Young Canadians increasingly tie immigration to home affordability problems, survey finds

2025/12/08 Leave a comment

Link to report below to this insightful report. Really good analysis across different aspects:

Canadians’ attitudes toward immigration are the most negative they have been since the early 1990s, driven particularly by young people linking high migrant inflows to the affordability crisis and a housing shortage.

A new report from the Institute for Research on Public Policy, written by University of Toronto researchers, shows just how suddenly and dramatically sentiment toward immigration has changed in recent years. The report is based on 26 surveys produced by the Environics Institute between 1981 and 2024. 

Environics surveys the Canadian public annually on a variety of topics. Recent survey results have particularly stood out because of a pointed negative shift in attitudes toward immigration, after more than two decades of mostly pro-immigration sentiment across the country. This prompted the researchers to conduct a historical analysis of immigration attitudes in Canada to gauge when, previously, Canadians held such negative views. 

“Such drastic changes in public opinion are not common,” wrote Randy Besco and Natasha Goel, political science academics at the University of Toronto. “Public attitudes are usually subject to short-term shifts, only when there are major events or sustained media coverage, and such swings usually reverse quickly,” they said. …

Source: Young Canadians increasingly tie immigration to home affordability problems, survey finds

Report: Who Changed Their Minds? Two Shifts in Canadian Public Opinion on Immigration: 1995-2005 and 2023-24

Filed under Immigration, Polling Tagged with , , , ,

Canada takes longest to settle refugees from this region, report reveals, calling it ‘systemic racism’

2025/12/06 Leave a comment

Of note. Lower staffing in African countries appears to be the cause according to the CCR report:

Refugees from Africa continue to face longer wait times for resettlement to Canada than applicants from other regions, two years after a government audit identified inequities in immigration processing, says a new report. 

“The persistence of disproportionately long processing times in Africa and chronic under-resourcing of visa offices in the region reflect systemic racism in Canada’s immigration program,” said the study by the Canadian Council for Refugees, released on Friday. “Whatever the intentions of the decision-makers, the result is that Africans are treated inequitably.”

Based on data provided by the Immigration Department, the report showed African applicants sponsored by the Canadian government had an average 42-month wait time for all cases finalized between Feb. 1 and July 31, followed by those from the Middle East (26 months), Europe and Maghreb (15 months), Americas and the Caribbean (15 months), Indo-Pacific (13 months), and two months if they are processed by the resettlement operations centre in Ottawa.

The wait time for African sponsorships by private community groups is even longer, at 47 months, compared to 42 months for those processed in Europe and Maghreb, 40 months in Indo-Pacific, 39 months in the Middle East, and 30 months in Ottawa.

African visa offices lack staff

“One of the major findings from the report is that the structural inequity comes through largely in terms of the under-resourcing of the visa offices in the African continent,” Asma Faizi, president of the refugee council, said in an interview. 

“Yes, there might be a larger number of people seeking refugee protection and resettlement. Historically, that has been the situation. In our opinion, where you have regions where there’s a large need, there should be a large amount of resources dedicated to that region to ensure that the processing is not delayed.”

She said slow processing of African refugees has been a long-standing concern for the council, and the study aimed to examine if there has been progress following a 2023 Auditor General report that identified serious inequities in how refugee applications are processed. 

The audit, for example, found the visa office in Nairobi, Kenya, had about half the staff but almost double the workload as Ankara, Turkey, while the office in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, had similar staff levels to Rome but five times the workload. Due to staff shortages, some offices in Africa could not even meet the targets assigned to them for family and refugee programs….

Source: Canada takes longest to settle refugees from this region, report reveals, calling it ‘systemic racism’

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

‘You are a very bad minister,’ Conservative immigration critic says at tense committee meeting

2025/12/05 2 Comments

Watched this brutal exchange. Her name comes up periodically as someone who may be shuffled and her appearance yesterday may increase speculation. That being said, MP Rempel Garner is somewhat of a bulldog in her questioning.

As to DM Kochhar’s letter asking MPs to be more respectful of public servants in their questioning, and to be mindful of the risks of posting edited clips that target them, I recall former DM Fadden having the same concerns some 15 years ago or so, albeit in a safer social media environment:

Immigration Minister Lena Diab sparred with her Conservative critic at a tense House of Commons committee meeting Thursday as the two disagreed on everything from immigration levels and deporting non-citizen criminals to what kind of salad they prefer.

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner put Diab in the hot seat throughout her two-hour committee appearance, grilling Diab about her file and accusing her of being “a very bad minister” when she struggled to give a clear answer on whether she will use powers under the government’s pending C-12 legislation to mass extend temporary visas.

A section in that bill gives the government the ability to stop accepting applications or cancel, suspend or change documents for an entire immigration class — something critics on both sides of the issue say could be abused either to turbocharge the number of newcomers or cancel visas en masse.

Asked if she plans to use that power to keep more people in Canada rather than expelling them when their visas expire, Diab said “that’s not the purpose” of the legislation but wouldn’t say how it would be used.

A frustrated Rempel Garner interrupted Diab.

“When you ask a question I think you should be able to have decency to let someone respond,” Diab said.

“I don’t like your word salad, it’s true. You are a very bad minister,” Rempel Garner said.

“You know what, I prefer fattoush and tabouleh to your salad, at any time,” Diab said.

“That is the oddest thing any immigration minister has said at this committee. It’s very weak and will likely be added to your performance reviews,” Rempel Garner said.

