“The Times They Are A-Changin’?” – Immigration debates and discussions

2023/05/29 Leave a comment

A few years ago, it was rare to find critiques of the government’s expanding levels of immigration, and the overall consensus among the provinces, business organizations and lobby groups, media and academics organizations in favour of this approach.

However, over the past year or so, there has been significant commentary questioning the approach given the impact on housing availability and affordability, healthcare and infrastructure. In addition to my 2021 Increasing immigration to boost population? Not so fast, former head of the British Columbia public service, Don Wright, wrote one of the stronger critiques, Will Trudeau make it impossible for Eby to succeed?

National unity and the demographic weight of Quebec in Canada has become a second major critique. A series of articles in Quebecor papers (LE QUÉBÉC PRIS AU PIÈGE PAR OTTAWA) highlighting an accelerating decline of Quebec’s population relative to the rest of Canada, reflecting different immigration rates has provoked considerable political debate and commentary in Quebec and English Canadian media.

While the Quebecor were written in an incendiary manner, the substance was correct. The approaches continue to diverge, there is, IMO, an unhealthy consensus in favour ot the current and projected levels of permanent and temporary migration among federal and provincial politicians, business organizations, academics among others.

Some of the commentary recognized that. Stuart Thompson the The Hub, A new era of immigration politics has started in Canada was one of the first to recognize the potential importance to immigration debates and discussions. Chris Selley chimed in, noting that Ottawa has no answer to Quebec’s anti-immigrant narrative. Campbell Clark stressed that Two solitudes emerging on immigration in Quebec, and noted the lame arguments on both sides of the debate. Formally, the Quebec government reject[ed] Trudeau’s immigration plan, fears decline of French.

The role of the Century Initiative received increased prominence given that these debates were happening around the time of one of its Globe and Mail sponsored conferences. Immigration Minister Fraser’s denial that the government had not adopted the 100 million population goal of the Century Initiative was met with understandable cynicism by Robert Dutrisac, Blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc, Konrad Yakabuski, L’«initiative du siècle» n’est pas l’idée du siècle among others, along with more reporting and analysis, Serons-nous vraiment 100 millions de Canadiens en 2100?.

English media commentary focussed more on the politics, with Chantal Hébert asking whether Hébert: Quebec’s separatists were searching for a way to revive their cause. Is this it? and Konrad Yakabuski, another rare journalist who writes in both English and French media, noting that François Legault’s anti-immigration crusade is coming back to bite him. Andrew Phillips in the Star dismissed Quebec concerns, framing it as a Panic attack in Quebec over immigration threat. Althia Raj, also in the Star, argued that: Pierre Poilievre is courting voters by capitalizing on immigration fears in Quebec, both discounting the substance of Quebec concerns and not questioning the federal government approach.

And of course most English language was focused on the less important issue of the passport redesign (not a fan, but my worry is that the controversy will make the government even more skittish about releasing the revised citizenship guide, Discover Canada, first promised in 2016).

Surprisingly, Andrew Coyne focussed more on Quebec, politics and demography, rather than contributing his usual economic take on issues. Almost a childish approach in 100 million Canadians by 2100 may not be federal policy, but it should be – even if it makes Quebec howl, largely ignoring the negative impacts on housing, healthcare and infrastructure and, more bizarrely, falling into the trap of overall GDP rather than productivity and per capita GDP (which most of his economic-related columns focus on).

All this being said, the Quebec government took advantage of the controversy to announce changes to its immigration program Six éléments à retenir des annonces de Québec en immigration, including increased levels to 60,000 new permanent residents while allowing ongoing temporary resident growth. This slight-of-hand was of course noted by Michel David, Et la lumière fut and Plus d’immigrants pour éviter une « louisianisation » ici ? 

This modest increase will not, of course, make any significant change to the ongoing divergence in population growth between Quebec and the Rest of Canada and Quebec’s relative weight in the country.

A recent Statistics Canada study, Unemployment and job vacancies by education, 2016 to 2022, highlighting the disconnect between immigration policy, which favours university-educated immigrants, and immigrant employment, which favours lower-skilled immigrants, provides another example of how our immigration policies appear more to be “policy-driven evidence” rather than “evidence-based policy.”

Questions on immigration levels have broadened from housing, healthcare and infrastructure impacts to the impact on the Canadian federation given the imbalance between Quebec and the Rest of Canada. A potential sleeper issue, parallel to Quebec’s relative share of the population is with respect to Indigenous peoples, given that high immigration levels dwarf Indigenous growth (visible minorities increased by 26.5 percent, Indigenous peoples by 9.4 percent, 2021 compared to 2016).

As I have argued previously, we need to find a way to have more productive discussions on immigration rather than the various solitudes between the “more the merrier” and “great replacement” camps (where most Canadians are). The disconnect between Quebec and the Rest-of-Canada is a long-term threat to the federation.

A focus on the practicalities – housing, healthcare and infrastructure impacts – is likely the best way forward and may provide a means to reduce the divergence between the “two solitudes.”

Ideally, of course, some form of commission examining demographics, immigration, and these impacts would provide deeper analysis and recommendations than current IRCC consultations or any other internal review.

