Century Initiative: Canada’s Growth Engine is Stalling

2025/10/23 Leave a comment

Continuing to pivot to a more realistic and comprehensive approach, rather than simplistically arguing for more immigration.

Of the 40 scorecard measures, 11 are leading or are on track, while 29 need attention or falling behind, notably among economic indicators:

Key Takeaways

Build for today—plan for 2050: With growth stalling and the median age rising, Canada needs a smart population plan that balances housing and services now while sustaining a skilled workforce, a resilient tax base, and competitiveness anchored in cross-government collaboration and real-time data.
 
Turning strengths into results: Canada’s talent and startup energy aren’t translating into growth. We lag peers on R&D, productivity, and scaling firms, eroding GDP per capita. The next five years must focus on incentives for R&D and competition, support for scale-ups, and tighter links between education/training and high-value jobs.
 
Compete to win talent: Canada can seize a global opening if immigration policy is stable, predictable, and competitive. A rules-based system that fuels workforce growth and innovation is essential to long-term fiscal resilience.
 
Affordability, competitiveness, and resilience—one agenda: Affordability isn’t just a pocketbook issue; it underpins productivity, social cohesion, and trust. A comprehensive plan on housing supply, household debt, wages, and inequality is critical to economic durability.
 
National security starts with the economy: Economic, demographic, and military security are inseparable. Meeting global commitments requires defence investment alongside modern data systems, deeper cybersecurity talent, and more diversified trade.

Source: Canada’s Growth Engine is Stalling, National Scorecard on Canada’s Growth and Prosperity

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Century Initiative “Pulling Back” report

2025/09/10 Leave a comment

The latest report by CI, still overly focussed on nominal rather than per capita GDP and aiming at different stakeholders to justify their overall call for increased immigration.

My expectation is that the government is unlikely to make major changes to current and planned cuts and restrictions despite calls from CI and others. Also noteworthy is of course the Conservatives highlighting of immigration, most recently Temporary Foreign Workers, as a line of attack.

List of CI issues and approach below (sorry for the poor quality):

Source: CI2100 Pulling Back report 2025

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Sabrina Maddeaux: Canada’s immigration absolutists are refusing to correct course, no matter the cost 

2025/06/27 Leave a comment

Although intemperate and unbalanced, fundamentally correct in her critique:

…What is radical is the Century Initiative, whose dogged ideology rejects reality, denying and distorting evidence to pursue their vision, regardless of who else it hurts. There are many examples of this, but some are more egregious than others.

First is the Century Initiative’s claim that any reduction in immigration will harm housing affordability. Of course, it’s actually soaring immigration numbers far in excess of the housing stock that largely contributed to the housing crisis. In 2022, the federal public service warned Trudeau’s government about this consequence. In 2024, BMO economist Robert Kavcic wrote in a client note, “We’ve been firm in our argument that Canada has an excess demand problem in housing…non-permanent resident inflows, on net, have swelled to about 800k in the latest year, with few checks and balances in place, putting tremendous stress on housing supply and infrastructure.”

Yet somehow, the Century Initiative hasn’t gotten the message. Rather, their report argues, “housing supply shortages may be exacerbated due to the important role of immigrants filling critical labour shortages in Canada’s residential home construction industry.” They claim “the construction industry continues to rely heavily on immigrants to fill critical labour market gaps” and cite that “more than 1 in 5 general contractors and builders are immigrants.”

That figure may be true, but it’s also misleading because the immigrants who work as contractors and builders include those who arrived years, if not decades, before the recent immigration surge. In fact, a December 2023 Bank of Canada report on the matter notes, “A rise in immigration to Canada may contribute more to housing imbalances than found in studies of other countries. This is because Canada already has imbalances between its housing supply and demand and because relatively few newcomers join the construction industry.”1

At the same time, the authors state immigrants tend to boost near-term demand for rental accommodation while using funds brought from their home countries to achieve similar home ownership rates to those born in Canada within just a decade.

The bottom line: we know mass immigration greatly boosts housing demand, while data showing any meaningful boost to supply—and certainly enough supply to offset said demand—does not exist.

The Century Initiative also makes the argument that continued mass immigration is essential to Canada’s economic growth and prosperity, writing, “reduced immigration levels will reduce Canada’s nominal GDP by $37 billion over the next 3 years and accelerate Canada’s trajectory toward economic decline.” However, using nominal GDP instead of GDP per capita to measure prosperity conveniently glosses over some stark realities.

Nominal GDP measures the total value of goods and services a country produces. It is easily juiced with higher population numbers and doesn’t account for the distribution of wealth within an economy or individual living standards. This is what GDP per capita, which divides GDP by the total population of the country, does. Canada’s GDP continues to hover around pre-pandemic levels, despite enormous population growth, as we fall further and further behind the U.S. and other peer economies. This is why Canadian economists have called using GDP in this context “a mirage of economic prosperity.”

The Century Initiative’s report goes on to make many, many mentions of “significant labour shortages” in “critical industries” to justify reversing immigration curbs. Yet, most of its attention is spent on attracting U.S. researchers and academics with a vague mention of IT and cybersecurity workers related to national security. There may be opportunities to recruit some true stars in these fields, but it’s unclear why the Century Initiative feels these very rare, exceptional talents couldn’t possibly be accommodated within Mark Carney’s 415,000 new permanent residents per year?

