Todd: This should be the first Canadian election that focuses on migration

I suspect, however, that it will not given that immigration, like so many other issues, is drowned out by the existential crisis of the Trump administration. But yes, appointments by PM Carney provide a hook to raise the issue and cite the excessive influence of the Century Initiative in past government policy before former immigration minister reversed course. As I have argued before, his changes provide space for immigration policy discussions without being labelled as xenophobic or racist.

Skuterud’s comments on rotating immigration ministers is valid and unfortunately former minister Miller was shuffled out by PM Carney:

A controversial appointment put migration in the headlines on the same weekend that Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a snap election.

The investment fund manager and former head of the Bank of Canada, who won the Liberal leadership contest two weeks ago, became the subject of news stories focusing on how he has chosen Mark Wiseman, an advocate for open borders, as a key adviser.

Wiseman is co-founder of the Century Initiative, a lobby group that aggressively advocates for Canada’s population to catapult to 100 million by 2100. Wiseman maintains Canada’s traditional method of “screening” people before allowing them into the country is “frankly, just a waste of time.” The immigration department’s checks, he says, are “just a bureaucracy.”

Wiseman believes migration policy should be left in the hands of business.

The appointment of Wiseman is an indication that Carney, a long-time champion of free trade in capital and labour, is gathering people around him who value exceptional migration levels and more foreign investment, including in housing.

Carney denied a charge by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre that bringing in Wiseman “shows that Mark Carney supports the Liberal Century Initiative to nearly triple our population to 100 million people. … That is the radical Liberal agenda on immigration.”

Carney tried this week to distance himself from the Century Initiative, telling reporters Wiseman will not be advising him on migration.

For years, migration issues have been taboo in Canada, says SFU political scientist Sanjay Jeram.

But the Canadian “‘immigration consensus’ that more is always better” is weakening, Jeram says. Most people believe “public opinion toward immigration has soured due to concerns that rapid population growth contributed to the housing and inflation crises.” But Jeram also thinks Canadian attitudes reflect expanding global skepticism.

Whatever the motivations, Poilievre says he would reduce immigration by roughly half, to 250,000 new citizens each year, the level before the Liberals were elected in 2015. The Conservative leader maintains the record volume of newcomers during Trudeau’s 10 years in power has fuelled the country’s housing and rental crisis.

Carney has said he would scale back the volume of immigration and temporary residents to pre-pandemic levels, which would leave them still much higher than when the Conservatives were in office.

What are the actual trends? After the Liberal came to power, immigration levels doubled and guest workers and foreign students increased by five times. Almost three million non-permanent residents now make up 7.3 per cent of the population, up from 1.4 per cent in 2015.

Meanwhile, a Leger poll this month confirmed resistance is rising. Now 58 per cent of Canadians believe migration levels are “too high.” And even half of those who have been in the country for less than a decade feel the same way.

Vancouver real-estate analyst Steve Saretsky says Carney’s embracing of a key player in the Century Initiative is a startling signal, given that migration numbers have been instrumental in pricing young people out of housing.

Saretsky worries the tariff wars started by U.S. President Donald Trump are an emotional “distraction,” making Canadian voters temporarily forget the centrality of housing. He says he is concerned Canadians may get “fooled again” by Liberal promises to slow migration, however moderately.

Bank of Canada economists James Cabral and Walter Steingress recently showed that a one per cent increase in population raises median housing prices by an average of 2.2 per cent — and in some cases by as much as six to eight per cent.

In addition to Carney’s appointment of Wiseman, what are the other signs he leans to lofty migration levels?

One is Carney’s choice of chief of staff: former immigration minister Marco Mendicino, who often boasted of how he was “making it easier” for newcomers to come to the country. Many labour economists said Mendicino’s policies, which brought in more low-skilled workers, did not make sense.

By 2023, the Liberals had a new immigration minister in Marc Miller, who began talking about reducing migration. But Carney dumped Miller out of his cabinet entirely, replacing him with backbench Montreal MP Rachel Bendayan. Prominent Waterloo University labour economist Mikal Skuterud finds it discouraging that Bendayan will be the sixth Liberal immigration minister in a decade.

New ministers, Skuterud said, are vulnerable to special interests, particularly from business.

“It’s a complicated portfolio,” Skuterud said this week. “You get captured by the private interests when you don’t really understand the system or the objectives. You’re just trying to play whack-a-mole, just trying to meet everybody’s needs.”

Skuterud is among the many economists who regret how record high levels of temporary workers have contributed to Canada being saddled with the weakest growth in GDP per capita among advanced economies.

Last week, high-profile Vancouver condo marketer Bob Rennie told an audience that he pitched Carney on a proposal to stimulate rental housing by offering a preferred rate from the Canada Mortgage Housing Corp to offshore investors.

We also learned this week that Carney invited former Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson to run as a Liberal candidate. Robertson was mayor during the time that offshore capital, mostly from China, flooded into Vancouver’s housing market. When SFU researcher Andy Yan brought evidence of it to the public’s attention, Robertson said his study had “racist tones.” Two years later, however, Robertson admitted foreign capital had hit “like a ton of bricks.”

It’s notable that Carney, as head of the Bank of England until 2020, was one of the highest-profile campaigners against Brexit, the movement to leave the European Union.

Regardless of its long-lasting implications, Brexit was significantly fuelled by Britons who wanted to protect housing prices by better controlling migration levels, which were being elevated by the EU’s Schengen system, which allows the free movement of people within 29 participating countries.

For perhaps the first time, migration will be a bubbling issue this Canadian election.

While the link to housing prices gets much of the notice, SFU’s Jeram also believes “the negative framing of immigration in the U.S. and Europe likely activated latent concerns among Canadians. It made parties aware that immigration politics may no longer be received by the public as taboo.”

Source: This should be the first Canadian election that focuses on migration

Politicians’ attacks on immigrants lack solid evidence: New data set the record straight

Interesting international comparative study:

…Complaints about inclusion

In the United States, President Donald Trump has voiced concerns about immigrants’ welfare access repeatedly, both during his first term and since taking office again this year

In last year’s British election, a staple of Rishi Sunak’s campaign was the insistence that immigrants threaten the sustainability of the welfare state

On the other side of the North Sea, the political party that won the Dutch elections made the argument that immigrants are “pampered” a central feature of its election platform

Ironically, all three of these countries are among the most exclusionary, according to the most recent IESPI data, as the graph below illustrates. (Note that the IESPI is organized such that a value of 0 is maximally inclusionary and 100 is maximally exclusionary.)

A graph shows immigrant exclusion from social programs by country
Immigrant exclusion from social programs by country. (Author provided)

Inclusionary trends have ended

A second observation is that the era of social welfare systems becoming more inclusive for immigrants has ended.

From 1990 until the 2010s, most western welfare systems were removing barriers for immigrant access to social programs. But since then, levels of immigrant welfare exclusion have not changed dramatically over time. 

Closer inspection shows that this picture of stability since the 2010s hides negative trends in different social programs.

On the one hand, health-care programs and active labour market policies have gradually become more inclusionary. More and more countries have been making health-care services accessible for vulnerable immigrant populations, and rolling out targeted programs to improve newcomers’ chances on the labour market. 

On the other hand, social assistance policies have generally become more exclusionary over time. Many countries have intensified restrictions for recent arrivals, migrants without permanent residence status and migrants who cannot demonstrate successful integration.

A graph shows trajectory of change in social programs for immigrants
The trajectory of change in social programs for immigrants. (Author provided)

Large differences in historical trajectories

When we look beyond aggregate trends, we also note very different trajectories in different countries. 

In some countries (Austria, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Malta, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain), social programs have become consistently more inclusionary. 

Other countries (Canada, Luxembourg and Sweden) have also undergone an inclusionary development, although at a more modest pace of change. 

In a third set of countries (Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Switzerland), policies initially became more inclusionary but this trend was halted or reversed around 2010. The social programs of three other countries (the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States), finally, have consistently become more exclusionary over time. 

A graph shows four trajectories of change in social programs for immigrants in various countries.
Four trajectories of change in social programs for immigrants in various countries. (Author provided)

These comparisons within the IESPI data set hopefully enable us to make sense of the frequently charged nature of discussions about immigrants’ access to social programs.

Most obviously, they show we should be cautious when listening to some of the politicians who are most critical of immigrant welfare access, like Donald Trump, Rishi Sunak and Geert Wilders. 

If their arguments that exclusionary reforms in their countries are nothing but reasonable adjustments to overly generous approaches ever had any merit, that merit is quickly evaporating.

Source: Politicians’ attacks on immigrants lack solid evidence: New data set the record straight

Poilievre tentatively courts Canada’s rising dissatisfaction with immigration

Not too much new in terms of the general points. More use of Century Initiative as punching ball, particularly given Mark Wiseman, one of the main persons behind CI2100, being appointed an advisor to PM Carney.

My earlier assessment of what to expect under a Conservative government largely still holds with the exception that the changes by former immigration minister Miller have paved the way for further restrictions:

After years of avoiding any clear position on the subject of immigration levels, the Conservatives have opened the 2025 campaign with a hard pledge to “slow immigration down” to sustainable levels.

“I want people to come here (in) numbers that can actually be housed, employed, and cared for,” Poilievre told a reporter on Monday, adding that he would directly tie immigration levels to homebuilding.

“So we’re always going to be adding homes faster than we add people,” he said.

Poilievre also lashed out again at the Century Initiative, a pro-immigration non-profit which advocates for Canada to have a population of 100 million by 2100.

The Conservative leader framed the group as advocating a “radical, crazy idea” to “bring in people from poor countries in large numbers, to take away Canadian jobs, drive wages down and profits up.”

It’s not the first time that Poilievre has criticized Liberal handling of immigration. A common refrain of Poilievre in the House of Commons was that the Liberals had “lost control of immigration.”

Last summer, he told a press conference that “we have to have a smaller population growth.” In a podcast interview with psychologist Jordan Peterson, Poilievre said “we’re not interested in the world’s ethno-cultural conflicts.”

At a Holocaust commemoration ceremony in January, Poilievre said Canada needs to start deporting immigrants involved in hate crimes.

“We must deport from our country any temporary resident that is here on a permit or a visa that is carrying out violence or hate crimes on our soil,” he said.

But this usually stopped short of any specific promises on immigration levels, visa quotas or screening procedures.

In fact, Poilievre’s ambiguity on immigration issues has been slammed by both the Liberals and by his critics on the conservative fringes.

At a media roundtable in Brampton, Ont., earlier this year, then immigration minister Marc Miller defended his government’s sudden turn towards reduced immigration levels, including non-renewal for the visas of more than two million temporary migrants in the country who might have expected permanent residency.

Source: FIRST READING: Poilievre tentatively courts Canada’s rising dissatisfaction with immigration

Lawyers advise Canadians working in U.S. to avoid travel amid border crackdown

Of note (one of our children is working in the USA and hearing from others whose travel plans being affected):

U.S. immigration lawyers are warning foreigners working and studying in America – including Canadians – to refrain from international travel, saying that crossing the U.S. border has become significantly more unpredictable since U.S. President Donald Trump took office and that they run the risk of being detained or refused entry.

The Trump administration has issued a series of broad executive orders over the past two months that aim to “secure” the American border by expediting the removal of undocumented migrants. But immigration lawyers say the overall hostile tone from the White House toward non-U.S. citizens is emboldening border agents to become more heavy-handed with travellers leaving and entering the country, even those who hold valid work and study visas.

In some cases lawyers are advising clients to prepare for increased scrutiny of their personal histories, including possible searches of their cellphones for evidence of their political leanings.

Earlier this month, New York-based immigration law firm Dyer Harris LLP, which helps foreigners secure work visas in the U.S., sent an e-mail to their clients residing and working in the country recommending that they hold off on international travel altogether, unless in an emergency.

“The hostile chaos emanating from the White House should make everyone cautious on international travel for the time being,” the e-mail read. “Make arrangements with family and friends to be in touch on a daily basis [if crossing the border]. It is crucial someone knows where you are, and that action is taken if you are taken into custody.”

Recently, there have been multiple incidents of business travellers and tourists arbitrarily being stopped at U.S. border crossings and sometimes held for weeks at U.S. immigration detention centres….

Source: Lawyers advise Canadians working in U.S. to avoid travel amid border crackdown

As Trump cuts university research, American scholars look north

Encouraging that Canadian universities are actively engaged in such recruitment:

In the early days of the second Trump administration, Frédéric Bouchard, dean of arts and sciences at University of Montreal, told his faculty’s two dozen department chairs to keep an eye out for talented researchers in the United States who might be looking for a change of scenery.

If they knew of anyone unsettled by funding cuts and political moves in the U.S., particularly if that person had a connection to Canada, Prof. Bouchard wanted to be notified immediately.

He has already had calls from colleagues, he said.

“Any time the market for talent is rattled it makes our jobs easier recruiting the best that are out there,” Prof. Bouchard said. “It’s still early. Right now we are just discussing with various potential people, seeing whether they’re interested or not.”

Prof. Bouchard said private donors have even expressed an interest in supporting recruitment.

“Without me asking them they told me that if we found somebody, and we needed additional resources to bring them to Canada, that I should give them a call,” Prof. Bouchard said.

At the University of Toronto, department of immunology chair Jen Gommerman said she has already had researchers in the U.S. contact her about opportunities in Canada. Many are feeling demoralized, she said.

“It’s a fearful time for everyone in academia,” Prof. Gommerman said. “There’s uncertainty. There’s this feeling of loss.”

In the first weeks of the Trump administration, a series of executive orders and policy decisions has destabilized research agencies and universities. The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have all been targeted for cuts, which the White House has said are aimed at saving money and improving efficiency…

Source: As Trump cuts university research, American scholars look north

L’exode américain LGBTQ+ vers le Canada a commencé

To note (early signs from immigration lawyers):

Pendant que Donald Trump courtise les millionnaires pour leur offrir une carte dorée d’immigration à 5 millions de dollars, un exode certain des familles LGBTQ+ a déjà commencé. Les demandes d’Américains souhaitant déménager ont explosé depuis son retour à la Maison-Blanche, selon des avocats et des organisations, et le Canada s’impose comme une destination de choix.



« Je n’ai jamais rien vu de tel », admet d’emblée David LeBlanc, avocat en immigration et directeur de Ferreira-Wells Immigration. Il dit recevoir une centaine de demandes par semaine.



La forte hausse se dessinait déjà à la veille de l’élection décisive de novembre dernier, mais il constate que les gens sont maintenant prêts à bouger réellement, et vite.

Jusqu’à 90 % de ses clients admissibles à un programme d’immigration au Canada ont déjà commencé le processus, affirme-t-il.

Cette firme, basée à Toronto, se considère comme une « pionnière » dans l’immigration des personnes issues des communautés LGBTQ+ depuis trois décennies. Plusieurs se demandent s’ils peuvent en fait demander l’asile au Canada, rapporte-t-il, ce qui est pour l’instant improbable. « Ça devient vite le sujet le plus chaud de notre profession en ce moment », dit M. LeBlanc.


En ce moment, parmi ceux qui sont le plus susceptibles de passer de l’idée à la réalisation, les familles LGBTQ+ sont les numéros 1 », confirme aussi depuis Toronto Evan Green, avocat spécialisé en immigration et associé principal de la firme Green and Spiegel. Son équipe reçoit « considérablement plus » de demandes depuis le retour de l’équipe Trump au pouvoir, même en comparaison avec son mandat précédent, et « l’urgence » est beaucoup plus palpable.

Aucun État ne semble épargné : « Même ici, en Californie, le climat politique est de plus en plus hostile avec des attaques claires contre les droits trans de tous les ordres de gouvernement », remarque Kathie Moehlig, directrice générale de TransFamily Support Services, un organisme basé à San Diego. La plupart des familles sont trop « tétanisées » pour parler aux médias, rapporte-t-elle. Seules les plus fortunées ou privilégiées peuvent aussi entamer les démarches, notamment vers le Canada, rappelle-t-elle.

Celles dont l’un des parents possède la nationalité canadienne sont les plus rapides à pouvoir franchir la frontière, dit M. Green….

Source: L’exode américain LGBTQ+ vers le Canada a commencé

While Donald Trump is courting millionaires to offer them a $5 million golden immigration card, a certain exodus of LGBTQ+ families has already begun. Requests from Americans wishing to move have exploded since his return to the White House, according to lawyers and organizations, and Canada is emerging as a destination of choice.

“I have never seen anything like this,” admits David LeBlanc, immigration lawyer and director of Ferreira-Wells Immigration. He says he receives a hundred requests a week.

The sharp increase was already emerging on the eve of last November’s decisive election, but he notes that people are now ready to move really, and quickly.

Up to 90% of his clients eligible for an immigration program in Canada have already started the process, he says. This Toronto-based firm has considered itself a “pioneer” in the immigration of people from LGBTQ+ communities for three decades. Many are wondering if they can actually seek asylum in Canada, he reports, which is unlikely at the moment. “It quickly becomes the hottest subject of our profession at the moment,” says Mr. LeBlanc.

At the moment, among those who are most likely to move from idea to realization, LGBTQ+ families are number 1, “also confirms from Toronto Evan Green, immigration lawyer and principal partner of the firm Green and Spiegel. His team has received “significantly more” requests since the Trump team’s return to power, even compared to his previous mandate, and “the urgency” is much more palpable.

No state seems to be spared: “Even here in California, the political climate is increasingly hostile with clear attacks on trans rights of all levels of government,” notes Kathie Moehlig, executive director of TransFamily Support Services, a San Diego-based organization. Most families are too “tetanized” to talk to the media, she reports. Only the most wealthy or privileged can also start the steps, especially to Canada, she recalls.

Those whose parents have Canadian citizenship are the fastest to cross the border, says Mr. Green.

Lafleur: We live in a dangerous world. Canada needs to bulk up

Makes the standard “bulk up” arguments in favour of a larger population but reality is we will always be significantly smaller than the USA and that the vast majority of us will continue to “huddle along the border.” Other recommendations are more sound but, as always, the diagnostique is easy compared to implementation:

Make immigration popular again: We should continue to press to attract the best and the brightest from around the world – much like post-war America did. If they’re no longer interested, that’s a major opportunity for Canada. Uncertainty over U.S. immigration policy combined with a general sense of American decline might push some Canadians who might have otherwise moved to Silicon Valley or New York to stay put. Anecdotally, a friend was recently offered a tenure-track job at a well-known American university. Had the offer came six weeks earlier, they might have accepted. It didn’t seem like a great time to move to America, and Canada, too, has excellent universities, so they accepted a Canadian offer instead.

Canadians are starting to think more seriously about geopolitics. We’re concerned about how our own lives will be impacted by tariffs, or civil unrest in the United States, or global conflicts. One of the best ways to adapt to a world where great powers might decide to push around middle powers is to get too big to push around. Not just in population, but in an economic and military sense.

Getting pushed around by mutually destructive tariffs could create some slack in our economy – or worse, a deep recession. We should use that slack to build the things that we need to survive, and the things that can help us thrive. Better that than huddling along the border and hoping that history continues to ignore us.

Building a larger, more muscular Canada can allow us to become a bulwark against tyranny. With America stepping back, it’s more important than ever that Canada bulks up. That means getting more shovels in the ground, much faster. It’s time to build everything, everywhere, all at once so that we can grow our economy and population and reach our full potential.

Source: We live in a dangerous world. Canada needs to bulk up

New immigration minister says Trump presidency could prompt best and brightest to choose Canada 

Of note (HESA also made a similar pitch):

The new Immigration Minister Rachel Bendayan thinks the Trump presidency is creating an “incredible opportunity” for Canada to attract the best and brightest from around the world – including talented people currently living in the United States.

In her first interview since being appointed to the portfolio in the cabinet shuffle last week, Ms. Bendayan said she had already discussed with fellow ministers the prospect of successful and highly educated people wanting to live here instead of the U.S.

“What I’m hearing is that people are thinking more and more about Canada, whether it’s in the United States, and Americans thinking about making the trip north, or quite frankly right around the world,” she said. “I think we could attract some of the best minds around the world, just as the United States once did. I think there’s an incredible opportunity to attract the best and the brightest, including from the United States to Canada.”

Donald Trump has criticized Canada’s immigration policies, implying they are lax, an accusation that Ms. Bendayan said is ”very far from the truth.”

She said Canada has “a robust immigration system” and “we take security very seriously.”

She said there is already a lot of co-operation and information sharing with the U.S. “in order to make sure that North America is a secure environment” and that is increasing.

But Ms. Bendayan said she wanted to make further reductions to the number of migrants living in Canada – including temporary migrants.

Last November, the government sharply tightened migration targets as part of its annual immigration levels plan. Ms. Bendayan said she wanted to maintain a downward trend for both permanent and non-permanent residents.

She said figures released this week showing a big reduction in the number of temporary residents are “important and certainly trending in the right direction.”

“But that number still needs to continue to come down,” she said….

Source: New immigration minister says Trump presidency could prompt best and brightest to choose Canada

Urback: The chilling case of Mahmoud Khalil should enrage anyone who purports to support freedom

Agree (writing this from LA):

…We’d also be foolish to assume that what starts with Mr. Khalil will end with him. There could be a genuine risk to Canadian visitors in the United States when the government will so willingly forfeit due process rights for non-citizens. (The plight of Canadian Jasmine Mooney, who was sent to a detention centre for nearly two weeks after trying to renew her visa, is evidence of that.) The administration could very well move from targeting green-card-holders to citizens, similarly relying on obscure legal provisions. Or they could ignore the law altogether, which Mr. Trump has recently signalled he has few qualms about doing.

In short, Mr. Khalil’s case is a chilling sign of U.S.’s slide into autocracy. Those on all sides of the Israel-Palestine debate should resist it.

Source: The chilling case of Mahmoud Khalil should enrage anyone who purports to support freedom

LoP: Immigration Detention in Canada 

Another useful primer by the Library of Parliament:

Canada’s immigration detention system is governed by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations(the Regulations) and the international human rights treaties ratified by the government. The Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) is responsible for managing the detention process of foreign nationals and permanent residents, while the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada reviews immigration detention decisions.

Canadian legal framework for immigration detention

The reasons for which a foreign national or permanent resident may be detained in Canada are set out in the IRPA, and include detention:

  • upon entry into Canada, to complete an examination and confirm identity;
  • for suspected inadmissibility on grounds of security, human rights violations or serious crimes;
  • based on a reasonable belief that the person is a danger to the public; and
  • based on doubt that they will appear for an examination, an admissibility hearing or a related legal proceeding.

The Regulations set out further factors to be considered when determining whether to detain an individual, including any past criminal convictions, links to organized crime, organized human smuggling or trafficking, or unwillingness to cooperate with government officials to establish their identity.

According to the CBSA’s recent data on persons detained, by ground for detention, most individuals are held for administrative reasons and pose no risk to the public.

When a person is detained, the Immigration Division reviews the grounds for detention within 48 hours and again within the next 7 days, then every subsequent period of 30 days. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that a person subject to the IRPA’s detention review process has access to a meaningful and robust review that considers the context and circumstances of their individual case. Every person must have a real opportunity to challenge their detention. During the detention review, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, through designated officials, must demonstrate that there are reasons that continue to warrant detention. The Immigration Division may order the release of a foreign national and impose any conditions it deems necessary.

There is no limit to the period for which a person can be held in immigration detention. As shown in Table 1, in 2023–2024, a person held for immigration purposes was detained, on average, for 19 days. However, the median shows that, between 2012–2013 and 2023–2024, one half of immigration detainees were held for three days or less….

Source: Immigration Detention in Canada