“It’s my culture,” said Diab, who is Lebanese Canadian.

At one point, another Liberal MP, Peter Fragiskatos, stepped in as the two exchanged words.

Rempel Garner said she wasn’t speaking to him about these issues.

“He’s going to have your job,” she said to Diab of Fragiskatos, suggesting the minister was about to be shuffled out of cabinet. “I’ll likely be having this conversation with him in a couple of months.”

Rempel Garner also asked Diab about some recent non-citizen criminals getting more lenient sentences so they can avoid deportation.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident or foreign national can be deemed inadmissible if they engage in “serious criminality,” which includes any crime that results in being sentenced to prison for more than six months.

In one recent case an Indian national paid for sex with what he thought was a teenager at a Mississauga, Ont., hotel. That teenage girl was actually an undercover cop.

The man was ultimately sentenced to a conditional discharge for committing an indecent act and was sentenced to 12 months of probation, including three months of house arrest. Rempel Garner said the man should have been dealt with more harshly by the courts and ultimately deported.

Asked if she will send a message to judges that are letting non-citizen criminals off easy to avoid being forced out of Canada, Diab said that’s not her role.

“Sentencing decisions are made independently by the courts,” she said, while assuring the Conservative critic the government will remove foreign criminals when appropriate.

“So, you’re pro-raper,” Rempel Garner asked provocatively.

“The courts have already indicated that serious offences will be dealt with seriously,” Diab said, while adding she wasn’t familiar with the case Rempel Garner raised.

“Can’t you just say it’s wrong and we’ll look into it?” Rempel Garner asked in return. “You just defended a guy who sexually assaulted somebody. It’s rampant in our justice system.”

“A wise person once told me you debate the issues and the policy and you don’t debase the individual,” he said, urging his colleagues to follow that mantra.

Deputy minister cites cases of bullying

The meeting started with the committee chair, Julie Dzerowicz, reading a letter from Diab’s deputy minister — the top bureaucrat in the department — saying some public servants have been subjected to bullying and intimidation after appearing before the committee.

That letter, written by Harpreet Kochhar, relayed that some unnamed politicians have posted videos of the public servants testifying at the committee, and they have been targeted online and in person as a result.

Dzerowicz said Kochhar was concerned about the “well-being” of these government workers who he said have endured “significant harassment and abuse” and “hostile emails.”

The letter, shared with CBC News, relays Kochhar’s fear that MPs posting “short, decontextualized clips of committee appearances” by bureaucrats could lead to violence.

“One of our colleagues was recently confronted in a public space by an angry individual referencing material shared online,” Kochhar wrote.

“I want to implore all committee members from all parties to be very cognizant of how we use the information from this committee, whether it’s online or offline,” Dzerowicz said, adding she doesn’t want appearing before a committee to be a “security risk.”

Rempel Garner said Kochhar was trying to “censor” Conservatives and stop them from questioning the department about what she described as a failed immigration policy.

“I will not be silenced,” she said, saying she will fight to get the government to “do the right thing” on this file.

“Giddy up,” she said.

Diab was ostensibly before the committee to talk about the government’s immigration targets for the coming years — figures that were included in the recent federal budget, an unusual move given they are generally delivered publicly by the minister….

Source: ‘You are a very bad minister,’ Conservative immigration critic says at tense committee meeting

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Immigration Minister warns foreign nationals to not abuse asylum system as U.S., U.K. tighten rules

2025/12/05 Leave a comment

Right message but unlikely to have much impact, just as the impact of former PM Trudeau’s 2017 infamous ‘To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,’ was overstated:

…Asked about the implications for Canada, Ms. Metlege Diab warned asylum seekers against trying to take advantage of the Canadian system.

“If you’re coming just because you think it’s a way to side-step our system, don’t do that,” she said in her first major interview since taking on the role.

“We are telling people, no matter who you are, where you are, the asylum system in Canada is here to protect those that desperately are [in need], not for everyone,” she said. 

She said the borders bill, also known as Bill C-12, which is now going through Parliament, would “tighten up” the asylum system and “ensure that those that are not eligible to apply are weeded out earlier.” 

The bill, which would ban those who have been in the country for more than a year from claiming asylum, will “signal to the global community that Canada is not here for people to take advantage of,” she said.

Canada is known for its humanitarian efforts, and should “protect those that really need protection,” she said. But the country is also dealing with “capacity issues,” such as the availability of housing and health care. 

In this year’s immigration targets, Ottawa dramatically cut the number of international students it plans to admit and effectively froze the numbers of permanent residents over the next three years. The cuts followed waning support among Canadians for increasing immigration in recent years. 

Ms. Metlege Diab said “the mood of the country, going door to door,” has changed….

 Source: Immigration Minister warns foreign nationals to not abuse asylum system as U.S., U.K. tighten rules

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

No surprise. Reactions below:

…But some experts have warned that suspending the agreement could open the door to an unknown number of asylum claimants who are currently ineligible for protection in Canada, at a time when the federal government is striving to reduce immigration because of pressure on housing.

Fen Hampson, president of the World Refugee & Migration Council and a professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Mr. Trump’s decision “puts our government on the horns of a real dilemma.”

“The U.S is no longer providing equivalent protection and Canada faces a significant moral and potentially legal obligation to offer asylum to those who cannot get protection in the U.S.,” he said.

“The Canadian government must now decide whether it wishes to exercise its authority to suspend the agreement, create a broader exemption or stick with the status quo,” he said in an e-mail. “With tens of thousands of asylum claims still pending in Canada and fears that suspending the [agreement] could lead to increased irregular border crossing, the government may prefer to do nothing.” …

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario have launched a judicial review of the Safe Third Country Agreement, seeking to declare it invalid. Maureen Silcoff, a lawyer who is representing plaintiffs in that case with lawyer Sujit Choudhry, said the agreement requires countries to follow the UN Refugee Convention, but the U.S. has chosen to stop adjudicating asylum claims. 

“The agreement itself anticipated that a situation may arise that requires a suspension,” Ms. Silcoff said.

“That day has arrived. The basis for the agreement has evaporated. It was predicated on the U.S. having a functional asylum system. The U.S. suspension of asylum determination means that the very foundation of the agreement has disappeared.”…

Lawyer James Yousif, who was policy director to former immigration minister Jason Kenney, said the U.S. government’s decision to halt all refugee claims would likely lead the Federal Court to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires what he describes as a “functioning” asylum system.

“The extent of a President’s ability to halt asylum without legislation is unclear. But if asylum is halted and deportations begin, the consequences for Canada will be immediate,” he wrote in an e-mail.

If the pact is struck down, Mr. Yousif said, that would allow millions of people currently in the U.S. who are covered by the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply for asylum here.

“That would represent an existential threat to Canada’s immigration system,” he said.

Sharry Aiken, a professor at Queen’s University specializing in immigration and refugee law, said Mr. Trump’s latest edict on halting asylum claims is “the nail in the coffin” of the Safe Third Country Agreement.

She said other anti-migrant policies he has enacted should have already prompted the Canadian government to revisit whether it is still valid.

“If we had any doubts before, we shouldn’t now,” she said. “The agreement is predicated on responsibility sharing and that people have access to asylum in the U.S.”

Prof. Aiken predicted suspending the agreement is not going to lead to Mr. Trump being “upset with Canada” or a big influx of asylum seekers coming from the U.S.

“If necessary, we need to ensure that the IRB [Immigration and Refugee Board] is adequately resourced to deal with a potential increase in the number of claims,” she said.

Source: Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Chris Selley: Upset about the state of Canada? Why not pretend it’s better? [non-deportation of immigrants accused of sexual abuse]

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Agree, risk of losing immigration status should not be a “get out of jail” card except in extremely rare circumstances:

Again in theory, that should include a 47-year-old non-citizen, living in Bradford, Ont., who recently pleaded guilty to various charges with respect to sexually abusing a young girl — including once when he was on bail for charges of sexually abusing the same girl, whom he reportedly impregnated twice when she was no older than 13. News outlet BarrieToday reports the accused was at one point during his trial “permitted an adjournment to explore the effect his eventual guilty pleas would have on his immigration status.”

Which is, obviously, insane.

Because this is Canada, however, and we can’t ever let anything be simple, the 47-year-old’s immigration status has become something of a controversy in Ottawa.

I don’t have empirical data before me, but I suspect deportation would not strike most Canadians as an intemperate or unjust punishment for Mr. 47-year-old Child-Impregnator from Bradford. It’s neither lenient nor draconian; it’s just common sense. It’s pretty hard to get a six-month sentence in this country, after all. The absolutely vast majority of Canadians, regardless of where they’re born, manage to avoid imprisonment for their entire lives, and they hardly even have to break a sweat avoiding it. I think that’s a reasonable expectation of immigrants as well.

Alas, some of us don’t like this rule, or at least we feel honour-bound not to like it. It’s just so terribly unfancy, if not downright American-style. Judges and Liberals seem to suffer from this disproportionately. So what judges have been doing, in certain cases, is discounting the sentences non-permanent residents are handed, rather than bringing those immigration consequences down upon an offender’s and his family’s heads.

This has been widely reported. It’s not some kind of conspiracy theory. But some of us seem to have great trouble admitting it (perhaps because it’s so obviously inappropriate). In August, Radio-Canada ran an article headlined “Conservatives say the justice system favours non-citizens. Experts disagree.” Only Radio-Canada’s experts didn’t actually disagree; they mostly just seemed to object to the notion that one sentence might be compared to another to begin with, as opposed to each being considered a standalone, perfectly honed diamond of wisdom.

When (a judge) is considering a sentence, they can’t be blind to the fact that this person is not a naturalized Canadian, is still an immigrant and therefore will have additional consequences as a result of the sentence,” a Toronto immigration lawyer told Radio-Canada — which was, of course, the whole question, and it’s not a rhetorical one. Can judges be blind to that? Should they?

The Conservatives, led by immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner, want to make a law that says no: Judges wouldn’t be allowed to consider immigration consequences in handing down sentences, such as against that creep from Bradford, Ont. In the unlikely event I were advising the Liberals, I would suggest agreeing to support that law as quickly and enthusiastically as possible….

Source: Chris Selley: Upset about the state of Canada? Why not pretend it’s better?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Meggs – Immigration : Les vies brisées par un système brisé

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Good insights into Quebec’s cancellation of PEQ (equivalent to TR2PR) and the similar impact of changes to those who were applying given their expectations as at the federal level:

Les personnes ayant un statut temporaire au Québec ont-elles le droit de prétendre qu’on leur a fait croire qu’elles pouvaient obtenir la résidence permanente? Oui, absolument.

