Raj: Ottawa should scrap the logistical and political nightmare that is the Safe Third Country Agreement

Interesting that while the government defends the STCA, a “senior” IRCC official is quoted as saying “in our estimation, it might not change that much, because what would happen is you wouldn’t have a Roxham Road, the people could cross at the ports of entry and they might therefore go to different ports of entry.”

Politically, of course, it appears to undermine the assertion that immigration is managed and controlled, a point that the Conservatives have hammered in the past before IRCC backlogs became a top issue:

It challenges our conception of who we are as a country, questions the values core to the Liberal Party of Canada and yet, Thursday, the federal government is expected to be at the Supreme Court defending a longstanding agreement with the United States that it should have ditched years ago.

The Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) aims to reduce the number of refugees crossing into Canada from the United States. By blocking access to asylum seekers at official ports of entries, however, it encourages them to use a back door, known to most of us as Roxham Road. That loophole is becoming untenable politically, especially in Quebec, and it’s causing logistical nightmares and year-long delays in refugee processing that even the government’s own immigration department suggests could be alleviated if the deal was scrapped.

Under the STCA, asylum seekers arriving by land at official crossings are turned away and handed back to U.S. authorities, where they often end up in detention in questionable conditions — unless they fall in specific exemption categories (e.g. if they have family in Canada, are an unaccompanied minor, or face the death penalty in the U.S.).

That’s at the core of the case before the Supreme Court. Does handing asylum seekers back to the United States — where they are detained, reportedly in freezing conditions without proper food, where they have fewer chances of being accepted as a refugee, and can face persecution when returned to their homeland — breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? 

Refugee advocates say yes. The government says no. In fact, Ottawa has been unsuccessfully trying to get Washington to expand the STCA all across the border to address Canada’s current asylum crisis — a miniature one the Biden administration must envy.

The STCA came into effect in 2004, but it wasn’t until Donald Trump became president of the United States in 2017 and started deporting undocumented immigrants that people began to pay much attention. 

Eight days into Trump’s presidency, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.”

It was on-brand for Trudeau and the Liberals who were elected two years earlier on a promise to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees fleeing persecution.

The welcome mat was laid out at Roxham Road. This illegal border crossing is really a ditch at the Quebec-New York border that’s now surrounded by infrastructure to handle the thousands of people arriving there each month. It’s a well-publicized route to enter the country quickly and have your case heard (not so quickly) with the tiny wrinkle that you must break the law (in a consequence-free manner) to cross into Canada.

There are no statistics for RCMP interceptions of asylum claimants on the government’s website prior to 2017. But that year, the numbers in Quebec jumped from 245 in January to 1,916 in December. In total, 18,836 persons were apprehended crossing the border irregularly into Quebec. That yearly trend continued up until the COVID-19 pandemic shut down Roxham Road and the Canada-U.S. border in 2020 and asylum seekers were told to wait to make their claims. In December 2021, the numbers were back up and so far this year, 23,196 irregular migrants have been intercepted at the Quebec border — more than any other year. Perhaps, it’s pent-up demand from the pandemic, or perhaps it’s just the new normal settling in.

It’s no wonder Quebec politicians are alarmed. Coupled with Premier François Legault’s focus on identity politics and concerns over the survival of the French language, provincial politicians fervently denounced the situation on the election trail, demanding the road be closed.

Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, for example, suggested the federal government left Roxham Road open purposefully to “destabilize” Quebec society. 

Ottawa is uninterested in closing Roxham Road. It argues blocking access would lead asylum seekers to more dangerous crossings and could line the pockets of organized crime. Making it an official crossing would have the same impact — and is unlikely since the U.S. would have to agree to place agents there. (Imposing the STCA on the entire border would also lead migrants to find underground routes, but I digress.)

Instead, an official in Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino’s office said the situation is “difficult, but it’s also not unmanageable.”

Right now, the system is breaking down. It gives the appearance of queue-jumping (it’s not), but does reward for circumventing the law. It’s also costing Ottawa hundreds of millions of dollars — so far more than $761 million in accommodation, security, health and transportation costs. It’s squeezing Quebec’s resources too, and a lack of personnel is forcing asylum seekers to wait nearly a year or more before obtaining a work permit and many years before having their cases heard. 

In court, the federal government has argued scrapping the STCA would lead to a flood of asylum claims at Canada’s official ports of entry. 

But a senior official from Immigration and Citizenship, speaking to the Star Wednesday, said that while Ottawa is contingency planning in case that happens, “in our estimation, it might not change that much, because what would happen is you wouldn’t have a Roxham Road, the people could cross at the ports of entry and they might therefore go to different ports of entry.”

In fact, suspending the STCA might relieve the bottleneck at the Quebec crossing and spread the burden of supporting asylum seekers across provinces.

“It might help a bit,” the official said, noting that bringing Roxham Road migrants who intended to go to Ontario to that province had helped them get their interviews faster.

Of course, scrapping the deal won’t solve everything. “The numbers are such that even if they were spread across the country, it would still lead to some problems,” the official noted.

Canadians have shown themselves ready to do more to respond to refugee crises around the world. But the system must be seen to be fair. People must be processed quickly, and given the tools to help them support themselves.

In the meantime, if the government’s own department doesn’t believe there is pent-up demand beyond what we’re already seeing, why is the Liberal government insisting on defending the status quo?

Source: Ottawa should scrap the logistical and political nightmare that is the Safe Third Country Agreement

Québec a «tous les outils» nécessaires en immigration, estime Pablo Rodriguez

Agree, but it will be interesting to see the tone of the discussions on immigration powers. Roxham Road concerns by Quebec (and others) legitimate, but substantive action may alway await SCC decision on the Safe Third Country Agreement:

Le lieutenant pour le Québec du gouvernement fédéral, Pablo Rodriguez, estime que Québec a déjà « tous les outils » à sa disposition pour sélectionner davantage ses nouveaux arrivants et protéger le français.

Celui qui est aussi ministre du Patrimoine s’est néanmoins dit, mardi, ouvert à discuter des demandes du gouvernement de François Legault, fraîchement réélu la veille.

« On pourra discuter du sujet de l’immigration éventuellement, mais je pense que Québec a tous les outils en main actuellement pour choisir la très grande majorité de ses immigrants », a dit M. Rodriguez dans le foyer de la Chambre des communes.

Il a affirmé que la province a les pouvoirs de sélectionner jusqu’à 28 % des immigrants qu’elle accueille et qu’elle n’en choisit dans les faits que 13 %.

« Ce qui veut dire qu’il y a un autre [pourcentage d’immigrants] que Québec pourrait choisir et qui seraient entièrement francophones », a ajouté le lieutenant pour le Québec du gouvernement Trudeau.

La Presse canadienne n’avait pas vérifié, dans l’immédiat, l’exactitude des données énoncées par M. Rodriguez.

Durant la campagne électorale québécoise qui vient de se terminer, le chef de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ), François Legault, a évoqué l’idée de tenir un référendum sectoriel sur l’immigration dans le but de rapatrier davantage de pouvoirs dans le giron provincial.

Actuellement, l’immigration est une compétence partagée entre Québec et Ottawa. L’idée de la consultation populaire serait de demander aux électeurs d’appuyer la démarche visant à ce que le Québec contrôle davantage son immigration.

Appelé à préciser s’il considère qu’un pareil exercice serait « voué à l’échec », M. Rodriguez a répondu qu’il n’avait jamais eu vent de l’intention de Québec de tenir un référendum.

« On ne m’a jamais abordé avec cette proposition-là », a-t-il soutenu.

Concernant le chemin Roxham

Le ministre a par ailleurs assuré qu’Ottawa travaillera en collaboration avec Québec pour trouver une solution face aux passages irréguliers de migrants par le chemin Roxham, en Montérégie.

Il a dit que les négociations progressent avec les Américains pour moderniser l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs, qui est au coeur de ces passages. Questionnés sur ce point durant la période des questions par les bloquistes, les libéraux ont évité de fournir tout détail sur l’avancement des discussions.

« Ça dure depuis cinq ans le chemin Roxham. Ça fait des années que le fédéral négocie. […] Rendu là, on est en droit de se demander comment les négos avancent », a lancé le porte-parole du Bloc québécois en matière d’immigration, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe.

La secrétaire parlementaire du ministre de l’Immigration, Marie-France Lalonde, n’a fourni aucune information sur l’état des négociations. « Le Canada partage la plus longue frontière démilitarisée au monde. Le chemin Roxham permet aux fonctionnaires de recueillir les pièces d’identité de ces demandeurs d’asile et de prévenir les traversées dangereuses. Ce que nous devons faire, c’est moderniser l’entente et c’est ce que nous faisons », a-t-elle affirmé.

M. Brunelle-Duceppe a vu dans cette réponse une confirmation qu’Ottawa avait bel et bien l’intention de faire des passages par le chemin Roxham une chose permanente. « Carrément, ils viennent de nous le dire ! », s’est-il insurgé.

Le ministre Rodriguez a pris la réplique pour appeler le Bloc québécois à « baisser le ton un peu ». Selon lui, le parti doit faire attention à ses propos pour éviter « de faire de la petite politique sur le dos d’hommes, de femmes, d’enfants qui, plus souvent qu’autrement, quittent des situations extrêmement difficiles ».

L’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs fait en sorte qu’un réfugié potentiel qui se présente à un poste frontalier officiel canadien et qui a d’abord foulé le sol américain est refoulé, puisqu’il doit poursuivre sa demande d’asile dans le premier « lieu sûr » où il est arrivé.

Ainsi, des personnes souhaitant tout de même demander l’asile au Canada traversent la frontière canado-américaine par des passages de fortune, comme le chemin Roxham. Une fois qu’ils sont au Canada, leur demande d’asile peut être traitée.

Les bloquistes et néodémocrates demandent depuis longtemps la suspension de cet accord. De leur côté, les conservateurs souhaitent l’application uniforme de l’entente, poste d’entrée officiel ou non.

Source: Québec a «tous les outils» nécessaires en immigration, estime Pablo Rodriguez

Manning: The link between growth and immigration: unpicking the confusion

One of the better explainers on growth, immigration and productivity (i.e., per capita not overall growth):

The new UK government with Liz Truss as PM and Kwasi Kwarteng as chancellor has told the Treasury to “focus entirely on growth” as the main objective of government policy. And it is rumoured that part of this dash for growth is to be loosening controls on immigration. As immigration restrictions have been argued to be the “greatest single class of distortions in the global economy”, that is perhaps not surprising for a government that seems ideologically committed to free markets. A more liberal immigration system is an idea that has been received favourably in some parts of the commentariat that are otherwise extremely critical of other policies such as directing tax cuts to the rich. For example, Lionel Barber, a former editor of the Financial Times, tweeted that it was good news “that Truss government plans to increase immigration to boost growth”.

Many of these commentators are people whose views I normally regard as sensible. But on the relationship between immigration and growth I think much comment is deeply confused. The root of the confusion is what we mean by ”growth”.  Growth might mean an increase in gross domestic product (GDP), the total amount of goods and services produced in the economy. Because immigration means more people and more people means a bigger economy, immigration almost certainly increases growth in this sense. But we normally think of growth as being desirable because it represents an improvement in the material standard of living in the country. Then, GDP per capita (per person) is a much better measure of growth and the relationship between immigration and growth more complicated as immigration raises GDP but also the capita bit of the formula.

The confusion over the link between growth and immigration is not new. A House of Lords reportfrom 2008 criticised the government for using the impact of immigration on GDP rather than GDP per capita in its analysis. With the benefit of hindsight, the garbled economics of immigration of the government at that time was one reason it got into trouble over immigration (the others being naïve visa design and a failure to monitor what was happening).

Before the pandemic disrupted the economy, UK GDP per capita was about £33,700. An extra immigrant will raise GDP per capita if their contribution is above this figure, reduce it if its below. Using this measure, immigration is no longer necessarily pro-growth; it depends. Assessing the contribution of migrants to GDP is critical to deciding whether more open immigration rules raise or reduce GDP per capita.

One contribution of immigration to GDP is the earnings of the migrants themselves. But their work also generates profits; labour income is about 60% of total income, meaning that 60p in earnings generates £1 in GDP on average. If a migrant’s earnings generate the same profit per pound as the average, this would mean that any single migrant earning above £20k would raise GDP per capita. The lowest visa salary thresholds are currently slightly above this level. But if the migrant has a non-working partner and child, they would have to earn over £60k to raise UK GDP per capita. Rules on rights to bring dependents, rarely discussed, make a big difference for the impact of immigration on GDP per capita.

But perhaps there are other effects on GDP per capita beyond the migrant and their employer. These effects might be positive or negative. As more immigration means faster labour force growth, some investment has to be directed to equipping the new workers with capital. If investment as a whole does not increase sufficiently, this means lower investment per worker in other jobs, which means lower GDP per capita. On the other hand, there is good evidence that higher-skilled migrants lead to more innovation, which is the underlying basis for productivity growth. Some studies also claim there are positive general effects on productivity of all migrants, not just the higher-skilled. The magnitude of the impacts in these studies are, for me, beyond what is credible. For example, some studies imply that the average immigrant is 2.5 times more productive than a Brit.

Also sowing confusion is a famous theoretical result in the economics of immigration; what is known as the ”immigration surplus” result. This says that in competitive markets, immigration of any type raises the average income of the locals as long as the skill mix of migrants and locals differs. There are two problems with the way this famous result is commonly interpreted. First, the impact works through changes in wages and prices. If, as the evidence suggests is the case, these do not change very much, if at all, with immigration, then the predicted benefits are small. More importantly, the growth measure being used is the GDP per capita of the locals only; it is as if the migrants themselves count for nothing. It is a country like the United Arab Emirates that probably comes closest to what this theoretical model would say is desirable. If the UAE is not your preferred model of the good society, don’t cite these results.

The effects of migration on GDP per capita may be more positive in the short run than in the long run. Initially, the migrants are on work permits, they have to work.  But if they settle, some will end up out of work (just like everyone else) and will eventually retire.  So settlement rules, again rarely discussed, matter for the impact of immigration on growth.

Productivity per hour worked is another measure of growth we might be interested in; the UK has a well-known problem with productivity; growth has been very weak since the financial crisis and we lag behind our competitors. ,We might want an immigration policy to raise productivity per hour worked.  That would lead to a more restrictive immigration policy than one that focused on current GDP per capita, as one now has to compare working migrants with working locals, not all locals.

So, the relationship between immigration and growth is likely to be far more complicated than widely assumed. The final migration advisory committee report produced when I was chair tried to estimate the likely impacts of different migration rules on the growth outcomes described here. Those estimates were based on assumptions that are not beyond criticism.  But the bottom line was that the impact of a well-chosen immigration policy on growth was very small unless one focused on total GDP, which is the wrong measure. For high-skilled immigrants, it is likely that GDP per capita is raised but for lower-skilled immigrants it is much more debatable. And a lot of the current discussion is about reducing restrictions on immigration to address labour shortages in sectors like agriculture and hospitality, where productivity and salaries are low.

I have discussed the impact of immigration on UK growth alone.  But perhaps we should take a global perspective. There is little doubt that immigration from lower-income countries to higher-income ones (like the UK) raises global GDP per capita even if it reduces GDP per capita in the UK. That is a strong reason to look to find ways to be open to immigration.  But we need to be aware that most of the benefits go to the migrants themselves, and that some controls are needed to avoid harm to some of the locals. Pretending there is a strong case that immigration always raises growth in the local economy may be in a good cause, but when that case is exaggerated, it runs the risk of undermining public confidence in the immigration system, something that tends to lead ultimately to more restrictive policies.

____________________

Alan Manning is Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics at LSE, and co-director of the community wellbeing programme at LSE CEP. His research generally covers labour markets, with a focus on imperfect competition (monopsony), minimum wages, job polarisation, immigration, and gender. On immigration, his interests expand beyond the economy to issues such as social housing, minority groups, and

Source: The link between growth and immigration: unpicking the confusion

Why Quebec’s election turned into a slugfest over immigration

Not a bad overview. Election will likely demonstrate the weakness of first-past-the-post in situations of one dominant party and a number of smaller parties:

David Heurtel walked into the room and immediately spotted the angry man at the back.

It was November 2017 and the Quebec Liberal Party’s immigration minister was hosting a town-hall meeting in Sainte-Claire, a town across the river from Quebec City, in a rural region that is considered the province’s nationalist conservative heartland.

The man he spotted was typical of the local population. Older, white and francophone.

And he emanated a lingering, pent-up frustration.

“I said, ‘Oh, that guy is going to give me trouble at some point,’” Heurtel, a lawyer, recalled in an interview.

And he did.

Toward the end of the meeting, the man raised his hand. Heurtel braced himself and invited the man to air his grievance.

But it was not what he was expecting.

Not a complaint about Muslims or hijabs. Not about clashes of cultures and Quebec values. Not about the thousands of asylum seekers who had begun streaming across the border the previous summer. Not about the French-language abilities of newcomers to the province.

Not about any of these sinkhole political debates that appear with troubling regularity in Quebec, sucking in elected officials, media commentators, activists and community associations.

“He says, ‘For Christ’s sake, I need workers! I don’t give a damn if they’re red, purple, yellow or green. I need workers right now and I’ll teach them French myself!’” Heurtel recounted, speaking in Quebec’s working-class joual to fully express the colourful language.

Five years later, after the economic ravages of the pandemic and the continued aging of the population, the “Workers Wanted” refrain has only grown in desperation. In this sense, Quebec is no different from Ontario, Alberta or any other Canadian province or territory.

Which is why the combination of political punches launched this week by candidates, in the final days of an otherwise sleepy Quebec election campaign that will be decided next Monday, was so difficult to comprehend.

The sequence opened with an innocuous jab, the likes of which have sadly become a routine occurrence in Quebec politics.

A candidate for the sovereigntist Parti Québécois, Lyne Jubinville, was exposed by Montreal’s Le Devoir and forced to apologize for anti-Islam rants about “hijabs” that “increasingly invade our public space,” and about mosques and Muslim calls to prayer taking the place of emptied Catholic churches and silenced church bells.

It was followed by a hook from Jean Boulet, Heurtel’s successor as immigration minister, who belongs to the governing centre-right party Coalition Avenir Québec. In a clip from a local election debate held a week prior, he appeared to write off newcomers to Quebec as good-for-nothings.

“Eighty per cent of immigrants go to Montreal, don’t work, don’t speak French or don’t accept the values of Quebec society,” he said in the debate.

Boulet apologized for the tone of his comments, which he said were not an expression of his beliefs, but he was denounced by Quebec Premier François Legault, who said the minister had talked himself out of his ministerial post if he is re-elected on Oct. 3.

But then Legault himself delivered the roundhouse shot that left so many in this province seeing stars.

He delivered a speech to the Metropolitan Montreal Chamber of Commerce — an audience of employers and big-business owners — and spoke about this summer’s census report, which showed declines in the number of people who speak French across the country.

Legault said that if his party is re-elected, it would put in place tougher French-language requirements for immigrants and try to ensure that more of them settle in outlying regions of Quebec.

“But until we have stopped the decline of French,” he continued, “I think that for the Quebec nation that wants to protect its language it would be a little suicidal to go and increase immigration levels.”

“Suicidal.” The comments set off waves of anxiety among Quebec immigrants and second-generation Quebecers.

A journalist with the TVA network, Chu Anh Pham, wrote on Twitter about her parents, who fled the Vietnam War and settled in Montreal.

“Since they arrived here, they have always worked. We all learned French in Montreal and have never relied on social assistance. I have a tonne of other examples.”

Mamadou Doukara replied to her message and expanded on his experience in a radio interview. He explained how he spent his father’s inheritance to get from Mali to Quebec on a student visa, but immediately set about looking for work to reduce the financial burden on his family.

“Every provincial election was a source of stress,” noted Bao Long Hoang, another immigrant to Quebec, who wrote that he now lives in Ottawa. “So much stupidity voiced without shame.”

Dr. Joseph Dahine, an intensive care specialist who immigrated with his family to Montreal when he was a young child, said he likely never would have been able to afford his studies in medicine if his family had parents had immigrated to the United States.

He said Quebec should be celebrating what it has to offer — affordable daycare, publicly funded health care, low tuition fees and other attractions — rather than eternally fretting about cultural differences and religious backgrounds and mastery of the French language.

“Language is not the menace. It’s not the threat,” Dahine said in an interview. “It’s actually the reason why people come here. It’s usually their second language and they feel they could get by. They see an opportunity.”

Dahine likened the immigration process to joining a team and wanting to fit in. “You want to see people having fun, celebrating their culture. You want to look at these people and be inspired and say, ‘I want to be just like them,’” he said.

“As long as it’s a speech about the fear of losing something, it’s not an inspiring speech. Who wants to fit in with a group that is always talking about the fear of losing?”

Apart from the message such comments send to immigrants and homegrown Quebecers alike, Legault’s dark, defeatist tone is at odds with the great efforts and investments that the CAQ has made as a government, said Catherine Xhardez, an assistant professor of political science who specializes in immigration at Université de Montréal.

“They have this discourse that is a little alarmist and make these dark declarations,” she said. “In fact, the numbers are good and with (the Coalition Avenir Québec’s) policies they have invested a lot of money in francization (teaching French to newcomers) and integration.”

She also noted that the number of permits for temporary foreign workers has “exploded” under the CAQ. Recent statistics show the number of permits more than doubled from 13,030 in 2017 — the year before Legault’s party came to power — to 30,340 in 2021, the CBC reported.

“That’s what I find a little paradoxical with these dark speeches,” Xhardez said. “Do they think it’s useful to make comments that are much harsher than their policies? Because their policies have not been hard on immigration.”

It’s not just the CAQ, though. The immigration platforms of three of the five major parties competing in Monday’s elections hit similar notes.

The Parti Québécois, a diminished political force in recent years, proposes that knowledge of the French language, Quebec culture and the obligations and expectations that accompany citizenship be mandatory before immigrants set foot in the province.

And the newly significant Quebec Conservative Party, led by former radio shock jock Éric Duhaime, has suggested that new immigrants be screened to ensure they are “civilizationally compatible” with Quebec’s values, though Duhaime has taken steps in the campaign to distance himself from the term.

The other two parties, the Liberals and Québec Solidaire, have pro-immigration platforms. The left-wing QS promises to make it easier to have foreign education and employment credentials recognized; the Liberals suggest that priority be given to immigrants to immediately fill the gaps in health care, education and other in-demand sectors of the economy.

“Immigration is a solution. It’s not a problem,” said Heurtel, who said he is no longer an active member of any party. “Companies want them. Society wants them in general and the fact is that they’re a positive, not a negative.”

But for now, that ugly “Make Quebec Great Again” discourse persists, if only to drive the votes of those who feel most threatened by living on a French-speaking island in the midst of an English-speaking ocean.

Heurtel said the tendency will only be reversed by a radical change in the province’s political culture or a change to the voting system. As things stand ahead of Monday’s vote, the Coalition Avenir Québec are expected to win about 99 of the National Assembly’s 125 seats with just 39 per cent of the votes, according to opinion poll aggregator QC125.com.

The Liberals (16 per cent) are projected to take about 20 seats, Québec Solidaire (15 per cent) 10 seats and the PQ (15 per cent) just three. Despite having 14 per cent support, the Conservatives are not projected to win any seats.

But in politics, opinions and policies and allegiances are always shifting.

In politicians’ attitudes toward immigration, toward newcomers, there will be changes as well, said Dahine, the doctor. It just might take a while.

“As immigration happens — because it’s going to happen, because people need workers and brains and hands and arms — kids are going to grow up with a different picture of what society is. It’s going to be the new normal and one day it won’t be about where you come from but, ‘Hey! You’re from here as well,’” he said.

“It’s as though you’ll have a different flavour you add to the original Quebec recipe. Let’s put it that way.”

Source: Why Quebec’s election turned into a slugfest over immigration

Boisvert: La peur de l’étranger [Quebec’s immigration minister’s comments]

Good commentary on Quebec’s immigration minister that begs the question of his competence and knowledge:

Imaginons un ministre de l’Éducation qui ne connaît pas la différence entre une école primaire et secondaire. Un ministre des Transports confondant un aéroport et une autoroute. C’est trop gros ?

Dans ce gouvernement, vous pouvez être ministre de l’Immigration et ne pas connaître les faits les plus élémentaires sur les immigrants.

François Legault et tout son entourage ont sauté au plafond en entendant Jean Boulet dire que 80 % des immigrants sont à Montréal et « ne travaillent pas, ne parlent pas français ou n’adhèrent pas aux valeurs de la société québécoise ». Le ministre s’est « disqualifié », a dit François Legault à Midi Info.

Il a sauté au plafond d’abord parce que c’est faux, archifaux. Les immigrants ont à peu près le même taux d’emploi que les Québécois nés ici. Et la vaste majorité parlent français.

Le ministre se base sur quoi pour dire qu’ils « n’adhèrent pas aux valeurs de la société québécoise » ? Ils doivent pourtant passer un test… S’ils sont venus ici, c’est généralement qu’ils ont voté avec leurs pieds pour adhérer à cette société. L’histoire de l’immigration au Québec est largement une histoire de succès, quoi qu’on en dise.

Mais non, le ministre de l’Immigration lui-même véhicule de fausses informations et renforce les préjugés. Il suinte de tout ça une ignorance profonde, une peur sourde de l’étranger.

Ce ne serait déjà pas acceptable comme candidat de plonger aussi joyeusement dans la piscine des préjugés et des fausses informations.

Mais quand on est ministre, et ministre de l’Immigration, c’est impardonnable. D’autant que ce gouvernement insiste sur la capacité d’accueil, sur la difficulté d’intégrer, sur la menace qui pèse sur le français.

Coudonc, leurs politiques (quotas, apprentissage de la langue en six mois, etc.) sont-elles basées sur des données, ou sur des chroniques anti-immigration du Journal de Montréal ?

Jean Boulet n’est pourtant pas un idiot, loin de là. Il est sans doute parmi les politiciens les plus sympathiques à Québec. Il est depuis son élection un ministre du Travail compétent. Lui-même avocat spécialisé dans le domaine, il était « sur son X ».

Quand il a été question de délester Nadine Girault de l’Immigration, l’an dernier, François Legault a voulu choisir un ministre fiable. Qui de mieux que Jean Boulet ? Un ministre de région (la Mauricie), pour envoyer un message de « régionalisation » de l’immigration.

Pourquoi pas ?

Comme la CAQ veut arrimer l’immigration aux besoins économiques, fusionner Travail et Immigration chez un même ministre, c’était le plan logique.

Mais le ministre (le troisième en quatre ans) a-t-il la moindre connaissance de la réalité immigrante à Montréal ? Et ailleurs ? Est-ce qu’il en a rencontré ? Ou est-ce une masse informe de « capital humain » à « intégrer » ?

On tentera de blâmer une vision des « régions », mais je n’accepte pas ça. Il suffit de se promener un peu pour voir que les gens de toutes les régions du Québec veulent accueillir plus d’immigrants. Le discours anti-immigrant le plus fort vient souvent de quelques chroniqueurs montréalais qui n’ont jamais le moindre mot positif à dire sur l’immigration, cultivent une détestation pour Montréal, sa diversité, et selon qui « y a pas moyen de se faire servir en français à Montréal » – autre mensonge tenu pour vérité scientifique parce que répété assez souvent.

N’allez pas croire que cette « gaffe » était préméditée. Ça date d’une semaine, dans un débat à la radio locale. Et ça ne fait pas du tout l’affaire de François Legault.

Jean Boulet a piteusement présenté ses excuses, disant que ces propos ne reflétaient pas sa « pensée ».

Quelle pensée ? Il faisait des affirmations statistiques, du haut de son autorité de ministre de l’Immigration. Ça n’avait rien d’une opinion. Si le ministre des Finances dit qu’il y a un taux de chômage de 25 % à Québec, il n’exprime pas sa « pensée ». Il trompe les gens.

C’est comme si les peurs et les préjugés refoulés sortaient au grand jour.

La journée avait pourtant bien commencé pour François Legault, à la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain.

Aller visiter une chambre de commerce pour lui, c’est un peu comme aller faire un tour dans un cégep pour Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois : ça met de bonne humeur.

François Legault était dans sa matière forte à jaser PIB et productivité devant un auditoire réceptif, avec ses ministres économiques. Clair, convaincu, confiant, de bonne humeur.

On lui reproche de ne pas parler d’éducation. Il est d’accord. Mais chaque fois qu’il veut parler de l’augmentation « historique » du salaire des profs, de maternelles 4 ans ou d’orthopédagogie, les médias en font fi. Dans les points de presse, c’est toujours des questions sur l’immigration, ou le troisième lien. Troisième lien, immigration. Immigration, troisième lien.

Vrai.

C’est pourtant bien lui qui dit, comme mercredi, qu’une augmentation des seuils d’immigration serait « un peu suicidaire » pour la « nation québécoise ». Et je ne reviens pas sur tout le reste.

C’est lui qui a nommé Jean Boulet. On est obligé de se demander comment ils parlent d’immigration entre eux, au plus haut niveau, quand le titulaire est aussi mal informé. Est-ce que c’est juste des faux chiffres et des histoires de peur ?

Ce sujet est trop important pour l’avenir du Québec pour être traité avec autant d’incompétence. Si, comme prévu, la CAQ forme le prochain gouvernement, surtout, ne « continuons » pas ça.

Source: La peur de l’étranger

Legault says accepting more than 50,000 immigrants in Quebec per year would be ‘a bit suicidal’

Unlikely to have any impact in the election but another in a series of dog whistle politics, unlike the immigration minister who states his positions clearly (before having to apologize and retract – see Le Devoir article following this one for the factual analysis. You would of course like to think that a minister responsible for immigration would have the basic facts right):
The Coalition Avenir Québec is once again coming under fire for comments about immigration, including party leader François Legault saying that welcoming more than 50,000 immigrants per year would be “a bit suicidal.” Legault made that statement on Monday at the Montreal Chamber of Commerce while alluding to the need to protect the French language. Although his words drew criticism from his opponents, Legault also reprimanded one of his ministers on Monday for making his own controversial remarks about immigration. During a local debate on Radio-Canada last week, Jean Boulet — who serves as both the province’s labour and immigration minister —  said “80 per cent of immigrants go to Montreal, don’t work, don’t speak French or don’t adhere to the values of Quebec society.” Boulet then touted his party’s efforts to better welcome newcomers and get them speaking French. Shortly after Radio-Canada reached out to Boulet’s team today, he issued an apology on Twitter, saying he misspoke and the statement about immigrants not working and not speaking French “does not reflect what I think.” “I am sorry for having poorly expressed my thoughts,” said Boulet, who is seeking re-election in the Trois-Rivières riding. “We must continue to focus on the reception … and integration of immigrants, who are a source of wealth for Quebec.” Despite the apology, his words appeared to have cost him his immigration portfolio, if the CAQ is re-elected. Legault described Boulet’s statement as “unacceptable.” He was also asked if Boulet could remain as immigration minister if the CAQ is re-elected. “Unfortunately, I don’t think so,” he told Radio-Canada, adding that it’s a “question of image, perception and trust.” The CAQ campaign has been marred by controversial comments on immigration. Three weeks ago, Legault apologized for citing the threat of “extremism” and “violence” as well as the need to preserve Quebec’s way of life as reasons to limit the number of immigrants to the province.
That same week, he said non-French speaking immigration, if not limited in number, could pose a threat to social cohesion in the province.

Opponents blast Legault’s party for ‘divisive’ message

Opponents of the CAQ blasted the comments made by Legault and Boulet. During a news conference on Monday, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, the co-spokesperson for Québec Solidaire said Legault’s comments about welcoming more than 50,000 newcomers per year were “hurtful” and “irresponsible.” Reporters also played him audio of Boulet’s comments. Nadeau-Dubois accused Legault of setting the tone within his party when it came to talking about immigration. “Since the beginning of the campaign, what Mr. Legault has done is send the signal that when you talk about immigration, you talk about it in a negative way, a divisive way,” he said.
When Mr. Legault sets the tone like that and says that immigration is dangerous for Quebec, it’s not only hurting people, it’s, I think, deeply not representative of what Quebecers actually think.” During her own news conference, Liberal Leader Dominique Anglade described Boulet’s comments as “mind-boggling.” “It’s dividing Quebecers. It’s dividing the population,” she said. Anglade called on Quebecers to put an end to the CAQ’s “politics of division.” “There are two options on the table. There’s this one option where we’ve already hit a wall and we keep dividing Quebecers…. And there’s another route: the route of the Liberal party where we say we need to unite.” She also said Legault’s reference to suicide showed a “flagrant lack of empathy.”
Source: Legault says accepting more than 50,000 immigrants in Quebec per year would be ‘a bit suicidal’
« 80 % des immigrants s’en vont à Montréal, ne travaillent pas, ne parlent pas français ou n’adhèrent pas aux valeurs de la société québécoise. La clé, c’est la régionalisation et la francisation. » Cette citation du ministre sortant de l’Immigration, Jean Boulet, a lancé un pavé dans la mare des débats sur l’immigration au Québec. Qu’en est-il réellement ? Vérification en trois graphiques. La part de nouveaux arrivants qui s’installent à Montréal décline au Québec depuis 2018. Pas plus de 70 % d’entre eux préféraient la métropole l’an dernier, selon l’Institut de la statistique du Québec. Par contre, si l’on entend par « Montréal », « Montréal et ses banlieues », Jean Boulet n’a pas tort. Année après année, plus de 80 % des Néo-Québécois s’établissent soit sur l’île de Montréal, soit à Laval ou en Montérégie. Au-delà de la dichotomie entre Montréal et les régions, notons que la ville de Québec attire de plus en plus d’immigrants depuis quelques années, passant de 5 % en 2018 à 8 % en 2021. Ces données ne concernent que les « destinations projetées » des candidats admis à l’immigration. Leur destination finale peut donc différer, et leur destination déclarée ne signifie pas qu’ils y resteront toute leur vie. La « francisation » Les nouveaux arrivants ne parlent-ils pas français ? En effet, il y a quatre ou cinq ans, la moitié d’entre eux ne possédaient aucune connaissance du français. La part d’immigrants qui ne pouvait s’exprimer qu’en anglais dépassait alors la proportion de ceux qui ne pouvaient s’exprimer qu’en français. Depuis, la tendance s’est inversée, et c’est plutôt le bilinguisme qui domine sur la langue des nouveaux Québécois. Nous pouvons même parler de multilinguisme, car environ 70 % des nouveaux arrivants possèdent une langue maternelle qui n’est ni le français ni l’anglais. Statistique Canada recense environ 150 langues maternelles différentes parlées dans les chaumières du Québec. Au boulot Les immigrants sont-ils majoritairement sans emploi ? Il est vrai que les Néo-Québécois, surtout ceux qui viennent tout juste d’arriver, peinent davantage à trouver de l’emploi. L’écart entre le taux de chômage de Québécois nés ici et ceux nés ailleurs s’explique surtout par la difficulté à faire reconnaître les compétences, observait une récente étude du Comité consultatif personnes immigrantes. Même s’il est en baisse, le taux de chômage des immigrants n’a pas retrouvé les seuils d’avant la pandémie. Cependant, la statistique inverse, le taux d’emploi, démontre que les nouveaux arrivants veulent travailler plus que jamais. En 2021, le nombre de personnes immigrantes en emploi au Québec s’élevait à 818 700, un sommet depuis 2006, soit la première année où ces données ont été compilées. Cette croissance s’observe autant chez les personnes immigrantes arrivées au pays récemment que chez celles établies de longue date. Le Québec a même rattrapé l’Ontario en matière d’emploi chez les immigrants dans la force de l’âge. Près de 82 % des Néo-Québécois entre 25 et 54 ans sont occupés par le boulot, comparativement à 81 % dans la province voisine, selon le dernier rapport de l’Institut du Québec.
Source: Les propos de Jean Boulet à l’épreuve des faits

ICYMI: Here’s Canada’s new plan to help foreign students and workers become permanent residents. Some say it isn’t nearly new enough

Of note:

After much hype over a new strategy to help more migrants become permanent residents, Immigration Minister Sean Fraser has delivered a plan that largely reinstated the policy changes made during the pandemic.

A motion unanimously passed by Parliament in May gave Fraser 120 days to come up with a comprehensive strategy that would allow international students and temporary foreign workers of all skill levels pathways to permanent residence to address Canada’s persistent labour shortages.

On Tuesday, the minister tabled the 39-page “Strategy to Expand Transitions to Permanent Residency” in the House of Commons, after the release was delayed by the death of Queen Elizabeth II earlier this month.

“Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has a number of measures, both already in place and upcoming, that will continue to find ways to support the transition of temporary foreign workers and international student graduates to permanent residents,” Fraser’s press secretary, Aidan Strickland, told the Star.

“We look forward to building on this work to meet Canada’s economic needs and fuel our growth.”

The plan builds on many of the ad-hoc changes that the immigration department has made to accommodate the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic that greatly hampered global travel and processing capacity of the immigration system due to lockdowns. It includes:

  • Raising annual targets of permanent residents admitted to Canada to 431,645 in 2022; 447,055 in 2023; and 451,000 in 2024 (the levels were announced in February);
  • Tweaking the selection system of skilled immigration including more power for the minister to hand-pick permanent residents — authority embedded in the federal budget bill passed in summer;
  • Enhancing current economic immigration programs such as the skill type of the national occupational classification system used to assess immigration eligibility; improving foreign credential recognition; and supporting the transition of international students and migrants in health professions to permanent residence; and
  • Continuing the transformation to a modernized and digitalized immigration system to expedite processing.

The report said a two-step immigration system transitioning workers and students to permanent residence improves job-skills matches driven by labour demand, but acknowledged these temporary residents can be exposed to exploitation and poor working conditions.

“This strategy is just a rehash of existing announcements. While the government yet again accepted that temporary migrants are exploited, there is no real strategy here to end the abuse,” said Syed Hussan, executive director of the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

“Everyone knows what needs to change: we need full and permanent immigration status for all, without exclusions or delay.”

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan also expressed disappointment with the minister’s response to the parliamentary motion.

“What the government provided is nothing more than the recycling of what is already in place. The minister is not proposing anything new to support the goals set out in Motion 44. This so-called strategy lacks any real information or details of what a true comprehensive plan would entail,” Kwan said in a statement.

“One would expect the government to incorporate any data gathered on labour market needs and skill shortages to align with immigration policies. Canadians should expect nothing less.”

Fraser’s plan did mention the department’s current review of the international student program, including rules and authorities in their transition to permanent residence, as well as the option to issue open work permits to family members of all foreign workers, a privilege currently enjoyed mainly by those in high-skilled, high-waged jobs.

“The Department is assessing the trade-offs between reducing administrative requirements on co-op and work-integrated learning with any potential integrity risks that could arise as a result,” said the report, referring to ideas to help international students participate in the labour market.

“IRCC must balance facilitative measures with program integrity checks to ensure that international students benefit from a positive and quality academic experience while in Canada.”

Officials are still weighing different options to add to the pathways for international students to stay here permanently, particularly if their education, training or work experience is relevant in addressing Canada’s emerging economic priorities.

Source: Here’s Canada’s new plan to help foreign students and workers become permanent residents. Some say it isn’t nearly new enough

Immigration ‘very difficult’ for applicants once they turn 40

By design for economic immigrants, given aging demographics:

Canada is credited for having one of the world’s most immigrant-friendly policies, ranking fourth internationally in the Migrant Integration Policy Index. But the criteria used to prioritize applicants based on age leaves many at a disadvantage, even though they might have the qualifications Canada is looking for.

With immigration backlogs and several technical glitches on the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) online portal during the pandemic, many have become ineligible for certain programs that consider age as a criterion.

When Pedro Carvalho arrived with his wife in 2017 from Brazil, the couple was in their 30s.

But after missing the Express Entry (EE) draw this year because of a technical glitch, Carvalho was skeptical about meeting the CRS cut-off score due to his age.

After the resumption of EE draws in July 2022, the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) score has been on the higher end (above 500 points) in comparison to pre-pandemic levels, touching 557 on July 6th.

With high cut-off scores at the time, many like Carvalho were pessimistic and switched to another program called temporary resident to permanent resident program (TR to PR) to ensure they can stay in Canada as permanent residents.

“Now I turned 40, so I lost points. To be honest I don’t know what else I can say,” Carvalho said in an email to CTVNews.ca in August.

Rick Lamanna, director at Fragomen Canada, an immigration services provider, told CTVNews.ca in a phone interview that it can be frustrating for certain applicants waiting in the pool.

“They see themselves losing points every year because of these delays. They may have fewer points than they did a couple of years ago or even a year ago,” he said.

At first glance, age is not highlighted as a major criterion by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

But for certain programs—such as the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP) or Canadian Experience Class (CEC)— the importance of being young becomes quite explicit, especially for applicants touching the 40s threshold.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE POINT-BASED SYSTEM

Programs under EE include the FSWP, Federal Skilled Trades Program (FSTP), CEC, and a portion of the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP). An applicant needs to be eligible for one of the above to enter the EE pool of candidates.

Canadian employers typically rely on EE designed to attract highly skilled foreign workers through its programs that lead to permanent residency (PR) and among these, FSWP, and the CEC are popular—both of which consider age as one of the core/human capital factors.

Lamanna says, while age can drop the score of a CEC or FSWP candidate, other factors can help raise CRS scores.

“However,” he said, “It is very difficult. Because applicants in their 40s lose a lot of points on age relative to people in their 20s or 30s.”

CRS is a points-based system that scores a profile to rank applicants in the Express Entry pool. To get an invitation to apply (ITA), the candidate should meet a score above the CRS score.

The maximum score in CRS is 1200 and this evaluation is based on several characteristics such as level of education, English/French skills, and work experience. If an applicant doesn’t meet the CRS score in a specific draw, he/she has to upload their profile again to be considered for the next pool.

By design for economic immigrants given aging demographics:

Canada is credited for having one of the world’s most immigrant-friendly policies, ranking fourth internationally in the Migrant Integration Policy Index. But the criteria used to prioritize applicants based on age leaves many at a disadvantage, even though they might have the qualifications Canada is looking for.

With immigration backlogs and several technical glitches on the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) online portal during the pandemic, many have become ineligible for certain programs that consider age as a criterion.

When Pedro Carvalho arrived with his wife in 2017 from Brazil, the couple was in their 30s.

But after missing the Express Entry (EE) draw this year because of a technical glitch, Carvalho was skeptical about meeting the CRS cut-off score due to his age.

After the resumption of EE draws in July 2022, the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) score has been on the higher end (above 500 points) in comparison to pre-pandemic levels, touching 557 on July 6th.

With high cut-off scores at the time, many like Carvalho were pessimistic and switched to another program called temporary resident to permanent resident program (TR to PR) to ensure they can stay in Canada as permanent residents.

“Now I turned 40, so I lost points. To be honest I don’t know what else I can say,” Carvalho said in an email to CTVNews.ca in August.

Rick Lamanna, director at Fragomen Canada, an immigration services provider, told CTVNews.ca in a phone interview that it can be frustrating for certain applicants waiting in the pool.

“They see themselves losing points every year because of these delays. They may have fewer points than they did a couple of years ago or even a year ago,” he said.

At first glance, age is not highlighted as a major criterion by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

But for certain programs—such as the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP) or Canadian Experience Class (CEC)— the importance of being young becomes quite explicit, especially for applicants touching the 40s threshold.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE POINT-BASED SYSTEM

Programs under EE include the FSWP, Federal Skilled Trades Program (FSTP), CEC, and a portion of the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP). An applicant needs to be eligible for one of the above to enter the EE pool of candidates.

Canadian employers typically rely on EE designed to attract highly skilled foreign workers through its programs that lead to permanent residency (PR) and among these, FSWP, and the CEC are popular—both of which consider age as one of the core/human capital factors.

Lamanna says, while age can drop the score of a CEC or FSWP candidate, other factors can help raise CRS scores.

“However,” he said, “It is very difficult. Because applicants in their 40s lose a lot of points on age relative to people in their 20s or 30s.”

CRS is a points-based system that scores a profile to rank applicants in the Express Entry pool. To get an invitation to apply (ITA), the candidate should meet a score above the CRS score.

The maximum score in CRS is 1200 and this evaluation is based on several characteristics such as level of education, English/French skills, and work experience. If an applicant doesn’t meet the CRS score in a specific draw, he/she has to upload their profile again to be considered for the next pool.

POINT DROP FOR OLDER APPLICANTS

Under the CRS score, candidates can get a higher score if they are single and fall under the Express Entry category. However, the score falls dramatically for those above the age of 44. Canada’s comprehensive ranking system gives no points to those above 45 years of age.
Not only that, starting from the age of 40, the points reduce by 10 versus 5 before the age of 40. While a 29-year-old can get a maximum of 110 CRS points for age, an applicant of a similar caliber approaching their 30th birthday may see a sharp decline. By the time they reach 39, just 55 points are available, and by the time they reach 45, there are no points.

Under FSWP, the applicant’s age is worth 12 per cent of the overall selection criteria on the selection grid. The FAQ section makes it clear that someone over the age of 47 will not get any points under the Age factor of the CRS, but may get points on other factors such as job offer, skills, and language abilities.

DOES CANADA NEED YOUNG WORKERS?

Immigration has played a critical role in Canada’s economy, providing a relatively young stream of workers. More than 80% of the immigrants admitted in recent years have been under 45 years old.

According to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), young immigrants are generally much more educated than immigrants nearing retirement and this is true for those entering the labour force.

With an aging native-born labour force and low fertility rates (roughly 1.4 births per woman in 2020), an inflow of immigrants has become increasingly important for Canada. The country suffers a shortage of skilled workers despite attempts to attract immigrants. According to the data from Statistics Canada, immigrants account for a little over one-quarter of Canadian workers.

Recent census data from 2021 shows that people nearing retirement outnumber those who are too old to enter the labour market in Canada. Additionally, rural populations are also aging faster than those in urban areas – partially due to the lower influx of immigrants.

The Canadian population is seeing a big shift, with baby boomers getting older, according to a report by Statistics Canada. The shift will have significant consequences on the labour market, services to seniors, and the consumption of goods and services.

A recent Census report by Statistics Canada shows that young immigrants are helping boost numbers in Canada’s population growth. Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) were between 25 and 40 years old in 2021, and are already the fastest-growing generation. In Canada, their numbers rose 8.6 per cent between 2016 and 2021 due to immigration, according to the StatsCan report.

But when it comes to the age factor in economic immigration, Canada is not alone.

Australia has age as one of the selection criteria for permanent residency and the age of the applicant should be below 45 years to apply for a PR visa. Germany recently introduced its version of the “green card” (known as Chancenkarte) to meet the country’s growing labour shortage. Three of the four criteria to be considered for the program include that applicant is below the age of 35.

BUT TARGETED DRAWS IN 2023 COULD BE A GAMECHANGER

Lamanna says as 2023 approaches, applicants need to brace themselves for specified targeted draws, which are designed to address the labour shortage that Canada currently faces in certain sectors.

The recently passed Bill C-19 allows invitations to those applicants under Express Entry that support the regional economic needs. The training, education, experience, and responsibilities (TEER) system would allow IRCC to invite applicants based on occupation, language or education rather than the traditional CRS score.

“While the issue of age is currently important, a bigger issue will be what happens when targeted draws occur,” he said. If someone is not in the pool of that specific occupation type, then applicants may be left in limbo and these could include those with higher CRS scores.

Lamanna said provinces have more autonomy in selecting people in certain occupations to help employers in certain jurisdictions. There is a risk-reward to targeted draws. It helps meet the labour shortage in specific industries such as health care, manufacturing and construction.

“The risk is there are people in the queue who know that at some point, they will be selected as long as they meet the CRS score. But if a minister shifts to occupation-based selective selection process, then people may be left wondering when their turn will come next,” Lamanna said.

Source: Immigration ‘very difficult’ for applicants once they turn 40

Liz Truss plans more immigration in effort to fill vacancies and drive growth

Of note. More post-Brexit policy incoherence:

Liz Truss is preparing to increase immigration to fill job vacancies and boost economic growth in a move that will anger some of her ministers and MPs.

The prime minister plans to raise the number of workers allowed to enter the UK, government sources have confirmed.

Reports claim the government will lift the cap on seasonal agricultural workers and broadband engineers, and make other changes to the shortage occupations list, which will allow key sectors to recruit more overseas staff.

Truss is said to be keen to recruit broadband engineers to complete a pledge to make full-fibre broadband available to 85% of UK homes by 2025. It has also been suggested that she could ease the English-language requirement in some sectors to enable more foreign workers to qualify for visas.

The proposals faces resistance from cabinet Brexiters including the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and the trade secretary, Kemi Badenoch, according to the Sunday Times.

One Conservative MP said that many new Conservative voters in “red wall” seats will be baffled by any softening of immigration rules.

“The government is going to have to explain to those people who thought we were a pro-Brexit government and want to curb immigration why we seem to be changing tack,” the MP said.

Ministers are also discussing whether to allow in more highly educated workers from across the globe. This includes proposals for a new visa for workers who have graduated from one of the top 50 or top 100 global universities.

Two million UK job vacancies were advertised last month, with the social care sector trying to fill 105,000 posts. There is also a shortfall of 40,000 nurses and 100,000 HGV drivers, and the farming industry has called for an extra 30,000 visas for seasonal workers.

The Sunday Times said the Cabinet Office minister, Nadhim Zahawi, had chaired a meeting last week about the proposed changes. He is understood to be in favour of updating the shortage occupations list. The environment secretary, Ranil Jayawardena, is believed to be backing the plan to boost the number of seasonal farm workers.

Badenoch is opposing proposals for a “freedom of movement” agreement with the Indian government as part of a trade deal she is negotiating, it was reported.

The chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, announced on Friday that a new plan would be published in the coming weeks “to ensure the immigration system supports growth while maintaining control”.

Asked on Sunday if the government was prepared to relax immigration rules, he said Braverman would make an announcement soon.

“The home secretary would be making an update on immigration policy … she will be making that in the next few weeks,” he told BBC One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg.

The government pledged that a new immigration system would be introduced after leaving the EU, with ministers saying it would bring down overall levels.

There are almost 1.8 million non-EU nationals working in Britain, 302,000 more than a year ago, according to the Office for National Statistics. Home Office figures show the number of visas given to all workers, students and their relatives, both EU and non-EU, has risen by more than 80% in a year to more than 1.1m, the largest number on record.

Meanwhile, more than 30,000 people seeking refuge in the UK have crossed the Channel in small boats, government figures show.

Source: Liz Truss plans more immigration in effort to fill vacancies and drive growth

COVID-19 Immigration Effects – July 2022 update

A few changes to the standard deck of note. Monthly update delayed slightly given citizenship data delays.

I have removed the separate slide on Provincial Nominee Program admissions given that the admissions chart separates the economic class by federal and Provincial Nominee Program (can send those interested the data tables).

Given the large numbers of temporary residents, I have added charts (slides 27 and 30) comparing the changes by province for both IMP and TFWP, year-over-year, 2022 compared to 2020, and 2021 compared to 2018. With respect to the 2021 compared to 2018, the most notable increases have been in Atlantic Canada and Ontario for IMP, and Quebec and Atlantic Canada for TFWP.

These numbers are in the context of remaining high levels of processing backlogs for the vast majority of IRCC programs although some progress is being made.

July Permanent Residents admissions continue at over 40,000 per month with the greatest year-over-year increases for Provincial Nominee Program and refugees.

TR2PR transitions declined slightly compared to June, roughly accounting for 40 percent of all admissions (some double counting).

The greatest increase since 2020 for TRs/IMP continues to be with respect to Canadian Interests for for TRs/TFWP with respect to permits requiring a LMIA.

While International student permits have largely returned to seasonal patterns, the number of applications has increased the most compared to 2020.

The number of new citizens slightly declined to less than 30,000.

The number of visitor visas declined with once again, Ukrainians forming one-third of visas issued.