To end with a quote from another favourite musician of mine:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in

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

Wiseman: Canada’s productivity weakness has a greater impact than most believe 

2023/03/28 Leave a comment

Welcome greater focus on productivity and per capita GDP from by the chair of the Board of Directors of the Century Initiative, rather than just population and overall GDP growth (the Coalition for a Better Future has a tighter focus on productivity than CI but is largely composed of similar members):

When Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland tabled her budget last year, Canada’s growth prospects were identified as a significant vulnerability and priority for the government. She sensibly recognized human capital and the green transition as the first two of three “pillars” required to tackle the problem, then identified the third as the “Achilles heel of the Canadian economy” – poor productivity.

Having recently torn my Achilles tendon, I can tell you the sharp, sudden pain experienced is quite unlike the slow, creeping problem that productivity growth has become in Canada. This is not an issue that suddenly emerged, rather it has sunk intrinsically into the fabric of our commercial activity and eroded Canada’s appetite for innovation.

Compared to peer countries, our productivity has been receding for decades, and its importance has been largely ignored by Canadian business and political leaders. An Achilles injury, while extremely unpleasant, means you hobble around for a few months until you get back on your feet – but that isn’t the case here. Our productivity stagnation continues to spread to all areas of the economy, like a malignant tumour.

While some economic indicators are rosy for Canada – unemployment is low, wages are rising – productivity rates are not. Labour productivity growth has slowed to less than 1 per cent today from 2.7 per cent in the 1960s and 1970s. The OECD has us ranked dead last of all the advanced economic countries in the world in its predictions for real GDP per capita growth from both 2020-30 and 2030-60.

While it’s widely known that Canada lags the United States, we have also fallen behind France, Germany, Britain, Australia and Italy in productivity. The Canadian work force is less productive because, on average, companies here use less capital and technology, are less innovative, and operate at a smaller scale in an economy plagued by insularity. And it’s getting worse.

It’s not just about having a more market-driven economy. Germany is outperforming us with a highly socialized economy and massive government investments in information and communications technology, as well as an advanced apprenticeship system and a business culture that prioritizes worker training.

When one works through the numbers, it is clear that the primary reason for our malaise is a lack of private-sector investment in research and development and in work force upskilling. Canada ranks 17th of OECD countries regarding the percentage of GDP spent on R&D and among the lowest of G7 peers.

To catch up, Canada must show discipline in focusing incentives to catalyze the private sector where it can have the greatest impact. We must prioritize R&D and training incentives that contribute to physical and human capital efficiency strategies.

Stagnation was less concerning during the longest bull market in history, when a forceful rising tide of monetary policy fuelling economic growth was able to mask many concerning, deeper trends. But that veil has now been removed, revealing that Canadian firms are not well-positioned to innovate and grow.

The United States contributes to our economy through its innovation and production, but it is also our biggest competitor. The number of patent applications submitted by Canadian businesses in 2020 was roughly 1.6 per cent of those submitted by American businesses, which is staggering underperformance even when GDP-adjusted.

Foreign companies and investors looking at Canada will always use the U.S. as a benchmark, given our shared geographic and cultural features. The Americans, recognizing we are at an industrial and economic turning point, have thrown down the gauntlet with public policy and private-sector initiatives to further advance their productivity growth over the coming decades. The most significant being the Inflation Reduction Act, earmarking US$500-billion in new spending and tax incentives to boost clean energy, labour skills and other areas that will contribute to future productivity growth.

To avoid falling further behind, our government should respond meaningfully in the federal budget this week. Last year’s budget introduced the yet-to-be-defined $15-billion Canada Growth Fund, which would use public money to entice more capital to invest in Canadian industry and is one of several bodies created to help Canadian firms innovate. While these are steps in the right direction, they lack the scale the U.S. can deploy and run the risk of having the government or other public bodies choosing winners, something that private capital is much more adept at.

A policy lever that Canada has considered but never implemented is an “intellectual property box,” which would tax income from patents and other intellectual property at a lower rate, effectively guarding against “poaching” from lower tax jurisdictions.

Recent budgets have attempted incentivization through things like the scientific research and development program that provides tax incentives to businesses that conduct qualifying R&D activities. These are available for eligible R&D expenditures, including depreciation expenses on capital assets – matching them to the revenue they generate over time. But programs like these need to be expanded broadly across industry and made straightforward. Unfortunately, eligible candidates often don’t receive the intended incentivesowing to narrow application of the rules by our tax regulators.

The 2022 budget included some tax incentives for small businesses, but these appear more driven by politics than sound economic planning. OECD data shows that productivity growth is typically driven by the top 10 per cent of firms in an industry – the biggest players. This year’s budget should include incentives for large firms located in sectors rife for innovation, in energy, e-commerce, advanced manufacturing, transportation and finance, to spend directly on R&D, and simplify the process so they can move with alacrity to get things built and skills developed.

On skills development, Canada has a natural advantage with its broad public support for immigration and merit-based application program that brings in a high percentage of working-age people with credentials. But immigration already accounts for almost our entire labour force growth – the greater challenge lies in ensuring new workers can contribute with their potential and skillsets.

According to Statistics Canada, more than 25 per cent of immigrants with foreign degrees end up in jobs that they are overqualified for, in roles that require a high-school diploma at most. Improving recognition of foreign credentials, simplifying our immigration processes, and strengthening training and education opportunities are all important ways to gear our human capital strategy towards productivity. With economic demands shifting quickly, employers have skin in the game and will need to intensify efforts to implement work-integrated learning.

The future of our country depends on a more productive economy, underpinned by improved R&D spend and a more skilled work force. In this budget, the government must embrace every tool at its disposal and commit to bold action if it wants to be the architect of a prosperous, innovative Canada that stands tall in the face of international competition.

Source: Canada’s productivity weakness has a greater impact than most believe

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

‘Too much, too quickly’: economists warn of Liberal ‘pro-business’ immigration policy

2023/03/18 Leave a comment

Great counterpoint to the simplistic and misguided arguments of the government and immigration arguments in favour of the current high levels, with Mikal Stuterud, Chris Worswick and David Green being cited extensively:

The Liberal government’s move to admit record numbers of immigrants to fill a purported “labour shortage” has prompted warnings from economists with years of experience studying immigration to Canada.

The government is selling the policy change as a way to boost economic growth and “help businesses find workers.”

But there’s no evidence, the economists said, that the plan to eventually accept a half million new residents per year will benefit the average Canadian resident—though it might help businesses looking for low-cost labour.

The higher immigration targets—along with a growth in the use of temporary foreign workers and working international students under the Liberal government—have the potential to push down wages for the lowest-paid workers in the country, many of whom are recent immigrants or refugees, they said.

Source: ‘Too much, too quickly’: economists warn of Liberal ‘pro-business’ immigration policy

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

On important economic metrics, Canada is getting Ds and Fs – we can do better

2023/03/13 Leave a comment

The Coalition is interesting to watch as it focusses more on productivity and GDP per capita while the Century Initiative, while noting these issues, is less focused on this long standing challenge.

But the scorecards of present economic indicators with an overall negative view:

Open a news site these days and you’ll feel adrift in a sea of worries: cost of living, health care, climate change. Add geopolitical risk to that list and you might not sleep at night. I’m worried, too.

What is reassuring, though, is that there’s a growing community of Canadians who are pulling together. I sit on the advisory council of the Coalition for a Better Future, which is building a community from many walks of life across Canada. It includes youth, business leaders, Indigenous groups, social policy advocates, environmental groups and some plain-old concerned citizens.

One of the projects the coalition has done is develop a scorecard to track how Canada stacks up on a set of long-term objectives that are ultimately tied to our quality of life. The scorecard reflects what coalition members care about: growing sustainably, living better and winning globally.

So how did we do? Well, I’d say we’ve earned some Ds and even an F or two on some important fronts. GDP per person is still below where we were prepandemic, and its growth rate over the past decade was less than half of what the U.S. achieved. Canada ranked only 15th (among 167 countries) on a reputable prosperity index, down four places in the past decade. Wages, particularly of lower-income workers, have not been keeping up with inflation or productivity growth.

Don’t get me wrong, Canada has a lot going for it. We have a well-educated and talented work force, abundant resources, world-class institutions and some amazing businesses, big and small. And we have a history of pulling together, especially when the going gets tough.

So it’s not surprising that we’ve earned some As and Bs in other areas. The share of Canadians living in poverty has fallen to the lowest level in decades thanks to the support from the federal government during the pandemic. Indigenous people are playing a growing role in the labour market, with their participation rate last year surpassing the non-Indigenous rate. Carbon dioxide emissions are down as a share of GDP.

We’ll need to raise our GPA by building on our country’s strengths given the challenges that Canada, and all other countries, will face.

One core reason for some of the Ds and Fs is slow productivity growth. To see why, you just need to look at our lacklustre business investment in research and development, intellectual property and even machinery and equipment, which has been disappointing for years.

Yes, other countries are struggling with the same problem. Yet Canada is at the back of the class, particularly next to our largest trading partner. If we can’t compete in the United States and in other markets, we’ll be poorer – it’s that simple.

Policies that boost demand did help us in the darkest hours of the pandemic, but they won’t fix this problem. In the current context, they’ll only add to inflation.

The sooner we recognize that we have entered an era of supply-constrained economics, the better. It’s being driven by the aging of the population, climate change, digitalization and the structural trend away from globalization driven by troubling geopolitics. These challenges are only heightened by a sense that our country is ill-prepared to face them.

What we need now are policies that will increase Canada’s capacity to grow sustainably so we have the wherewithal to face these challenges. That means renewed emphasis on capital formation, in all its forms – physical, intellectual property and human. Needed are policies to induce companies to spend on capital, promote the adoption of technology and the commercialization of research, build infrastructure and help train workers. It’s not always about spending more money or reducing taxes. Sometimes governments just need to remove barriers when they’re getting in the way of responsible investment. Sometimes it’s as simple as recognizing professional qualifications when someone arrives from another country or moves to another province.