Avons-nous toujours besoin du Programme d’expérience québécoise (PEQ) pour atteindre l’objectif de transition du statut temporaire au statut permanent? Non.

Avons-nous une obligation morale d’accorder un statut permanent aux personnes à statut temporaire déjà établies au Québec? Peut-être, jusqu’à un certain point, mais… Bonne chance!

Ce sont toutes des questions légitimes découlant de la réaction très négative récente à l’annulation de ce programme. Le PEQ a été lancé en 2010, et il est possible que, au fil des changements de gouvernements, de ministres et de fonctionnaires, son contexte historique ait été oublié. Tentons d’éclaircir la situation.

L’histoire du PEQ comme voie rapide de traitement d’une demande d’immigration

Demande d’immigration permanente — faite avant ou après l’arrivée?

Pendant les 25 dernières années du 20e siècle, la règle générale au Canada était qu’une personne qui désirait immigrer de façon permanente fasse sa demande avant son arrivée au Québec. Les demandes faites sur place n’étaient acceptées que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles. Cela est même stipulé dans l’Accord Canada-Québec sur l’immigration signé en 1991.

Les dossiers étaient traités et la sélection était effectuée selon une grille de points attribués en fonction des caractéristiques recherchées pour les besoins du Québec et de l’intégration rapide de la personne qui arrive. Ces critères comprennent notamment l’âge, les compétences linguistiques, le niveau d’éducation, l’expérience professionnelle, le domaine d’études, un emploi prévu dans le pays et un lien antérieur avec le Québec.

Si le dossier recueillait le seuil minimum de points, un certificat de sélection du Québec (CSQ) était délivré, ce qui garantissait, même aujourd’hui, le statut de résidence permanente du gouvernement canadien. Seules des raisons de sécurité ou de santé publique pouvaient empêcher l’obtention du statut permanent.

Les personnes arrivaient donc avec leur résidence permanente. Fin du parcours d’immigration. Porte ouverte à une demande de citoyenneté après trois ans. Une immigration permanente en une étape.

Au début du siècle, le Canada et ensuite le Québec ont changé de politique en décidant d’accepter des demandes des personnes déjà au pays. C’est à partir de ce moment que l’immigration en deux étapes est devenue de plus en plus courante.

Problème de délai de traitement

Un autre facteur important de cette histoire est le temps de traitement des demandes d’immigration. En effet, ces dernières se faisaient encore sur papier et le calcul du nombre de points se faisait manuellement. De plus, la loi exigeait que toutes les demandes reçues soient traitées par ordre chronologique. Énormément de temps était perdu à analyser des demandes, qui se voyaient refusées parce que le dossier ne comptait pas le seuil minimal de points. C’était le cas pour près de la moitié des demandes traitées.

Le délai de traitement des demandes en 2011 variait entre 8 et 44 mois [1]. En 2016-2017, l’année avant la mise en œuvre d’Arrima, le système informatisé de traitement, le délai moyen de traitement d’une demande d’immigration permanente était de 32 mois. Les demandes des personnes déjà au Québec s’ajoutaient à la pile.

Trois solutions au problème de productivité

Trois « solutions » s’offraient pour résoudre ce défi de productivité :

  1. L’informatisation : La première, évidemment, était l’informatisation du système de traitement. On y reviendra.
  2. Le PEQ : La deuxième était le PEQ. Ce programme était conçu comme une voie rapide de traitement uniquement pour les demandes présentées par des personnes à statut temporaire déjà au Québec. Il y avait un volet pour des détenteurs d’un diplôme postsecondaire obtenu au Québec et un deuxième pour des personnes qui occupaient le même emploi au Québec depuis au moins deux ans. Mais pas n’importe quel emploi. Il fallait que celui-ci exige l’équivalent d’au moins un diplôme collégial, voire universitaire. Auquel s’ajoutaient les exigences linguistiques. Compte tenu de ces conditions d’admissibilité, ces demandes ne passaient pas par la grille de sélection et pouvaient donc être approuvées beaucoup plus rapidement. Le ministère s’engageait à rendre une décision en 20 jours.
  3. L’immigration temporaire : La troisième solution, qui existait déjà, consistait à contourner les délais de traitement d’une demande d’immigration permanente en recrutant des personnes avec un permis temporaire d’études ou de travail. À l’époque, cette procédure était plus rapide que celle pour les demandes d’immigration permanente. De plus, il y avait plusieurs avantages à court terme à accroître le nombre d’étudiantes et étudiants étrangers, ainsi que le recours à une main-d’œuvre souvent à bas salaire, autorisée par le Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires (PTET).

Le PTET est particulièrement utile en matière de régionalisation. Les personnes recrutées par ce biais sont liées à leur employeur. Le gouvernement utilise même ce programme pour recruter du personnel de la santé, y compris des médecins et des infirmières, justement pour cette raison.

Ils pourraient facilement être recrutés via le programme d’immigration permanente, ce qui leur garantirait la résidence permanente à leur arrivée, mais pour les lier à un établissement situé en région, le PTET est plus sûr, même si cela les laisse dans la précarité pendant quelques années.

