Canadians optimistic about national unity regardless of political differences, data show

Some interesting attitude research:

In the leadup to recent political disruptions, including tensions with the U.S. and growing discussion of Western separatism, most Canadians were hopeful about the future of national unity and appeared to harbour positive or neutral feelings toward each other, regardless of differences in political views, according to newly released data.

Two Statistics Canada reports published Wednesday delve into measures of national unity and social cohesion, a relatively new area of exploration for the federal statistics agency.

As the research was conducted in April, 2024, it does not capture recent shifts in sentiment in response to more recent developments such as the trade war with the U.S. However, one of the reports says, the data “serve as a useful baseline for Canadians’ sense of national unity and their societal outlook prior to these events and future comparisons.”

Most respondents were hopeful about the future of Canadian society. More than eight out of 10 said they were hopeful about unity, and a similar proportion said so about democracy.

A slightly lower proportion – 75 per cent – said they were hopeful about the economic opportunities. However, difficulty meeting financial obligations and poor health conditions were linked to relatively lower hopefulness about unity….

Source: Canadians optimistic about national unity regardless of political differences, data show, Unity in Canada: Experimental measures of feelings towards people with similar or different views

Recording of Research Matters event: Exploring citizenship trends and immigrant engagement in Canada and Australia 

ICYMI: Good webinar on recent trends in citizenship by Fung Hou of StatsCan (decline in naturalization along with “citizens of convenience” evidence showing little difference between citizen immigrants and non-citizen immigrants who leave Canada) and a Canada-Australia comparison by Li Xu of IRCC.

Source: Recording of Research Matters event: Exploring citizenship trends and immigrant engagement in Canada and Australia

Bonner: Repairing the fray: Improving immigration and citizenship policy in Canada

Hard to understand why a former staffer with exposure to immigration issues, could advance such naive, politically and in some cases, judicially unrealistic proposals in response to some of the legitimate policy concerns and failures that he points out.

Some examples. Government reorganization into a super ministry would result in significant transition processes and distract from substantive issues. Would any international campaign focussed on values discourage those with other values? No country has had success with pro-birth strategies. Differential time requirements for citizenship would be Charter non-compliant:

….Immigration has been a good thing in the past. It should be in the present and future, too.

This study has three main parts: (1) an exposition of the economic and cultural challenges of mass immigration (including a short history of immigration policy in Canada), (2) a comparative analysis of other immigration systems that we can learn from, and (3) a series of policy options for improving the Canadian system.

To repair Canada’s frayed immigration system, this study makes the case for the following recommendations:

1. Lower the annual permanent residency target to a more manageable level (e.g. 200,000).

2. Strengthen the process of deportation for any non-citizen found guilty of violent crime, supporting terrorism, or expressing hatred for Canada.

3. Execute an international campaign to discourage immigration by anyone unwilling or unable to respect our founding cultures and unwilling or unable to integrate.

4. Prioritize international students pursuing courses of study of high importance to our labour market and supply chains.

5. Re-engineer the points system to emphasize language, age, and domestic education.

6. Consolidate all “population” ministries to create the Ministry of Human Resources Canada (MHRC).

7. Make the main mandate of MHRC to ensure that economic immigration serves the national interest.

8. Require MHRC to implement a pro-birth strategy.

9. Lengthen the time requirement for citizenship, except for immigrants from peer English- and French-speaking countries.

10. Phase down and abolish the Temporary Foreign Worker Program permanently.

11. Establish a uniform standard of credential recognition in self-regulating professions and skilled trades.

We have the right and the obligation to raise the value of Canadian citizenship, and to demand more of our citizens. Above all, however, efforts at integration should proceed not from a dislike of other places, but from a love for Canada….

Source: Repairing the fray: Improving immigration and citizenship policy in Canada

Canada sees surge in temporary foreign workers applying to escape abusive employers

The positive news is that this pathway appears to be responding to the unfortunate need:

The number of temporary foreign workers applying for open work permits to escape abusive employers has jumped more than 800 per cent year over year, a surge advocates say highlights a growing crisis of abuse as immigration cuts and economic uncertainty deepen migrant workers’ vulnerability.

To address exploitation, the federal government in 2019 introduced the Vulnerable Worker Open Work Permit, allowing temporary foreign workers — whose status in Canada is tied to a single employer — to leave abusive jobs and apply for an open permit.

To qualify for one of these permits, migrant workers must show evidence of abuse.

In Ontario, open work permits for vulnerable workers soared to 435 in the first quarter of 2025, up from just 45 during the same period last year, according to the most recent data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — an 867 per cent increase.

In British Columbia, 650 permits were issued in the first quarter of 2025, a sharp rise from just 40 during the same period in 2024. Quebec and Alberta each saw 465 permits issued in early 2025, up from 65 and 30, respectively, during the same period last year.

As Canada increasingly relies on migrant workers to fill gaps in key sectors like agriculture, construction and health care, the surge in vulnerable worker open work permits underscores how the temporary foreign worker program leaves workers open to exploitation. Tied to a single employer, many are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their status or being deported.

Advocates say a looming recession and government efforts to cut immigration levels are exacerbating that precarity, and while more migrant workers are now seeking help, they warn the true scale of abuse is likely far greater than what’s being reported….

Source: Canada sees surge in temporary foreign workers applying to escape abusive employers

Canada increasingly dependent on low-wage migrant workers, says report

Confirmation what many have been noting (chart below highlights shift before more recent reversal_:

The share of native-born Canadians in the labour force has dropped nearly 10 percentage points since 2006, according to a new Bank of Canada report documenting how the country’s economy is becoming increasingly reliant on low-wage migrant workers.

“Not only has Canada experienced an unprecedented surge in immigration, but the composition of recent newcomers has been markedly different than in the past,” reads a discussion paper published May 9 by the bank’s Economic Analysis Department.

The paper found that, driven largely by a surge in temporary migration, the average Canadian immigrant has now become younger, lower-skilled and more likely to hail from poorer regions such as India, sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East.

They’re also paid less. Particularly among Canada’s surging ranks of temporary migrant workers, wages have “reduced significantly relative to Canadian-born workers,” reads the paper.

Since 2015, “the average nominal wage gap between temporary and Canadian-born workers has more than doubled,” it read.

The authors calculated that the average migrant worker in Canada is now paid more than one fifth (22.6 per cent) less than a comparable Canadian-born worker. Prior to 2014, that gap was only 9.5 per cent.

The paper, entitled The Shift in Canadian Immigration Composition and its Effect on Wages, is one of the most definitive official documents as to the massive surge of migrant workers brought to Canada in the immediate wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Starting in 2022, Canada began accepting more than one million newcomers per year, mostly in “non-permanent” categories of immigrants ranging from international students, who are among those admitted under the international mobility program, to temporary foreign workers.

The Bank of Canada document shows that this wasn’t just unprecedented for Canada, but it went well beyond the pale of any comparable advanced economy.

Between 2019 and 2023, Canada charted population growth of more than six per cent. This was triple the rate seen in the United States, and double the rate seen in Switzerland, the only other developed economy analyzed by the paper whose demographic shift came anywhere close to those of Canada’s….

Source: Canada increasingly dependent on low-wage migrant workers, says report

Québec peut-il priver les expatriés de leur droit de vote après deux ans d’exil ? 

Another case to watch. But Gelinas-Faucher is now back in Canada, working in New Brunswick, presumably eligible to vote in his province of residence. So implicitly, he is also arguing that other Canadians should be able to maintain their province of origin vote even when they have moved to another province.

I never supported unlimited voting rights for Canadian expats in any case as they would be largely not subject to Canadian laws nor paying Canadian income tax, and the former 5-year cut-off was reasonable. That being said, the actual number of Canadians living abroad who are interested in exercising this right is relatively small, about 120,000 in 2025, compared to an estimated 3 million expatriates. Actual votes cast numbers should be released shortly.

Nuts:

Le Québec a-t-il le droit de retirer à ses citoyens le droit de vote s’ils sont à l’extérieur de la province depuis plus de deux ans ?

Après trois ans d’attente, la Cour supérieure du Québec entendra finalement la semaine prochaine la demande en pourvoi judiciaire de l’avocat Bruno Gélinas-Faucher qui cherche à faire déclarer inconstitutionnel l’article 282 de la Loi électorale du Québec.

Cet article retire le droit de vote des citoyens québécois après deux ans d’exil de la province, sauf dans deux cas d’exception, soit les personnes qui travaillent pour le gouvernement du Québec ou du Canada à l’extérieur de la province et leurs conjoints ou celles qui œuvrent pour un organisme international financé par Ottawa ou Québec et leurs conjoints également.

Dans les faits, les personnes qui quittent le Québec peuvent voter par correspondance durant deux ans, mais par la suite, si elles veulent exercer ce droit, elles doivent revenir au Québec physiquement, un obstacle de taille, surtout pour les étudiants.

Inconstitutionnel au fédéral

En 2019, Bruno Gélinas-Faucher étudiait le droit international à l’université Cambridge, en Angleterre, et il s’y trouvait depuis plus de deux ans lorsqu’est survenue l’élection partielle dans Jean-Talon, en décembre 2019. Or, onze mois plus tôt, en janvier de la même année, l’arrêt Frank de la Cour suprême avait invalidé la provision de la loi canadienne qui, elle, retirait le droit de vote après plus de cinq ans à l’extérieur du pays. Il s’agissait, selon le plus haut tribunal, d’une atteinte inconstitutionnelle à l’article 3 de la Charte canadienne des droits qui stipule que « tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote et est éligible aux élections législatives fédérales ou provinciales ».

« Au début de 2019, la Cour rend ce jugement-là, raconte Me Gélinas-Faucher. Je ne suis pas forcément un constitutionnaliste, mais je me tiens au courant des jugements de la Cour qui ont un impact sur moi. Et j’arrive pour voter aux élections provinciales au Québec et là, on me dit non, désolé, ça fait plus de deux ans que vous êtes à l’étranger. Et là, moi, je me dis, ben voyons donc, la Cour suprême vient de dire que cinq ans, c’était une limite inconstitutionnelle. Ça me semble tout à fait illogique et tout aussi inconstitutionnel. Mais je n’ai pas pu voter à l’élection partielle dans Jean-Talon qui était (la circonscription) où j’étais domicilié et c’est ce qui m’a amené à lancer ce recours-là. »

Incohérence et discrimination

Québec a décidé de contester ce recours et la cause sera entendue par le tribunal du 2 au 6 juin, à Montréal.

Au-delà de l’atteinte au droit de vote protégé par la Charte, Me Gélinas-Faucher avance l’argument de l’incohérence. « Le gouvernement du Québec a des programmes sociaux et des dispositions qui font en sorte qu’il garde un lien et qui démontre qu’il veut garder un lien, particulièrement avec ses étudiants », affirme-t-il.

Il fait valoir qu’alors qu’il était étudiant à Cambridge, il recevait des prêts étudiants du gouvernement du Québec et qu’il était toujours couvert par la Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec. « La RAMQ a une exception pour les étudiants qui sont à l’étranger dans le cadre de leurs études. Alors moi, je continuais d’être couvert par la RAMQ, je recevais un prêt du gouvernement du Québec dans le cas du programme d’aide financière aux études, mais je perdais mon droit de vote. Ça me semble tout à fait incohérent. Et c’est ce qu’on met de l’avant, là, pour montrer que ce n’est pas une limite raisonnable parce qu’elle est arbitraire et incohérente. »

Aussi, dit-il, le fait que les personnes travaillant hors Québec pour le gouvernement provincial ou fédéral ou pour un organisme international conservent, elles, le droit de voter par correspondance est ni plus ni moins que de la discrimination. « C’est aussi un argument qu’on fait valoir. Il n’y a aucune base pour différencier ces gens-là. Par exemple, si je prends la deuxième catégorie, des gens qui sont affectés pour une organisation internationale à laquelle le Canada contribue financièrement. Une personne qui travaille par exemple pour l’UNESCO en République centrafricaine pendant 20 ans n’a pas plus de lien avec le Québec qu’un étudiant qui est temporairement à l’étranger pour ses études, même si ça fait plus de deux ans. »

L’exemple de Terrebonne

Maintenant que la Cour supérieure se saisira finalement du dossier, l’avocat espère avoir gain de cause avant l’automne 2026, moment où doivent avoir lieu les prochaines élections provinciales au Québec. C’est que Me Gélinas-Faucher occupe présentement un poste de professeur adjoint à l’université du Nouveau-Brunswick, à Fredericton, et si rien ne change, il n’aura toujours pas le droit de voter.

Il rappelle, pour les besoins de la cause, qu’aussi loin soit-il, chaque vote compte. « C’est dans l’air du temps, disons, les questions électorales, avec Terrebonne et tout ça », laisse-t-il tomber en référence à l’élection fédérale où le résultat final a donné cette circonscription à la candidate libérale Tatiana Auguste par une voix devant sa rivale bloquiste Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, alors qu’au moins un vote bloquiste confirmé par correspondance n’a pas été comptabiliséCe résultat est d’ailleurs contesté devant les tribunaux par le Bloc québécois qui invoquera sans doute lui aussi, pour d’autres raisons, l’article 3 de la Charte garantissant le droit de vote de tout citoyen.

Source: Québec peut-il priver les expatriés de leur droit de vote après deux ans d’exil ?

Immigration advocates take Ottawa to court over refugee treaty with U.S. 

As was expected and they have a case, no matter how inconvenient, as it gets stronger day-by-day with clear incidents of USA and ICE over-reach and undermining protections:

The federal government is facing a legal challenge arguing that its oversight of a two-decade-old refugee treaty with the United States is “fundamentally flawed.”

The bilateral agreement is premised on both countries being safe for asylum seekers. It prevents refugee claimants passing through the U.S. from seeking protection in Canada and vice versa. 

Canada is legally required to regularly review its neighbour’s human-rights record and refugee protections as part of the treaty, the Safe Third Country Agreement, or STCA. Ottawa has not publicized its findings since 2009. 

In January, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a sweeping immigration crackdown that has heightened asylum seekers’ risk of detention and deportation. Immigration rights groups have asserted that migrants and asylum seekers have been held in “secret” detention at the northern border. 

In an application for judicial review, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO) argue that the lack of publicly available information about Ottawa‘s refugee monitoring process shields the government from accountability − and could violate the Constitution.

“This is so crucial because what we see happening at the Canada-U.S. border is quite troubling,” said lawyer Maureen Silcoff, who is representing CARL in the legal challenge.

Advocates in Canada have long maintained that cracks in American refugee protections leave asylum seekers at risk, raising concerns about the legality of the STCA treaty. Executive orders issued by the U.S. President in January, which initiated drastic immigration changes, have heightened fears over detention conditions for asylum seekers and rapid deportation without due process. 

Sujit Choudhry, who is representing SALCO in the case, said that without detailed evidence of how Ottawa determines its neighbour is safe for asylum seekers, it is impossible to know if Canada is complying with its legal obligations to refugee claimants.

An inaccurate designation – one that results in refugee claimants at the Canadian border being returned to the U.S. and then deported to a country where they would face torture – would violate the Canadian Constitution, he added. …

Source: Immigration advocates take Ottawa to court over refugee treaty with U.S.

Rempel Garner: Canada’s immigration system needs massive, wholesale reform. 

Gives a strong sense of where the Conservative opposition will likely focus on immigration. Mainly overall levels and program integrity. Focus is on the impact on housing and healthcare for immigrants and non-immigrants alike, not values. She is right in stating the need for “wholesale reform” (or at least major reform) but silent on the need for some form of commission to lay out issues and options. Some of her assertions are excessively partisan or exaggerated but the issues are real.

And of course, is coy on what the right level of immigration would be, back to the last year of the Harper government, less or more:

…I am presently convinced that nothing short of wholesale reform of the entire system, starting with the process by which the federal government sets and counts immigration levels, will fix the mess the Liberals have created. With millions of people currently in Canada with temporary permits about to expire, the government must urgently entirely rethink the criteria by which people are allowed to stay and enter the country – and then consistently enforce the same. Overall immigration levels need to be drastically reduced and the problem of millions of people with no legal reason to be in Canada must be addressed head on, for there to be any future hope of program or system reform.

Having only been officially on the job for a couple of days, I will consult with stakeholders and our newly expanded Conservative caucus and appointed Shadow Ministers on how they feel we should hold the government to account on this issue. Immigration policy affects all of their communities and files, and not necessarily in a homogenous way. However, what I will be pitching to them as a starting point are the following principles – which the Conservative Party has already generally established as our macro-level position on immigration.

As a first principle, the government must be forced to take action on something that they’ve already acknowledged, that present overall immigration levels must be massively and immediately curtailed. What is the correct number to allow you to enter the country, you ask? Whereas academics and special interest groups have recently often the loudest voices on that front, the reality is that the lived experience of millions of Canadians have been ignored. And many of those Canadians, grappling with job losses, soaring housing costs, and lengthy healthcare wait times, believe the ideal immigration number is far less than what it is now, zero—or even negative. It falls to the Liberal government to justify any figure they propose by first validating these concerns – which have been long ignored – and addressing the systemic strains exacerbated by high immigration. Every parliamentarian must hold the government accountable on this front, demanding decisive action and transparent data.

As a second principle, the Liberals must be made to acknowledge that the immigration system is so strained that simple tweaks are insufficient and sidestep the core issue: Canada’s capacity to absorb newcomers successfully. Fraud, abuse, and massive backlogs now plague everyimmigration stream, with the unifying problem being unchecked inflow coupled with countless people living in the country without legal status. Without significantly reducing overall immigration, massively tightening temporary resident permit criteria, and promptly removing those with no legal right to remain, the pressure on the system will simply shift elsewhere—such as illegal border crossings leading to work permits or temporary residents with expired permits claiming asylum. The bureaucratic dysfunction underpinning Canada’s immigration system cannot be resolved while piling on more entrants, while unscrupulous actors manipulate the system, visa standards stay lax, asylum backlogs grow, and deportations are delayed.

Finally, parliamentarians must to have the courage to address head-on the uncomfortable questions that underpin both of these principles (of which there are many and will be the topic of future columns), while remaining compassionate. Every policy decision made on this file has a human face and story – for newcomers and long-standing Canadian citizens alike. So, the Liberals must be made to rethink the criteria and circumstances in which we will allow people into the country, but also when we won’t, and then held to account to strictly enforce those rules. Only then can our systems and processes make sound and expedited decisions on when to allow or deny someone entry, remove them, and prevent profiteers from profiting from failure.

Solving these challenges is integral to virtually every other area of government policy – from the economy to health care, housing, and more.

Failure is not an option. So giddyup, back in the immigration saddle again.

Source: Canada’s immigration system needs massive, wholesale reform.

MPs revive bid scrapping requirement to swear oath of loyalty to the King 

Hard to see this as a priority:

MPs are reviving a bid to end the centuries-old requirement to pledge loyalty to the monarch before they take their seats in Parliament, with many favouring an option to swear allegiance to Canada instead. 

The Bloc Québécois is preparing to table a private member’s bill scrapping the obligation, which dates back to the Constitution Act of 1867.

MPs, including Prime Minister Mark Carney, have this week been swearing the oath to King Charles III so they can take their seats in the new Parliament afterthe election. They are barred from doing so unless they pledge allegiance to the monarch. 

The initiative by the Bloc comes as the King and Queen Camilla prepare to visit Ottawa next week, where the King will open Parliament by reading the Speech from the Throne. 

The King’s decision to read the speech is being seen in Ottawa as bolstering Canada’s sovereignty, after U.S. President Donald Trump’s stated wish to annex the country.

But Bloc MPs plan to boycott the Throne Speech in the Senate, as they do when it is read by the Governor-General, the monarch’s representative in Canada. Their bill to update the oath is expected to be tabled within weeks. 

“As usual, we will not be attending the Throne Speech, neither in the Senate or in the House, where the speech is broadcast,” said Bloc Québécois spokesperson Julien Coulombe-Bonnafous. “We plan on tabling a bill to revise the oath-taking process for MPs.” 

A 2023 attempt by former Liberal MP René Arseneault to reform the swearing-in process did not get enough support to progress in Parliament. 

His private member’s bill sought to give MPs and senators the option of swearing an oath to the monarch or to pledge to carry out their duties “in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.” The bill received the backing of Bloc, NDP and Green MPs, as well as some Liberals – including current ministers Joël Lightbound and Julie Dabrusin – and several Conservatives, including newly promoted mental-health critic Mike Lake. 

Mr. Lake said that, although he personally supported swearing an oath to the monarch, MPs should have a choice of whether to do so. 

Source: MPs revive bid scrapping requirement to swear oath of loyalty to the King

Processing times for some Canadian immigration applications have surged, but not others. Here’s why

Some interesting comparative data:

There are fewer applications in Canada’s immigration system and the backlog has shrunk in the past year. But why are applicants for some programs seeing a spike in processing times?

As of the end of March, the Immigration Department had 1,976,700 permanent and temporary residence applications in its queue, including 779,900 that surpassed service standards and are deemed backlogged. The total number was down by seven per cent compared to more than 2.1 million a year ago, when the backlog stood at almost 900,000.

Yet, processing time for permanent residence for spouses and common law partners from within Canada (but outside Quebec) has skyrocketed to 29 months from 10 months; sponsorships of parents and grandparents to 36 months from 24; skilled immigrants nominated by provinces to 20 months from 11; and candidates destined for Atlantic provinces, up to 11 months from seven.

Those seeking to extend their stay in Canada have also seen longer wait times: for visitor extension, to 161 days from 88 days; for study permits, to 236 days from 55 days; and for work permits, to 238 days from 101 days.

“If you submit an application, it could show 120 days, but all of a sudden it shoots up to 226 days,” said Tamara Mosher-Kuczer of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association. “The processing time is changing constantly, so it means absolutely nothing.” 

The Ottawa lawyer said these surging processing times are at least in part the results of the federal government’s reduced immigration levels announced last October, and they reflect its changing priorities.

In response to a public outcry over surging population growth that has contributed to the housing affordability crisis and strained government services, Ottawa has reduced its annual intake of permanent residents by 21 per cent to 395,000 this year, 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027.

It’s also slashing the temporary resident population in Canada, including international students and foreign workers, by 445,901 this year and 445,662 in 2026, while increasing it modestly by 17,439 in 2027. The goal is to reduce its proportion in the country’s overall population from 7.3 per cent to under five per cent in three years. 

“They have these targets and they don’t want to exceed these targets,” said Mosher-Kuczer. “They’re slowing the flow, so that the next cohort goes into the next year.”…

Source: Processing times for some Canadian immigration applications have surged, but not others. Here’s why