The discussions about Canada’s challenges can get pretty animated, yet our group, the Coalition for a Better Future, is united in the belief that economic growth that is also sustainable and shared is a necessary first step to a better quality of life.

Canada may not be making the grade today, but it can do better with the right public policies and private sector engagement. The good news for the federal government as it prepares to release its 2023 budget in the coming weeks is that Canadians are paying attention.

Carolyn Wilkins is a senior research scholar at Princeton University’s Griswold Centre for Economic Policy. She was senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada from May, 2014, to December, 2020.

Source: On important economic metrics, Canada is getting Ds and Fs – we can do better

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Scorecard Comparison: Century Initiative and Coalition for a Better Future

2023/01/23 Leave a comment

While I am not in general a fan of scorecards and indices given their selective nature and sometimes less than clear methodology, they are of course useful communications tools.

While Century Initiative has 38 indicators spread over six themes, the Coalition for a Better Future has 21 indicators spread over three central goals: winning globally, living better and growing sustainably.

The Century Initiative scorecard reflects its changing emphasis from growth for growth’s sake (demographic arguments) to a recognition of the need to “grow well” rather than just grow, and thus has a wider range of indicators.

In contrast, the Coalition has a narrower focus on productivity with relatively few indicators beyond key economic indicators, along with inclusion and diversity.

The CI’s scorecard also comes with an informative detailed narrative that analyzes progress or lack thereof across all indicators. The Coalition, in contrast just provides a measure of progress or lack thereof compared to OECD and other benchmarks, without a narrative, even for indicators where the reasons for their assessment are unclear.

Both scorecards highlight Canadian weakness in addressing economic growth and productivity issues. There is considerable overlap in the membership of both.

Both provide opportunities for serious analysis of the positive and negative impacts of current immigration policies across Canadian society.

Area
Century InitiativeCoalition For a Better Future
DemographicPopulation Growth
Immigrant Admissions
Fertility Rate 
Life Expectancy
Immigration Global Reputation 
Public Support for Immigration 
Regional Retention of Immigrants
Migrant Integration Policy
Immigrant Income Gap
International Students Transitioning to Permanent Residents
EconomicEarly-stage EntrepreneurshipCurrent Trade Account
Business Spending on R&DBusiness Investments in R&D (%GDP)
Innovation Investment in Intellectual Property per Worker ($)
ProductivityInvestment in Productive Tangible Assets per Worker ($)
Business GrowthGlobal Ranking for Financing of SMEs
Diversity in LeadershipShare of Women in Senior Management Positions (%)
Strength of Indigenous EconomyShare of Indigenous People in Senior Management Positions (%)
GDP per capitaGDP per capita ($)
Household DebtAverage Export Value per SMB ($)
Income InequalityIncome Parity Across Genders, Races, and People with Disabilities ($)
Global CompetitivenessGlobal Market Share in Key Sectors
Mean Income from Wages, Salaries and Commissions ($)
Number of “narwhals” (Companies worth $1B+)
Prosperity Index Ranking (#)
Education, Skills, EmploymentPerformance in reading, science and math among 15-year olds (PISA)
Post-secondary Attainment
Youth not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET)Youth not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) (%)
Participation in Adult LearningParticipation in Adult Learning (%)
Employment Rate
Incidence of Low-wage WorkAverage Poverty Gap (%)
Children and FamiliesChildcare Participation
Parental Leave Uptake
Employment Rate for Mothers
Child Poverty
Youth Well-being
Infrastructure & Environment Investment in Infrastructure
Housing Affordability
Broadband UptakePercentage of Households with Access to Broadband (%)
Population Density of Metropolitan areas
Resilience
Climate Change PerformanceGHG Emissions per unit of GDP
Percentage of Primary Energy Supply from Zero-Carbon Sources (%)
Clean-tech Contribution to GDP ($)

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Lalande and Adams: New immigration targets essential for Canada’s economic prosperity

2022/11/23 Leave a comment

While I disagree with the government’s “the more the merrier” approach, I also worry that housing shortages, a strained healthcare system and other weaknesses may understandably erode support. And it is positive that the CI and others are more forthcoming of these issues, or the costs of increasing immigration:

Canada is breaking records on immigration. The federal government recently announced increased targets for the next two years, with the intention to welcome a record 500,000 new permanent residents in 2025. Statistics Canada’s latest release from the 2021 census shows immigrants now make up a greater share of the population than at any point in our history as a country. The latest Focus Canada survey reportbreaks a record of a different kind: Canadians have never been more supportive of immigration than they are today, showing Canada truly stands out for its openness to diversity and change.

These points also suggest an awareness of the vital contribution immigrants make to the country’s social and economic fabric. That may in part explain why Canadians have grown more open to immigration and multiculturalism, not less. The Focus Canada survey report found 70 per cent of Canadians support current immigration levels—the largest majority to do so in more than four decades of polling.

Similarly, there is also growing public support for accepting refugees, not only from Ukraine, but also from countries such as Afghanistan. Three-in-four Canadians now agree we should accept more newcomers from parts of the world experiencing major conflicts—twice the proportion that held that view 20 years ago.

This is remarkable at a time when nationalism, populism, and anti-immigrant sentiment are on the rise globally. But while Canada has been more welcoming than most nations, support for immigration in this country cannot be taken for granted. As the country wrestles with rising inflation, housing affordability, a strained health-care system, and an increasingly toxic political environment, support for immigration could erode.

Our research shows concerns about immigration have to do with how quickly newcomers integrate into Canadian society. Canadians are fairly evenly divided as to whether there are too many immigrants coming to Canada who are not adopting our values. But the proportion who disagree has also never been as high as it is today. Indeed, the survey found nine in 10 of us now see multiculturalism as important to Canadian identity, and a steadily growing majority of Canadians are rejecting the attitude that Canada accepts too many immigrants from racialized cultures.

Our research also provided some interesting regional insights. In Quebec, where immigration was a campaign issue in the provincial election, our research confirmed Quebecers are no less supportive of immigration and no less welcoming of refugees than Canadians elsewhere in the country. Quebecers are especially sensitive to potential threats to language and culture, but like other Canadians, Quebecers recognize the benefits immigration brings to our economy and society.

The insights into Canadians’ attitudes toward immigration and immigrants are invaluable at this juncture in our history. Our population is aging, our work forces shrinking, the demand for skilled labour growing more acute, and our birth rate is at its lowest in more than 100 years. This is creating demographic pressure we must address if we want to sustain the quality of life we’ve grown accustomed to and want a prosperous future for the country’s next generations. Immigration is the only way we can address the growing demographic and economic pressures we’re facing. The support Canadians show for immigration should provide our elected leaders with the political courage required to invest in attracting more newcomers to Canada.

Naturally, challenges remain. We do not always deliver on the promises we make to newcomers. Many face barriers—whether in the form of prejudice, or red tape—as they try to put the skills they bring with them to work. Immigrants, and especially the children of immigrants, expect not only public attitudes to change, but also the policies and practices of public institutions, such as the health-care system and our police forces.

The fact remains that these challenges are much more likely to be met when the public is solidly onside—meaning we can face them together. We are no utopia. But whatever issues may divide Canadians today, immigration is not one of them. In this sense, the country has never been more united. That’s an advantage and an opportunity that we, as a country, can’t afford to ignore—our economic future depends on it.

Michael Adams is the founder and president of the Environics Institute for Survey Research. Lisa Lalande is the CEO of Century Initiative, a non-partisan charity aimed at increasing Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100.

Source: New immigration targets essential for Canada’s economic prosperity 

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Lalande: Is #immigration at risk? Canadian attitudes could shift without proper planning

2022/09/15 Leave a comment

Broadening of the Century Initiative messaging to more explicitly address and mitigate externalities (as described in their scorecard), and a focus on “growing well” rather than just on demography and growth:

Welcoming and accepting successive waves of immigration has been one of Canada’s global advantages. Historically Canadians have recognized that immigration helps us innovate, grows our economy, keeps our public services solvent, develops cultural connections and business relationships with communities all over the world, and contributes to meeting our labour and skills needs – something that requires urgent attention right now.

Whatever their other points of disagreement, Canadians have welcomed immigrants and acknowledged the contributions they make to our economy and our social fabric.

While not yet at the stage it may be at in some other countries, that consensus may fraying and at risk of coming apart.   When Canadians are facing real day-to-day challenges in the forms of rising inflation and interest rates, housing unaffordability, labour shortages in healthcare and crumbling physical infrastructure, it can be difficult to see how welcoming more people in the country could help.

That unraveling is ever faster as divisive political discourse spreads and grows louder. There is deep anger we see reflected online in a rapid increase of hateful, racist and nationalistic comments.  Through my work at Century Initiative, I have experienced this vitriol directly, and I know many of you have too.

In the interest of our economic future we need to act now. Immigration is crucial to our development as a society, an economy and a nation.  We need more immigration and more supports for immigrants. We must continue to be the best country in the world in welcoming immigrants.

At the same time, we need to have an honest conversation about ensuring the benefits of immigration cascade to Canadians already living here – and mitigating any possible negative impacts of a growing population. Those discussions must be civil and focused on finding solutions.

At Century Initiative, we speak a lot about ‘growing well’. This means that not only do we need a growing population, but we need the policies, the public institutions and the physical infrastructure that will allow us to achieve sustainable population growth AND a prosperous country for all of us – old and new.

We need to make sure immigrants can contribute economically to their highest potential – by recognizing their credentials and by ensuring immigrant settlement agencies can support entrepreneurs and small businesspeople.

It also means recognizing the link between population growth and our ability to meet our health care, infrastructure and other needs. For example, with relatively low unemployment, population growth at its lowest in more than 100 years and growing demand for labour, we simply do not have the skilled workforce we need to build houses, highways and other infrastructure or staff our hospitals and other high demand jobs.

Take, for instance, our housing needs. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recently estimated restoring housing affordability, will mean building nearly six million new housing units between now and 2030. At present, we are nowhere near being able to meet that target, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that we do not have the labour required to build what needs building.

Similarly, our shortage of healthcare professionals is leading to a crisis in a pandemic-battered public healthcare system. Our strained public services – even with respect to things as simple as passports – are creaking under soaring demand.