Mais attention! Contrairement à l’immigration permanente, il n’y avait pas de planification du nombre de personnes à recruter par l’immigration temporaire. Alors que le nombre de personnes obtenant la résidence permanente est resté relativement stable au Québec, grâce aux limites imposées chaque année dans les plans annuels, aucun plafond n’a été fixé pour le nombre de personnes arrivant avec un statut temporaire. Par conséquent, le nombre de permis temporaires délivrés a explosé, notamment dans les deux programmes contrôlés par le gouvernement du Québec.

La promesse implicite de la résidence permanente

Beaucoup de personnes à statut temporaire qui réclament le maintien du PEQ affirment qu’on leur avait promis la résidence permanente, particulièrement par le PEQ. Est-ce vrai?

Il est logique qu’elles aient eu cette impression. Dès son lancement, ce programme a bénéficié d’une promotion active auprès des étudiantes et étudiants étrangers, que ce soit lors des sessions de recrutement à l’étranger ou lors des séances d’information organisées dans des établissements d’enseignement supérieur.

Des dépliants ont été distribués à ces jeunes par l’équipe du ministère à leur arrivée à l’aéroport, tandis que des lettres leur ont été envoyées après l’obtention de leur diplôme. Des ententes lucratives ont été signées avec Montréal International pour en faire la promotion auprès des travailleurs étrangers spécialisés. Il y avait même, pendant quelque temps, une mention du programme dans la lettre accompagnant la délivrance d’un Certificat d’acceptation du Québec (CAQ), document requis pour obtenir un permis d’études ou de travail dans le cadre du PTET.

L’appât de la résidence permanente a toujours bien servi les agences de recrutement, les établissements d’enseignement postsecondaires et les employeurs dans le recrutement de l’immigration temporaire. D’autres mesures concrètes renforçaient le même message. Certains titulaires de permis avaient désormais le droit de faire venir toute leur famille, les permis de travail étaient délivrés aux conjoints ou aux conjointes, des permis étaient souvent renouvelables à répétition. Tout laissait croire que « temporaire » voulait dire « jusqu’à la résidence permanente », plutôt que « jusqu’à l’expiration du permis ».

Cette carotte se révélait efficace, mais malhonnête, pour deux raisons. D’abord, la majorité des personnes à statut temporaire ne rempliront pas les conditions des programmes d’immigration permanente, que ce soit le PEQ ou le défunt Programme régulier de travailleurs qualifiés (PRTQ) ou le nouveau Programme de sélection des travailleurs qualifiés (PSTQ). Deuxièmement, comme on le verra plus loin, les volumes annuels établis pour l’immigration permanente ne pourront jamais accueillir sur le territoire toutes les personnes à statut temporaire.

Le PEQ comme « voie rapide »

En 2019-2020, le délai moyen de traitement d’une demande d’immigration permanente régulière était de 127 jours, ce qui représente une nette amélioration par rapport aux 32 mois qui étaient la norme trois ans plus tôt.

Comment est-ce possible? Grâce à l’implantation du système de gestion informatisé Arrima au cours de l’été 2018. Avec ce système, les personnes sur place ou à l’étranger qui sont intéressées à immigrer, à obtenir un CSQ, remplissent un formulaire en ligne dans la plateforme Arrima fournissant presque toute l’information qui anciennement était fournie sur papier, créant ainsi un bassin de candidatures possibles.

Ensuite, un algorithme permet au ministère de repérer des profils correspondant aux critères souhaités, puis à inviter ces individus à soumettre une demande d’immigration en bonne et due forme. Le ministère peut aussi gérer le nombre d’invitations tout au long de l’année. Un système similaire, appelé Entrée Express, avait été mis en place par le fédéral en 2015 pour les demandes d’immigration au reste du Canada.

Dès l’implantation du système, le besoin d’une « voie rapide » comme le PEQ n’était plus vraiment nécessaire. En 2024-2025, on constate même que le délai moyen de traitement d’une demande dans le PEQ (127,2 jours) était devenu plus long que pour le PRTQ (82,2 jours). Pourquoi? Sûrement parce que, tout comme dans l’ancien système, toutes les demandes reçues dans le PEQ étaient traitées, et ce, dans l’ordre chronologique. Le taux de refus des demandes d’immigration permanente avait également chuté en 2019, pour atteindre moins de 1 %.

En ce qui concerne les permis de travail PTET, le délai de traitement semble avoir disparu comme enjeu pour les employeurs. Ils ont même pris goût au programme. Aujourd’hui, ils sont prêts à payer plus cher et à vivre avec des mois de bureaucratie afin d’embaucher des effectifs de l’étranger, captifs et obligés d’accepter des conditions de travail inacceptables à la main-d’œuvre locale.

Le système Arrima peut donc inviter des personnes qui séjournent au Québec, c’est-à-dire des personnes à statut temporaire. En fait, depuis le lancement en juillet du nouveau programme, le PSTQ, 1 038 invitations ont été envoyées à des personnes ayant déclaré leur intérêt d’immigrer sur la plateforme Arrima. Parmi ce nombre, 991 résidaient au Québec (95,5 %), incluant 273 hors de la Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal. Il peut aussi privilégier facilement des jeunes d’ailleurs diplômés au Québec.

On peut en conclure que la majorité des personnes qui auraient pu bénéficier du PEQ présentent les caractéristiques nécessaires pour recevoir une invitation dans le cadre du PSTQ. Même certaines personnes à statut temporaire actuellement, qui n’étaient pas admissibles au PEQ, le seront au nouveau programme, c’est-à-dire celles qui occupent un emploi moins bien rémunéré exigeant un niveau de scolarité un peu plus bas.