Otherwise, the Century Initiative is pretty mum on so-called labour shortages, because there aren’t many in Canada these days, let alone those that could be solved through more immigration. Rather, reckless immigration policies have suppressed wages in many sectors and contributed to soaring unemployment, especially for younger Canadians.2

Canada couldn’t keep up with the mass immigration targets set by Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, and recent reductions are only a first step on the path to correcting the tremendous harm done. This is no longer a controversial statement for most Canadians, regardless of political stripe, because data, lived experience, and a basic understanding of math make it blindingly obvious. If you are already struggling to find enough homes, doctors, and jobs for five people, there’s going to be a problem when you try to accommodate 10.3

Instead of recognizing this and correcting course, the Century Initiative chooses instead to double down on its singular worldview at the expense of reason and the welfare of Canadians—particularly younger ones. They are not big thinkers, but extremists in pursuit of a narrow goal at the expense of all else.

Source: Sabrina Maddeaux: Canada’s immigration absolutists are refusing to correct course, no matter the cost

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Lalande | Here is a two-step plan to rebuild Canada’s economy and it isn’t centred on our natural resources

2025/06/13 Leave a comment

Step One repeats the previous tired messages, Step Two looks more sensibly looks forward on how to capitalize on the Trump administrations attacks on universities, scientists and researchers:

Canada’s premiers and prime minister want the world to know that they are ready to build: pipelines, a revitalized military, new high-speed transit, an energy corridor.

But if Canada is to build a truly national economy and to effectively respond to the Trump administration’s economic instability and isolation, it needs a larger, more skilled, and more adaptive workforce.

And there is a clear, achievable two-step strategy we must take to get there.

Step One

The first strategy is to reverse course on the government’s immigration cuts and to build a smart, long-term population strategy.

Last fall, the federal government announced a 20 per cent reduction in immigration levels in its 2025—2027 levels plan. It was a short-term political decision that will leave long-term economic scarring. Research from the Parliamentary Budget Officer shows this policy will reduce Canada’s nominal GDP by $37 billion over just three years. As detailed in Century Initiative’s latest report, cutting immigration accelerates economic decline by constricting labour supply and choking growth.

This contraction is unfolding against the backdrop of a demographic “perfect storm”: a rapidly aging population, a declining fertility rate, and severe labour shortages across critical sectors.

We can’t build the strongest economy in the G7 if our workforce is shrinking, particularly in high-growth sectors.

Canada cannot navigate this storm without a serious plan. We need strategic, well-managed immigration designed not only to meet immediate gaps but to build the long-term foundation for shared prosperity.

Realizing this vision will require purposeful collaboration between different levels of government, including building on intergovernmental successes like the provincial nominee program. Further, business, academia, and civil society all have a role to play leveraging their respective reach, resources, and networks.

This is the plan that enables every other plan. Infrastructure. National defence. Clean tech. Housing. None of it is possible without a strong tax base and a skilled, growing talent pool.

Step Two

The second strategy is to launch a targeted U.S. talent attraction strategy.

Flagrant and damaging threats from the Trump administration against Harvard and other academic institutions, the defunding of research institutions like the National Science Foundation, the gutting of visa programs, and the political targeting of international students have all weakened America’s standing as a magnet for innovation.

Taken together, these actions have opened the door in the global war for talent. As the saying goes, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

But we ought to capitalize on that mistake. As the U.S. turns inward, we should position ourselves as a global safe haven for scientists, entrepreneurs, and students who no longer feel welcome — or funded — south of the border.

This means being strategic about research opportunities, targeting U.S. universities with visa programs and recruitment campaigns for high-performing graduates. 

While appropriately managing international student capacity, we should simplify employment pathways for international students and postdocs in tech, AI, clean energy, and health sciences.

Settlement services should be rolled out in partnership with cross-border companies who are willing to relocate here. And regional accelerator hubs should bolster our fastest-growing sectors — connecting immigration, innovation, and talent with opportunity.

Canada’s greatest asset isn’t just our natural resources or trade deals — it’s our ability to build a fair, open, future-ready society. That takes people. And in this moment, when the U.S. is retreating from talent, science, and global leadership, we have the opportunity — and responsibility — to step up.

Source: Opinion | Here is a two-step plan to rebuild Canada’s economy and it isn’t centred on our natural resources

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Geoff Russ: Mark Carney can’t be trusted to get immigration under control

2025/03/31 Leave a comment

Example of any number of articles and commentary by Postmedia columnists warning that the appointment of Mark Wiseman, and to a lessor extent, Marco Mendocino, mean that PM Carney will continue the same high immigration policies of Trudeau. IMO, too early to tell, whether he would continue or expand the restrictions of former Minister Miller, or not. But certainly Wiseman’s appointment could be interpreted as such:

Donald Trump and his tariffs will not be the only key issue that determines who will be prime minister after April, 28. Canada has been plagued by a diverse set of problems for years, all of which will be remembered by voters on election day, including immigration.

Prior to Trump’s election and his decision to threaten Canada, one of the biggest controversies in Canada was the abrupt end of an uncontested pillar in Canadian political culture — immigration. It crumbled as if struck by a sledgehammer after just a few years of the Trudeau government’s careless mass-immigration policies.

The numbers laid bare illustrate Canada’s resulting issues of scarcity. Simply put, Canada is not built to sustain half a million newcomers per year.

Stephen Harper’s government admitted roughly 250,000 permanent residents per year between 2006 and 2015. The Trudeau wave saw those numbers increasing from Harper’s pre-2015 levels, to an average around 334,000, with four years (2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023) exceeding 341,000, at a time when Century Initiative, lobby group that advocates for dramatically higher immigration levels, was at the height of its influence in Ottawa.

