Well, the message needed to be sent given the rapid growth of asylum seekers (encouraged by the Liberal government’s previous policies), the concerns of most Canadians and the reality of the Trump administration.
My general take, rather than just raising their legitimate concerns, academics and settlement organizations have to think what kind of advice and advocacy will be most effective in the current environment. I do think that Su’s example of privately sponsored refugees as a cornerstone is appropriate but perhaps a second step would be to suggest a respective cut in the government assisted refugees. Recognizing trade-offs in a context of zero-sums:
The Canadian government’s recent announcement of a $250,000 global ad campaign warning migrants that seeking asylum here is “not easy,” coupled with the suspension of private refugee sponsorships, is sending a chilling message: Canada’s doors are closing and so too are our commitments to humanitarian principles, multiculturalism and our international obligations to uphold the rights of refugees.
But as the federal Liberal government continues its campaign to look tough on immigration in response to internal as well as external pressures from our neighbours to the south, it is prioritizing optics over meaningful, humane solutions. The government has said immigration restrictions are necessary to reduce pressure on housing, infrastructure and social services.
The ad campaign is part of troubling shift in our immigration policies that isn’t just short-sighted but a betrayal of our values. It underlines our long-standing identity as a welcome place of refuge and opportunity, risking Canada’s transformation into yet another country using human lives as political pawns.
We are borrowing from the failed playbooks of Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders and U.K.’s “Stop the Boats” campaign. Campaigns widely associated with cruelty, exclusion and human rights abuse. While these programs may have reduced irregular arrivals on paper, they came at enormous human and ethical costs. Canada, once the antithesis of such approaches, risks following a similar path.
Equally concerning is the suspension of new private sponsorship applications for refugees from groups of five and community organizations citing an “oversupply” of applications and a desire not to give people fleeing war zones false hope.
Private refugee sponsorship has been a cornerstone of Canada’s refugee program and our model has been praised globally for its success. In 2015, the Canadian government proudly said, “Canada can and will do more to help Syrian refugees who are desperately seeking safety, by offering them a new home.”
By 2018, Canada accepted close to 52,000 Syrian refugees, about half of whom were privately sponsored. Since 2013, more refugees have arrived in Canada through private sponsorship than through government support and in 2019, two-thirds of refugees entered through private or community sponsorship.
Not only is the program successful and low-cost for the government, it also enables communities to welcome and integrate newcomers, embodying the very values of generosity and solidarity that underpin Canada’s self-image. Limiting this program feels like a betrayal of our history, one that risks leaving countless vulnerable individuals in limbo.
These policies reflect a dangerous pivot in Canada’s immigration philosophy — from one of proactive humanitarianism to reactive gatekeeping. While the government claims these measures address systemic challenges, they risk conflating the inefficiencies of bureaucracy with the actions of migrants themselves.
These policies are also sowing division among immigrant communities. A recent poll found 65 per cent of Canadians surveys believe the Canada government’s current plans will admit too many people. And most immigrants(67 per cent) support stricter international student policies.
However, the flip side of the growing anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiments that is not getting as much attention is that this rhetoric increases racism and discrimination for the whole immigrant population, not just newcomers or international students. The same poll found that over a third of immigrants have faced discrimination at work, especially younger BIPOC immigrants.
Hate crimes reported by the police have also doubled from 2019 to 2023, with 44.5 per cent of incidents in 2023 motivated by ethnicity or race. One will never be able to calculate the social costs of a Canada where the fabric of multiculturalism is being picked apart one policy change at a time, but we will be able to feel it.
Rupinder Singh, a Sikh man living in Scarborough, felt it when he had his turban snatched off his head by someone who jumped into a car and sped off. Singh says he is planning to go back home because of this incident because he no longer feels safe in Canada. Singh is part of a growing trend of newcomers leaving Canada.
Statistics Canada data shows that more than 15 per cent of immigrants left Canada within 20 years of landing and advocates are asking for policies on immigrant retention.
So, a $250,000 global ad campaign might not be necessary to keep people away from Canada when word-of-mouth and the high cost of living is already doing the advertising for us. That money could be better spent on developing immigration policies that prioritize dignity over deterrence. If Canada continues down this path, we risk undermining the Canadian values of generosity, multiculturalism and inclusion that has been our foundation for so long.
Multicultural Meanderings 