La plus grande déception pour les personnes qui comptaient sur le PEQ est de ne plus pouvoir compter sur le fait que leur demande d’immigration sera traitée, car elles ne savent pas si elles seront invitées par le système Arrima.

Leur avenir au Québec, déjà fragile en raison de la date d’expiration de leur séjour, est maintenant encore plus incertain. Cet enjeu est moins grave pour les personnes toujours à l’étranger, puisqu’elles ne feront pas des démarches de déménagement et de déracinement avant d’avoir reçu leur CSQ.

Une clause de droit acquis ou au moins une obligation morale

Après avoir accordé des permis temporaires à des individus en les attirant avec la carotte de la résidence permanente, en leur fournissant des services d’intégration et de francisation, en leur assurant souvent un emploi, en leur facilitant l’arrivée et l’établissement de toute leur famille chez nous, avons-nous une obligation morale de leur délivrer le billet doré que représente le CSQ?

C’est la revendication générale qu’on entend et c’est une des propositions de la pétition lancée par Québec solidaire sur le site de l’Assemblée nationale. [2]

Il n’est pas surprenant qu’il y en ait plusieurs qui répondent spontanément, « oui! ». Cela reflète l’ouverture connue du peuple québécois.

Mais examinons le contexte créé par la gestion de l’immigration au cours des dix dernières années, ainsi que le virage vers l’immigration temporaire.

Au 31 décembre 2024, les données du ministère révèlent qu’il y avait 200 495 titulaires de permis dans les deux programmes contrôlés par le Québec, et 299 685 avec un permis de travail dans le programme où le Québec n’intervient pas. Ça veut dire 500 180 en tout. Il y a fort à parier qu’il y a plus de 200 000 personnes sur le territoire québécois dont le permis temporaire a expiré, si on se fie aux estimations canadiennes de la CIBC. Ces personnes remplissaient des conditions pour un permis temporaire, mais aucune n’a été sélectionnée selon les critères appliqués pour l’obtention d’un CSQ.

En outre, le plan annuel d’immigration pour 2026 prévoit un plafond de 35 600 CSQ pour la sous-catégorie des travailleurs qualifiés (PSTQ) et un maximum de 29 500 personnes admises avec un statut de résident permanent dans la même catégorie.

L’explosion non planifiée et non sélectionnée de l’immigration temporaire fait en sorte qu’on se trouve face à des centaines de milliers de personnes, devenues nos voisins et voisines, qui ont cru au rêve de s’établir durablement au Québec, mais qui ne seront toutefois jamais sélectionnées pour y rester. Pourquoi? Soit parce qu’elles ne satisfont pas aux critères établis pour l’immigration permanente, basés sur l’analyse des besoins socio-économiques et linguistiques du Québec. Soit parce que, par un drôle de raisonnement, elles sont trop nombreuses pour notre « capacité d’accueil », alors que plusieurs contribuent à l’économie et au développement de la société québécoise depuis quelques années.

Une planification qui ne répond pas au plus grand enjeu

La réaction à la décision de mettre fin au PEQ montre bien l’ampleur de la rupture dans notre système d’immigration causée par le virage non réfléchi vers l’immigration temporaire et les conséquences sur les vies des personnes, maintenant parmi nous, les plus concernées.

Rappelons-nous qu’on n’est pas en Europe. Notre frontière terrestre est avec un pays qui, malgré tout ce qui se passe sous Trump, demeure un aimant pour les gens du monde entier. Autrement, l’entrée se fait par avion, ce qui exige un document d’entrée. Les personnes venues du reste du monde au Québec sont arrivées légalement. Ce sont les gouvernements fédéral et québécois qui ont créé et facilité la situation dans laquelle nous nous trouvons aujourd’hui. Le PEQ n’en est qu’un exemple.

Malheureusement, les orientations pluriannuelles en matière d’immigration pour les quatre prochaines années, déposées par le ministre Roberge, le 6 novembre dernier, ne contiennent aucune proposition sérieuse pour résoudre ce problème. Elles incluent une baisse minimale sur quatre ans du nombre de personnes détenant un permis de travail PTET ou d’études, et le gouvernement adopte un discours contradictoire face au fédéral, qui propose quant à lui des coupures plus rapides dans le nombre de nouveaux permis de travail.

Il reste l’épineuse question des personnes à statut temporaire qui n’auront pas droit au renouvellement de leur permis et qui ne seront pas approuvées pour la résidence permanente. L’élan spontané de solidarité envers les personnes qui comptaient sur le PEQ démontre aussi que les Québécoises et Québécois n’appuieront pas facilement des départs forcés. Même aux États-Unis, les méthodes agressives de Trump ont fait considérablement augmenter le sentiment positif à l’égard de l’immigration.[3]

2026 est une année électorale. Ce contexte ne sera pas propice à une réflexion commune et sereine sur les mesures à prendre pour résoudre cette impasse. Cela pourrait être une année marquée par l’inquiétude et les perturbations pour de nombreuses personnes qui souhaitent simplement poursuivre leur vie avec leurs nouveaux amis et amies québécois. Essayons de faire notre part, même à notre niveau personnel, pour les aider dans leur parcours. Il est crucial de trouver des solutions pour éviter d’accroître le nombre de personnes non documentées. C’est le pire résultat, tant pour la société d’accueil que pour les individus concernés et leurs enfants.

Source: Immigration : Les vies brisées par un système brisé

Do people with temporary status in Quebec have the right to claim that they were made to believe that they could obtain permanent residence? Yes, absolutely.
Do we still need the Quebec Experience Program (QEP) to achieve the goal of transitioning from temporary to permanent status? No.
Do we have a moral obligation to grant permanent status to people with temporary status already established in Quebec? Maybe, up to a certain point, but… Good luck!
These are all legitimate questions arising from the recent very negative reaction to the cancellation of this program. The EQP was launched in 2010, and it is possible that, as the changes of governments, ministers and officials, its historical context has been forgotten. Let’s try to clarify the situation.
The history of the EQP as a quick route to process an immigration application
Application for permanent immigration – made before or after arrival?
During the last 25 years of the 20th century, the general rule in Canada was that a person who wished to immigrate permanently should apply before arriving in Quebec. On-site applications were only accepted in exceptional circumstances. This is even stipulated in the Canada-Quebec Immigration Agreement signed in 1991.
The files were processed and the selection was made according to a grid of points awarded according to the characteristics sought for the needs of Quebec and the rapid integration of the person who arrives. These criteria include age, language skills, level of education, professional experience, field of study, planned employment in the country and a previous link with Quebec.
If the file collected the minimum threshold of points, a Quebec Selection Certificate (CSQ) was issued, which guaranteed, even today, the permanent residence status of the Canadian government. Only safety or public health reasons could prevent permanent status from being obtained.
People therefore arrived with their permanent residence. End of the immigration journey. Door open to an application for citizenship after three years. Permanent immigration in one step.
At the beginning of the century, Canada and then Quebec changed their policy by deciding to accept applications from people already in the country. It was from this moment that two-stage immigration became more and more common.
Processing time issue
Another important factor in this story is the processing time for immigration applications. Indeed, the latter were still done on paper and the calculation of the number of points was done manually. In addition, the law required that all applications received be processed in chronological order. A lot of time was lost analyzing applications, which were refused because the file did not have the minimum points threshold. This was the case for almost half of the applications processed.
The processing time for applications in 2011 varied between 8 and 44 months [1]. In 2016-2017, the year before the implementation of Arrima, the computerized processing system, the average processing time for a permanent immigration application was 32 months. The requests of people already in Quebec were added to the pile.
Three solutions to the productivity problem
Three “solutions” were available to solve this productivity challenge:
Computerization: The first, of course, was the computerization of the processing system. We’ll come back.
The EQP: The second was the PEQ. This program was designed as a quick route of processing only for applications submitted by people with temporary status already in Quebec. There was a component for holders of a post-secondary diploma obtained in Quebec and a second for people who had held the same job in Quebec for at least two years. But not just any job. It had to require the equivalent of at least a college degree, or even a university degree. To which were added the linguistic requirements. Given these eligibility requirements, these applications did not pass through the selection grid and could therefore be approved much faster. The ministry committed to making a decision within 20 days.
Temporary immigration: The third solution, which already existed, was to circumvent the processing times of a permanent immigration application by recruiting people with a temporary study or work permit. At the time, this procedure was faster than that for permanent immigration applications. In addition, there were several short-term benefits to increasing the number of international students, as well as the use of an often low-pay workforce, authorized by the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TETP).
The PTET is particularly useful in terms of regionalization. People recruited through this channel are linked to their employer. The government is even using this program to recruit health personnel, including doctors and nurses, for this very reason.
They could easily be recruited through the permanent immigration program, which would guarantee them permanent residence upon arrival, but to link them to an establishment located in the region, the PTET is safer, even if it leaves them precarious for a few years.
But be careful! Unlike permanent immigration, there was no planning of the number of people to be recruited by temporary immigration. While the number of people obtaining permanent residence remained relatively stable in Quebec, thanks to the limits imposed each year in the annual plans, no ceiling was set for the number of people arriving with temporary status. As a result, the number of temporary permits issued has exploded, especially in the two programs controlled by the Government of Quebec.
The implicit promise of permanent residence
Many people with temporary status who claim to maintain the PEQ say that they were promised permanent residence, particularly by the PEQ. Is it true?
It is logical that they had this impression. Since its launch, this program has benefited from an active promotion to foreign students, whether during recruitment sessions abroad or during information sessions organized in higher education institutions.
Leaflets were distributed to these young people by the ministry’s team upon their arrival at the airport, while letters were sent to them after they graduated. Gainful agreements have been signed with Montréal International to promote it to specialized foreign workers. There was even, for some time, a mention of the program in the letter accompanying the issuance of a Quebec Certificate of Acceptance (CAQ), a document required to obtain a study or work permit under the PTET.
The permanent residence bait has always served well for recruitment agencies, post-secondary education institutions and employers in the recruitment of temporary immigration. Other concrete measures reinforced the same message. Some permit holders now had the right to bring their entire family, work permits were issued to spouses, permits were often renewable repeatedly. Everything suggested that “temporary” meant “until permanent residence”, rather than “until the expiration of the permit”.
This carrot proved to be effective, but dishonest, for two reasons. First, the majority of people with temporary status will not meet the requirements of the permanent immigration programs, whether it is the EQP or the defunct Regular Skilled Worker Program (PRTQ) or the new Skilled Worker Selection Program (PSTQ). Secondly, as will be seen later, the annual volumes established for permanent immigration will never be able to accommodate all people with temporary status on the territory.
The PEQ as a “fast track”
In 2019-2020, the average processing time for a regular permanent immigration application was 127 days, which represents a significant improvement over the 32 months that were the norm three years earlier.
How is this possible? Thanks to the implementation of the Arrima computerized management system during the summer of 2018. With this system, people on site or abroad who are interested in immigrating, in obtaining a CSQ, fill out an online form in the Arrima platform providing almost all the information that was previously provided on paper, thus creating a pool of possible applications.
Then, an algorithm allows the ministry to identify profiles corresponding to the desired criteria, then to invite these individuals to submit a formal immigration application. The department can also manage the number of invitations throughout the year. A similar system, called Express Entry, was put in place by the federal government in 2015 for immigration applications to the rest of Canada.
From the implementation of the system, the need for a “fast track” like the PEQ was no longer really necessary. In 2024-2025, we even see that the average processing time for an application in the PEQ (127.2 days) had become longer than for the PRTQ (82.2 days). Why? Probably because, just like in the old system, all applications received in the PEQ were processed, in chronological order. The refusal rate of permanent immigration applications had also fallen in…

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Oshiogbele: Dependants? Why Canada should recognize migrant spouses and partners with more accuracy

2025/12/02 Leave a comment

Hard to see this as a substantive issue compared to the many more pressing issues:

…This issue is not simply about accuracy in terminology, although that is essential. It is also about inadvertently classifying others unfairly, promoting gender inequality and marginalizing some migrant family members.

Most accompanying spouses and partners are women and labelling them uniformly as dependants even when they include co-providers and primary earners, reinforces outdated stereotypes. 

Migrant male spouses and partners also face their own identity struggles, despite their qualifications. 

Statistics Canada data reveals persistent gender differences in labour market outcomes among newcomers, with immigrant women having a labour force participation rate of 78.2 per cent in 2021, significantly lower than the 90.2 per cent for immigrant men. While this arguably reflects global gender norms that many migrant families bring with them, it could also be linked with their sense of identity.

Canada prides itself on being a leader in immigration policy and in creating an inclusive society. Therefore, while other long-established immigration systems across the globe may continue to use this term this way, IRCC could consider clarifying it. Currently, the dependant label may unintentionally reinforce perceptions of dependency that do not reflect the evolving realities of modern migrant families…

Goodnews I. Oshiogbele is a member of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) and the Canadian Population Society (CPS).

Source: Dependants? Why Canada should recognize migrant spouses and partners with more accuracy

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

The Age of Depopulation

2025/12/01 Leave a comment

Policy makers have yet to confront the prospect and the related reality that immigration can only partially delay the inevitable:

…Prosperity in a depopulating world will also depend on open economies: free trade in goods, services, and finance to counter the constraints that declining populations otherwise engender. And as the hunger for scarce talent becomes more acute, the movement of people will take on new economic salience. In the shadow of depopulation, immigration will matter even more than it does today.

Not all aged societies, however, will be capable of assimilating young immigrants or turning them into loyal and productive citizens. And not all migrants will be capable of contributing effectively to receiving economies, especially given the stark lack of basic skills characterizing too many of the world’s rapidly growing populations today.

Pragmatic migration strategies will be of benefit to depopulating societies in the generations ahead—bolstering their labor forces, tax bases, and consumer spending while also rewarding the immigrants’ countries of origin with lucrative remittances. With populations shrinking, governments will have to compete for migrants, with an even greater premium placed on attracting talent from abroad. Getting competitive migration policies right—and securing public support for them—will be a major task for future governments but one well worth the effort….

A NEW CHAPTER

The era of depopulation is nigh. Dramatic aging and the indefinite decline of the human population—eventually on a global scale—will mark the end of an extraordinary chapter of human history and the beginning of another, quite possibly no less extraordinary than the one before it. Depopulation will transform humanity profoundly, likely in numerous ways societies have not begun to consider and may not yet be in a position to understand.

Yet for all the momentous changes ahead, people can also expect important and perhaps reassuring continuities. Humanity has already found the formula for banishing material scarcity and engineering ever-greater prosperity. That formula can work regardless of whether populations rise or fall. Routinized material advance has been made possible by a system of peaceful human cooperation—deep, vast, and unfathomably complex—and that largely market-based system will continue to unfold from the current era into the next. Human volition—the driver behind today’s worldwide declines in childbearing—stands to be no less powerful a force tomorrow than it is today.

Humanity bestrides the planet, explores the cosmos, and continues to reshape itself because humans are the world’s most inventive, adaptable animal. But it will take more than a bit of inventiveness and adaptability to cope with the unintended future consequences of the family and fertility choices being made today.

NICHOLAS EBERSTADT is Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and Senior Adviser to the National Bureau of Asian Research. Eberstadt has served as a consultant to the World Bank and to the U.S. government, including at the State Department, the Agency for International Development, and the President’s Council on Bioethics. His books include Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis and Russia’s Peacetime Demographic Crisis: Dimensions, Causes, Implications.

Source: The Age of Depopulation

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Canadian Immigration Tracker: Third quarter 2025 update

2025/12/01 Leave a comment

Regular quarterly update across immigration programs: Permanent Residents, Temporary Residents (workers, students and visas, asylum seekers) and Citizenship. Trend across all programs shows year-over-year and two-year decline.

Covid-19 Immigration Effects – Key Slides – 2025 SeptemberDownload

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →