration accounting for 94 per cent.

Ms. Lalande said the Century Initiative was not just in favour of a numerical target. Its research examines housing, investment in infrastructure, and climate adaptation, and it is focused on “making sure we are making investments that accommodate the population growth.”

The Century Initiative, which was co-founded by former Liberal government adviser, Dominic Barton, became the target of sharp criticism in Quebec this month, with Premier François Legault saying its plan for 100 million Canadians was a threat to Quebec.

The backlash in the province followed the announcement of a federal plan for 500,000 more newcomers to Canada in 2025, with some claiming it was part of a government bid to implement the lobby group’s 100 million target.

Referring to the controversy, Ms. Lalande said that its polling shows support for immigration is growing in Quebec, along with the rest of the country.

A poll last fall showed that 69 per cent of Canadians disagreed that there was too much immigration, while just over one in four agreed. Quebeckers as a whole were no less supportive of immigration than Canadians elsewhere in the country.

The Environics Institute survey was based on telephone interviews with 2,000 Canadians conducted between Sept. 6 and Sept. 30, 2022, with an accuracy within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points in 19 out of 20 samples.

Those who felt there is too much immigration thought it posed a threat to Canadian or Quebec culture, will drain the economy and welfare system, or take jobs away from other Canadians.

The Century Initiative’s third annual “score card,” looking at how Canada is doing in achieving growth and prosperity, said this month that “these types of perceptions highlight the importance of continuing to build the public case for the benefits of immigration” and expanding the housing supply as well as improving infrastructure such as roads and public services.

“While there was strong support for immigration among Canadians in 2022, this situation is critical to monitor and could evolve alongside economic and societal pressures,” it stressed.

Ms. Lalande said Canada’s immigration program is admired by other countries, and “we actually do a good job in integration.”

However, people in smaller communities may be feeling “demographic shifts in a more pronounced way” than other parts of Canada.

She says Canada has “reached the point of no return” when it comes to increasing the population, and immigration is a way to plug job shortages, including in health care and retail.

“We are too late to say let’s put a pause on growth so that we can address all these issues,” she said. “Our demographic realities are such that we are already feeling closures of hospital emergency rooms. There’s some pretty serious issues. And immigration is one way to address them.”

Among the obstacles is getting foreign credentials recognized more swiftly so skilled immigrants, including doctors, can practise in Canada. Strides have been made recently, including making it easier for engineers to work in Ontario.

The scorecard found Canadians’ fertility rate remained low and the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a drop in life expectancy. It also found housing costs have escalated, while investment in infrastructure has declined.

“Without planned and strategic investments in infrastructure, population growth will put a strain on Canada’s economy, quality of life and well-being,” it said.

But Ms. Lalande says it’s wrong to blame the growing number of immigrants for the shortage of affordable housing and the rising cost of living, claims which have crept into the public narrative in recent weeks during the debate on immigration in Quebec.

“It’s easier to scapegoat, point the finger at immigration when there are much more complex issues, “she says. “You need to have that big picture.”

“Even if we pulled back nationally on immigration, we’d still have significant housing shortages.”

Even so, existing support for more immigration in Canada is not “something that we can rely on.”

“We can’t take that for granted,” she said. “It’s a Canadian advantage and we must seize on that advantage.”

Source: Canada on track for 100 million immigrants but public support can’t be taken for granted: Century Initiative CEO

Ottawa is doing little to eliminate discrimination against French-speaking African students: More data and less rhetoric please

Unfortunately, we do not have enough transparency and data to assess whether this discrimination is evidence-based or not. And of course these arguments do not question the fundamental value and, in some cases, lack thereof, of the ongoing increases in international students and two-step immigration:

The fact that Immigration Canada discriminates against Black students from French-speaking Africa is something researchers and observers of Québec and Canadian politics have been documenting and denouncing for years. 

Once again this month, we learned from a study by the Institut du Québec (IDQ) that the federal government is refusing half of the applications for study permits to foreign students who were selected by Québec and accepted by a Québec university. This figure increases to 72 per cent for African students.

Denunciation of this discrimination, and of the federal government’s inaction on it, goes far beyond the circle of immigration experts. Leaders of French-language higher education institutions, political actors and civil society are now speaking out as well. 

As researchers in the fields of political sociology and the sociological and ethnological study of nationalisms and interethnic relations, we are interested in social transformations in Québec and Canada, as well as social representations of immigration. 

On a global scale, this discrimination sends a very bad message to Canada’s partners in the Organisation internationale de la francophonie. At the Canadian level, it has an impact on the vitality of institutions in francophone communities outside Québec

At the Québec level, it has an impact on the vitality of programs in regional colleges and universities. At the Montréal level, it also has an impact on the vitality of French language higher education institutions and, in particular, on the capacity of the Université du Québec to fulfill its social mission. 

Québec has done its homework

This situation was well known when the Liberal Party of Canada became a minority government in 2019. It was also known when the same government won again in 2021, still as a minority government. The data just published by the IDQ are indisputable: the situation continued in 2022. 

Although there have been modest improvements in some places, this has not reversed a stubborn and persistent underlying trend. The data show that despite warnings, denunciations and investigations by many journalists, Immigration Canada is still dragging its feet. 

The Québec government has not always been immune to criticism in this area. The immigration reform piloted in 2020 by Simon Jolin-Barrette drew criticism for a variety of reasons. One of these was a change to the Québec Experience Program that slowed, if not hindered access to citizenship for foreign students studying in Québec. 

Québec’s new immigration minister, Christine Fréchette, has been much more far-sighted, informed and pragmatic. Her promise to reorient the Québec government’s immigration policy is in tune with the higher education community. These circles have long recognized the importance of offering a fast track to citizenship for students who have gotten work experience through their studies, internships and the networks they developed in Québec. 

Immigration Canada’s inaction is incomprehensible

This shift by Québec’s Minister of Immigration, Francization and Integration is in line with the informed opinions of Quebec’s higher education institutions. It also brings hope to Montréal’s French-language higher education community, which has been complaining for several years that it is not competing on a level playing field with English-language institutions of higher learning. 

The latter operate in a completely different market than French-language universities. Since the removal of the ceiling on fees for foreign students, English-language higher education institutions have been earning significantly more revenue than French-language institutions. Many actors in the education sector have denounced how this systemic inequality reduces the attractiveness of French-language institutions, and in particular, the ability of the Université du Québec network to fulfill its mission of academic and social integration. 

Faced with this major change in direction by the Québec government, the inaction of Immigration Canada is all the more incomprehensible. 

After Sean Fraser blamed his department’s discriminatory practices on algorithmic errorssubcontracted the work of its officials to the McKinsey firm, acknowledged a problem of systemic discrimination within its own organization and promised to address this problem, the 2022 figures from his department show the same misfires and the same discriminatory practices as in previous years. 

In an embarrassing moment, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister was asked to defend his record. The slight increase in acceptances that she mentioned does not meet the legitimate expectations of students whose applications have been accepted by a Québec institution. 

Minister Fraser no longer has the legitimacy required

Ottawa must draw conclusions from this new data. If the Trudeau government were not championing the fight against systemic racism in every forum, it might be possible to overlook this lack of credibility on the part of its minister. But at this point, federal Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Minister Fraser no longer has the legitimacy to retain this file.

The failure of the Liberal Party to act on such an important issue for Québec and Canada’s francophone communities is regrettable. It casts a shadow over the important success of the update of the Official Languages Act, the passage of which was rightly celebrated by both federal and Québec governments. 

If we want to celebrate the new version of the Official Languages Act, we must be consistent and provide access to French-language higher education institutions to all students who want to contribute to the vibrancy of Canada’s francophone communities. 

We should be pleased that the Québec government got this message. It is more than regrettable that it is taking so long for Ottawa to understand it.

Source: Ottawa is doing little to eliminate discrimination against French-speaking African students

ICYMI ‘Game changer’: Ontario engineers remove Canadian work experience requirement for immigrants

Significant:

Internationally trained engineers will no longer be required to have Canadian experience to be licensed in Ontario, as the province adopts a new law that’s meant to remove the barriers keeping skilled immigrants from working in their former professions.

On Tuesday, Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO), which represents the fourth largest regulated profession in the province with 85,649 members, becomes the first professional regulatory body to remove the requirement from their application criteria.

“By no longer requiring proof of Canadian experience when applying for an engineering licence, PEO will effectively ensure that qualified international applicants are licensed fairly and without undue delay so they can actively work as engineers,” said Jennifer Quaglietta, the regulator’s CEO registrar.

“Our new application process for professional engineering licences is efficient, transparent and fair, and will provide most applicants with a registration decision within six months of submitting a completed application.”

The lack of Canadian work experience has been cited as a key barrier to earning professional designations in Canada by skilled immigrants in returning to their fields of training. In 2021, amid a labour shortage during the pandemic, the Ontario government introduced new regulations to force some professional regulators to drop Canadian work-experience requirements from their licensing criteria — and to speed up processing times.

“This is, quite frankly, a game-changer for newcomers coming here, but also for businesses who are struggling with a huge labour shortage,” said Labour Minister Monte McNaughton, whose ministry also oversees training, skills development and immigration.

“Only a quarter of internationally trained immigrants in our province are working in the professions they studied for. This is an injustice to these workers, and it doesn’t take a math major to figure out the current numbers don’t add up.” He said roughly 300,000 jobs continue to go unfilled across the province every day, including thousands in engineering and it costs billions in lost productivity.

The amended Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act covers 36 non-health-related professions and trades, ranging from architecture to teaching, social work, plumbing, electricians’ work, autobody repair and hairstyling.

McNaughton said the regulatory bodies have until Dec. 2 to remove the Canadian work experience requirement, unless an exemption is granted for public health and safety reasons. Regulators will be fined up to $100,000 for non-compliance.

“We’re not going to have any regulatory body stand in our way. We want to help lift immigrants up so they can earn more money for themselves and their families and also fill labour shortages and grow our economy,” he told the Star in an interview. “There’s going to be a zero tolerance.”

Despite the removal of the Canadian experience requirement, licensing applicants to the engineering profession are still subject to a rigorous process that covers their knowledge and competencies in technical communication, project management and professional accountability. Candidates are still required to have 48-months of professional experience in engineering and pass a national professional practice exam that includes ethics, professional practice, engineering, law and professional liability.

“This multi-faceted process will continue to ensure that all professional engineers meet rigorous qualifications for licences and that only properly qualified individuals practise engineering,” said Quaglietta, adding that up to 60 per cent of the engineering licence applications each year are from internationally trained engineers.

Source: ‘Game changer’: Ontario engineers remove Canadian work experience requirement for immigrants

ICYMI: British voters want more immigrants but less immigration

From the Economist (many countries and issues have similar contradictions):

The biggest lie in British politics is that voters want honest debate. Whenever a policy problem emerges, sensible types call for the trade-offs to be laid out before an informed voting public who will carefully weigh the options. Anyone who has sat through a focus group or gone canvassing with a politician knows this is nonsense. When faced with an either/or question, British voters usually give a decisive answer: “yes”. Listen to this story.

Nowhere is this more true than immigration. A majority of voters think migration is too high, according to most polls. Almost nine out of ten Conservative voters think this; a plurality of Labour voters agree. At the same time, British voters say they want more nurses, doctors and fruit-pickers. Carers, academics, computer whizzes and students are welcome, too. Big-hearted Britons thought the country was completely right to let swathes of refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong into the country. Britons may not much like immigration, but they are keen on immigrants. 

If so, then the Tories have come up with an impeccably botched policy response. A Conservative government that has pledged to cut immigration at the past four elections has instead overseen an increase to a record level. Net migration hit 606,000 in Britain last year, according to figures published on May 25th, as people took advantage of a more liberal post-Brexit immigration regime. The British government has thrown open the country’s doors while complaining about the people who walk through them. It is utterly incoherent. But when it comes to immigration, so are voters. 

Public opinion on immigration was not always so confused. Attitudes used to move in lockstep with numbers. In the 1940s and 1950s Britain accepted workers from across the Commonwealth, who could enter the country as they pleased. By the 1960s eight out of ten people wanted lower immigration; hard-nosed and rather racist legislation followed. Likewise, when immigration increased during the 1990s and 2000s, so did concern. This trend reached its apex in 2016, when, with just a month to go until the Brexit referendum, the government announced a then-record net influx of 330,000 people. Britain voted to leave the eu, with immigration cited as one of the main reasons. 

This tidy relationship has broken down. Immigration has increased sharply since the Brexit vote but concern about it has, if anything, gone down in the past decade. In 2012 a quarter of voters thought immigrants boosted Britain’s economy; half thought immigrants harmed it, according to British Future, a think-tank. Now those proportions have reversed. The number of people who cite immigration as the number-one problem facing the country has plunged, while issues such as lousy health care and high inflation top the worry-list. 

Attacking immigration was once an easy win for politicians. In 2015 almost 70% of voters wanted immigration reduced. Now, only 42% do. At the same time, a hard-core minority of people now want migration to increase. In 2015 only one in ten wanted this. Now about a quarter do. James Dennison and Alexander Kustov, a pair of academics, label this phenomenon a “reverse backlash”. Politicians have tried to placate voters tempted by anti-immigrant populist parties and ignored others in the process. Once-silent liberal voters have started demanding to be heard. (Intriguingly, about half of people think the British public has become less tolerant overall, even though most polling points to the opposite; when discussing immigration, Britons think in irregular verbs: “I am tolerant; you are prejudiced; he is a complete bigot.”)

Conservatives are split on how to deal with this change. For some, the increasingly liberal views of British voters when it comes to immigration should be seized on. Dominic Cummings, the architect of the Vote Leave campaign in 2016, argued that voters would be happy with high levels of immigration as long as it was controlled. Judging by the positive shift in attitudes on immigrants, he was right. If the government can stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats (some 45,000 arrived last year in this manner) voters will not care about the larger numbers of migrants arriving through official channels. There are few benefits of Brexit. But Britain’s immigration policy could be one. 

For other Conservative advisers—including those currently in Downing Street—immigration simply must come down if the government is to have any chance of surviving. In their view, the liberal turn is a mirage. When voters eventually notice that immigration has, in fact, hit an all-time high they will be furious. People have mistaken a drop in salience with an increase in liberalism. This hypothesis is about to be tested in real life: if voters want control rather than reductions, what if more than half a million arrive every year? Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, thinks he knows the answer to that question, and has pledged to reduce the numbers. 

Welcome. Now get out

Taking numbers down a little is easy. Unless another war breaks out in Europe, there will be fewer refugees next year. Bringing them down a lot is harder. If the British government wants fewer people to come, it can change the law and suffer the consequences. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has already tightened rules on the number of international students who can bring dependents, even though voters are broadly comfortable with people coming to Britain to study and universities rely on their fees. The government could crack down on fruit-pickers, but farmers in Lincolnshire would scream. Few voters would thank a government that turns away nurses. Cutting immigration comes at a cost that voters show no willingness to pay. 

Rolling out the welcome mat and then shouting at anyone who wipes their feet on it may be an imperfect approach. But from the government’s point of view, it will have to do. Voters do not want to live with the consequences of their opinions. When voters are hypocrites, politicians must be too. 

Source: British voters want more immigrants but less immigration

“The Times They Are A-Changin’?” – Immigration debates and discussions

A few years ago, it was rare to find critiques of the government’s expanding levels of immigration, and the overall consensus among the provinces, business organizations and lobby groups, media and academics organizations in favour of this approach.

However, over the past year or so, there has been significant commentary questioning the approach given the impact on housing availability and affordability, healthcare and infrastructure. In addition to my 2021 Increasing immigration to boost population? Not so fast, former head of the British Columbia public service, Don Wright, wrote one of the stronger critiques, Will Trudeau make it impossible for Eby to succeed?

National unity and the demographic weight of Quebec in Canada has become a second major critique. A series of articles in Quebecor papers (LE QUÉBÉC PRIS AU PIÈGE PAR OTTAWA) highlighting an accelerating decline of Quebec’s population relative to the rest of Canada, reflecting different immigration rates has provoked considerable political debate and commentary in Quebec and English Canadian media.

While the Quebecor were written in an incendiary manner, the substance was correct. The approaches continue to diverge, there is, IMO, an unhealthy consensus in favour ot the current and projected levels of permanent and temporary migration among federal and provincial politicians, business organizations, academics among others.

Some of the commentary recognized that. Stuart Thompson the The Hub, A new era of immigration politics has started in Canada was one of the first to recognize the potential importance to immigration debates and discussions. Chris Selley chimed in, noting that Ottawa has no answer to Quebec’s anti-immigrant narrative. Campbell Clark stressed that Two solitudes emerging on immigration in Quebec, and noted the lame arguments on both sides of the debate. Formally, the Quebec government reject[ed] Trudeau’s immigration plan, fears decline of French.

The role of the Century Initiative received increased prominence given that these debates were happening around the time of one of its Globe and Mail sponsored conferences. Immigration Minister Fraser’s denial that the government had not adopted the 100 million population goal of the Century Initiative was met with understandable cynicism by Robert Dutrisac, Blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc, Konrad Yakabuski, L’«initiative du siècle» n’est pas l’idée du siècle among others, along with more reporting and analysis, Serons-nous vraiment 100 millions de Canadiens en 2100?.

English media commentary focussed more on the politics, with Chantal Hébert asking whether Hébert: Quebec’s separatists were searching for a way to revive their cause. Is this it? and Konrad Yakabuski, another rare journalist who writes in both English and French media, noting that François Legault’s anti-immigration crusade is coming back to bite him. Andrew Phillips in the Star dismissed Quebec concerns, framing it as a Panic attack in Quebec over immigration threat. Althia Raj, also in the Star, argued that: Pierre Poilievre is courting voters by capitalizing on immigration fears in Quebec, both discounting the substance of Quebec concerns and not questioning the federal government approach.

And of course most English language was focused on the less important issue of the passport redesign (not a fan, but my worry is that the controversy will make the government even more skittish about releasing the revised citizenship guide, Discover Canada, first promised in 2016).

Surprisingly, Andrew Coyne focussed more on Quebec, politics and demography, rather than contributing his usual economic take on issues. Almost a childish approach in 100 million Canadians by 2100 may not be federal policy, but it should be – even if it makes Quebec howl, largely ignoring the negative impacts on housing, healthcare and infrastructure and, more bizarrely, falling into the trap of overall GDP rather than productivity and per capita GDP (which most of his economic-related columns focus on).

All this being said, the Quebec government took advantage of the controversy to announce changes to its immigration program Six éléments à retenir des annonces de Québec en immigration, including increased levels to 60,000 new permanent residents while allowing ongoing temporary resident growth. This slight-of-hand was of course noted by Michel David, Et la lumière fut and Plus d’immigrants pour éviter une « louisianisation » ici ? 

This modest increase will not, of course, make any significant change to the ongoing divergence in population growth between Quebec and the Rest of Canada and Quebec’s relative weight in the country.

A recent Statistics Canada study, Unemployment and job vacancies by education, 2016 to 2022, highlighting the disconnect between immigration policy, which favours university-educated immigrants, and immigrant employment, which favours lower-skilled immigrants, provides another example of how our immigration policies appear more to be “policy-driven evidence” rather than “evidence-based policy.”

Questions on immigration levels have broadened from housing, healthcare and infrastructure impacts to the impact on the Canadian federation given the imbalance between Quebec and the Rest of Canada. A potential sleeper issue, parallel to Quebec’s relative share of the population is with respect to Indigenous peoples, given that high immigration levels dwarf Indigenous growth (visible minorities increased by 26.5 percent, Indigenous peoples by 9.4 percent, 2021 compared to 2016).

As I have argued previously, we need to find a way to have more productive discussions on immigration rather than the various solitudes between the “more the merrier” and “great replacement” camps (where most Canadians are). The disconnect between Quebec and the Rest-of-Canada is a long-term threat to the federation.

A focus on the practicalities – housing, healthcare and infrastructure impacts – is likely the best way forward and may provide a means to reduce the divergence between the “two solitudes.”

Ideally, of course, some form of commission examining demographics, immigration, and these impacts would provide deeper analysis and recommendations than current IRCC consultations or any other internal review.

To end with a quote from another favourite musician of mine:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in

COVID-19 Immigration Effects – March 2023 update

Latest monthly update. Of particular interest, percentage of TR2PR of permanent resident admissions continues to remain around 60 percent for the first quarter. Two-step immigration as the norm.

Scofield: Believe it or not, Canada’s population will hit 40 million in June. It’s time we learned how to retain newcomers [IMO, also question levels and impacts]

Disappointing in that Scofield doesn’t question some of the assumptions behind the immigration levels and their support by the business community, education institutions and others. So much easier to turn up the immigration dial, so much harder to address housing, healthcare and infrastructure needs:

Canada’s population is about to break the 40 million mark this June.

Chief Statistician Anil Arora took to the stage last week to illustrate Canada’s surging society, and that number was his starting point for a very good reason.

Canada’s population is growing quite quickly by historical standards and compared to the rest of the world, and almost all of that growth is thanks to immigration. At the same time, it’s important to note that in any given year, there are thousands of Canadians who leave the country — either permanently or temporarily. You can actually see it happening in real time, thanks to a “population clock” built by Statistics Canada, which shows a couple thousand people per day coming into Canada mainly as immigrants or non-permanent residents.

And what’s true for the country is even more so for the GTA, the centre of the country’s vibrant and dynamic diversity.

The implications are far-reaching and profound, as Arora pointed out in the prestigious, annual Manion lecture to public servants — especially for the economy.

To make the obvious point, it’s essential that policymakers and employers alike anticipate the change coming at us, and make the most of it. That’s not lost on any employer desperately trying to fill job postings these days, nor is it lost on our political leaders.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser and his entourage are travelling the country, looking for bold ideas for the long term, practical ideas for the short term, and tight timelines to deliver a new vision to his colleagues in cabinet.

At stake is our standard of living, our ability to compete with other countries, our regional development and, importantly, our ability to get along with one another.

Here are a few more numbers to add to Arora’s headline.

Last year, permanent residents coming into Canada reached a historic high, and the same goes for temporary workers. In other words, Canada has a healthy flow of people moving here for the long term, along with a more haphazard intake of stopgap workers whose future is uncertain.

Employers are scrambling to fill more than 731,000 positions right now, but this is down from the one million job vacancies that dominated the news last fall. The vacancies reflect an underlying labour shortage in Canada as the population ages and retirements pile up. But layered on top of that is an expected shorter-term slowdown in hiring as the country’s employers grapple with rising interest rates and stagflation.

House prices in the GTA were up four per cent in April but down 7.8 per cent from a year ago. Similarly, the volume of sales was up nine per cent on the month, but down 5.2 per cent compared to a year ago. In other words, Toronto homes are really expensive and the market is very much in flux. It’s a confusing array of short-term mismatches and long-term demographic trends that require a nuanced approach, if the country’s economy is to set itself on a growth trajectory.

There’s no doubt that we need a growing labour force over the long term, and that immigration is the source of that growth. There’s also no doubt that business leaders routinely list labour supply as their top challenge, and they’re constantly reassessing the mix of skills that they need. There’s no doubt that the challenge of expensive housing repeatedly throws a wrench in the best-laid plans. And there’s also no doubt that Canada’s reputation as a magnet for the world’s best and brightest is under pressure because other countries are mirroring our approach and taking us on.

Canada has fallen behind on key issues that impact our reputation, including administrative backlogs, inadequate housing, and poor recognition of foreign credentials. In the 2022 Global Talent Competitiveness Index, Canada fell to 15th place — down from 9th place in 2015, with its lowest scores for immigrant retention. 

Helpfully, the federal government separates out the “acute” short-term dynamics from the “chronic” longer-term pressures and is actively talking to business about how to collaborate and make sure the mix of newcomers adds to our ability to build homes, fill job vacancies and set the stage for longer-term productivity.

There’s talk of fast-tracking the flow of newcomers attached to trusted employers and trusted institutions such as universities. There’s creative thinking around how large-scale employers can work together to recruit pools of workers overseas. The discussion with professional organizations to streamline credential recognition is vigorous. And there’s some promising use of technology to speed up approvals in a way that also helps with matching people with jobs and smooths out integration.

And of course, on top of the push for speed and the right mix of workers, Canada’s immigration policy is also about a humanitarian approach to refugees and family reunification, as always.

We’re in the midst of a promising collective brainstorming around how — a brainstorming that will become more complicated in the next months as government drives towards decisions and as the economy slows down.

Luckily, most of the public, the government and business are on the same wavelength in making immigration work well for the economy, and the country as a whole.

Let’s keep that consensus in mind as policymakers and employers figure out how.

Source: Believe it or not, Canada’s population will hit 40 million in June. It’s time we learned how to retain newcomers

Roberge juge intolérable que des immigrants temporaires ne parlent pas français

Well, they’re temporary unlike permanent who have a much greater incentive. And legitimate concerns regarding the impact of high immigration levels in the rest of Canada compared to more modest levels in Quebec (set by the Quebec government):

Le ministre de la Langue française, Jean-François Roberge, juge intolérable que des milliers d’immigrants temporaires vivent au Québec en n’ayant aucune notion de français. Certains de ces travailleurs venus d’ailleurs veulent pourtant apprendre le français, mais Québec doit leur offrir des cours, si possible en milieu de travail, estime le président de la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain (CCMM), Michel Leblanc.

Plus de 290 000 immigrants temporaires se trouvaient en sol québécois au 31 décembre 2022, selon le ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration (MIFI). Il s’agit notamment de travailleurs et d’étudiants. Ces gens ne sont pas obligés d’apprendre le français, parce qu’ils viennent au Québec pour de courts séjours — qui peuvent tout de même s’échelonner sur plusieurs années. Certains souhaitent aussi devenir résidents permanents.

Ces gens travaillent entre autres dans les commerces, dans les cafés ou dans les restaurants de Montréal. Ils changent le visage de la métropole en ne maîtrisant pas la langue nationale du Québec. « On ne peut pas tolérer qu’ils anglicisent le Québec », a déclaré le ministre Roberge lors d’une conférence organisée par la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain, lundi midi.

Le président et chef de la direction de la CCMM, Michel Leblanc, a salué la volonté du gouvernement d’aider les immigrants temporaires à se franciser. Il affirme que plusieurs entreprises (en technologies de l’information ou en aéronautique, par exemple) souhaitent garder leurs travailleurs temporaires.

« Il y a des gens qui travaillent fort, qui viennent d’arriver, parfois avec des enfants, des femmes ou des maris, qui veulent s’intégrer. Il faut leur faciliter la vie. Si on blâme l’immigrant, on perd de vue que notre système n’est pas assez accommodant pour son horaire, pour sa réalité », dit M. Leblanc.

Comme le faucon pèlerin

L’organisme Francisation Québec, qui entrera en fonction le 1er juin, est susceptible de faciliter l’apprentissage de la langue nationale de tous les nouveaux arrivants, y compris ceux issus des programmes temporaires, a fait valoir le ministre Roberge.

Le ministre québécois de la Langue française était invité par la CCMM avec son homologue fédérale, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, après leur entente historique visant à améliorer la protection du français au Québec. La ministre fédérale des Langues officielles a déjà reconnu, avec le projet de loi C-13, « qu’une seule des deux langues officielles est en déclin au Canada, y compris au Québec ». Et cette langue est le français.

Mme Petitpas Taylor a remis à son « ami » Roberge un faucon pèlerin en peluche, pour témoigner qu’il est possible de freiner le déclin d’une espèce vulnérable. Les deux ministres s’étaient entendus en mars dernier pour que le gouvernement Trudeau renforce le français au Québec. Il s’agit d’un geste impensable jusqu’à récemment, car Ottawa a généralement pour mission de protéger les minorités linguistiques, dont celle de langue anglaise au Québec.

Le projet de loi C-13 obligera notamment les entreprises sous réglementation fédérale au Québec à se conformer à la Charte québécoise de la langue française. La langue de travail devra être le français ; il sera aussi obligatoire de pouvoir servir les clients en français. Tout indique que ce projet de loi sera adopté cette semaine par la Chambre des communes.

Immigration francophone

Le ministre Jean-François Roberge a appelé les sénateurs canadiens à sanctionner par la suite le projet de loi « sans le passer à la lessive », en maintenant la référence à la Charte québécoise de la langue française.

Le ministre Roberge a pressé Ottawa d’établir des cibles ambitieuses d’immigration en français. Il dénonce l’« initiative du siècle » visant à faire grimper la population canadienne à 100 millions de personnes en 2100. « J’ose nommer la question de l’immigration massive. Certains appellent ça l’initiative du siècle. Pour moi, c’est la lubie du siècle de penser qu’on peut, de manière démesurée, perdre le contrôle de nos seuils d’immigration. Ce n’est pas bon pour le Québec et ce n’est pas bon pour la francophonie canadienne », a-t-il dit.

La ministre Ginette Petitpas Taylor, une francophone du Nouveau-Brunswick, a reconnu l’importance d’augmenter l’immigration francophone au pays, y compris au Québec.

Source: Roberge juge intolérable que des immigrants temporaires ne parlent pas français

Here’s why the U.S. is pushing Ottawa to require visas from Mexicans

Good explainer:

When Canada lifted the visa requirements on Mexicans in late 2016, one of the first things Selene Mateos did was book a vacation to visit Vancouver with her girlfriend.

Drawn by Canada’s reputation as an “open and friendly” country, the couple jumped on the travel opportunity without the hassles of having to put together an application package and line up in queues —and without the prospect of cancelling their trip if a visa didn’t come through.

“If I’d needed a visa, I would’ve had to think about it three or four times more, even though I had all the proofs, of a job, income and ties to Mexico,” says the 35-year-old environmental engineer. “This makes travel easier and faster.”

Mateos was surprised when she learned from media reports this week that Washington has requested that Ottawa reimpose visas on Mexico after a surge of Mexican irregular migrants trying to cross into the U.S. through the northern border via Canada.

“I don’t think that’s fair, to be honest,” said Mateos, who now works in hospitality in Toronto on a work permit. “Even the U.S., Canada and Mexico are trade partners, we are the poor partner. We are not equal.”

That inequality is at the centre of concerns some have over the potential move — one critics say would severely restrict asylum seekers and punish residents of Mexico, a country that is a significant trading partner, but lacks the clout to resist whenever the U.S. wants to change the rules of the relationship.

The situation at the border

Mexicans are increasingly crossing the land border into the U.S. from Canada. The number caught crossing illegally has risen from a total of 1,169 in 2016 to some 300 a month since October, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

Mexican refugees made up 7,483 of Canada’s 60,158 asylum claimants in 2022. During that year, more than 400,000 Mexicans came to visit. (That number of claims was up significantly from 250 in 2016, which was before Ottawa lifted its visa requirements on Mexico.)

In March, in response to the irregular migration at the northern border, Washington and Ottawa expanded the Safe Third Country Agreement across the entire land border, not just at official ports of entry, so asylum seekers crossing anywhere are turned back.

Still, compared to the U.S. southern border, where more than 2.5 million irregular migrants were stopped last year, the U.S.-Canada frontier is peanuts, says Laura Macdonald, a political science professor at Carleton University.

So why the increased amount of attention?

“There is some pressure being exerted by Republicans in Congress, Republicans from the northern states. Some of the northern states who want to make an issue out of this partly because they’re trying to convey the message that the Biden administration is weak on border control policies and weak on migration control,” said Macdonald, who studies North American relations and Latin American politics.

“I don’t think it’s a huge issue for the Biden administration. They have many other issues to deal with. But you could see how politicians in the border states could get caught up in that kind of dynamic. So he’s telling Canada they have to fall into line about policies that the U.S. government wants to enact.”

An unequal relationship

The U.S. has always required visas from Mexicans in order to screen out those who come to seek asylum or likely overstay their visits, while Canada has changed its policy back and forth under different governments.

In 2009, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government slapped Mexico with a visa rule in response to an influx of Mexican refugees who fled gang violence and drug cartels. The requirement was lifted in 2016, after Justin Trudeau’s Liberals came to power.

For Washington and Ottawa, visa decisions are tied to border control and economic interests, said Macdonald, but Mexico can never afford to put up travel barriers against its northern neighbours.

“Tourism is such a huge interest. So that goes back to the power asymmetries in the region. The U.S. and Canada could contemplate having such a visa and Mexico will never, ever retaliate in that form,” she said.

The reasons for crossing from Canada into the U.S.

Ramiro Arteaga, founder of a Mexican Canadian Facebook group, says there’s been a lot of discussions within the diaspora about the Biden administration’s visa proposition to Ottawa, with many worrying about further stigmatization of the community.

Arteaga says he’s against visa requirements which would restrict Mexicans’ families and friends from visiting them in Canada, and he doesn’t believe such measures would stop irregular migrants determined to cross into the U.S. at all costs.

He said it has always been easier for Mexicans to get to Canada than to the U.S., even when both countries required visas. And some of his compatriots have always had their eyes set on the U.S., for a variety of reasons.

“The language is not a barrier down there. You can go to Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, anywhere you go, you can find someone who speaks Spanish. You can find your own church, your own community, your own places to gather,” said Arteaga, 48, whose Facebook group has 250,000 members, mostly in Canada.

“It’s more likely to have a family member or someone from the same town back home living in the U.S. You can get jobs easily there. It’s more difficult if you are coming here and you don’t know the language and you don’t know anyone.”

The fallout of imposing visas

Efrat Arbel, an immigration law professor at University of British Columbia, said a visa requirement is a blunt instrument imposed by western countries to stem asylum flow from so-called refugee-producing countries.

“ If an asylum seeker is fleeing for their lives, then they don’t have the time, the ability or the capacity in most situations to apply for a visa in order to set foot on Canadian soil,” she said.

“The effect is that those individuals are prohibited from travel, are prohibited from making access of lawful routes of entry in order to seek refuge from persecution. It works contrary to the basic commitments of refugee protection that underpin our asylum regime.”

The visa requirement is among many tools Canada has implemented over the years to restrict people from certain regions and countries from coming, she said.

Even valid visa holders can be kept off a Canada-bound flight by air carriers that fear sanctions for bringing in “improperly documented persons,” or by border liaison officers stationed abroad, who flag travellers at their discretion.

“All of these mechanisms operate in tandem and Canada is systematically closing its borders to refugees,” said Arbel.

How will a decision be made?

In assessing whether to impose or abolish visa requirements, Canada’s immigration department said officials look at the socio-economic profile of the country, immigration issues, travel documents, security concerns, border management, human rights and bilateral relations.

“Canada values its strong ties with Mexico. The visa lift (ending the requirement in 2016) underscores the commitment Canada made to further enhance and expand its relationship with Mexico,” said department spokesperson Stuart Isherwood.

“The visa lift has generated positive results for Canadians and Canadian business. It has deepened our bilateral relations and expanded trade, investment, and tourism between both countries.”

Since the visa requirement was removed against Mexico, Isherwood said, Canada has welcomed more than two million Mexican visitors and they’ve spent more than $2.4 billion in Canadian hotels, restaurants and other businesses.

Mexican officials said leaders of the three countries met in a summit in Mexico City in January where they reaffirmed their commitment to collaborate on regional migration issues.

“Mexico is working closely with the United States and Canada to achieve safe, orderly and humane migration in the region through a holistic approach that includes addressing its root causes,” the Mexican Embassy in Ottawa said in a statement. 

Mateos is well aware that the political wind can shift at any moment. She just hopes any visa change won’t come before her wedding this August; 20 guests, including her family, are expected from Mexico.

“It’s going to be devastating for me not having my family and friends on my side on this very important day of my life,” she said.

Source: Here’s why the U.S. is pushing Ottawa to require visas from Mexicans

China needs foreign workers. So why won’t it embrace immigration?

Of interest:

For hundreds of years China could boast of having more people than any other country. The title became official in the 1950s, when the un began compiling such data. Such a large population conferred on China certain bragging rights. A huge labour supply also helped to boost its annual gdp growth, which has averaged close to 9% over the past three decades.

Last month China’s reign came to an end. India has overtaken it as the world’s most populous country. The demographic trends behind the shift have troubling implications for the new number two. China’s working-age population has been shrinking for a decade (see chart). Its population as a whole declined last year—and it is ageing rapidly. This is likely to hinder economic growth and create an enormous burden of care.

Yet when officials in Beijing mull solutions, one seems largely absent from the discussion: immigration. China has astonishingly few foreign-born residents. Of its 1.4bn people, around 1m, or just 0.1%, are immigrants. That compares with shares of 15% in America, 19% in Germany and 30% in Australia. Place it next to that of other Asian countries which also shun immigration and China’s total still looks measly. Foreigners constitute 2% of Japan’s population and 3% of South Korea’s. Even North Korea has a higher proportion of immigrants than China, according to the un.

China’s future economic and social needs resemble those that have made other societies recruit guest workers. In January the government released a list of 100 occupations, such as salesperson and cleaner, where there is a lack of staff. Over 80% of manufacturers faced labour shortages in 2022, according to one survey. Nearly half of China’s 400m blue-collar workers are aged over 40, reported a study in December. That is in line with an official estimate that China will have trouble filling nearly 30m manufacturing jobs by 2025.

An abundance of young and cheap workers once filled these openings. But as China ages and shrinks that supply of willing labour is drying up. Firms complain of a mismatch between the jobs sought by young people, an increasing number of whom have university degrees, and those available. Many young Chinese do not want to work in factories, laments China Daily, a party mouthpiece. That helps explain why nearly 20% of 16- to 24-year-olds in cities are unemployed.

Source: China needs foreign workers. So why won’t it embrace immigration?