In 2018, representatives of the Initiative lamented that Canada’s annual intake of about 310,000 people per year would only increase the population to 53 million by 2100, and called for an increase to 450,000 to reach the goal of 100 million.

Created by former McKinsey executive, Dominic Barton and former BlackRock executive Mark Wiseman, Century Initiative publicly endorsed the Trudeau government’s moves to take in 500,000 new immigrants per year by 2025.

However, the scheme rapidly lost all political currency as the population influx rocked Canada. Immigration-driven demand for housing and services vastly outstripped the supply of both, resulting in a palpable decline in affordability and access to health care, schooling and social services.

Between 2015 and 2024, Canada’s ranking in the Human Development Index plummeted from 9th to 18th, while the country fell behind Italy in the average growth of real GDP per capita.

Western governments since the Great Recession have tried to claim that large-scale immigration is an unambiguous economic benefit. Given the state of the economies of Canada, Germany, and others that embraced mass immigration, immigration has not been a silver bullet to remedy slow growth and stagnation.

Immigrants themselves are not at the root of Canada’s long-standing problems. However, it is also clear that increasing their numbers in such a deliberate fashion failed to make Canada more competitive or improve the lives of its citizens.

There has not been a meaningful increase in the numbers of engineers, physicians, and software developers. In essential services like health care, the ratio of family doctors in relation to the general population has actually worsened. Rather, Canada has imported hundreds of thousands of unskilled international students who stock shelves, deliver food, and flip hamburgers for minimum-wage.

On the other hand, academic institutions have become dependent on this new class of economic immigrant, who often enters the country on a student visa to attend suspect career colleges while paying exorbitant international student fees.

This is not an economic climate that breeds dynamism or healthy growth. Canada needs to be a top choice for highly-skilled immigrants, which means having attractively affordable housing and quality services, neither of which have been rapidly deteriorating.

Even if the restrictions on foreign credentials are loosened in Canada, few trained doctors or dentists from India or South Africa will pick Toronto over Dallas as long as the latter offers substantially higher paycheques and cheaper housing.

In-fact, just 46 per cent of immigrants are now choosing to receive Canadian citizenship, compared to 72 per cent in 1996. Last fall, Ipsos found that just over one quarter of all newcomers plan on leaving Canada within two years, with many citing the lack of affordability. This they have in-common with younger Canadians, many of whom are resigned to bleak and leaner lives than those enjoyed by their parents.

It is therefore concerning that Mark Carney has brought on Century Initiative co-founder Mark Wiseman as an advisor, whose name is ironic considering the results of his lobby group’s ideology. Canadians do not want Century Initiative-inspired ideas anymore, with nearly 60 per cent of residents polled last summer wanting substantially less immigration.

Unlike Europe, where mass-immigration has resulted in a slew of cultural and social clashes between asylum seekers and the established population, the pushback to immigration in Canada still mostly stems from economic factors, particularly housing.

Nonetheless, Wiseman’s presence on the prime minister’s team is political poison. He once even publicly endorsed pushing the Century Initiative’s agenda, even if it caused outrage in Quebec.

For many Québécois, their future is a major source of concern as their demographic place in North America shrinks. The prospect of more mass immigration could be the landmine that blows up Carney’s current run of goodwill in Quebec.

Without Quebec, Carney has little hope of winning a majority government, and even a parliamentary plurality is uncertain. Within hours of Wiseman’s involvement being announced, both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois went on the attack, in both official languages.

Pierre Poilievre himself attacked the Century Initiative as striving to “bring in people from poor countries in large numbers, to take away Canadian jobs, drive wages down and profits up,” and that Canada should only admit people who can be actually housed and employed

Wiseman’s role will harden the perception that Carney is merely feigning a Liberal shift back to the centre under his leadership. It was a misstep that undercuts Carney’s credibility on immigration caps, which he has nominally pledged to maintain until housing is expanded.

To their credit, the Liberal government significantly scaled back the annual immigration numbers in Trudeau’s final months as PM, if only due to public backlash. A new leader, and Trump’s blustering, has gifted the Liberals a huge opportunity to reinvent themselves as the defenders of the country, while sidestepping hard questions about their thus far poor record in government.

Mark Carney is saying and promising all the right things to pull the Liberals back towards the centre and a genuine pro-growth agenda, earning him plaudits across the political spectrum, even from conservatives. However, if he continues to surround himself with the same crew of advisors and cabinet ministers who sailed Canada into a lost decade, can Carney truly be the captain to right the ship, least of all on immigration?

Source: Geoff Russ: Mark Carney can’t be trusted to get immigration under control

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

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

2025/03/28 Leave a comment

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

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

Lalande | To successfully fight Trump, Canada needs one thing: more Canadians

2025/02/11 Leave a comment

Certainly, not as many as the CI advocates. Competitiveness is real, and depends less on population growth than smart economic and immigration policies. The grave mistake was CI’s early advocacy for a larger population, Barton’s recommendations, and the Liberal government’s not thinking critically about what that would mean for housing, healthcare and infrastructure:

Time discovers truth.

In this case, it’s a brutal one.

The federal government’s decision to cut immigration targets by 21 per cent in 2025 and 24 per cent in 2026 was a grave mistake. Alarmingly, the consequences are rearing their ugly head at the worst possible time.

By reducing immigration levels, Canada is facing the economic fight of our lives with one arm tied behind our back. This is a moment when we should be projecting strength and growth — yet, instead, we have chosen to shrink. And unfortunately for us, this policy shift is occurring at the same time as another major demographic headwind: the retirement of five million Canadians by the end of the decade.

The economic impacts of these reductions are dire. A new Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) report examined the impact of reduced immigration levels and found that by 2027, Canada will see 1.3 billion fewer hours worked and a $37 billion reduction in nominal GDP, on average, over the next three years. These economic impacts will cripple Canada’s tax base, erode our economic resilience and reduce access to public services that Canadians rely upon.

We also haven’t yet factored in the proverbial elephant in the room that is the ongoing threat of tariffs and trade warfare. When we accept the true extent of economic volatility on the horizon, it becomes clear that Canada is in the midst of an economic emergency.

It’s one made considerably worse by the fact we have undermined our own bargaining power. The Conference Board of Canada has warned of a $6.9 billion reduction in real consumer spending in 2025, growing to $10.8 billion in 2026 — a consequence of both fewer workers, fewer people and a contracting market.

Understanding how we got here is critical. The absence of a national strategy for population and economic growth has left us vulnerable. The only way out is through a renewed focus on Canada’s competitiveness.

First, let’s radically improve our business climate so we can meaningfully diversify the Canadian economy and sharpen the tools in our economic toolbox. Trade wars may be a race to the bottom, but we can at least position ourselves as a stronger and more diversified, self-reliant economic competitor.

In 2023, Canada earned $152 billion from oil and gas exports to the United States, dwarfing all other sectors. Auto manufacturing, by comparison, only accounted for $51 billion worth of exports in 2023. We are doing ourselves a disservice by relying disproportionately on oil and gas exports at the expense of other industries, which can also be sources of innovation, investment and prosperity.

We also need to invest in a pro-growth agenda at lightning speed, attracting entrepreneurs and making it easier for large capital projects to set up shop in Canada and seize our early advantage in burgeoning industries such as artificial intelligence. Highly skilled immigrants are a key part of the equation, bringing entrepreneurial ambition and foreign investment capital with them. This pro-growth agenda must focus not only on attracting new businesses but retaining them for the long-term.

Second, let’s focus on talent.

With U.S. immigration tightening, Canada has a golden opportunity to attract workers — but only with a compelling pitch. Instead of vague promises, we must offer a clear vision: strong job prospects, affordability, accessible health care, and inclusive communities. This pitch should target highly skilled American workers facing growing uncertainty about their residency status, but also prioritize workers for industries where we have shortages such as construction, trades, green economy, and health care.

To win the war for talent, Canada must modernize its immigration points system to prioritize high-demand skills. And we must invest in housing, transit, health care and child care to ensure newcomers don’t just arrive, but stay.

These aren’t new solutions — experts have pushed for them for years. But the current threat of tariffs and trade warfare makes action not only more urgent than ever, but possible. This is a rare political moment where everyone’s attention is focused on Canada’s economic future. Whatever happens in the coming months, we should not look away from the threat.

For once, the political necessity to act is matched by the political will to act. So let’s seize this moment.

Source: Opinion | To successfully fight Trump, Canada needs one thing: more Canadians

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

More commentary on reduced immigration levels

2024/11/02 Leave a comment

More of the commentary that I found interesting and relevant:

The Line: Dispatch from The Front Lines: Have a great trip, Jen! And where are they moving? Right now, public opinion is probably fairly reasonably grounded in reality. We think it would be broadly true today to say that Canadians still see value in immigration in the abstract, and remain good at welcoming newcomers into their own communities. We suspect that most of us have direct relationships with immigrants, and have better lives for those relationships. But we are very worried. Many of the problems that our recently unchecked immigration rates have caused or (more fairly) contributed to — including overwhelmed social services and the housing crisis — are going to continue getting worse for a number of years, since so much is already baked in. This is scary, and could mean that we see anti-immigration sentiment evolve explicitly into anti-immigrant sentiment. That would take what we have today, an embarrassing public-policy failure, and turn it into a genuine social nightmare, one from which it could take many years to recover, as newcomers pay the price for our policy failures and report back home that Canada is a place to avoid at all costs.

So, great. It’s nice to have something to look forward to. Right?

But there was one other issue that jumped out at us after the announcement this week. Both Prime Minister Trudeau and Immigration Minister Marc Miller made all-too political acknowledgments of responsibility. The prime minister went so far as to concede that his government “didn’t get the balance quite right.” Not to be outdone in the race for the most fearless and blunt mea culpa, Miller said, “Did we take too long to adjust? I think there is some responsibility there to assume.”

Wow! By whom? Tell us more, minister!

Look, let’s be blunt about this. Both your Line editors support immigration. And we both know that there is plenty of blame to go around. Many business interests and provincial leaders were desperate for more people. The federal government didn’t come up with the idea of ramping up growth to unsustainable levels all on its own. They had a lot of friends and a lot of help. The buck does stop with them. And we’re not going to let them get away with their attempts to deflect the blame. But it is fair to note that a lot of people were demanding this, and that our failure to roll out enough housing and social services to keep up with the demand rests on us, not on the people we invited to start new lives in this country. They are victims here. We sold them a bill of goods we had no ability or willingness to deliver upon. And we should be ashamed of ourselves for that. We have essentially defrauded people who just wanted to build a better lives for themselves and their families so that we could keep reaping the economic benefits of their arrival, and we kept doing that until the moment that it stopped being a good deal for us. Some future descendent of Justin Trudeau is probably going to have to offer up a tearful apology for this in a century or so. 

And it’ll take that long, clearly. This was the feds’ responsibility, and they screwed it up. It would not kill them to admit as much, openly and clearly, with a bit less of a masterclass in the passive voice than what Miller just offered the voters.

Globe editorial: Canada’s past and present were built on immigration. Our future will be too. Ottawa responded too slowly to rectify its mistakes but last week moved past tinkering. Count it as a turning point. The changes will help start to restore broad confidence in an immigration system that was long embraced by Canadians, respected around the world – and helped to build this country over many decades.

Immigration changes a ‘black eye’ for businesses, families, students, warns B.C. lawyer
“Businesses are going to suffer. The people on the ground right now — the workers here, the people on temporary status — are suffering. The students (are) totally gutted,” said Victoria immigration lawyer David Aujla. “We had a really pro-refugee, pro-humanitarian outlook, accepting people who were in crises. I think that’s going to take a big hit. I think Canada’s now got a black eye.”

The new changes will be very difficult for some newcomers waiting to bring relatives to Canada, said Jonathan Oldman, CEO of the Immigrant Services Society of B.C.

The reductions, though, will make the new levels of permanent residents similar to what happened before COVID-19, said Oldman, whose agency helps settle more than 25,000 people each year who come to B.C. for humanitarian, economic or family reunification reasons.

Will Tao, an immigration lawyer with the Burnaby law firm Heron, worries these changes are designed to “nudge” people to leave Canada if they’re facing long waiting times to become permanent residents.

“They’re obviously scared and concerned,” he said of his clients.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government didn’t get the “balance quite right” when it increased immigration targets over recent years. But Tao said achieving that balance isn’t as simple as slashing targets, which affect people from countries ranging from war-stricken Ukraine to Afghanistan where women and girls are at risk.

The impact includes post-secondary schools losing a “cash cow” of funding by losing international students, who pay far higher tuition than Canadian youth.

Tao also said some employers in the last week have pulled their support for a Labour Market Impact Assessment, a document that’s necessary to hire foreign workers, because they can’t afford the new federally mandated increase in wages for temporary foreign workers.

And while fewer immigrants may lead to less competition for affordable housing, will Canada also lose the temporary residents who are construction workers building the much-need housing?

“Immigration is a driver of economic growth and is the primary source of population growth in the near term,” Fiona Famulak, the chamber’s president, said in a statement last week. “Decreasing the labour pool will therefore add to (businesses’s) burden, not improve it, in the coming years.”

High-profile Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said his email inbox has been clogged with messages from clients, lawyers and immigration consultants looking for solutions to this “fiasco” created by the federal government.

Those wanting to increase their chances of permanent residency should “look at your options seriously and immediately.”

C.D. Howe Institute Advisory Group on Immigration Targets: In conclusion, the Advisory Group agreed that Canada’s immigration system requires reform to better balance population growth with the country’s economic capacity. With some members supporting an annual intake of under one percent of the population for permanent immigration, the group broadly supported a gradual reduction in both permanent and temporary immigration over the coming years, with a focus on maintaining sustainable, long-term levels. Members stressed the need for a stable, transparent immigration policy that prioritizes high-skilled immigrants, addresses housing and healthcare challenges, and restores public confidence. They called for a more rigorous assessment of immigration programs and improved enforcement capacity, urging the government to set realistic, evidence-based immigration targets.

St-Arnaud : Ottawa’s cut to immigration flow may lead to economic challenges: The recent years are an example of how Canada’s immigration policies can dramatically affect the economy. The government went from one extreme, the population growing too fast, to another, growing too little. This volatility shows that both extremes can lead to economic challenges.

Orsini: Canada has lost its reputation for bringing in the best and brightest students: So what can the federal government do to rebuild Canada’s global reputation? First, when in a deep hole, stop digging. The blunt policy changes have created confusion and uncertainty, which is discouraging students from coming to Canada. We need the world’s top scientists, researchers and innovators to help grow our economy and to make up for our slowing labour-force growth rate.

Second, the federal government needs to accelerate its targeted approach to international student enrolment through a simplified and streamlined “Recognized Institutional Framework” that incentivizes good performance and focuses on quality programming and students applying to Canada. Unfortunately, including master’s and PhD students under the international student cap will further discourage highly skilled students from coming to Canada, and add further delays to an already lengthy process.

Third, the federal government needs to work with the provinces, industry and the postsecondary sector to rebuild our brand so that Canada once again becomes a destination for top talent from around the world. Our country has lost our global reputation as a top destination for talent because of changes like the latest student-permit cuts.

Alicia Planincic: What will the cut in immigration mean for Canada’s economy?  The result, however, is that at least 40 percent of the now more limited spots available for permanent residency (395,000 in 2025) will be granted based on whether a candidate is already in Canada rather than who brings the most value to the Canadian economy, longer-term. Though it’s difficult without more information to determine the extent of the impact, many current temporary residents work in lower-skill positions, meaning that higher-skill candidates—the engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and skilled tradespeople—who don’t yet live here could be passed over as a result.

Blit: Ottawa’s immigration cut is a chance to boost productivity: Ottawa’s policy shift sends the right signal. But further changes to immigration policy are needed. It’s time to end the recently introduced category-based immigrant selection process, which encourages companies to invest in lobbying rather than in technology. We need a full return to the “points system,” one that’s data-driven and targets the most highly skilled talent to fuel innovation and growth. The best and brightest knowledge workers are not only productive themselves, they can make others around them more productive as well.

Last week’s announcement, then, is more than just a return to sensible immigration levels. It’s a rallying cry to Canadian businesses: no more shortcuts. If Canada’s economyis going to thrive in the 21st century, it will be through ingenuity, investment and the right kind of talent – not an endless supply of cheap labour.

Century Initiative | Slashing immigration is a political shortcut, not a real solution: When a country faces large-scale social or economic change, as Canada does, we need leadership from government, and a vision based on where we are today and where we can aspire to go. Instead, we’re seeing our policymakers swing from month to month based on the opinion environment, chasing after the low-hanging fruit to reduce demand for housing over the nation-building need to plan for supply.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can replace these fragmented, whack-a-mole efforts with a long-term, national smart growth framework — one that builds inroads between immigration targets and housing, workforce, and infrastructure.

It’s not enough to change the tires; we need to rebuild a more resilient economic engine for Canada’s future. [I almost have pity for the CI given how rapidly the debate has turned]


















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

What struck my attention when away

2024/06/18 Leave a comment

Immigration

Century Initiative’s 100 million population goal by year 2100 was meant to be provocative – and isn’t a target – CEO says

Appears to be flailing around given that their fundamental arguments appear to have failed:

Ms. Lalande said the 100 million population goal for 2100 “was meant to be provocative and bold” and to “spark an economic recharge.” The ultimate objective isn’t to see a specific population number by 2100, she said, but for Canada to be strategic and thoughtful in planning for growth.

“We don’t believe that growth should happen at all costs,” she said, saying the 100 million figure “was meant to galvanize the conversation and to spark debate and discussion of what the country could be and how we need to get there.”

But she warned against curtailing immigration, saying “that approach would result in an aging, less-skilled work force, less foreign investment, less diversity and less influence” globally.

Source: Century Initiative’s 100 million population goal by year 2100 was meant to be provocative – and isn’t a target – CEO says

Government criticized for limiting immigration sponsorships to four-year-old list

Never possible to satisfy demand:

Immigrants who came to Canada with the hope that their parents or grandparents could one day join them say they feel cheated after the federal government opened a sponsorship lottery this month drawing from a four-year-old list of applicants.

They are upset because Ottawa decided to allow around 30,000 sponsorships this year, but excluded applicants from joining the program if they had not registered an interest in 2020.

Some told The Globe and Mail that if they can’t successfully sponsor their relatives at some point, they may have to leave this country themselves to take care of them.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is sending out 35,700 randomly selected invitations to Canadian citizens and permanent residents to apply for the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP).

The invitations are drawn from a list of 200,000 people who expressed an interest in sponsoring their relatives in 2020.

Not everyone who receives an invitation to apply will submit a PGP application; however, IRCC said it ultimately expects around 32,000 grandparents and parents to qualify for permanent residence….

Source: Government criticized for limiting immigration sponsorships to four-year-old list

Caregivers from abroad to be given permanent residence on arrival under new pilot programs

Of note, addressing some past concerns:

The pilots, which are enhanced versions of two programs set to expire on June 17, will put qualified nannies, child-care and home-support workers on a fast track to settling in Canada.

Caregivers working for organizations that provide temporary or part-time care for people who are semi-independent or recovering from an injury or illness will also qualify under the new programs, which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) said will later become permanent.

Canada will admit more than 15,000 caregivers as permanent residents in the next two years, as part of Canada’s overall immigration targets, according to IRCC.

“Caregivers play a critical role in supporting Canadian families, and our programs need to reflect their invaluable contributions,” Mr. Miller said in a statement….

Source: Caregivers from abroad to be given permanent residence on arrival under new pilot programs

Canada needs an Immigrant Bill of Rights

Hard to see how adding another layer will necessarily improve processing and client service compared to addressing systemic issues:

This is why in a new report entitled Let’s Clean Up Our Act, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA) encourages the federal government to introduce an Immigrant Bill of Rights to provide newcomers with greater protection and an enhanced experience. 

We also believe the Immigrant Bill of Rights should be complemented by introducing an Ombudsperson for Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). 

These recommendations are far from novel or controversial.  

Numerous federal departments and agencies already have a bill of rights and/or ombudspersons.  

Source: Canada needs an Immigrant Bill of Rights

Tasha Kheiriddin: Brace for a possible tsunami of illegal migrants if Trump is re-elected

So almost a dedicated stream and pathway to citizenship? But that would require Canadian residency for at least three years, not “just being on our side:”

So what can Canada do that is positive? Apart from planning for these specific eventualities, Heyman suggests that we process as many Americans as possible for the equivalent of an American H1 Visa to Canada — not necessarily to live here, but to have a Canadian passport in their pocket and advocate for our country south of the border. “You’ve got a generational opportunity to get the top talent, people with means and skills, on your side — and possibly into your country,” Heyman said. A silver lining, perhaps, but the tsunami still looms.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Brace for a possible tsunami of illegal migrants if Trump is re-elected

Rioux | «It’s the immigration, stupid!»

On the results and aftermath of the European Parliament elections and the political shakeout in France:

Son coup de tête a déjà provoqué le rassemblement de la gauche autour de son aile la plus radicale (La France insoumise) qui se complaît dans une forme de romantisme révolutionnaire flirtant avec l’antisémitisme et les appels à la violence. À droite, il a accéléré l’éclatement des Républicains, dont les jours étaient comptés, au profit d’un RN portant certes des revendications partagées par la majorité des Français, mais sans expérience ni cadres chevronnés et dont le programme économique est pour le moins boiteux.

Derrière l’apparence du combat des extrêmes, ne serions-nous pas en train de découvrir le nouveau visage de ce que sont tout simplement devenues, après une période d’effacement, la gauche et la droite ? Pour le dire simplement, la nouvelle gauche est aujourd’hui plutôt multiculturelle, wokiste et décoloniale. La nouvelle droite, plutôt nationaliste, souverainiste et conservatrice.

Dans la fureur et le chaos, nous assistons non seulement au retour de l’opposition entre droite et gauche, mais peut-être aussi de l’alternance sans laquelle aucune démocratie ne saurait survivre.

Source: Chronique | «It’s the immigration, stupid!»

Antisemitism, Israel Hamas war

Abella: What happened to the legacy of Nuremberg and the liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect?

Well worth reading:

To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the arc of the moral universe may be long, but it does not always bend towards justice. And that means that too many children will never get to grow up, period – let alone in a moral universe that bends toward justice and the just rule of law.

I used to see the arc of my own life bending assertively from Nuremberg to ever-widening spheres of justice, but in this unrelenting climate of hate, I feel the hopeful arc turning into a menacing circle.

We need to stop yelling at each other and start listening, so that we can reclaim ownership of the compassionate liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect, and to put humanity back in charge by replacing global hate with global hope.

My life started in a country where there had been no democracy, no rights, no justice. It instilled a passionate belief in me that those of us lucky enough to be alive and free have a particular duty to our children to do everything possible to make the world safer for them than it was for their parents and grandparents, so that all children, regardless of race, religion or gender, can wear their identities with pride, in dignity, and in peace.

Source: What happened to the legacy of Nuremberg and the liberal democratic values we fought the Second World War to protect?

Regg Cohn: Doug Ford isn’t the only one who has fumbled on antisemitism

Also well worth reading by those who have no answers to these questions:

To be sure, critics of Israel — of which I am one — are not necessarily anti-Israeli (or anti-Jewish). But a good many are so adamantly opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, for reasons of history or bigotry, that you have to ask:

Where would those millions of Jews go? Back to Poland, as some like to taunt? Here to Canada, where they feel increasingly besieged? Stay where they are in a single state where “Palestine shall be free, from the river to the sea,” subsuming and consuming the Jewish state?

Israel is guilty of many sins during its long decades of occupation, although neither side is blameless about missed opportunities. After the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of more than 1,200 Jews and the taking of hostages, Israel’s overreaction and overreach transformed a just war of defence into a war without justifiable limits.

Source: Doug Ford isn’t the only one who has fumbled on antisemitism

Lederman: The banning of an Israeli-American graphic novelist shows how some arts organizations are rushing to judgment

Exclusion is not the answer except in extreme cases where it crosses into hate speech:

With Israel and Hamas at war, there has been so much screaming at one another, across a widening divide. What could be accomplished by having actual conversations?

This isn’t the only instance of selective targeting of Israeli, Jewish or Palestinian artists by arts organizations. With festival and awards season approaching in the fall, there is reason to fear more exclusions to come.

Source: The banning of an Israeli-American graphic novelist shows how some arts organizations are rushing to judgment

Citizenship

Mansour: Citizenship in the Multicultural State

Interesting evolution by Mansour compared to his earlier writings:

In conclusion, it might be said that the generation of 1968 was a pioneer generation in the making of a new political agenda that goes beyond the attachment to the state of which a citizen is a member. Canada has contributed to this agenda, internationalist and multicultural, through the social changes that have occurred in the years since its centenary anniversary. As a result, Canadians are in the midst of emerging new sensibilities that are more open to the world, more receptive of other cultures, more inclined to accepting international law and adjusting domestic statutes to that requirement. These changes render older political arrangements less meaningful in the twenty-first century.

Source: Citizenship in the Multicultural State

Foreign interference

Three article of interest of foreign interference and the shameful “witting” involvement of some MPs

‘Witting’ involvement changes the nature of foreign interference

NSICOP doesn’t name the parliamentarians who are witting participants in foreign interference. It raises a question about parliamentarians. It calls on the government to brief MPs about interference – and warns MPs to “reduce their vulnerabilities.”

And once again, it is another report telling the public that the Canadian government has not done enough to counter the threat of foreign interference. If anything, those warnings have grown louder.

This time, what a committee of parliamentarians has told us in clearer terms than ever is that the threat of interference from abroad includes participants here in Canada, inside Parliament, who have something to gain from dealing with foreign actors.

Source: ‘Witting’ involvement changes the nature of foreign interference

Coyne: We need to know the names of the traitor MPs, but don’t count on any of the parties to give them up

The Liberals’ tactic of deny, delay and deflect – first denying the allegations, then, when they can no longer be denied, denying they matter – has proved largely successful. Polls show that foreign interference ranks low on the public’s list of important issues. The Opposition is likely to take the hint. It was to their advantage to demand a public inquiry, so long as the government refused – and so long as they could be assured its findings would only stick to the government. But now? What’s in it for them?

For that matter, the same might apply to certain sections of the media: The report refers to Chinese officials “interfering with Canadian media content via direct engagement with Canadian media executives and journalists,” while a redacted passage cites “examples of the PRC paying to publish media articles without attribution.”

So if none of the parties is keen on turning over this rock, if law enforcement are unwilling and the media nervous – Mr. Dong’s lawsuit against Global News will have had a useful chilling effect – then the betting proposition has to be that nothing will happen. None of the MPs involved will be prosecuted, or named, or face consequences of any kind. And the public will shrug. Experience has taught them that, in this country, nobody ever faces consequences for this kind of thing.

Unless … unless a lone MP stands up in the House and names the names.

Source: We need to know the names of the traitor MPs, but don’t count on any of the parties to give them up

Yakabuski | L’ingérence étrangère et l’indifférence libérale

Tout au plus, la vice-première ministre, Chrystia Freeland, a-t-elle promis que les libéraux effectueraient « un suivi interne » dans la foulée du rapport. Comme son collègue à la Sécurité publique, elle n’a pas semblé désireuse d’aller au fond des choses. Est-ce parce que le caucus libéral compte beaucoup de députés issus des communautés culturelles qui entretiennent des relations étroites avec les représentants au Canada des gouvernements de leurs pays d’origine ? Certains de ces députés craignent, avec ou sans raison, une chasse aux sorcières dans la foulée du rapport McGuinty.

« La garantie que je peux donner aux Canadiens est que notre gouvernement prend très, très au sérieux l’ingérence étrangère », a réitéré cette semaine Mme Freeland. Or, la réaction du gouvernement au dernier rapport laisse, encore une fois, une impression contraire.

Source: Chronique | L’ingérence étrangère et l’indifférence libérale

Other

Hindutva ideology proved costly for India’s Narendra Modi

Of note:

The decade-long entrenchment of far-right ideologies in India, an over-focus on dividing Hindus and Muslims and on wealth generation for the rich eroded the country’s human rights record, judicial autonomy and press freedom.

That people with the least individual power were able to collectively push back against plans of the most powerful has rekindled the flame of democracy domestically and fanned hopes of resistance against tyranny globally.

Source: Hindutva ideology proved costly for India’s Narendra Modi

A Plea for Depth Over Dismissal

Agree:

To be clear, this article is not a plea for a return to scorecard history. Scorecard history is not a sound approach either. For, in the end, history is a qualitative discipline. Ranking prime ministers, or anyone else for that matter, is a silly exercise. Good deeds and bad deeds cannot be weighted and tallied up so that some final score can be determined. For that matter, categorizing deeds as good or bad in the first place flattens a great deal of complexity, like intentionality or unforeseen consequences, and it is precisely in that great universe of gray that real insights can be found. Insights into continuities between past and present, into how politics work in practice, and into the most accurate assessments of legacy. For the legacy of most leaders, much like the legacy of the policy of multiculturalism, will be neither entirely beneficial nor detrimental. But through a rigorous, nuanced, and deep examination of the lives and legacies of politicians and their policies, we stand to learn much about our country’s past – and its present too.

Daniel R. Meister is a Banting Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Political Science at the University of New Brunswick. He is the author of The Racial Mosaic (MQUP 2021).

Source: A Plea for Depth Over Dismissal

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Century Initiative:Great budget, Ottawa, but how to execute it when Canada fails to retain talent?

2024/04/18 Leave a comment

The latest from CI, still maintaining their focus on population growth but more attentive to other issues. But arguably some of the failings of immigration policy and integration have resulted in retention issues, with churn as immigrants pursue opportunities elsewhere.

On foreign credential recognition, count me cynical but this is a perennial issue that neither the previous or current government have made significant progress on beyond consultations and process. At the provincial level, however, where professions and trades are regulated, there has been some significant progress to temper my cynicism.

And of course, like the budget itself, the belated recognition of the links between housing and immigration:

…As one example, there have been positive steps in building the Indigenous economy, including higher rates of new business creation among Indigenous peoples compared with the population over all. We need to build on this progress with government, business and labour exploring further opportunities for partnership and Indigenous-led development.

The need to expand work-force participation and economic opportunity extends across demographics and can be addressed in three specific areas.

First, skills development. In a destabilizing year for the postsecondary institutions, work with provinces and territories to support expanded program delivery, particularly in health care, technology and skilled trades, is urgently needed. Employers, who share an interest in investing in their work force’s development, should also be given incentives for work-integrated training programs.

Second, retention. We have enormous untapped potential among Canadians who are already here. And the plain truth is the longer it goes untapped, the greater the risk that talent leaves. Indeed, 0.7 per cent of our population leaves for the United States every year, with independent research showing tech workers are paid more than 46 per cent more in the U.S.

Clearly, we need policies that encourage growth and scale for our own innovators, expanding their ability to offer competitive pay. Additionally, pathways should be created for temporary foreign workers to secure permanent positions and residency. These measures must be coupled with investments that enhance quality of life, such as affordable housing, health care and child-care capacity.

Third, fixing the credential mismatch. More than 25 per cent of immigrants with foreign degrees end up in jobs that they are overqualified for, with an RBC studysuggesting that credential inefficiencies cost the Canadian economy as high as $50-billion annually. We must do far more to ensure that immigrants find employment that matches their skills and qualifications, including exploration of mutual credential recognition agreements with prominent source countries.

Budget 2024 lays out a vision for Canadian housing, affordability and job creation, with a wide-ranging slate of new programs and investments. If we want them to succeed, they must be coupled with a vision for a skilled, resilient and adaptive work force.

A made-in-Canada pathway to prosperity begins and ends with talent – let’s ignite that talent with the vital boost it needs.

Lisa Lalande is chief executive officer of Century Initiative.

Source: Great budget, Ottawa, but how to execute it when Canada fails to retain talent?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

← Older posts