These are grave structural problems. Immigration can help address them.  Thankfully, no prominent politician has suggested limiting or eliminating immigration.  Let’s make sure it never happens.

The Canadian immigration model is a light unto the world. It’s our secret weapon – allowing our trading and innovating nation to become home to the world’s best, brightest and most ambitious.

But it is also fragile.

If we are going to grow, we need to grow well. And growing well means fixing the structural problems which make growth painful for ordinary Canadians – so that immigration can be part of a long-term solution for sustainable public services, a growing economy, and a prosperous country.

Source: Is immigration at risk? Canadian attitudes could shift without proper planning

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Dutrisac: De grandes ambitions postnationales [Immigration and Quebec]

2021/12/13 Leave a comment

Regarding the medium and longer-term impact of increased immigration in the rest of Canada in contrast to relatively static numbers for Quebec, along with some of the fallacies that characterize the government’s reliance on high immigration levels to strengthen the economy and address an aging population.

Le gouvernement Trudeau voudrait bien que le Québec hausse ses seuils d’immigration pour qu’ils se rapprochent des cibles canadiennes, puisqu’Ottawa compte accueillir un nombre record d’immigrants au cours des prochaines années.


Dans une entrevue accordée au Devoir mercredi, le nouveau ministre fédéral de l’Immigration, des Réfugiés et de la Citoyenneté, Sean Fraser, a voulu encourager le Québec à augmenter le nombre d’immigrants qu’il reçoit. « Je crois que le Québec est conscient du besoin de recourir à l’immigration pour s’assurer que les entreprises trouvent des travailleurs », a-t-il déclaré.

Juste avant l’arrivée des libéraux de Justin Trudeau au pouvoir, en 2015, le nombre d’immigrants admis au Canada, sous le gouvernement Harper, variait entre 250 000 et 260 000 par an. En 2019, avant la pandémie, ce nombre était passé à 341 000. Après une chute à 184 000 immigrants en 2020 en raison de la pandémie, les seuils repartent à la hausse pour atteindre 401 000 cette année, 411 000 en 2022 et 421 000 en 2023. Ces derniers chiffres tiennent compte d’un certain rattrapage, mais l’intention, c’est de devenir le gouvernement canadien le plus ambitieux de tous les temps en matière d’immigration, comme l’a signalé le ministre Fraser.

Au Canada anglais, l’organisme Century Initiative tente de convaincre le gouvernement Trudeau d’admettre graduellement de plus en plus d’immigrants pour atteindre les 500 000 en 2026, avec comme objectif ultime de faire passer la population canadienne de 38,5 millions à 100 millions en 2100. Le Canada serait plus fort et aurait plus d’influence sur le plan mondial, avance ce groupe de pression, les Canadiens seraient plus riches, les coffres de l’État seraient mieux garnis, les pénuries de main-d’œuvre ne seraient qu’un mauvais souvenir et le vieillissement de la population serait stoppé.

Ces représentants de l’intelligentsia canadienne-anglaise ne sont pas les seuls à croire que l’admission débridée d’immigrants contribuera à accroître la richesse du pays et à réduire le vieillissement de la population. C’est le discours que tient généralement le milieu des affaires.

Or, comme l’ont montré les chercheurs Parisa Mahboubi et Bill Robson, de l’Institut C.D. Howe, cités par l’économiste Pierre Fortin, l’effet de l’immigration sur le vieillissement de la population est marginal. C’est plutôt la participation accrue des travailleurs de 60 ans et plus, comme au Japon, par exemple, qui est le moyen le plus susceptible de réduire les effets du vieillissement sur le marché du travail et les finances publiques.

À Ottawa, on n’hésite pas à lier l’immigration à un accroissement de la richesse du pays. À cet égard, il ne faut pas oublier que ce n’est pas la grosseur de la tarte qui importe, mais bien la grosseur de la part qui revient à chacun. Autrement dit, c’est le produit intérieur brut (PIB) par habitant dont il faut se soucier. Ainsi, les Néerlandais, dont le pays accueille relativement peu d’immigrants, sont plus riches que les Allemands, qui en ont admis davantage. Il n’y a pas de corrélation.

Quant à l’idée qu’une forte immigration soulagerait les pénuries de main-d’œuvre, c’est « un pur sophisme », nous dit Pierre Fortin. L’immigration accroît le bassin de main-d’œuvre, mais aussi le nombre de consommateurs de biens et de services du commerce et de services publics. Certes, une sélection précise des immigrants peut aider à pourvoir des postes de travailleurs qualifiés en forte demande. Mais augmenter tous azimuts les seuils d’immigration comme le gouvernement Trudeau l’envisage peut accroître le chômage chez les nouveaux arrivants.

La question de la pénurie de logements commence sérieusement à se poser. Comme les immigrants s’établissent en majorité dans les grands centres urbains, une pression intenable s’exerce sur le marché immobilier, comme on peut le constater à Toronto, à Vancouver et, dans une moindre mesure, à Montréal.

C’est sans compter la situation bien particulière du Québec. La politique d’immigration du gouvernement Trudeau fait fi du poids démographique du seul État à majorité francophone de la fédération. S’il fallait suivre le rythme imposé par Ottawa, qui plus est sans qu’il y ait eu de débat, ce n’est pas 50 000 immigrants par an que le Québec devrait accueillir, mais bien 95 000 et davantage, une impossibilité. Déjà, il n’y a pas suffisamment d’immigrants qui choisissent de vivre en français au Québec. Dans le reste du Canada, ce n’est pas un enjeu : tous les nouveaux arrivants, quelle que soit leur langue maternelle, finissent par parler anglais et vivre en anglais. Y compris les francophones, d’ailleurs.

Cette politique d’immigration, poussée par un élan multiculturaliste et postnational, ne convient pas au Québec, qui ne pourra plus très longtemps se contenter de demi-pouvoirs en matière d’immigration.

Source: https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/editoriaux/653859/ottawa-et-l-immigration-de-grandes-ambitions-postnationales?utm_source=infolettre-2021-12-11&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=infolettre-quotidienne

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

My latest: Increasing immigration to boost population? Not so fast.

2021/05/21 Leave a comment

In Policy Options:

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney recently called for a government white paper on immigration to support the Century Initiative’s advocacy in favour of a Canada of 100 million people by 2100. Immigration is seen as the most likely way to address Canada’s aging population and ensure there are a sufficient number of working adults to pay for increased health care and other costs of seniors, with calls for more than 80 per cent of Canada’s population growth to be due to immigration.

In many ways, this has parallels with the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada initiated under a Liberal government in the early 1980s that paved the way for the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement under the Conservative Mulroney government.

While a comprehensive and independent look at our immigration policies and programs is merited, any such review should take a critical look at Canada’s current and future needs, what fundamental questions need to be asked and the realities of what an increase would entail across Canadian society.

In the short term, we need to consider what the experience of past economic downturns tells us about immigrant economic outcomes. Statistics Canada’s Feng Hou gave a presentation in January of this year regarding the labour market outcomes during the COVID-19 lockdown and recovery. That presentation pointed out that following the 1990-91 recession, many recent immigrants were unemployed and under-employed, leading to criticism that Canada was overselling immigration. In contrast, immigrants arriving around the time of the 2008-9 recession were largely unscathed. It is too early to tell whether immigrant outcomes will resemble the deep and prolonged impact of 1990-91 or the minimal impact of 2008-9.

However, given what we know about which sectors (hospitality, travel, retail) and which groups (women, immigrants and visible minorities) have been most affected during COVID-19, how confident should we be that these sectors and groups will bounce back quickly? Will increased immigration exacerbate the difficulties these sectors and groups face? How likely is increased immigration to result in improved working conditions and equality for those we now recognize as “essential workers?”

In the longer term, it is striking the relative lack of attention regarding what sectors and workers are more likely to be vulnerable to automation, artificial intelligence (AI) and remote work, particularly in the context of setting a target some 80 years from now. Will professionals such as accountants, lawyers and other white-collar occupations become increasingly replaced in whole or in part? Will increased automation and AI result in “creative destruction” and new industry and job creation, or a further hollowing out of manufacturing? Will improved remote working technology lead to more offshoring and reduce the interest of moving and immigrating?

Only 8.7 per cent of recent immigrants settle outside our major urban areas. How realistic is the call for more immigrants to settle outside our major cities and urban areas? While the Provincial Nominee Program has had some success as have the various pilots (e.g., Atlantic, Northern and Remote), most new immigrants tend to settle in the larger provinces and urban centres. Government efforts to encourage immigration to francophone communities in English Canada continue to fall short of targets.

There are a number of other medium- and longer-term issues that will need to be addressed to successfully manage such growth.

To start, will governments invest in the public and private infrastructure needed to accommodate such growth, ranging from roads, transit, housing, health care, utilities and parks? Doug Saunders, in Maximum Canada, makes the convincing case that large-scale immigration requires these investments, along with other measures such as zoning to increase population density. However, experience to date suggests that Canadian governments have not done so, hampering growth and quality of life.

Canada already has difficulties meeting its climate change commitments. How likely is it that Canada will be able to do so with a significant increase in population creating further urban sprawl? Even if Canada manages to reduce emissions on a per-capita basis, a larger population will mean an overall increase in carbon emissions.

Will the general consensus among provincial governments in favour of more immigration increasingly confront the reality of Quebec’s reduced percentage of the Canadian population and the consequent increasing imbalance between population and representation in our various political and judicial institutions? How will Indigenous peoples, the fastest-growing group in Canada, perceive increased immigration, compared to addressing their socioeconomic and political issues?

The coalition that the Century Initiative is building in favour of increased immigration across the business community, non-governmental organizations, academics and others is impressive. The business community interest is clear: more immigrants mean more customers. But for any review or commission to be meaningful, it needs to engage with a broader group than those who already favour increased immigration and focus on per capita, rather than overall, growth.

Moreover, such a review has to question the fundamental premise that more immigration will “substantially alter Canada’s age structure and impending increase in the dependency ratio” when the available evidence suggests it will not.

A white paper that largely replicates the group think of the Century Initiative and related players rather than a much-needed more thoughtful and balanced discussion would be a disservice to Canadians.

Source: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2021/increasing-immigration-to-boost-population-not-so-fast/

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

@JohnIbbitson: Canadians need to form a consensus on long-term #immigration policy [but what should that consensus be?]

2021/04/05 Leave a comment

John Ibbitson follows on this previous article, Politics It’s time for Canada to focus on expanding our population, highlighting former PM Mulroney’s call for increased immigration and a Canadian population around 100m by the turn of the century and the need for a white paper to help build the arguments to get us there.

However, before we get too caught up in the advocacy by the Century Initiative, the Business Council of Canada and the Globe and Mail, we should step back and ask some fundamental questions a white paper should ask beyond the basic demographic arguments:

  • Does more immigration increase or decrease inequality?
  • In the immediate post-COVID period, should immigration increase given what we know from previous downturns regarding how the most recent immigrants suffer short and some longer-term scarring?
  • How should we factor in the lower-paid “essential workers” and will increased immigration improve their working conditions or not?
  • Longer-term, what are the more likely affects of automation and AI on the labour market and the need for skilled and semi-skilled workers?
  • How realistic is it to improve settlement of immigrants outside of our major cities and regions given past and current experience?
  • Will Canada realistically invest in the needed public and private infrastructure needed to accommodate such growth, again given past and current experience?
  • Will Canada be able to do so in a manner that respects our current and likely future climate change commitments?
  • Will Indigenous peoples accept increased immigration and the focus on newcomers compared to their concerns?
  • Will the greater imbalance between immigration to Quebec and the rest of Canada place further pressures on the federation?

A white paper that largely replicates the group think of the Century Initiative and related players would be a disservice to Canadians, rather than the needed more thoughtful and balanced discussions:

Though progressives and conservatives in the United States disagree on practically everything, they do agree that Canada has a better immigration system.

But as a new paper in the magazine American Affairs points out, they think this only because neither side fully understands how the Canadian system works.

Right-wing Americans praise Canada’s ability to police its borders while focusing on economic migrants who can make an immediate contribution. No less an authority than Donald Trump declared, when he was president: “I think we should have merit-based immigration like they have in Canada” so that “we have people coming in that have a good track record.”

But American conservatives would be less impressed if they realized that Canada protects its border through a dense skein of rules and regulations, a so-called bureaucratic border wall.

The left, on the other hand, celebrates Canada’s robust commitment to diversity through immigration. But they would be appalled to learn that those same bureaucratic rules – such as requiring that all employees provide a social insurance number – make it virtually impossible for undocumented workers to live in this country, and that our system limits diversity by favouring immigrants from more-developed regions, such as South and East Asia, over less developed regions, including parts of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

“Each side sees only what it wants to see, emphasizing those aspects of Canada’s system that align with their ideological predispositions, while excluding the others,” wrote Michael Cuenco, a Canadian writer based in Calgary.

“The most vocal elements of the Right and the Left are like the blind men grasping at different parts of an elephant. No one has bothered to offer to either side an honest description of the whole.”

Both the left and the right in the U.S. might be even more nonplussed were they to learn that former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney has joined a growing chorus calling for Canada to more than double its population to 100 million by 2100.

They might not understand that what truly distinguishes the Canadian immigration system from the American is that Canada’s reflects decades of increasing ideological convergence on immigration policy, even as America becomes ever-more polarized.

The question for Canadians is whether we are willing to converge on future immigration targets in the same way we have in the past.

Progressive Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker first declared that immigration should be colour-blind. Lester B. Pearson’s Liberal government converted that principle into the points system. Liberal Pierre Trudeau married immigration to multiculturalism, while Mr. Mulroney tripled the intake. Liberals Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin converted a system that favoured the family-class category into one that favoured economic-class applicants, while Conservative Stephen Harper and Liberal Justin Trudeau further refined and expanded the program.

If future Liberal and Conservative governments were to choose to, say, (a) convert the temporary target of more than 400,000 immigrants a year recently established to overcome the cutbacks imposed by the pandemic into a permanent target; b) gradually move toward 500,000 a year over the course of this decade and c) reassess Canada’s needs as the population approaches 50 million at mid-century, that would be nothing out of keeping with the past six decades of immigration policy, which saw Canada’s population more than double from 18 million in 1960 to 38 million today.

Whether we want that future is something else. Proponents of population growth must convince skeptics that Canada can more than double in numbers while still meeting commitments on global warming, that cities can grow in population without increasing sprawl, that creativity and productivity require a young, dynamic populace.

But we need to remember: We got where we are by agreeing we should grow robustly, and that it didn’t matter where people came from, as long as they shared the values that ground the nation. That’s what brought the Irish and the Germans and the Ukrainians here in the 19th century, what brought the Italians and Portuguese and Greeks here after the war, what brought the Vietnamese boat people here and people from Somalia and Lebanon, the Hong Kongers and then Mainlanders and new arrivals from French West Africa and Haiti, the Sikhs and Hindus from India and the Sri Lankans and Filipinos and …

A hundred million? Why stop?

Source: Canadians need to form a consensus on long-term immigration policy

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →