Why immigration experts from Punjab are urging international students in Canada to learn French

Another article on Indian students learning French (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/indian-students-in-canada-taking-keen-interest-to-learn-french-6-reasons-behind-this/articleshow/108934557.cms):

With Canada announcing that the Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) of nearly 7.66 lakh international students, including many from India, will expire by the end of next year, most of these students are eyeing Permanent Residence (PR) in the country. Immigration experts from Punjab are now advising such aspirants to consider learning French as a viable and assured pathway to PR, among other options.

French proficiency can open new immigration opportunities, especially through Canada’s Francophone Minority Communities Student Pilot (FMCSP) announced this August, the immigration experts have pointed out. This programme gives students a bilingual advantage, making it easier to integrate into Francophone communities outside Quebec and qualify for immigration streams prioritising Francophone immigrants.

Instead of resorting to illegal stay after their PGWP expires, students with good academic records should explore this route, the experts say. Here’s a look at how learning French or being bilingual can help students secure PR.

Canada has two official languages, English and French, with Quebec being the only province where French is the native language of the majority. Over the past few years, Canada has emphasised Francophone (French-speaking) and bilingual immigration, especially outside Quebec, through various initiatives. The country aims to increase the share of Francophone immigrants outside Quebec from 6 per cent in 2023 to 7 per cent in 2025 and 8 per cent in 2026.

“When Canada is offering such opportunities, students must take advantage of them by learning French. With a direct pathway to PR now available for Francophone students, learning French should be a priority,” said Tirath Singh, a Jalandhar-based study consultant from Pinnacle Immigration. He highlighted the recent expansion of the Francophone Communities Initiative (FCI), which now includes several Francophone communities outside Quebec, including Evangeline region in Prince Edward Island, Clare in Nova Scotia, Labrador City, Hawkesbury in eastern Ontario, Sudbury in Northern Ontario, Hamilton in southwest central Ontario, Seine River region in Manitoba, Calgary in Alberta, Prince George in British Columbia etc.

“Students whose PGWP has expired should consider returning to India, learning French here, and then reapplying to secure PR under the Francophone and bilingual immigration programmes,” he added….

Source: Why immigration experts from Punjab are urging international students in Canada to learn French

‘Don’t make us pay’: Northern Ontario mayors say immigration cuts hurt their cities

As the federal government looks to drastically reduce its immigration targets over the next few years, the mayors of northern Ontario’s largest cities say they need more immigrants to sustain local economies and population. 

The mayors of Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Sudbury are calling on Ottawa to deliver on its promise to make permanent a pilot program that resettled skilled workers in their communities, saying a one-size-fits-all approach to immigration policy doesn’t benefit northern regions. 

Sault Ste. Marie Mayor Matthew Shoemaker said the now-closed rural and northern immigration pilot program allowed employers in the city to fill highly skilled positions in aircraft repair, engineering and various trades. 

“It has been an enormous success,” Shoemaker said, adding that without economic immigrants such jobs would disappear from the region. 

The five-year program was aimed at attracting immigrants to smaller communities across Canada, including five cities in northern Ontario, and it provided thousands of newcomers with a path to permanent residence.

In March, the federal Liberal government promised to create a permanent rural immigration program while announcing plans to launch two other pilots this fall targeting rural and francophone communities. 

But months later, Ottawa said it would slash its immigration target for permanent residents and dramatically reduce the number of temporary residents in the country in order to ease the growing pressures on housing, health care and other services.

The government had targeted bringing in 500,000 new permanent residents in both 2025 and 2026. Next year’s target will instead be 395,000 new permanent residents, and that will fall to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027.

Source: ‘Don’t make us pay’: Northern Ontario mayors say immigration cuts hurt their cities

Rousso: One crucial missing criterion in Canada’s immigration policy, Russ: Canada’s failing multiculturalism needs a rethink 

The emergence of more articles arguing for some form of values test for immigrants, despite all the issues and problems in developing, implementing and enforcing the same. Starting with Rousso:

…Canada can learn from these experiences. A comprehensive immigration policy must go beyond economic and humanitarian considerations to include an evaluation of prospective immigrants’ willingness to embrace Canadian values. While this may seem controversial or invasive, it is a fundamental right and responsibility of any nation to preserve its cultural and social framework. By addressing this gap, Canada would not only protect its democratic principles but also foster more cohesive communities.

Practical steps could include requiring immigrants to declare their stance on key social values during the application process. This might involve affirming support for gender equality, freedom of speech, and the rule of law. Additionally, Canada could implement mandatory orientation programs for newcomers, emphasizing the country’s core principles and expectations. Such measures would not only aid integration but also reassure Canadians that their government is taking proactive steps to safeguard the nation’s identity.

Critics may argue that introducing value-based criteria risks alienating or excluding deserving applicants. However, this is not about rejecting those in need; rather, it is about ensuring that immigrants are prepared to contribute positively to Canadian society. A values-based approach would also provide an opportunity for honest dialogue, helping to identify areas where newcomers may need support in adapting to their new environment.

Canada’s history as a welcoming and diverse nation is one of its greatest strengths. To preserve this legacy, the government must address the blind spot in its immigration policy. The long-term social harmony and security of the nation depend on it. As immigration continues to shape Canada’s future, integrating a values-based criterion is not only reasonable but essential for the country to thrive in an increasingly divided world.

Dotan Rousso was born and raised in Israel and holds a Ph.D. in Law. He is a former criminal prosecutor in Israel. He currently lives in Alberta and teaches Philosophy at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT).

Source: OP-ED: One crucial missing criterion in Canada’s immigration policy

From Russ:

…Citizenship is a covenant that mandates living with goodwill and in peace among your neighbours. In no way does it entitle you to attack places of worship or threaten your fellow citizens in the streets because it’s what your grandfather might have done at another time in another land. Attacking a Hindu temple or synagogue, whether the perpetrators were born here or abroad, is unacceptable in Canada, as is using the country as a base to try to launch terrorist attacks in the United States.

To this day, the vast majority of people who immigrate to Canada are peaceful, and it is wrong to tar entire groups with the same brushstrokes. Also true is that throughout history, there are the violent, radical few who terrify and bully the many.

On Remembrance Day, thousands of Canadians gathered at the cenotaphs to commemorate over 100,000 of our soldiers who died in Canada’s wars, chief among them the struggle that stopped Adolf Hitler during the Second World War. They did not die so that feral antisemites could raise Nazi salutes in Montreal and call for a “final solution.”

Those who did remember on Nov. 11 exemplify the vast, ignored backbone of Canada. Their ancestors came from around the world, and they dutifully go to work, obey the law, and raise families in a country where all can recognize each other as Canadian, or aspire to do so.

Some of our leaders, who espouse multiculturalism as the only pillar of Canadian society, have failed to distinguish between welcoming new people and allowing radicals to remake its culture and politics entirely. Canada may be a constitutionally multicultural country, but that comes with no ironclad policy directives.

Multiculturalism need be no more than a bargain that nobody should be asked to abandon their ancestral language, religion, or holiday, but that your vendettas should be forgotten and that you will abide by the customs and values of Canada. There are ways to enforce this essential distinction.

It was suggested in The Hub that a Canadian values test for new immigrants is sorely needed right now, and it is. One question that belongs on that test is, “Is it acceptable to attack a community’s house of worship?” They could answer “no” and lie, it’s true, but if the answer is affirmative, then they ought to be shown the door with no further questions.

Those already here who violate the multicultural covenant should be sternly punished, not coddled by politicians like Mélanie Joly, who subordinates Canadian foreign policy to the “demographics” of her riding. If some feel that they can raise a Nazi salute in Canada, it is time to accept that simply holding the passport does not mean somebody embodies Canadian values.

In 2017, sections of Bill C-24, which allowed for the revocation of citizenship for people convicted of terrorism-related offences, were repealed. Reintroducing and passing those measures would send a strong message now in 2024.

Many wounds have been inflicted upon Canada over the past few years, and these are but a few ways of healing them.

However, Canadians are right to expect their government to set an example by having the bravery and stomach to lead the healing of these wounds, which will involve making an example of the rot festering within them.

If those in power right now will not do this, then Canada needs new leadership.

Source: Geoff Russ: Canada’s failing multiculturalism needs a rethink

Barutciski: A loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement could cause Canada big problems 

Despite or because of the political turmoil, expect that this provision will be negotiated away:

…The big picture for policymakers is that Canada under the Trudeau Liberals has become an outlier among Western democracies. With its lax visa policy, incomparably high refugee-status recognition rates and reluctance to remove failed claimants, Canada now serves as a global magnet for masses of people seeking better conditions. The number of monthly asylum claims in our geographically isolated country rivals Germany, the largest EU host country. It is exceeding the other leading EU host countries, namely France, Spain and Italy. Even if adjudication procedures could be streamlined and additional funding could magically appear to address the massive backlog, the current intake is simply unsustainable.

To correct this distorted approach to asylum, which used to be a historic concept focused on protecting victims of individualized persecution, future Canadian policy needs to emphasize co-operation and harmonization with our Western partners. This more realistic approach has to develop alongside our closest ally, which shares our long, undefended border, as well as the same continental security concerns. Eliminating the 14-day rule is a logical place to start.

Source: A loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement could cause Canada big problems 


The GOP stoked fears of noncitizens voting. Cases in Ohio show how rhetoric and reality diverge

No surprise:

Before the November presidential election, Ohio’s secretary of state and attorney general announced investigations into potential voter fraud that included people suspected of casting ballots even though they were not U.S. citizens.

It coincided with a national Republican messaging strategy warning that potentially thousands of ineligible voters would be voting.

“The right to vote is sacred,” Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, said in a statement at the time. “If you’re not a U.S. citizen, it’s illegal to vote -– whether you thought you were allowed to or not. You will be held accountable.”

In the end, their efforts led to just a handful of cases. Of the 621 criminal referrals for voter fraud that Secretary of State Frank LaRose sent to the attorney general, prosecutors have secured indictments against nine people for voting as noncitizens over the span of 10 years — and one was later found to have died. That total is a tiny fraction of Ohio’s 8 million registered voters and the tens of millions of ballots cast during that period.

The outcome and the stories of some of those now facing charges illustrate the gap — both in Ohio and across the United States — between the rhetoric about noncitizen voting and the reality: It’s rare, is caught and prosecuted when it does happen and does not occur as part of a coordinated scheme to throw elections.

Source: The GOP stoked fears of noncitizens voting. Cases in Ohio show how rhetoric and reality diverge

Kerr: Moving into uncharted waters: How Canada could benefit from a clearly defined population policy 

Seeing more articles advocating for a population policy, which of course would become the base for immigration levels, permanent and temporary. Of course, the experience of most countries that have tried to increase birth rates has been mixed at best, with few successful efforts:

…How quickly should Canada be growing?

Historically, annual immigration targets were set by cabinet based largely on a political judgment. After consulting with others, including the provinces, this was meant to be a sort of prudential assessment of what Canada can accommodate and what Canadians might accept. Up until recently, this assessment appears to have performed reasonably well. Yet in light of recent events, it might be prudent to return to my basic point—that the Canadian government should set out to establish a well-defined population policy—and perhaps in so doing, be somewhat more formulaic in its approach to immigration.

The first order of business would be to decide upon how quickly we want our population to grow, or whether or not we need an upper and lower limit. In reviewing our historical experience, it would be reasonable to propose a relatively wide range, of say, 0.5 to 1 percent annually. For comparative purposes, the average population growth rate across the current 38 members of the OECD in 2023 was 0.5 percent, whereas across G7 nations (excluding Canada) the corresponding average was 0.3 percent. An upper limit of 1 percent might seem somewhat high to some, but such a target is not far from the rate at which our population has grown over the last half-century. Over the extended period 1971-2015, Canada’s population grew at an average rate of about 1 percent annually.

The basic idea here is that our society works with a predictable rate of population growth, from year to year, that avoids all of the disruptions that could be associated with very rapid growth or for that matter, stagnation or population decline. In doing so, our economy and social institutions would have an easier time accommodating our rate of population growth—avoiding the disastrous situation observed over the last couple of years.

Success in reducing the NPR population translates into higher immigration targets

In setting future targets on permanent immigration, our success in reducing the number of NPRs, put simply, should be considered key in setting future targets on permanent immigration. The basic idea here is that to the extent that we reduce the number of NPRs, we can correspondingly increase the number of landed immigrants without having an impact on population size. In promoting permanent immigration, we can restore best practices in terms of carefully selecting immigrants based on economic immigration, family reunification, and humanitarian considerations. This involves returning to the Canadian tradition whereby newcomers are given the promise in settling in this country that they could eventually obtain the rights of full citizenship.

The earlier projection showed future growth with little change in the number of NPRs, remaining indefinitely at 5 percent of the population total from 2027 onward. In the projection, landed immigrant targets were set to gradually climb from about 365,000 to a figure approaching 400,000 over the next decade or so. Yet if the target on NPRs were reduced further, down for example to about 3.5 percent, this could allow for hundreds of thousands of additional landed immigrants without having an impact on our rate of population growth. Of course, many of the NPRs currently living in Canada will not be leaving the country, but alternatively could be selected for landed immigrant status through our normal immigration streams.

On this front, in planning future immigration targets, it makes sense to further reduce the NPR share of Canada’s population well below the 2027 target of 5 percent. Considerable caution would be advised as to how to achieve this target, with the difficult balance here in meeting shorter-term labour force needs, promoting the best in our international student programs while continuing with our long history of meeting humanitarian commitments with asylum seekers.

Flexibility in our targeted growth

It is very difficult to come up with a simple formula for setting immigration targets—such that a well-informed population policy would continue to closely monitor the impact of population growth and the successful integration of newcomers. A targeted range of 0.5 to 1 percent annual population growth is meant to allow for some flexibility in responding to many of the pressing economic and social challenges that we currently face. In recently announcing its revised immigration plan, the federal government indicated that its new plan would allow for “[c]ontinued GDP growth, enable GDP per capita growth to accelerate throughout 2025 to 2027, as well as improve housing affordability and lower the unemployment rate.” As GDP per capita has been stagnant for several years now, this might be considered a tall order. On this front, there are obviously many factors beyond demography that will impact their relative success. Yet this announcement is consistent with the idea that if our unemployment rate rises or if Canada fails with its current housing plan, it is reasonable to reduce immigration targets accordingly.

In light of the many problems in Canada that were aggravated by the most recent surge in population (six years of growth in two), from housing affordability to access to health care, it would seem justifiable to set a population growth rate closer to the lower part of this range. And in light of the projections shared previously, this would imply lower immigration targets than in the current Liberal plan—unless the federal government has more success than expected in reducing the number of NPRs.

Time for a broader population policy

One of the most widely misunderstood impressions with regard to immigration is that it serves as a panacea to population aging. Yet one of the lessons that we can gain from this most recent surge in immigration is that Canada’s population will continue to age for some time regardless of immigration targets. In July of 2020, the median age in Canada was 40.8. By July of 2024, this median had fallen slightly to 40.3. This is after a population surge of over 3.3 million in merely four years. While international migrants are younger than the average Canadian, an unsustainable number would be required over the longer term to meaningfully slow and reverse this aging trend. Canada’s population will inevitably age over the next several decades, and a well-thought-out population policy should certainly prepare for this basic fact.

Although our population is younger today than it would be without international migration, the primary factor responsible for population aging has been the continued decline in our birth rate. Statistics Canada has in fact projected the impact of a continued decline, such that we could experience a negative natural increase within only a few years. With this in mind, the instinct to further reduce immigration over the longer term without a rebounding of our birth rate might be somewhat shortsighted. Canada seems set to become even more reliant on international migration in maintaining population and labour force levels, such that we will eventually need to raise immigration targets substantially even to meet a lower limit of 0.5 percent annual growth.

A broader population policy could shift our attention to our birth rate, rather than merely a reflex action to increase immigration. The basic fact that birth outcomes in Canada continue to be lower than birth intentions, is in itself worthy of policy intervention. Without a rebounding in our birth rate, population aging in Canada will accelerate. Canada will become even more reliant on immigration in maintaining population and labour force—unless, of course, Canadians decide that slow growth and/or population decline is preferable. Yet while rapid population growth has its challenges, so too does a shrinking population. One merely needs to turn to the Japanese example to fully appreciate this fact. A well-informed population policy could attempt to avoid both scenarios.

Source: DeepDive: Moving into uncharted waters: How Canada could benefit from a clearly defined population policy

How diverse is your neighbourhood? A new website shows how immigration to Canada has transformed our cities

Good coverage of the super diversity website and the work by Dan Hiebert and Steven Vertovec:

Have you ever wondered how your local community stacks up when it comes to diversity in ethnicities, income levels, language spoken or education attainments?

Residents of Canada’s six largest metropolitan areas can now check that out through a website launched on Monday that tracks the transformation of the country by immigration down to the neighbourhood level.

Coined “Superdiversity,” the project crunches immigration and census data into interactive graphics and maps that showcase Canada’s changing landscapes and how socioeconomic indicators such as wealth, income, employment status and education play out across ethnic groups, generations of newcomers and neighbourhoods.

“We’re hoping to just help anyone come to a better understanding of the society that surrounds them that they’re part of,” said University of British Columbia professor emeritus Daniel Hiebert, a co-founder of the project.

“This is really about social change and the ability to show it based on data.”

Since Ottawa changed its immigration rules in the 1960s that favoured immigrants from the U.K., continental Europe and the U.S., Canada’s population has become increasingly diverse. The proportion of newcomers from the “traditional” source countries has dwindled to about 15 per cent from nearly 90 per cent.

The Superdiversity website shows how the annual admissions of permanent residents — broken down into economic, family and humanitarian classes — evolved from under 150,000 in 1980 to over 450,000 in 2023, as well as how the nationalities of each subgroup of newcomers changed over time to now being dominated by those from India, China and the Philippines.

It also documents how the annual inflow of temporary residents — divided into asylum seekers, international students and different types of work permit holders — skyrocketed in just a few years from under 200,000 to more than 1.6 million today, and how the source countries shifted under each category.

“When you see people who came from a particular country with a particular migration stream, with a particular age group and with a different gender pattern, you can see how these fit together to produce certain social outcomes,” said project co-founder Steven Vertovec, director of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity in Germany.

“By treating groups only as ethnic communities, we didn’t see the complexities and diversity within groups. You just treated all Indians as the same, all Italians and all Asians as the same.”…

Source: How diverse is your neighbourhood? A new website shows how immigration to Canada has transformed our cities

Link: https://superdiv.mmg.mpg.de/#vancouver-intro?bubble;filter:Total%20population?map;variables:0,0;mode:traditional?tree;year:2012;category:Humanitarian?sankey;year:1991?dashboard;filters:99,99,99,99,99

Legal Pathways and Enforcement: What the U.S. Safe Mobility Strategy Can Teach Europe about Migration Management

Usual solid analysis from MPI, with approach and results undercover by media and not discussed by Harris campaign:

As the Biden administration comes to an end on January 20, so does one of the most ambitious migration management policy agendas in recent memory. Over the last four years, the administration initiated an innovative strategy mixing increased regional cooperation on immigration enforcement and a more orderly system for border arrivals with a significant expansion of lawful pathways and efforts to push humanitarian protection decisions away from the border. Based on the notion of “safe mobility,” this strategy eventually saw irregular migration to the U.S.-Mexico border drop to its lowest level in almost five years after a period of record arrivals. But it took a long time to implement the various elements—a period during which the U.S. public became increasingly restive over perceived chaos at the border and large numbers of irregular arrivals. Even as some key aspects of the strategy have yet to be fully implemented, the incoming Trump administration will assert its own, differing vision for migration management at U.S. borders and relations with neighboring countries.

Still, the Biden-era innovations have been watched with interest across the Atlantic, where many European governments are struggling to find an effective answer to similar mixed movements of asylum seekers and irregular migrants. While some of the U.S. measures were more developed than others, together they provide the seeds of an approach that ensures greater border control while advancing pathways for humanitarian protection.

The Biden experience makes clear, though, that sequencing matters. Many of the elements promoting protection pathways preceded the efforts for greater regional enforcement and heightened U.S. requirements to seek asylum at borders. It was not until June 2024 that many enforcement measures, including greater cooperation with the Mexican and Panamanian governments and narrowing of asylum eligibility at borders, were fully implemented, with irregular arrivals then dropping precipitously. As a result, the administration will likely be remembered more for the several million migrants who were allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border, rather than the combination of measures that finally brought irregular migration under control.

The incoming Trump administration will undoubtedly pursue a strategy based primarily on enforcement, not lawful pathways, and further reduce access to humanitarian protection. That does not mean, however, that a balanced approach that includes robust enforcement and lawful pathways is dead. Instead, for countries that want to pursue this, it points to the need for a more pragmatic approach that achieves early reductions in arrivals while also preserving pathways for protection, not delaying the enforcement-focused elements of the strategy….

Finally, the Biden administration initiatives offer a crucial lesson about managing public trust and messaging. First, it has become almost gospel that the orderliness of migration (in a planned, legal way) matters almost as much or more than the absolute numbers arriving. The CHNV and SMO programs would seem to have fulfilled this criteria—migrants arrived with authorization at airports and with a sponsor or local agency ready to receive them and support their initial reception costs. Yet there was little messaging to U.S. publics by the government about either program, leaving the door open for critics to exploit the narrative, accusing the administration of paying to fly in future voters. It also seems that numbers may, in fact, matter after all. While more than 860,000 migrants came in through CBP One appointments and another 800,000-plus through the CHNV process and similar parole processes for Ukrainians and Afghans, nearly 4.2 million other migrants were allowed in after crossing a border without authorization, in addition to others who managed to cross the border undetected. For many local communities and service providers, who received minimal support from the federal government for the costs incurred in addressing the needs of these new arrivals, the pace of change and demands placed upon them were great….

Source: Legal Pathways and Enforcement: What the U.S. Safe Mobility Strategy Can Teach Europe about Migration Management


Canadian, and then Some: Landmark Study Maps the Multicultural Reality of Canadian Identity. 84% of Canadians are comfortable expressing their cultural identity while still feeling Canadian.

Of interest, more from a general and multicultural marketing perspective:

What it means to be ‘Canadian’ isn’t what it used to be; it’s so much more, according to a new study commissioned by AV Communications (AVC) and Ipsos. The research reveals a seismic shift in the demographic makeup and cultural complexities of Canada, in which previous conceptions about dominant ethnicities no longer control the narrative. For the majority of Canadians (84 per cent), their Canadian identity coexists alongside their cultural identity – it’s not about one or the other.

The findings show that cultural connections and diversity now run deep across multiple generations of Canadians, demanding a fundamental rethinking of how communities and organizations engage with audiences in the years ahead.

“Today’s multicultural Canada is about so much more than ethnicity or ‘newcomer’ narratives – it is about a population that is comfortable moving between layers of cultural norms and identities while remaining steadfastly Canadian,” said Joycelyn David, Owner and CEO of AV Communications. “Success in today’s market requires navigating these layered perspectives and fostering a multicultural mindset.”

A New Kind of Canada

Younger and first generations are setting the cultural tone and agenda as they move into adulthood and establish themselves. Fifty-four per cent of Gen Z (18–27-year-olds) and 67 per cent of first-generation Canadians are predominantly not White, compared to 78 per cent of boomers and 83 per cent of third generation Canadians, signaling a massive shift in the country’s demographic landscape – and future.

This transformation runs deeper than demographics alone; in fact, what the data tells us is that being more than Canadian is what makes us Canadian. The study reveals 77 per cent of Canadians view cultural diversity as core to national identity, with distinct patterns of cultural engagement emerging:

  • Cultural Fluidity: 83% of Canadians feel comfortable expressing their cultural identity while feeling part of Canadian society. They see themselves as Canadian, and then some.
  • Multi-Generational Impact: Second-generation Canadians (46%) show the highest rates of cross-cultural relationships, emerging as crucial bridges and connectors between cultural communities.
  • Language Layer: While 97% of third+ generation Canadians speak English and/or French only at home, 51% of first-generation Canadians and 35% of Gen-Z maintain multilingual households, signaling ease in moving between worldviews through linguistic/cultural norms.
  • Content Consumption: 86% of Gen Z actively engage with international content, signaling a new era of global connectivity and cross-cultural appreciation.

“This groundbreaking study marks a significant departure from traditional siloed approaches to cultural research in Canada,” said Grace Tong, Vice President, Ipsos Canada. “Instead of studying ethnic groups in isolation, we’ve uncovered the complex web of cultural connections that span generations. The data reveals that viewing multicultural consumers as a niche market fundamentally misses how cultural diversity has become embedded in the mainstream Canadian experience.”

Source: Canadian, and then Some: Landmark Study Maps the Multicultural Reality of Canadian Identity. 84% of Canadians are comfortable expressing their cultural identity while still feeling Canadian.

Lang: Deconstructing Canada’s ballooning $67-billion federal bureaucracy

Good column by Lang (our paths crossed when I worked in PCO and he in PMO):

Forty-three per cent.

That is how much Canada’s “core” federal public administration — the civil service — has grown since Justin Trudeau’s government took office in 2015. The raw numbers are even more striking. There are 110,738 more federal public servants employed today than a decade ago.

Not surprisingly, this rate of bureaucratic growth has faced some scrutiny.

Some have claimed that the increase was necessary to keep pace with population growth, yet Canada’s population only expanded by about 17 per cent over this period.

The COVID pandemic, and the programs and initiatives that were created to deal with it, is also cited as a factor. To be sure, the federal bureaucracy increased by about 35,000 during the three COVID years. But that means the rest of the personnel growth — more than two-thirds of it — happened before and after the pandemic.

If service to Canadians during this time had improved meaningfully, that might justify the rise, but there is little evidence of that. For example, complaints to the federal Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson about excessive wait times with Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) call centres were up 45 per cent in 2023. And stories of long wait times at passport offices are legion.

Such scenarios support the conviction that the federal government is bloated and in need of radical surgery. At the very least, some of this swelling of public service ranks should be examined and questioned.

Growth is concentrated in the Big Six

Where has most of the surge occurred?

More than half of the increase – 60,000 positions – has taken place in just six out of some 115 federal departments and agencies. Let’s call these the Big Six.

The largest increase – by 19,000 employees – has occurred at the CRA, a 48-per-cent expansion of its total staff.

That’s impressive, but in percentage terms it pales in comparison to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, which more than doubled in size with 105 per cent growth during that decade, equal to 6,700 additional employees.

Also noteworthy is Employment and Social Development Canada, which grew by some 18,000 personnel, or 86 per cent.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans increased by 4,800 or 49 per cent, while Public Services and Procurement Canada is bigger by 6,900 people or 57 per cent.

Rounding out the Big Six is the Department of National Defence, whose civilian workforce expanded by about 6,100. Ironically this occurred at the same time the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have been hemorrhaging military personnel and are now more than 15,000 people short of the enlistment target set in the government’s 2017 defence policy. The CAF — which is facing major demands on its services at home and abroad — is probably now at its lowest military head count since the end of the Second World War.

Some of the hiring binges appear to be indicators of the government’s priorities and modus operandi. 

The big hike at Citizenship, Immigration and Refugees, for example, is related to the Trudeau government’s aggressive (if not reckless) immigration policy, which in 2023 alone saw 469,000 new permanent residents admitted and over one million foreign student visas approved.

The staffing boom at Employment and Social Development Canada likely reflects the establishment of new social programs such as the Canada Child Benefit, Canada Dental Care Plan and various housing benefits.

For the CRA we can safely say that at least some of the expansion is owing to government efforts to track the underground economy and collect more tax revenue to pay for its agenda.

The increase at Public Services and Procurement Canada may have been caused by the urgent need during the pandemic to acquire mass quantities of everything from masks to vaccines. The rationale for the spike at Fisheries and Oceans is less obvious.

The peculiar case of the PCO 

Looking beyond the Big Six, however, it is worth pointing out that the Privy Council Office (PCO) – the prime minister’s department – has ballooned by three quarters since Trudeau came to office, from 727 employees in 2015 to nearly 1,300 today.

Historically the PCO – which runs no programs and delivers no public services to Canadians – has been a secretariat of a few hundred people. Today it is 27 per cent larger than the Department of Finance, which is arguably Canada’s most important ministry, responsible for developing the government’s budget, tax and fiscal policies, among other things.

This nearly doubling of the PCO in just a decade is more evidence of the pernicious trend toward prime ministerial government, where collective Cabinet decision-making is replaced by prime ministerial fiat on most issues.

If Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre becomes the next prime minister, as is widely expected, and is serious about reducing the $40-billion federal deficit, trimming the public service payroll – which now runs to $67 billion per year, a staggering 68 per cent increase since 2016 – will have to be in his sights.

While Poilievre should definitely take aim at the Big Six, he also needs to lead by example and cut his own department in half. No Canadian beyond the shadow of the Parliament buildings would notice.

Source: Deconstructing Canada’s ballooning $67-billion federal bureaucracy