The Differential Impact of COVID-19 on Labour Market Outcomes of Immigrants in Canada

Another study on the differential impact of COVID on immigrants, recent and long-term, highlighting, as expected recent immigrants were most affected, followed by established immigrants. Conclusion below:

Our results indicate that the pandemic has had an obvious large adverse effect on a wide range of labour market outcomes for all workers in Canada. The adverse effects, however, have been particularly large for recent immigrants relative to the domestic-born as they experienced a disproportionately lower probability of being employed and of holding a full-time job, a higher probability of having only temporary work and substantially more unpaid overtime. When these disproportionate adverse effects for recent immigrants are added to the overall adverse effects for all workers, the magnitudes of the total adverse effects of the pandemic for immigrants are extremely large. The same applies to established immigrants. In essence, the overall workforce experienced substantial adverse effects of the pandemic, but those adverse effects were disproportionately large for recent and established immigrants.

Most of the effects of the pandemic were concentrated in the initial first wave as the shutdowns and social distancing forced consumers, employers, and workers to adjust immediately; however, recent immigrants continued to experience disproportionately negative labour market outcomes in later waves. Heterogeneous effects were also documented with greater adverse effects for recent immigrants relative to domestic-born who are women, who have child responsibilities and who are the less educated. Of particular note, recent immigrants working in occupations with greater exposure to COVID-risk reported increased employment and substantially more unpaid overtime than domestic-born during the pandemic.

The pandemic generally had different effects across the quantiles of the distribution of the outcomes for recent immigrants, relative to the domestic-born, with the differential adverse effects tending to be concentrated at the bottom of the outcome distributions. Although recent immigrants gain a small positive wage premium relative to the domestic-born at the bottom of the wage distribution, the benefits of this may be illusory if it reflects wage bonuses for COVID risks or low-wage workers more likely not to be employed. Recent immigrants at the bottom of the outcome distributions reported fewer weekly hours worked, fewer hours worked relative to scheduled hours, and more unpaid overtime than domestic-born workers. The hours differences could exacerbate inequality in hours worked between immigrants and the domestic-born for those working in precarious arrangement (i.e., few hours, large scheduling uncertainty, and more unpaid overtime hours).

While hazardous to suggest policy implications from such an unanticipated and still unfolding event as the pandemic, a number of policy considerations merit attention. The disproportionate adverse effect of the pandemic on more vulnerable disadvantaged recent immigrants (e.g., women, less educated, low-wage, those with childcare responsibilities and high exposure to COVID risk) should be recognized, and targeted rather than applying “one-size fits all” initiatives.8 Koebel et al. (2021), for example, argue that a basic income guarantee targeted toward low-income workers, in combination with Canada’s pre-existing Employment Insurance program, would have produced better employment and public health outcomes than the less targeted combination of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy that were used. Qian and Fuller (2020) emphasise the importance of enhanced child-care arrangements given the disproportionate adverse effect on women with child-care responsibilities.

Immigrants tend to face barriers in having their foreign credentials recognized and in acquiring occupational licenses and the associated wage gains that are disproportionately large for them (Gomez et al. 2015). Removing such barriers and relaxing occupational licensing restrictions can be a targeted initiative for immigrants (Gomez et al. 2015). The fact that the adverse effects tended to occur early in the pandemic highlights the importance of early intervention and having a playbook in place to facilitate an early response. Elements of a playbook for labour policy include: having a first-responder labour policy team in place; determining early the novel versus permanent nature of the shock; acting quickly but flexibly to make mid-course corrections if necessary; keeping people in their existing jobs to preserve firm-specific human capital; balancing active labour market policy versus passive income support; co-ordinating with other departments and jurisdictions; anticipating conflicts; and planning for the recovery with an exit strategy (Gunderson 2020). Lessons from this pandemic as well as previous shocks can be invaluable for preparing for future shocks.

Source: The Differential Impact of COVID-19 on Labour Market Outcomes of Immigrants in Canada

Lien entre immigration et valeurs: Legault admet avoir manqué de prudence

Of note. An innocent gaffe or one that reveals his thinking?

Le chef caquiste, François Legault, a reconnu jeudi qu’il a manqué de prudence en faisant le lien entre l’immigration et les valeurs québécoises, au lendemain d’une déclaration qui a semé la controverse.

Lors d’un point de presse, M. Legault est revenu sur ses propos de la veille, qui ont plongé sa campagne dans l’embarras.

« Je ne suis pas parfait, a-t-il concédé. Tous les États dans le monde ont un défi d’intégration aux valeurs du pays ou de l’État qui reçoit. Maintenant, il ne faut pas nommer quelles valeurs parce que ça pourrait créer un amalgame. Effectivement, je n’aurais pas dû nommer de valeurs. »

Mercredi, François Legault avait justifié la décision de son parti de maintenir le nombre d’immigrants reçus à 50 000 personnes en faisant valoir que les défis posés par l’intégration pourraient compromettre certaines valeurs québécoises.

Il avait notamment mentionné le pacifisme et la laïcité, ajoutant que les Québécois n’aiment pas la violence ni l’extrémisme. Ces paroles ont été dénoncées par ses adversaires, qui y ont vu un dérapage et un amalgame dangereux.

Sujet délicat

Jeudi, M. Legault a affirmé qu’il aurait dû limiter son propos aux défis que pose l’intégration des immigrants en ce qui concerne la langue française.

« J’ai répondu aux questions sur les valeurs alors que c’est un sujet délicat que je devrais éviter, a-t-il dit. Mais quand on parle de langue, je pense que c’est une question fondamentale pour l’avenir de la nation québécoise. »

Dès le début de son point de presse, M. Legault a abordé la controverse soulevée par ses propos, qui l’ont forcé à se rétracter en fin de journée mercredi.

« Je n’ai jamais voulu associer l’immigration et la violence, a-t-il dit. Maintenant, ce que j’ai voulu dire, c’est que tous les États dans le monde ont un défi d’intégrer les nouveaux arrivants à leurs valeurs et à leur langue. Mais au Québec, c’est un défi particulier à cause de la situation de la langue en Amérique du Nord. C’est tout ce que j’ai voulu dire. »

Anglade rejette les excuses

La cheffe libérale, Dominique Anglade, a rejeté jeudi les excuses de M. Legault, qu’elle a accusé de perpétuer des préjugés. Elle a fait référence aux propos du chef caquiste au printemps, quand il a réclamé de nouveaux pouvoirs en immigration pour éviter au Québec d’être la prochaine « Louisiane ».

« Je ne le crois pas parce que c’est lui-même qui nous a entretenus de la question de la Louisiane et des enjeux de l’immigration, que c’était un problème, qu’il faut faire attention, a-t-elle dit. C’est lui qui entretient ça, et là, ce qu’on voit, c’est la véritable face de François Legault. »

Mettant en avant les valeurs d’inclusion et d’ouverture du Parti libéral du Québec, Mme Anglade a maintenu que M. Legault avait fait le lien entre l’immigration et la violence.

« François Legault a livré le fond de sa pensée, a-t-elle soutenu. L’autre, celui qui n’est pas comme nous, il peut être dangereux. Ça, ça continue à alimenter les préjugés. On n’a pas besoin de ça au Québec. »

Après avoir fait de l’économie l’enjeu principal de ces élections, Mme Anglade a affirmé que le scrutin se jouera aussi sur les questions de division ou d’inclusion.

« Nous, on a des valeurs d’inclusion, on a des valeurs de véritable développement économique moderne », a-t-elle dit.

Excuses publiques

Même si François Legault a corrigé le tir mercredi sur le réseau social Twitter en disant ne pas avoir « voulu associer l’immigration à la violence », le co-porte-parole de Québec solidaire Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois estime qu’il doit « s’excuser publiquement ». Le chef caquiste doit « répondre aux questions », a-t-il ajouté.

Ce sont « des déclarations qui alimentent les préjugés et détériorent le climat social », a-t-il souligné, en marge d’une annonce en habitation. M. Nadeau-Dubois a appelé le chef de la Coalition avenir Québec à considérer les immigrants comme des « êtres humains en chair et en os » et non comme des chiffres et des statistiques.

De son côté, le chef péquiste, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, a voulu se placer au-dessus de la mêlée.

« Dans l’ensemble, c’étaient vraisemblablement des propos inappropriés, a-t-il dit. Mais il s’est excusé. Donc, j’en prends acte. J’invite tout le monde à mener une campagne axée sur l’avenir, mais qui a le potentiel de rassembler. »

Source: Lien entre immigration et valeurs: Legault admet avoir manqué de prudence

David: Les pommes québécoises et les oranges suisses [immigration], Yakabuski: In Quebec, immigration takes centre stage again on the campaign trail

More on Quebec election immigration debates, starting with Michel Davidd:

François Legault a cette fâcheuse habitude de prendre des raccourcis intellectuels qui déforment la réalité à sa convenance, comme il le fait presque quotidiennement dans le dossier du troisième lien.

Pour justifier sa décision de limiter le nombre d’immigrants à 50 000 par année alors que le gouvernement Trudeau prévoit en accueillir jusqu’à 450 000 pour l’ensemble du Canada, le chef de la CAQ a fait valoir les avantages des petits pays comme la Suisse et les États scandinaves.

Personne ne doute de leur extraordinaire réussite dans une multitude de domaines où une population plus nombreuse peut compliquer les choses. Il est clair que la taille n’est aucunement un gage de richesse ou de qualité de vie.

M. Legault sait cependant très bien qu’il compare des pommes et des oranges quand il établit un parallèle entre des États qui détiennent tous les attributs de la souveraineté et une simple province dont les pouvoirs sont limités, notamment en matière d’immigration. Que leur voisin allemand ouvre les vannes de l’immigration n’empêche en rien la Suisse ou le Danemark de fixer leurs propres règles sans provoquer chez eux un quelconque déséquilibre démographique ou politique.

Il va de soi qu’une explosion du nombre d’immigrants au Canada anglais, alors que le Québec choisit de le limiter, ne peut qu’affaiblir son poids au sein de la fédération et rendre encore plus difficile sa capacité d’affirmer sa différence.

Et suivre le mouvement canadien, ce qui imposerait au Québec d’accueillir 100 000 immigrants par année, compromettrait encore plus sûrement son caractère français, dont les chiffres du dernier recensement ont encore démontré la fragilité.
* * * * * 
Même dans un État souverain, la capacité d’intégration des nouveaux arrivants a ses limites. En avril dernier, la première ministre suédoise, Magdalena Andersson, déclarait que son pays « n’avait pas réussi à intégrer les nombreux immigrés qu’il a accueillis au cours des deux dernières décennies, ce qui a donné naissance à des sociétés parallèles et à la violence des gangs ».

Issue du Parti social-démocrate, Mme Andersson n’est pourtant pas une politicienne de droite adepte de la théorie complotiste du « grand remplacement ». La Suède s’est montrée très généreuse — peut-être trop — lors de la crise migratoire de 2015, en étant le pays européen à accueillir le plus grand nombre de migrants par habitant. « Nous allons devoir revoir nos vérités antérieures et prendre des décisions difficiles », a relevé la première ministre.

Le Québec n’est évidemment pas seul à tenter de concilier le désir de préserver son identité et la nécessité de répondre aux besoins du marché du travail. Au
Danemark, également dirigé par une première ministre sociale-démocrate, Mette Frederiksen, une politique migratoire très restrictive se traduit par un taux de chômage très bas et un manque criant de main-d’oeuvre.
* * * * * 
S’il est difficile pour un État souverain de trouver le juste équilibre, cela devient pratiquement impossible pour le gouvernement qui ne dispose pas de tous les éléments pour résoudre l’équation.

Il y a quelque chose de surréaliste dans le débat sur les seuils d’immigration auquel la présente campagne électorale donne lieu. Chaque parti semble tirer un chiffre de son chapeau, bien qu’il n’ait aucun pouvoir sur la sélection de la moitié de ceux qu’il compte accueillir et ne soit pas en mesure d’évaluer la capacité d’intégration de la société québécoise.

Au-delà de la « compatibilité civilisationnelle » évoquée par le Parti conservateur du Québec, il va de soi qu’un plus grand nombre de personnes exige plus de logements, de places en garderie, de travailleurs de la santé, d’enseignants, etc. Ce qui exige précisément de disposer de tous les outils nécessaires.

Le rapatriement des pouvoirs en matière d’immigration est la seule réclamation commune aux cinq partis, qu’ils soient fédéralistes ou souverainistes. Mais le refus d’Ottawa demeure toujours aussi catégorique.

Jean Charest avait espéré que Stephen Harper fasse preuve d’ouverture. François Legault avait misé sans trop y croire sur Andrew Scheer, puis sur Erin O’Toole. S’il devient premier ministre, Éric Duhaime se fait fort de convaincre Pierre Poilievre et ses homologues conservateurs au Canada anglais. Cela demeure bien hypothétique, c’est le moins qu’on puisse dire.

De passage à la table éditoriale du Devoir, mardi, le chef conservateur a proposé une démarche commune de tous les partis représentés à l’Assemblée nationale, ce qui apparaît déjà plus plausible, sans toutefois offrir la moindre garantie de succès.

Depuis le début de la campagne, M. Legault n’a pas reparlé de la grande conversation nationale sur l’immigration qu’il avait évoquée au printemps dernier sans en préciser la forme, mais il faudra bien faire quelque chose. Si cet exercice pouvait simplement permettre de séparer les pommes et les oranges, ce serait déjà quelque chose.

Source: Les pommes québécoises et les oranges suisses

And from the Globe’s Yakabuski, a good overview:

It wouldn’t be an election campaign in Quebec without a debate about immigration.

Elsewhere in the country, elections come and go without much talk about immigration. A broad consensus exists on the topic across the political spectrum and political parties rarely, if ever, seek to differentiate themselves on the issue. That, it seems, is the Canadian way.

In Quebec, however, immigration has become a hot-button issue that features prominently in party platforms. The issue played a determining role in the 2018 campaign as the Coalition Avenir Québec’s signature promise to slash the number of newcomers the province accepts each year propelled it to victory over the Quebec Liberal Party. Under then-premier Philippe Couillard, the Liberals had set an annual target of 60,000 permanent residents; the CAQ, under François Legault, vowed to cut the number to 40,000. It crushed the Liberals.

Within a couple of years, though, the CAQ government increased its annual target for new permanent residents – to 50,000 – and oversaw an explosion in temporary foreign workers to help alleviate a severe labour shortage amid a clamouring for employees from the business sector. The somewhat ironic result is that Quebec has seen a greater influx of foreigners under the CAQ – to more than 93,000 in 2019 and 100,000 expected this year – than it ever did under the Liberals. Proof that there is a lot more than meets the eye on the immigration file.

The nuances get lost on the campaign trail, however, as the parties once again go at each other over immigration levels in advance of the Oct. 3 provincial election.

Mr. Legault maintains that the CAQ’s 50,000 cap on permanent residents represents the number of newcomers the province can integrate each year without threatening its French character. On Monday, he conceded that Quebec’s population is destined to continue to decline as a share of the Canadian population as Ottawa boosts national immigration targets to 450,000 permanent residents in 2024. But that is the price Quebec must pay to remain an island of French in North America.

Besides, small is beautiful. “Switzerland is an extraordinarily rich, and extraordinarily dynamic, small country,” Mr. Legault said. “Being big might be nice, but what’s important is having a [high] quality of life for the people who live in Quebec.”

But maintaining Quebeckers’ quality of life will become an increasing challenge as the province’s working-age population shrinks and the proportion of seniors rises to 24.8 per cent in 2030 from 20.3 per cent in 2021, according to the Quebec Finance Ministry’s own projections. With a population aging faster than the rest of the country outside Atlantic Canada, future economic growth will be severely handicapped.

That reality has not stopped the sovereigntist Parti Québécois from vowing to cut immigration levels further – to 35,000 permanent residents annually, or less than 8 per cent of the Canadian total – if it wins on Oct. 3. At that rate, Quebec’s share of Canada’s population (which now stands at 22.5 per cent) would likely plummet even more rapidly than it is forecast to fall under Statistics Canada’s most recent projections, which show it falling to 19.8 per cent by 2043.

To back up his plan, Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon has referred to a study produced this year for the Quebec Ministry of Immigration by economist Pierre Fortin that disputes the argument that higher immigration levels are needed to address labour shortages as “a big fallacy,” since an influx of newcomers creates demand in the economy that serves to exacerbate shortages for workers, housing and health care.

Prof. Fortin’s study is especially critical of Ottawa’s immigration targets, arguing they will lead to “bureaucratic congestion and confusion,” produce scarce economic benefits, and increase the “social risk of stoking xenophobia and encouraging a rejection of immigration.”

Under leader Dominique Anglade, the Liberals are proposing to boost the number of permanent residents Quebec accepts to 70,000 in 2023. It would determine immigration levels beyond that year in conjunction with the province’s 17 regions in a bid to get more newcomers to locate outside the greater Montreal area.

The far-left Québec Solidaire has adopted the most ambitious immigration targets of all the parties, promising to welcome up to 80,000 permanent residents to the province annually. That would still not be enough for Quebec’s population growth to keep pace with the rest of Canada, but the figure clearly sets QS apart as the most unabashedly pro-immigration party in this election campaign.

When the CAQ leader challenged QS co-spokesperson (and de facto leader) Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois to explain how his party would slow the decline of French in Quebec with such high immigration levels, he responded with a zinger: “The difference between Mr. Legault and me is that he points fingers and I open my arms.”

Source: Opinion: In Quebec, immigration takes centre stage again on the campaign trail

Ontario gives OK for nursing college to expedite international nurse registration

Encouraging:

Ontario’s minister of health has told the province’s nursing college to go ahead with regulatory changes that could get thousands more internationally trained nurses into practice more quickly.

Sylvia Jones directed the College of Nurses of Ontario last month to develop plans to more quickly register internationally educated professionals as staffing shortages have led to temporary emergency department closures across the province.

Among the college’s proposals was allowing internationally trained nurses to be temporarily registered while they go through the process of full registration, such as completing education and an exam.

It also proposed to make it easier for about 5,300 non-practising nurses living in Ontario to return to the workforce, if they want to. Current rules say a nurse must have practised within the last three years to be reinstated, but that could be removed.

Jones has now told the college to draft those amendments to regulations right away.

“It is my expectation that should these amendments be approved by the government, that the college will immediately begin registering both (internationally educated nurses) and other applicants who will benefit from these changes,” she wrote to them in a letter obtained by The Canadian Press.

The college has said the changes could potentially help the 5,970 active international applicants currently living in Ontario, but Jones has asked the regulator specifically how many nurses it expects will benefit.

The nursing college had also said that with temporary registrations, it could change rules to only revoke a temporary certificate after two failed exam attempts, instead of the one attempt nurses are currently allowed. On that measure, the ministry said it will rely on the college’s expertise about what exactly should be included in the regulatory amendments it is now drafting.

Temporarily registered nurses have to be monitored by a registered practical nurse, a registered nurse or a nurse practitioner.

Jones has also given approval to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for it to create a temporary, three-month registration for physicians licensed in other provinces.

That college had also highlighted for the minister a need for practice ready assessments, which would allow internationally educated physicians to be rapidly assessed over a 12-week period of supervision and direct observation. Such programs are already used in seven other provinces and are designed to deploy physicians to underserved communities and provide a path to licensing, the college wrote to the minister.

“CPSO urges government to take immediate steps to implement a PRA program for Ontario,” it wrote.

“With government funding and co-ordination among key system partners, a program could be implemented immediately and begin injecting a new supply of (internationally educated physicians) into the system as early as spring 2023 and onwards.”

Jones responded that the ministry is “looking carefully at the concept.”

Source: Ontario gives OK for nursing college to expedite international nurse registration

Dutrisac: Bataille de chiffres

More on the battle of immigration numbers in the Quebec election, with Dutrisac arguing in favour of the CAQ’s restrained approach:

En matière d’immigration, c’est la ronde des chiffres qui s’est invitée en campagne électorale. Trois partis — Québec solidaire, le Parti québécois et le Parti conservateur du Québec — ont précisé quels sont les seuils d’immigration qu’ils préconisent, tandis que la Coalition avenir Québec et Parti libéral du Québec ont confirmé la position qu’ils ont déjà fait connaître.

Du côté de la CAQ, François Legault n’a pas fait mentir son slogan de campagne « Continuons ». Sans surprise, le chef caquiste a réitéré que le gouvernement qu’il formerait s’en tiendrait au nombre de quelque 50 000 immigrants par an. Malgré sa proximité avec le monde des affaires, il n’entend pas céder au lobby du Conseil du patronat du Québec, qui réclame que ce seuil soit augmenté à 80 000 lors du prochain mandat et à 100 000 par la suite.

C’est paradoxalement QS qui s’approche le plus des préférences du patronat en proposant une cible maximum de 80 000 immigrants par an. Le PLQ n’est pas très loin, avançant le chiffre de 70 000 dans le but de contrer les pénuries de main-d’oeuvre.

À l’autre bout du spectre, le PQ propose de réduire à 35 000 le seuil, soit celui qui prévalait avant le régime de Jean Charest, relevant que le déclin du français s’est amorcé quand le nombre d’immigrants admis est passé à 50 000 par an. Le PQ a le mérite de signaler l’enjeu de l’immigration temporaire, notamment l’afflux d’étudiants étrangers dans les universités anglophones, un phénomène encouragé par Ottawa qui bloque l’entrée d’étudiants africains francophones dans nos cégeps et universités.

Avec un seuil élevé, QS prétend prendre le parti de la vertu, en communion avec la politique migratoire expansionniste du gouvernement Trudeau et sa vision postnationale. Plus le nombre d’immigrants qu’un parti promet d’accueillir est important, plus il peut se targuer de favoriser l’ouverture à ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler la diversité. La grandeur d’âme serait fonction de la grosseur du nombre.

Si l’immigration doit faire partie des moyens pour répondre aux pénuries de travailleurs dont souffrent les entreprises en particulier, elle fait augmenter la demande de main-d’oeuvre pour l’ensemble de l’économie. On n’a qu’à regarder la situation en Ontario et écouter son premier ministre, Doug Ford, se plaindre de la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre, même si la province, participant allègrement à la politique fédérale d’accueillir bientôt 451 000 immigrants par an, en reçoit quatre fois plus que le Québec.

Sur le plan de l’enrichissement, les économistes qui se sont penchés sur la question ont conclu que, bien que l’immigration forcément fasse croître l’économie, elle a peu d’effets sur le niveau de vie des gens ; elle influe peu sur le produit intérieur brut par habitant. Ces études donnent raison à François Legault, qui a rappelé le sort enviable des petits pays comme la Suisse, la Suède ou le Danemark. Il serait illusoire de tenter de suivre l’exemple du Canada, dont on peut douter du bon sens de sa frénésie migratoire. Même si cette politique, à laquelle le Québec n’a pas souscrit, a pour conséquence de réduire son poids démographique et politique au sein de la fédération, la grenouille que nous sommes n’a pas intérêt à devenir plus grosse que le boeuf. Et nous verrons à quelle réflexion collective cette évolution néfaste nous conduira.

Les mérites de l’immigration à un niveau soutenable ne reposent pas sur des arguments économiques. Des considérations humanitaires interviennent, mais il s’agit surtout de poursuivre l’aventure de la nation québécoise avec des gens venus d’ailleurs qui veulent y participer, et ainsi l’enrichir. C’est un moyen de faire rayonner le Québec de l’intérieur, pour ainsi dire, de mettre en valeur sa culture, sa société, en français. La question est là, à savoir si cet épanouissement est possible dans le contexte canadien ou si c’est l’insignifiance folklorique et la lente assimilation qui nous attendent.

Source: Bataille de chiffres

Legault veut que le Québec reste petit

A more substantive debate over immigration than in the rest of Canada where a consensus for “more” exists across federal and provincial governments along with business and other stakeholders.

Refreshing to have a “small is better” voice, not just the questionable “big is better”. Questioning immigration levels and the impact on infrastructure and services is not necessarily xenophobic.

But the disconnect between a relative decline in Quebec’s population compared to the rest of Canada will prompt legitimate calls for a reduced percentage of federal Quebec ridings and in the medium-term, greater political reluctance to remain at the current level of 78 seats:

Le chef de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ), François Legault, a fait l’apologie de petits pays comme la Suisse et les États scandinaves, lundi, pour justifier sa décision de ne pas hausser les seuils d’immigration.

M. Legault a donné ces exemples, alors que ses adversaires ont pris des positions diamétralement opposées, à la suite d’une annonce du Parti québécois (PQ) favorable à la réduction du nombre de nouveaux arrivants à 35 000 par année.

Lors d’un point de presse en Outaouais, le chef caquiste a expliqué pourquoi il veut maintenir ce seuil à 50 000 personnes, malgré les appels à le hausser pour répondre à la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre.

Il ne s’est pas inquiété de la perspective que le poids démographique du Québec diminue au sein de la fédération canadienne, à défaut d’augmenter le nombre d’immigrants.

« La Suisse, c’est un petit pays extraordinairement riche, extraordinairement dynamique, a-t-il déclaré. Prenez les pays scandinaves : petits pays extrêmement riches, extrêmement dynamiques. Être gros, ça peut être beau, mais ce qui est important, c’est d’avoir une qualité de vie pour les personnes qui habitent au Québec. »

Pragmatisme

M. Legault a répété qu’au nombre actuel, le Québec reçoit déjà, toutes proportions gardées, plus d’immigrants que les États-Unis ou la France.

« On est 8,6 millions d’habitants, je pense que c’est une taille qui permet quand même d’offrir des services de qualité », a-t-il dit.

Le chef caquiste s’est félicité une nouvelle fois du fait qu’avec la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre, les travailleurs aient « le gros bout du bâton » pour exiger de meilleures conditions et de meilleurs salaires.

M. Legault a vanté le pragmatisme de sa position sur l’immigration, qu’il justifie également par l’importance de mieux favoriser l’intégration des immigrants, pour la protection du français.

Il a critiqué le PLQ, qui veut hausser le seuil à 70 000 et le PQ qui veut le baisser.

« Il y a un parti pour qui c’est pas important, la défense du français, et un parti pour qui c’est pas important, la croissance économique, a-t-il dit. Nous, on est équilibrés entre les deux. On n’est pas à 70 000, on n’est pas à 35 000, on est à 50 000. »

Réduction

Lundi, le PQ a proposé de réduire le seuil d’immigration à 35 000 personnes par année pour tenir compte de la capacité d’accueil du Québec et protéger la langue et la culture québécoises.

À Lévis, le chef péquiste, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, a affirmé que, contrairement aux discours véhiculés par certains de ses adversaires, l’immigration ne règle pas la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre. Selon le chef péquiste, l’immigration a même le potentiel de l’accroître.

Les nouveaux arrivants ont besoin de services, ce qui exerce une pression sur la société d’accueil, affirme M. St-Pierre Plamondon.

« Le travail d’une personne à 40 heures par semaine, lorsqu’on le compare à sa consommation et au travail ce que ça nécessite, ça s’équivaut pas mal, a-t-il dit. Lorsqu’on regarde les analyses macroéconomiques, c’est faux de dire que des seuils d’immigration élevés vont combler la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre. »

Cette réalité est d’autant plus contraignante avec des pénuries d’enseignants et de personnel dans le réseau de la santé, a souligné le chef péquiste.

« On est dans une crise du logement, on a des pénuries d’enseignants et de médecins, donc notre capacité d’accueil, elle est moindre, elle est changée. »

Le PQ ciblera aussi la régionalisation de 50 % des nouveaux arrivants, avec une « voie rapide » pour celles et ceux qui s’engagent à s’installer en région et des incitatifs financiers pour qu’ils s’y installent.

Le pouvoir aux régions

La cheffe libérale, Dominique Anglade, qui a fait de la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre son cheval de bataille, a déclaré lundi que la régionalisation de l’immigration est la meilleure façon de franciser de manière plus rapide les nouveaux Québécois.

« Dans les régions, on a moins d’enjeux en matière d’intégration par rapport à la langue française, a-t-elle dit. S’ils vont dans les régions, il y a une accélération qui se fait. »

Comme cela a été annoncé dans son programme électoral, le Parti libéral du Québec (PLQ) veut donner aux régions le pouvoir de déterminer leurs besoins en immigration.

« On part avec 70 000 personnes, après ce sera déterminé par les régions. Il se peut que ce soit plus, il se peut que ce soit moins. Chacune des régions sera capable de nous dire la capacité d’accueil. »

Statu quo

De passage à Québec, le chef du Parti conservateur du Québec (PCQ), Éric Duhaime, a affirmé que le seuil de 50 000 immigrants par année est « acceptable ».

Selon M. Duhaime, l’immigration fait partie de la solution pour contrer la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre, mais ce n’est pas suffisant. Un nouvel arrivant qui aura besoin d’une garderie pour ses enfants ou un nouveau logement « va générer un besoin de travailleurs », a fait valoir le chef conservateur.

« Pour nous, le vrai débat est davantage : est-ce que ces gens-là vont travailler et est-ce que ces gens-là vont parler français », a-t-il dit, en marge d’un point de presse.

M. Duhaime a expliqué qu’il faut choisir les nouveaux arrivants en s’assurant qu’ils sont en accord avec les « valeurs du Québec ».

Québec solidaire, qui veut augmenter le seuil à 80 000 immigrants par année, a insisté lundi sur la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre et sur la possibilité de franciser les nouveaux arrivants dans les milieux de travail.

« Dire à quelqu’un qui a une ou deux jobs d’aller prendre un cours de français le mercredi soir, ça ne marchera pas », a dit le porte-parole de Québec solidaire, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois.

Source: Legault veut que le Québec reste petit

ICYMI: Hongkongers are coming to Canada by the thousands. Some fear they won’t be able to stay

Of note. Strong case for flexibility:

It was through pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong in 2019 that the couple met and eventually started their life together.

Now, they fear they’ll be imprisoned if they return.

The two have been living in Ontario for more than a year, thanks to an open work permit program that Canada started last year, specifically for Hong Kong residents.

But with the program needing to be renewed in February, the pair say they’re worried there is no pathway for them and others in their situation to remain in Canada once their work permit expires in 2024.

They’re hoping the Canadian government will extend their stay.

“We are lucky we were not both arrested,” said the 28-year-old woman of their time in Hong Kong. The couple requested anonymity due to concerns about their safety should they have to return.

“We were marked by the Hong Kong police already,” she said, explaining the police “marked” their identifications when they were caught putting up pro-democracy posters once.

Legislators are among those joining the chorus now asking the federal government to extend and expand the program in question. According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, about 12,800 people had been granted work permits through the program as of June 30.

The pressure comes as increasing numbers of Hongkongers are looking to get out of that city due to concerns about the government’s curtailing of civil liberties — with Canada being one of the favoured destinations.

Hong Kong residents have used the open-work permit to get out of the city as the local government enacts the will of the Chinese Communist Party by arresting pro-democracy activists.

Since the National Security Law was imposed by Beijing in 2020, hundreds of democracy activists have been arrested. Thousands of residents have left Hong Kong, heading to a variety of destinations, including the United Kingdom and Australia.

Figures provided by IRCC show a massive increase in the number of people applying to come to Canada via various streams, including study permits and work permits, since Beijing’s grip began tightening on Hong Kong.

From 2016 to 2021, applications ballooned from almost 6,000 to more than 29,000a year. As of June of this year, 18,000 applications had been received.

Canada’s work permit offered some Hong Kong residents a “lifeline.”

The couple that spoke to the Star applied for the program the day after they were married. Only one of them was eligible thanks to a job offer from an Ontario boutique. It was the only way they could both leave Hong Kong quickly and safely, they say, and they arrived in Canada in July 2021.

Other streams of the program aren’t an option for them now.

The open work permit requires the applicant to have graduated from post-secondary within five years of applying. The woman cannot apply for a stream that would give her a path to permanent residency because that five-year period has subsequently passed for her. Her husband did not attend a post-secondary institution.

“We are eligible for the work permit, but we are not eligible for the permanent residence,” the woman said, “this is kind of ironic.”

Advocates for Hong Kong democracy activists say Canada should extend current permits and expand the program so that more potential targets of the Hong Kong authorities can find refuge in Canada.

Katherine Leung of Hong Kong Watch says she is concerned there doesn’t seem to be a plan in place for when the program expires in February of next year.

“If it’s not extended, the scheme ends,” Leung said.

Meanwhile, there are still many hoping to get out of Hong Kong, and the program’s requirements are too narrow, particularly the requirement to have graduated within five years, critics say.

Though other countries have programs of their own meant to help Hongkongers, Leung said many residents of the city have no program they can access to leave.

“A lot of those facing charges for protest-related offences do not qualify for the scheme,” she said. “Often these are normal people who have contributed a lot to the pro-democracy movement.”

Last month, 19 MPs and senators signed a letter asking Ottawa to expand the open work permit. The letter also suggested adding a “human rights defender” category to the scheme. It urged giving those using the program access to the same mental health and career training as other refugees.

Toronto-area Liberal MP John McKay signed the letter.

“These folks could use a few visa breaks,” McKay said. “These people have been tremendous assets to the country.”

He said under the current environment it’s hard to imagine the Canadian government won’t act to help those seeking refuge through the program.

In a response to whether the program will be expanded, IRCC told the Star it is monitoring the situation.

Also monitoring the situation is the young couple who sacrificed the life they knew to fight the rise of authoritarianism in Hong Kong.

Relieved and grateful to have been granted a lifeline to Canada, they say they now only want to stay.

“We are not planning to go back anymore,” the woman said. “We don’t want to be in prison.”

Source: Hongkongers are coming to Canada by the thousands. Some fear they won’t be able to stay

Ibbitson: Will Trudeau’s Liberal government open the door to at-risk Uyghurs?

Should be an easy decision to make:

This autumn, the House of Commons will debate a motion from Liberal MP Sameer Zuberi calling on the federal government to accept 10,000 Uyghur refugees who have fled China but are at risk of being deported back, where they would face severe persecution.

That motion achieved greater urgency with the arrival of a United Nations report on Wednesday that states the Chinese government may be guilty of crimes against humanity in its treatment of Uyghurs and other minorities.

The question is whether Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals government will act to protect Uyghurs at risk. On Thursday, the government was sending mixed signals.

Mr. Zuberi put forward the motion, which calls on the federal government “to expedite the entry of 10,000 Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in need of protection, over two years starting in 2024 into Canada.”

Motions, if passed, are not binding on the government, but they do represent the will of the House.

“Not only are you dealing with extremely vulnerable people, you are also dealing with the compounding issue of genocide,” Mr. Zuberi told me. “The UN report shows how immediate and concrete action on the part of governments is urgently needed.”

The report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights does not use the word “genocide.” But its findings are damning. “Serious human rights violations have been committed” in Xinjiang, concludes outgoing commissioner Michelle Bachelet, that “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”

These crimes include arbitrary detention, torture, forced medical treatment, sexual offences, forced birth control, forced labour, suppression of religious freedom and family separations.

“We’ve known about these crimes against humanity for quite a number of years,” said Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, who is a senior fellow at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

“Now we have detailed documentation of the crimes, and official confirmation that all of this is happening.” She urged the federal government to swiftly launch a program that would bring government-sponsored Uyghurs into Canada. “I don’t believe they need to wait until 2024.”

But when the House unanimously declared last year that “a genocide is currently being carried out by the People’s Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims,” Mr. Trudeau and most of the cabinet stayed away from the vote. Marc Garneau, then foreign affairs minister, abstained, “on behalf of the government of Canada.”

The Trudeau government walks a fine line in its relations with Beijing. It banned the Chinese company Huawei Technologies from participating in the rollout of Canada’s 5G network, but that came long after allied countries made the same decision.

The government is planning new legislation to toughen the rules banning the import of goods produced through forced labour, but we lag behind other countries.

In that context, Thursday was typical. Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly issued a strong statement of support for the UN report. “The release of this much-anticipated report was critical,” it said. “The findings reflect the credible accounts of grave human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang. This report makes an important contribution to the mounting evidence of serious, systemic human rights abuses and violations occurring in Xinjiang.”

However, a statement sent to me by Aiden Strickland, press secretary to Immigration Minister Sean Fraser, was far more cautious. “The safety of Uyghur refugees is a high priority,” Ms. Strickland said. “However, we are not in a position to comment more specifically at this time as it could put this vulnerable population at risk.”

The statement made no mention of the UN report.

Few nations can match Canada’s record for swift action to rescue people at risk. More than 70,000 Ukrainians have arrived in Canada in the past six months; we brought in 25,000 Syrians displaced by civil war seven years ago; and while we have settled fewer than half of 40,000 Afghans at risk that we promised to bring in, at least the commitment is there.

Canada could easily absorb 10,000 Uyghur refugees. And we wouldn’t need to wait until 2024 to bring them here. We could do it right now, and we should.

Let’s hope the House strongly affirms Mr. Zuberi’s motion. Better yet, let’s hope the Trudeau comes to the help of Uyghurs, even if it does offend the regime in Beijing.

Source: Will Trudeau’s Liberal government open the door to at-risk Uyghurs?

ICYMI: Yakabuski: Can Canada handle its coming population boom?

Valid question. Alternative question: Is the coming population boom good for Canada and Canadians?

The latest projections from Statistics Canada show that Canada’s population is poised to grow much faster over the next two decades than the federal agency forecast just three years ago, suggesting any downturn in the country’s housing market is likely to be short-lived.

Indeed, the revised Statscan figures released last week underscore the need for policy makers to clear the way for more housing and infrastructure projects now to accommodate a fast-growing national population that is projected to increase by around 10 million people by 2043.

Statscan normally updates its population projections every five years. But the agency undertook a “necessary” revision of its 2019 projections this year “to reflect recent developments in Canadian demographics,” including the pandemic and Ottawa’s move to increase immigration targets. While the longer-term impact of the pandemic on population growth is expected to be “rather imperceptible,” the opposite is true for the higher immigration levels.

In February, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government announced plans to boost immigration levels “to help the Canadian economy recover and to fuel post-pandemic growth,” following a sharp drop in the number of newcomers arriving in Canada in 2020. Immigration rebounded in 2021, with a record 405,332 new permanent residents arriving here. And Canada is set to welcome about 432,000 new permanent residents this year, 447,000 in 2023 and 451,000 in 2024.

National Bank of Canada economists Matthieu Arseneau and Alexandra Ducharme noted that Canada’s population will increase by one million more people by 2032 than Statscan previously projected. Almost all of that extra growth will occur among those aged between 25 and 54 years old – an age cohort that is “crucial to the resilience of consumption and real estate.”

Royal Bank of Canada economists Robert Hogue and Carrie Freestone came to a similar conclusion even before the release of Statscan’s updated population projections. In a mid-August report, they projected that Canada will count 730,000 more households by 2024 than it had in 2021, as the country welcomes more than 1.3 million new immigrants.

“This surge, combined with shrinking household sizes, will strengthen demand for housing (whether owned or rented) and act as a powerful counter to sliding sales and prices – eventually putting a floor under the correction,” they wrote.

The updated Statscan projections highlight the urgency for policy makers to plan for what is expected to be the highest population growth among the Group of Seven countries over the next two decades and beyond. Based on the federal agency’s medium-growth scenario, Canada’s population is projected to grow to 47.8 million in 2043 from 38.2 million in 2021.

Ontario is expected to add more than four million new residents over the next 20 years, with its population rising to 19 million from 14.8 million. Canada’s most populous province will see its share of the national population increase to 39.8 per cent from 38.8 per cent.

Even so, Ontario’s 28-per-cent population growth over the next two decades is expected to pale compared with a 46-per-cent surge in Alberta, which will see its population grow to 6.5 million by 2043 from 4.4 million. Albertans will account for about 13.5 per cent of Canada’s population in 2043, up from 11.6 per cent in 2021.

However, Quebec’s share of the Canada’s population is set to fall below 20 per cent for the first time, as the province (which chooses its own economic immigrants) accepts proportionally fewer newcomers than the rest of the country. From 22.5 per cent of Canada’s population in 2021, Quebec will see its share decline to 19.8 per cent by 2043. Quebec’s overall population will grow by less than 10 per cent over the same period, to 9.4 million.

The Atlantic provinces will benefit from interprovincial migration levels that will be higher than those forecast before the pandemic, but not enough to reverse a decline in the region’s share of the national population. Newfoundland and Labrador’s population will shrink outright.

Ottawa’s higher immigration targets will on their own not be enough to ease the country’s labour shortage, as more and more Canadians retire in coming years. Even more aggressive immigration levels would be needed to reverse the aging trend that will see the share of the population over 65 increase steadily over the next two decades to 23.1 per cent in 2043 from 18.5 per cent in 2021.

The average age of Canadians, which increased from 27.3 years in 1921 to 41.7 years in 2021, will rise further to 44.1 years by 2043. And while about 871,000 were over 85 in 2021, their ranks will swell to more than 2.2 million by 2043.

Still, Canada’s population projections tell a rather enviable story compared with many European countries, where population aging is occurring at a much faster rate amid lower immigration levels. The question is whether policy makers here can move fast enough to prepare the country for its coming population boom.

Source: Can Canada handle its coming population boom?

Clerk Report to PM 2022 – Service Delivery Language [more candour required]

Like all government reports (save audits and evaluations), the Clerk report focuses on successes, not failures. Certainly, COVID financial support and vaccine procurement are right to be highlighted as overall successes, as are ongoing efforts to increase diversity and representation, as highlighted in the report and data tables.

But its characterization of how the government responded to Afghan refugees following the Taliban takeover presents a far more positive picture than warranted, to be diplomatic.

But looking ahead, curious to see how the recent failures of government service delivery (i.e., passports and immigration) will be treated in the 2023 report, given this 2022 commitment:

Deliver results for Canadians.

We have clearly shown the Public Service’s ability to step up and overcome every obstacle to get things done and deliver real results for Canadians. We have proven what we can do during times of crisis and we have learned much from this. But this has also disrupted our usual lines of work. Now, we must apply what we have learned to how we approach everything —from delivering core programs and services to responding to unexpected challenges. We must build on our enhanced capacity to deliver digitally while holding true to the importance of providing in-person support, to ensure every Canadian gets the service and results they need in a timely manner. Public servants should feel empowered to ask how things could be done better, and they should be supported in taking thoughtful risks in how we implement to achieve results for Canadians. The lessons we learned from the pandemic will help us get there.

Certainly, some honesty regarding the public service service delivery failings will be needed for the 2023 report’s (and Clerk’s) credibility.

To be mischievous, I redrafted this paragraph for the 2023 report to encourage drafters of next year’s report to be more candid regarding areas where the government had significant policy and program failures (“challenges” in bureaucratese):

Deliver results for Canadians – Lessons learned from program failures

We have clearly shown the Public Service’s (in) ability to step up and overcome every obstacle to get things done and (fail to) deliver real results for Canadians. We have proven what we can do during times of crisis (and what we cannot do) and we have learned much from this (particularly from failures in passport and immigration service delivery). But this has also disrupted our usual lines of work. Now, we must apply what we have learned (from successes and failures) to how we approach everything —from delivering core programs and services to responding to unexpected challenges. We must renew focus on service delivery in order to restore trust. We must build on our enhanced capacity to deliver digitally, including real time status updates and greater transparency, while holding true to the importance of providing in-person support (including reducing waiting times and lines), to ensure every Canadian gets the service and results they need in a timely manner. Public servants should feel empowered to ask how things could be done better (without penalty), and they should be supported in taking thoughtful (to be defined) risks in how we implement to achieve results for Canadians. The lessons we learned from the pandemic (service failures) will help us get there.

Source: 29th Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada