Of note. Of course, another dramatic change was the shift to positive support for immigration, under threat to some extent by concerns over housing, healthcare etc)
….The Mulroney government implemented free trade, but (the 1988 election victory notwithstanding) it left office having lost the support of the majority of the public on the issue. Herein lies the first lesson for those aspiring to political leadership, which is perhaps a strange one for pollsters to point out: don’t pay too much attention to who’s on top of the polls. Free trade was a policy championed by experts – the dour economists and the faceless bureaucrats – that became less popular the longer the government that fought for it remained in office. Mr. Mulroney’s ability to see it through was ultimately due, not to his charm, but to his thick skin.
…
The second lesson that political leaders can draw from this incredible turnaround? Vindication takes time. Mr. Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives endured defeat, then watched while Liberal governments reaped the benefits of free trade, championed its expansion globally, and won praise for defending it in response to the election of a maverick U.S. president. Mr. Mulroney played for the longer-term, which may be one of the hardest things to do in modern politics. But by choosing that path, he ensured that today – 40 years after NAFTA – his praises are being sung.
One thing to note multiple factors involved in housing availability/affordability, another to largely dismiss the impact of immigration-driven population growth. Still in the denial stage…:
Over the past few decades, Canadians have been more positive than negative in their attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. In 2019, Canada was ranked the most accepting country for immigrants (in a survey of 145 countries) on Gallup’s Migrant Acceptance Index.
Over the last few years, Environics public opinion data also indicated Canadians felt very positively about immigrants and immigration levels.
Something changed in 2023.
A million newcomers in two years
A few months after reaching this population milestone, the federal government released its new Immigration Levels Plan to welcome 485,000 permanent residents in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025 and 2026.
This announcement came on the heels of an Environics public opinion survey revealing a significant increase in the number of Canadians who believe the country accepts too many immigrants. That marks a dramatic reversal from a year ago, when support for immigration levels stood at an all-time high.
Canadians are still more likely to disagree (51 per cent) than agree (44 per cent) that immigration levels are too high, but the gap between these views has shrunk over the past year, from 42 percentage points to just seven. That’s the biggest one-year change in opinion on this question since it was first asked by Environics in 1977.
Rising concerns about the number of arrivals are evident across Canada, but are most widely expressed in Ontario and British Columbia
Environics has been surveying Canadians about immigration on a regular basis since 1977. The latest survey of more than 2,000 Canadians was conducted in September 2023 in partnership with the Century Initiative, a non-profit lobbying and charity group.
The survey was conducted to ensure representation by region, age, gender and educational attainment.
Apart from rising public concerns about immigration levels, there has been no corresponding change in how Canadians feel about immigrants themselves in terms of how they’re integrating and what they contribute to Canadian society.
The public is much more likely to say that newcomers make their own communities a better place than a worse one.
Housing crisis concerns
Importantly, the belief that immigration levels are too high is largely driven by perceptions that newcomers may be contributing to the housing crisis in terms of availability and affordability.
As researchers who study attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, we believe it is critical to pay attention to this shift.
There is a large body of research examining how perceived threat/competition predicts attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.
Perceived competition may be rooted in real or imagined national economic challenges, as well as beliefs about access to housing, employment and other resources.
In September 2023, when Environics conducted its latest survey, there was a lot of media coverage about the housing crisis, including the scapegoating of international students. It’s possible such coverage may have hardened some Canadians’ attitudes toward immigration levels.
In reality, Canada’s housing shortage was fuelled for decades by myriad factors, including municipal zoning laws, developers’ special interests and public policy on housing. As other scholars have argued, curbing migration is not a solution to this complex issue, nor is it moral.
Attitudes towards immigrants may change
Policymakers and community leaders should pay close attention to public attitudes toward immigration levels as they strive to build a diversified and robust immigration system and create welcoming communities for immigrants.
The latest research demonstrates the public still feels positively toward immigrants and their many contributions to communities and Canadian society. However, there seems to be growing concerns about Canada’s capacity to effectively resettle immigrants, in part due to concerns that newcomers may be contributing to the housing crisis.
If Canadians continue to blame immigrants for the housing crisis, their attitudes toward immigrants themselves — as opposed to immigration levels — may harden. How Canadians feel about immigration levels may also impact the type and level of supports immigrants can access as they resettle, whether they experience discrimination in the housing and labour marketsand whether they’re warmly welcomed by their communities.
Leah Hamilton, Vice Dean, Research & Community Relations, & Professor of Organizational Behaviour, Faculty of Business & Communication Studies, Mount Royal University
Nice breakdown on relative immigration category priorities and related analysis:
If you follow the news, you’ll have seen coverage of our new report on attitudes toward immigration in Canada. Our Focus Canada survey (in partnership with Century Initiative) included a wider range of questions than most – not all of which could fit into the initial coverage. Here’s one that should not get overlooked.
For the first time,* this year’s survey asked about six different categories of immigration as follows:
Each year, Canada accepts immigrants under different categories. Please tell me whether you personally believe the government should place a high priority, a medium priority or a low priority on accepting each of the following categories of immigrants?
Here are the overall results:
The public is most likely to prioritize skilled workers (whether those with specialized skills in high demand, or new permanent residents arriving with a good education). This may not seem surprising, but that’s precisely the point: it’s now widely accepted that our economy needs more skilled workers than we can produce at home. Theoretically, it would have been possible for people to see highly skilled immigrants as rivals who threaten to take away the best jobs from Canadian-born workers. But this is not the case. This type of immigration is seen as a win-win and not a zero-sum scenario.
The next striking finding is that refugees are fairly high up on the list of top priorities (while not quite as popular as skilled immigrants, a majority of Canadians say that accepting refugees should be a high priority). It remains the case that many Canadians continue to value the humanitarian goals of our immigration system, and not just the economic ones.
Next comes family reunification. It’s worth noting that there is a significant gender gap on both this item and the previous one about refugees. Women are significantly more likely than men to say that the government should place a high priority on bringing in family members of current residents, and accepting refugees.
Last on the list of high priorities are two types of temporary immigrants: lower-skilled workers and students – something that’s notable at a time when these categories are the ones that have seen the most unexpected increases. Personally, I was surprised to see international students at the bottom of the list; I wonder if the heads of universities and colleges are too.
So much for the high priorities; it’s just as interesting the look at the results the other way around. Relatively few Canadians think any of these six types of immigrants should actually be a low priority. The highest figures come in the cases of lower skilled temporary workers (22%) and students (20%) – but even here, only about one in five say the government should place a low priority on accepting these categories of immigrants.
The continuing openness of Canadians to immigration becomes even more apparent if we count up how many of each of the six categories mentioned in the survey are seen as high or low priorities. The count of high priorities has a nice normal distribution: most people are in the middle (66% name two, three or four high priority types of immigrant) and relatively few people are at either end of the spectrum (16% name zero or one high priorities, and 17% name five or six).
The picture is very different when we count low priorities. One in two Canadians do not answer “low priority” for any of the six categories of immigrant. Four in five (81%) name no more than one. Only three percent list at least four of the six categories as low priorities. In a survey of 2,002 Canadians, a grand total of three people (0.1%) think all six categories should be a low priority for the government.
This is important context for interpreting the main headline from the survey, which is that there has been a big jump in the past year in the proportion of Canadians who agree there is currently too much immigration (from 27% in 2022 to 44% in 2023). This is certainly an expression of anxiety about the current state of the economy in general, and housing availability and affordability in particular. But it’s not an expression of growing opposition to the idea of Canada as a country that welcomes immigrants.
To back up this interpretation, consider the following additional findings:
First, a majority of those who agree that there is too much immigration to Canada nonetheless say that the government should place a highpriority on accepting each of the two categories of skilled immigrants mentioned in the survey.
Second, and more generally, 91 percent of those who agree that there is too much immigration to Canada nonetheless say that the government should place a high priority on accepting at least one of the six categories of immigrants mentioned in the survey.
Finally, only 14 percent of those who agree that there is too much immigration to Canada say that the government should place a lowpriority on accepting at least three of the six categories of immigrants mentioned in the survey.
In other words, while a lot of Canadians have concerns about the details of current immigrant policy, very few think it’s time to raise the drawbridge.
Canada has long been an immigrant nation, starting more than four centuries ago when the first European settlers arrived on what many Indigenous peoples call Turtle Island. Today, Canada stands out as having one of the most ethnically diverse populations on the planet. The 2021 census identifies more than four in 10 of us as either first- or second-generation Canadians; roughly half of the people living in Toronto and Vancouver started their lives in another country. This remarkable evolution has not been without blemish, as we know from a history of prejudice and racism directed toward new waves of newcomers over our history, whether Irish, Chinese, East Indian, or Muslim; unfortunately, elements of xenophobia still persist in our society.
But the prevailing sentiment among Canadians is one of acceptance, viewing immigration and immigrants as good for, if not essential to, our country’s growth and diversity. Our research at the Environics Institute reveals that our multicultural character is among the strongest sources of national pride and identity. Globally, the Gallup World poll consistently ranks Canada as the top country for migrant acceptance among its citizens, and we are the second-most desired destination worldwide (just behind the United States) among people considering migration.
Our continuing Focus Canada public opinion research surveys have found solid public support for immigration over the past decade, with notable consistency despite disruptions from the global COVID-19 pandemic, contentious federal and provincial elections, and occasional economic downturns. Our trend lines have looked remarkably stable for a long time.
In 2023, however, something significant has changed. In our latest national survey conducted in September in partnership with the Century Initiative, more than four in 10 Canadians now agree with the statement “there is too much immigration to Canada.” This remains the minority view, but it has grown by 17 percentage points from 12 months ago – a dramatic shift in public opinion that is the most significant one-year change in this indicator in four decades of research.
The primary reason for this change appears to be the growing concern about the potential role that a large number of newcomers may be having on housing, now widely considered to be a crisis in terms of both availability and affordability. Immigration may well be just one of numerous factors affecting the housing market, but recent images of asylum seekers camped out on city streets and homeless encampments in parks are potent signs that infrastructure has not kept up with our ambitious immigration targets.
And it’s not just about housing. Our research found that Canadians are feeling negative about the direction the country is heading, growing concerns about inflation and the cost of living, and diminished confidence in the ability of governments to address the country’s challenges ahead.
At the same time, our research shows no comparable change in how Canadians feel about immigrants and refugees, and what they contribute to the country. A strong majority continues to say that immigration has a positive impact on the country’s economy. Locally, Canadians across the country say immigrants make their own community a better place rather than a worse one, by a wide margin.
What are we to make of this latest change in public sentiment? Canadians are now, for the first time in decades and perhaps the country’s history, increasingly questioning immigration levels from the perspective of what they believe the country can manage in terms of resources, at a time when housing, our health care system and other infrastructure such as transit are under stress. The public’s focus now appears to be shifting beyond concerns about what type of immigrant is accepted, to how many are arriving in their communities.
Up until now, we would have considered anyone who says there is too much immigration to Canada to be expressing a xenophobic sentiment, reflecting fear or rejection of those seen as too different because of race, religion, or culture. This still applies for some, but we must now recognize that the public discourse has changed – that it is increasingly about the country’s capacity to receive the number of newcomers arriving, as well as who it is we are admitting. Some economists and policy experts insist that high immigration levels are essential to maintaining population growth and supporting key labour markets, but our social consensus on immigration and diversity depends on creating a well-functioning society for both Canadians who are already here as well as those still to come.
Yet another poll showing a decline in support for current high levels of immigration over the past year given the impact on housing, in particular.
Public support for immigration has fallen sharply over the past year as Canadians increasingly tie affordability and housing concerns to a historic influx of newcomers, according to survey results published on Monday.
Forty-four per cent of Canadians think immigration levels are too high, up from 27 per cent last year, according to a survey conducted by the Environics Institute for Survey Research, in partnership with the Century Initiative, an organization that advocates for Canada’s population to hit 100 million by 2100. This was the largest change in sentiment between surveys that Environics has observed in four-plus decades of polling on the topic.
Just a year ago, public support for immigration was stronger than ever, Environics found. But since then, Canadians have been consumed by a number of economic worries, including high inflation, rising interest payments and a worsening housing crisis, which is pushing up resale prices and rents across the country.
At the same time, Canada is growing rapidly. Over the 12 months through June, the population expanded by around 1.2 million people, bringing the total number of residents to 40.1 million. At 3 per cent, this was the largest 12-month increase since 1957; international migration accounted for almost the entirety of the expansion.
This surge has led to a spirited debate about immigration and Canada’s ability to absorb so many people so quickly. The results from Environics are similar to other recent surveys, including a Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail that found more than half of Canadians want the country to accept fewer immigrants than Ottawa’s plan.
“We see these results as a clarion call for action,” said Lisa Lalande, the chief executive officer of the Century Initiative. “You cannot address demographic decline through immigration without having these corresponding investments” in housing and other areas.
The survey was published just before the federal government unveils its next three-year plan for immigration this week, covering 2024 to 2026. Last year, Ottawa said it was aiming to admit 500,000 permanent residents annually by 2025, part of a steady increase since the Liberal Party came to power in 2015.
As the Liberals struggle with weaker support in the polls, the Century Initiative is hoping the government doesn’t water down its immigration plans. “Now is not the time to pull back on immigration,” Ms. Lalande said.
Of late, the population increase is mostly driven by the arrival of temporary residents, such as international students and workers, many of whom wish to settle permanently in Canada. There are no limits on the issuance of temporary visas, although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week that his government was considering a cap.
Under Mr. Trudeau, the Liberals have made high immigration a cornerstone of their economic agenda. They argue that not only will immigration lead to stronger growth, but it will also help fill jobs as Canada gets progressively older.
David Williams, vice-president of policy at the Business Council of British Columbia, said this is a naive view of how economies work. He pointed to a stagnation in gross domestic product per capita as a sign that average living standards were not improving, despite the high intake of newcomers. Furthermore, there is ample research that indicates immigration has little effect – positive or negative – on per-capita output or average wages.
“Canada’s immigration policy has really become disconnected from the academic evidence,” Mr. Williams said. “There seems to be a view in Ottawa that ever-increasing immigration levels is a panacea for all of the structural problems in Canada’s economy.”
Rupa Banerjee, a Canada Research Chair in immigration and economics at Toronto Metropolitan University, said the country has struggled for a long time to build homes in sufficient quantities. “People are getting this wrong impression that the immigration situation is causing the housing crisis,” she said.
The Environics survey found the largest declines in support for immigration in British Columbia and Ontario. There was a sharp divide by political party: Nearly two-thirds of Conservative Party supporters agreed with the statement that “there is too much immigration to Canada,” compared with 29 per cent of Liberals and 21 per cent of New Democratic Party backers.
Still, the results suggest that Canadians see the upsides of immigration. Around three-quarters of people agreed that immigration has a positive impact on the economy, down from 85 per cent last year.
The survey was based on telephone interviews conducted with 2,002 Canadians between Sept. 4 and 17. The results are accurate to within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points in 19 out of 20 samples.
The Century Initiative was co-founded by Mark Wiseman, chair of Alberta Investment Management Corp., and Dominic Barton, the former global managing partner of consulting giant McKinsey & Co. Mr. Barton also served as chair of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which recommended to the Trudeau government in 2016 that it raise its annual intake of permanent residents by 50 per cent over five years.
“We do not believe in growth at all costs,” Ms. Lalande said. “That growth must absolutely be accompanied by investments in infrastructure, both physical and social.”
Dr. Banerjee said the federal government could do a better job of communicating its plans for how these newcomers will integrate into Canada. Otherwise, she said, people are left with the impression that there is no plan.
“For several years now, I’ve been slightly concerned that we shouldn’t take this high support for immigration for granted,” she said. “It’s very precarious, to be honest.”
Interesting to contrast Canadian and foreign-born along with party. Striking that more immigrants feel levels too high compared to Canadian born. Party differences less surprising:
Overall, there is too much immigration to Canada: Canadian-born 43 percent, Foreign-born 47 percent, Liberals 29 percent, CPC 64 percent, NDP 21 percent
Many people claiming to be refugees are not real refugees: Canadian-born 33 percent, Foreign-born 45 percent, Liberals 29 percent, CPC 49 percent, NDP 21 percent
There are too many immigrants coming into this country who are not adopting Canadian values: Canadian-born 48 percent, Foreign-born 46 percent, Liberals 38 percent, CPC 65 percent, NDP 27 percent
Overall, immigration has a positive impact on the economy of Canada: Canadian-born 72 percent, Foreign-born 81 percent, Liberals 85 percent, CPC 64 percent, NDP 89 percent
The other question that is interesting to look at the breakdown between Canadian and foreign-born pertains to those immigrants considered to be high priority. Not surprisingly, immigrants place higher priority on family immigration and international students but a lower priority on refugees. Both give priority to higher skilled compared to lower skilled:
People with good education and skills who move to Canada permanently: High priority: Canadian-born: 66 percent, Foreign-born: 67 percent
Family members of current residents of Canada, including immigrants: Canadian-born: 38 percent, Foreign-born: 43 percent
Refugees who are fleeing conflict or persecution in their own countries: Canadian-born: 58 percent, Foreign-born: 47 percent
Workers with specialized skills that are in high demand in Canada: Canadian-born: 76 percent, Foreign-born: 80 percent
Students who come to study in Canadian colleges and universities: Canadian-born: 29 percent, Foreign-born: 45 percent
Lower skilled workers who are hired to come to Canada for a short time to take on hard-to-fill jobs: Canadian-born: 34 percent, Foreign-born: 33 percent
Black people in Toronto are “significantly” more likely to face discrimination on a regular basis than white residents, according to a recent in-depth report on Torontonians’ day-to-day experience with microaggression and discrimination.
A research brief entitled Everyday Racism: Experiences of Discrimination in Torontoreleased Tuesday highlighted findings on discrimination pulled from the Toronto Social Capital Study published in November.
The first-of-its-kind report, led by the non-profit Toronto Foundation and Environics Institute for Survey Research, found that roughly 76 per cent of Black Torontonians experience racial discrimination at least a few times a month.
“I was not surprised,” said Kwame McKenzie, a psychiatry professor and CEO of the Wellesley Institute.
“The type of discrimination that they’re trying to measure are microaggressions, everyday events of racism that are perceived by the population … this is the common everyday experience of Black people in Canada.”
The data is based on results from a survey of 4,163 people aged 18 and older in Toronto, conducted both online and by telephone last summer.
Participants who reported experiencing any form of discrimination were asked what they perceive as the main reason.
Roughly 41 per cent of people said it was because of their ethnicity or race, followed by physical appearance at 34 per cent, age at 32 per cent and gender at 30 per cent.
“But in the case of racialized Torontonians, 61 per cent of those who experience discrimination, say the reason they are discriminated against is because of their ethnicity or race,” the report reads.
Black Torontonians report being treated as not smart
As part of the survey, participants were asked about their experience with 10 types of discrimination, using the Everyday Discrimination scale developed by Harvard University professor David R. Williams.
Survey respondents answered questions about discrimination in their day-to-day life such as if they experience being called names or being insulted, if they are threatened or harassed and if they’re followed around in stores.
They were also asked how often they are treated with less courtesy or respect than other people are, if they receive poorer service than others at restaurants or stores, if others act like they think they are not smart or others are afraid of them, if people act as if they think they are dishonest, if people act as if they are better than them.
The number of Black Torontonians who reported feeling treated as not smart is higher than any of the other large racial identity groups, with 25 per cent saying they experience this regularly while 17 per cent of white people do.
Roughly 46 per cent of Black people reported never experiencing people acting afraid of them because of their race whereas 65 per cent of white residents said they have not experienced this.
Andrew Parkin, co-author of the study and executive director of the Environics Institute for Survey Research, said the data helps highlight the accumulation of experiences faced by racial and ethnic groups.
“[This] has consequences for how people feel connected to their community and how trusting they feel of institutions, city services, city hall, the police, the justice system, the schools … all of that is affected by these experiences,” Parkin said.
Discrimination a strong factor in unemployment
As well, there is a strong link between wellbeing and economic security, and discrimination, according to the report.
Torontonians who face the most frequent discrimination have lower life satisfaction, poorer mental health and less economic security than those who experience less frequent or no discrimination, the report says.
Agapi Gessesse, executive director of CEE Center for Young Black Professionals, says the number of Black Torontonians reporting frequent racial discrimination is a major factor in unemployment rates in the group.
According to Statistics Canada, Black youth aged 15 to 24 have experienced high unemployment during the pandemic, as almost one-third of the labour force in this group, approximately 30.6 per, cent was unemployed in January 2021 — almost twice the rate of non-visible minority youth.
“It paints a picture that correlates with our unemployment rate. Why is it that our community is well-educated, motivated … has young people who are willing to put in the work, but yet the unemployment rate doesn’t seem to want to be budging?” Gessesse said.
“Organizations like ours [are] having to strategically find labour gaps in the market to train them so that no matter what they look like or who they are, you’re going to want to hire them because you have such a large labour gap and really have no choice.”
In relation to social capital, those who report the most frequent discrimination have much lower social capital than those who report less frequent or no discrimination, the report says.
McKenzie said there is an association between discrimination and social capital but it can be difficult to draw direct lines for causation.
“If you are in a group that experiences racism day in [and] day out, that would lead to you trusting people less. It would lead to you trying to shrink your social networks to protect yourself,” he said.
“So, you can understand how it could lead to lower levels of social cohesion and social capital. But we don’t know that’s exactly what happens.”
McKenzie and Gessesse are not affiliated with the study.
South Asians report being treated with less respect than others
According to the report, South Asians in Toronto also report experiencing racial discrimination regularly, at least a few times a month. The group is more than twice as likely as those who are white to report receiving poorer service at restaurants and stores.
As well, they are the most likely of the largest racial identity groups in the city to report being treated with less respect than other people are, with 25 per cent reporting they experience this at least a few times a month, compared to 14 per cent of those who are white.
Parkin said the Toronto Foundation and Environics Institute for Survey Research collected data on religious groups who reported experiencing frequent discrimination for their faith and will be releasing more focused data on that.
“In addition to this, the racial discrimination that we’re focusing on today, there are many other kinds of discrimination in Toronto including against people who are visibly religious,” Parkin said.
“These are all sort of there in the data, and we’ll be working over in the next little while to kind of bring as much of that to the surface as we can.”
Quite a remarkable change. I remember the free trade debates:
It is easy to list the political issues that divide Canadians today. Leaders and parties stand far apart on what to do about health care, climate change and firearms, to name but a few. But before we conclude that our politics is more polarized than ever, let’s remember it is possible to overcome even long-standing divisions and find common ground.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to Canada next week brings this into focus. Canada-U.S. relations has been a political flashpoint throughout our history. Typically, one major party was accused of getting too close to the Americans, the other of ignoring the economic benefits that this closeness would bring. Originally, it was the Liberals who sought to strengthen north-south trade while the Tories championed an east-west vision. But by the mid-1980s, the roles had reversed. Views on the United States remained one of the country’s primordial political cleavages, but with the political right now seen as too pro-American.
This dynamic was most evident during the 1988 federal election, fought almost exclusively on free trade. If ever our politics were polarized, it was then. The free trade agreement (FTA) that had been negotiated by Brian Mulroney’s government was supported by 61 per cent of Progressive Conservative party supporters, but by only 21 per cent of Liberals and 17 per cent of those voting NDP. The Mulroney government won re-election despite this heated opposition, and the FTA was ratified — and soon expanded to include Mexico.
At first, acrimony intensified in the early 1990s as the country faced the twin challenges of a recession and a constitutional crisis. But as both of these faded, so did opposition to free trade. By the mid-1990s, more Canadians favoured free trade than opposed it; Liberal supporters in particular became almost as favourable to the policy as Conservatives. By 2000, seven in 10 Canadians favoured the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), including identical proportions of Liberals and Conservatives, and — for the first time — a majority of those supporting the NDP.
Today, the consensus has solidified. Support for NAFTA stands at 83 per cent, including 82 per cent of Conservatives, 89 per cent of Liberals, and (gasp) 84 per cent of NDP supporters. A similarly strong 88 per cent of Bloc Québécois supporters and 82 per cent of those voting Green favour the policy. Thirty-five years after the country squared off in an epic battle over free trade, it has become a non-issue, attracting close to unanimous support among supporters of every party in the House of Commons.
Opposition to free trade melted away in part because it was accompanied, not by the erasure of differences between the two societies, but by their enhancement. It turned out that economic integration did not lead inexorably to the loss of Canada’s cultural distinctness, as Liberal leader John Turner had warned in 1988. This, in turn, has led to a growing public self-confidence about the Canadian identity, especially among younger Canadians and those on the political left — both of whom have become much less likely than they were a generation ago to say that Canadian culture needs to be protected from outside influences.
The growing differences between the political cultures of the two countries speaks to the second reason we are seeing less division in Canada about our relations with the U.S. Those on the political left can no longer accuse Conservatives of being sellouts just because they want to sell more of our products to the Americans. But at the same time, Conservatives must now be wary of criticizing the Liberals for being too anti-American. Canadians’ opinion of the U.S. soured considerably during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Donald Trump and has recovered only partially since Biden’s inauguration. Now is not the time for Pierre Poilievre to hint that Canada’s influence would improve by building closer ties with Washington once Conservatives and Republicans return to office in their respective countries.
Canadians overwhelmingly preferred Biden to Trump in the 2020 election, and he will be warmly welcomed during his visit. But the wider issue of Canada-U.S. relations no longer deeply divides us. Canadians of all political backgrounds have become increasingly wary of the direction in which Americans are headed. We now favour a pragmatic approach, keeping the bridges open to trade, countering buy-American jingoism, mounting joint defence operations to shoot down errant balloons, and otherwise being friendly with our neighbours — but not too friendly.
On some of the biggest issues we have faced, it is possible for Canadians to actually become less polarized than ever before.
The arrival of Syrian refugees in Canada a few years ago is a well-known “feel-good” story. Images of Justin Trudeau greeting refugees at the airport and private citizens stepping up as sponsors are etched in the minds of many Canadians. The compelling stories of particular refugees and families who suffered hardship and became successful, such as Tareq Hadhad of Peace by Chocolate in Antigonish, N.S., and Abdulfatah Sabouni of Aleppo Savon in Calgary, have been showcased as wonderful examples highlighting the resilience and entrepreneurial spirit of Syrian newcomers. But what about the other refugees who arrived with them, most of whom are living outside the media spotlight?
Canada acted quickly to take in 40,000 Syrian refugees in a short span of time between November, 2015, and December, 2016, and it is important to know how they are doing today (and not just through the success stories captured by the media).This is the question that the Environics Institute sought to answer in a national study with a representative sample of Syrian refugees on their lived experience since arriving in Canada.
The answer is that Syrian refugees who arrived in the first wave are doing remarkably well. Our study shows that most Syrian refugees who arrived in 2015 and 2016 have established new lives for themselves and their families in Canada, largely overcoming the initial hurdles that face all refugees (and especially those who come from societies with different languages and cultures). The research shows that most are supporting themselves financially and have achieved functional fluency in English or French. Their children are doing well in school, they feel accepted by other Canadians and identify strongly as Canadian, and are active members of their local communities. These refugees, having had only a few years to create new lives in a foreign place, are notably optimistic about the future for themselves and their children.
Not everyone is doing equally well and many continue to face challenges, most notably with employment and underemployment, along with other immigrants who find their native credentials of little value in the Canadian workplace. Achieving financial security and accessing affordable housing are issues for some refugees, as they are for many Canadians. And many of these refugees miss having family nearby and struggle to become comfortable with an unfamiliar culture.
But the big picture is positive. Canada rose to the occasion through an unprecedented effort by governments, civil society and citizens, to open the country and make it home for Syrians fleeing a horrendous humanitarian crisis. And these refugees are now contributing to their communities and the country in important ways. Only now are other countries taking our lead, with the U.S. announcing a similar program just last week.
It is important to remember the tragic story of Alan Kurdi, a two-year-old Syrian boy pictured lying face down on a Mediterranean beach in 2015, which helped spark the Canadian response to the Syrian refugee crisis. Alan’s story continues to serve as a powerful reminder of the dangers and hardships facing many refugees, and how a country and its people can respond in a meaningful way. We did so once before on a large scale, in the late 1970s, when Canada stepped up to accept more than 60,000 people fleeing war and persecution in Southeast Asia.
These examples demonstrate that Canadian society – not just our governments – has both the interest and the capacity to get directly involved in making this country a welcoming refuge. Canada was the first country to make it possible for private citizens and faith-based institutions to sponsor refugees. Our research highlights the essential role that private sponsors played in Syrian refugees’ successful resettlement. And we know from one of our other studies that many Canadians across the country – estimated to be around four million – are interested in getting directly involved in helping refugees in this way. Our governments can and should do whatever they can to enable and support this goodwill.
Doing so requires a more robust level of focus and effort. The scale of support provided to Syrians has not been sustained, with subsequent waves of refugees now arriving from Afghanistan and elsewhere. The effort put into Syrian resettlement, compounded by the protracted COVID-19 pandemic, has pushed government agencies, settlement support services and private sponsors to their limits.
There is much to be learned from our recent experience in welcoming Syrian refugees, and we now have the opportunity – and responsibility – to repeat this accomplishment on a sustainable basis. Canadian institutions and citizens stepped up in a big way to welcome Syrians. Let’s find a way to make this an enduring feature of our country’s future.
Michael Adams is the founder and president of the non-profit Environics Institute for Survey Research. Jobran Khanji is the community outreach co-ordinator for the Institute’s Syrian Refugee Lived Experience Project. Keith Neuman is a senior associate with the Environics Institute.
Of note, the general consensus with relatively few exceptions (CPC views on CBC and official bilingualism, Quebec differences):
This past year offered Canadians plenty of reasons to question their national identity. The angry occupation of Ottawa last winter, on the edge of Parliament Hill, clashed with our stereotype of Canadians as polite compromisers. Day-long emergency room wait times quashed any urge we might once have had to brag to Americans about our public health care system. Provincial governments started behavinglike our beloved Charter of Rights and Freedoms was merely a suggestion, not a set of binding rules. Even the death of Queen Elizabeth II had a disruptive effect, as some of us balked at swearing allegiance to a new heir.
Other signs of change came from the steady stream of new census numbers published over the course of 2022 by Statistics Canada. We learned that a greater proportion of our population than ever before (23 per cent) is made up of immigrants – people who are increasingly from Asia and Africa rather than Europe. More than one in four of us arenow racialized, and one in 20 is Muslim. Our Indigenous population is growing almost twice as fast as the non-Indigenous population and will soon surpass two million.
It would be reasonable to assume that the combination of change, anxiety and conflict we have experienced in the past year is straining the common bonds that have previously held us together. Our research shows some evidence of this, if we look at the popular appeal of the traditional symbols of the Canadian state, such as our flag or national anthem. Both are a little less likely than they were 20 years ago to be seen as very important to the Canadian identity.
Other iconic institutions, such as the RCMP and the CBC, have also lost some of their appeal as symbols of a shared identity. Even the game of hockey has been declining in its importance to the Canadian sense of self since it hit a peak in 2010, the year of the Vancouver Winter Olympics.
But in actuality, the Canadian identity is not weakening – it is shifting. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms now appeals to more Canadians than any other symbol or institution. The concept of multiculturalism has become more popular than ever: Almost two in three Canadians now say this uniquely Canadian concept is very important to our identity (30 years ago, it was closer to one in three). And in just the past decade, there has been a striking increase in the extent to which Canadians see Indigenous peoples as being very important to the country’s self-image.
This last finding may stir controversy. Some Indigenous peoples may object to their being positioned as a symbol of the country whose existence their own nations predate by many thousands of years. And framing our relationship with Indigenous peoples in terms of Canadian identity might strike some as papering over the long list of injustices that remain to be addressed.
But it is also possible to interpret the survey in a more positive light. The events of recent years – from the disruption of the railways in early 2020 in support of the land claims of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, to the discovery of unmarked graves on the sites of former residential schools, to the prevalence of violence inflicted upon Indigenous women and girls – have not prompted Canadians either to turn their backs or cover their ears. They have led instead to a concept of what it means to live in a country that puts learning from our mistakes ahead of tradition, and that is thereby becoming more inclusive than ever before.
Significantly, these shifts in the Canadian identity are most pronounced among younger generations. But older Canadians themselves are hardly clinging to an image of the country that their children or grandchildren find outdated. The fact is that Canadians in all age groups are increasingly framing their sense of national identity in terms of diversity. The proportion of Canadians over the age of 60 who say that multiculturalism is very important to the Canadian identity has never been higher than it is today; the proportion in the older age group who say the same of the Canadian flag has never been lower.
Other historic cleavages, however, remain. Almost all the traditional symbols of the Canadian identity have far less appeal to Quebeckers than to Canadians living in the rest of the country (the main exception being bilingualism, which naturally is much more popular among francophones). It is no surprise that the monarch and O Canada, for instance, stir fewer hearts in Quebec than elsewhere.
The fact that a growing proportion of Quebeckers – about twice as many as 25 years ago – recognize multiculturalism as very important to the Canadian identity, may be more of a surprise (it might certainly be news to the province’s Premier). The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Indigenous peoples, are also at the top of the list in Quebec in terms of importance to identity, just as they are in the rest of Canada.
There are also gaps between the views of new Canadians, and those who were born in this country. Predictably, immigrants are more likely to value multiculturalism as part of their new country’s identity. But notably, almost everything associated with Canada has more appeal to immigrants than to “old stock” Canadians, including the flag, the national anthem, the monarchy – and even hockey. What distinguishes immigrants from other Canadians is not so much the appeal of the value of diversity. Rather, it is their level of enthusiasm for the country that has welcomed them.
It would also be a mistake to attribute the growing popularity of multiculturalism in Canada to the growth in the country’s immigrant population. Regardless of whether they were born here or abroad, Canadians are increasingly likely to see multiculturalism as an important part of their shared identity.
The one divide that is more jarring is between supporters of different political parties. There is no doubt that the more traditional symbols of Canadian identity, such as the flag and the national anthem, have more appeal to Conservatives than to Liberal and NDP supporters (which has some irony, as the flag was procured by a Liberal government over Conservative opposition in the 1960s). Importantly, this is not because Conservatives are reverting toward tradition or turning away from diversity; it is rather because the attitudes of non-Conservatives are evolving more quickly. Today’s NDP supporters, in particular, embrace a very different image of the country than they did 20 years ago.
What is revealing, though, is the comparison between those who back today’s unified Conservative Party, with those who backed either of its preunification parties in the 1990s. The views of today’s Conservatives on multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are closer to those of yesterday’s Progressive Conservatives (that is to say, today’s Conservatives hold what would have been considered somewhat progressive views on these matters a few decades ago). But on two other symbols – the CBC and bilingualism – the conservative movement’s 1990s Reform Party heritage shines through. In fact, today’s Conservatives are even less likely than past Reform Party supporters to say that the CBC is very important to the Canadian identity – something which bodes well for the Conservative Party’s new Leader, Pierre Poilievre, and his promise to defund the public broadcaster.
The fact that the base of the united federal Conservative Party looks a little more like the old Reform Party on official bilingualism, however, presents a bit of a problem. Mr. Poilievre speaks French well, but today’s Conservatives are less likely than their Brian Mulroney-era predecessors to see bilingualism as important. This could make it difficult for Mr. Poilievre to make a breakthrough with voters in Quebec should francophones sense that the Conservative Party doesn’t see official bilingualism as an important part of the Canadian bargain.
These differences notwithstanding, we are emerging from a period of unparalleled, pandemic-induced strain with a sense of Canada that is much more unifying than divisive. Nine in 10 of us express at least some pride in being a Canadian. The strength of this pride is weaker in Quebec, but it is not absent. There are pockets of anger: Among those who are dissatisfied with the way the country is going, the proportion who are not proud of being a Canadian reaches 16 per cent; among supporters of the Bloc Québécois, who dream of living in a different country, it reaches 20 per cent. That still leaves most of us feeling that there is a lot to celebrate.
What is most important about these trends, though, is that our image of the country, and its demographic reality, are evolving in the same direction. Diversity has become more important to us as we have become more diverse. Canadians are not only adapting to change, they are embracing it.
As we look to the new year, Canadians can prepare to engage in arguments over very Canadian things, such as the appropriate size of the Canada Health Transfer. And there will be clashes over serious problems that affect people’s livelihoods, such as interest rates and carbon taxes. But most of us won’t be arguing about who belongs here. We will leave xenophobia to others. In Canada, we will be feeling our way forward toward xenophilia.
Michael Adams is the founder of the Environics Institute and the author of Unlikely Utopia: The Surprising Triumph of Canadian Multiculturalism. Andrew Parkin is the institute’s executive director.
Seven years after Canada opened its doors to Syrian refugees, that first cohort of newcomers say they feel good about their new lives, have remained friends with their sponsors and are hopeful for a better future.
However, many still struggle with finding gainful employment, according to a two-year research project by the Environics Institute.
For the newcomers and Canadians, the time between 2015 and 2016 was a defining moment of their lives and in this country’s history, as communities banded together and welcomed 25,000 Syrians within months during a national resettlement project.
“It was a feel-good thing. These people were coming over to Canada from a crisis. We were giving them a home. The government and private citizens were stepping up. They were settling in,” says Keith Neuman, research director of the study released Saturday.
“It was something that made a lot of Canadians feel good about their country, if you will. It’s kind of faded now in memory, but it hasn’t really soured.”
Researchers interviewed 305 Syrian refugees who came during that period about their lived experience and where they are today, seven years later. Participants, who responded to a callout, answered 125 questions in Arabic, English or French during in-depth interviews.
Almost nine in 10 described their current life in Canada in positive light, most particularly feeling safe and secure and being accepted by their local community in spite of different degrees of financial insecurity and challenges with employment.
While many said they appreciated the country’s rule of law and respect for human rights, the things they liked least in Canada included: the harsh weather (32 per cent), the initial challenges in adapting to a new culture and lifestyle (19 per cent), and being separated from families and friends (14 per cent).
An overwhelming 93 per cent of respondents said moving to Canada was the right thing to do, though six per cent expressed mixed feelings about the decision, while the remainder expressed clear regret or did not respond to the question.
“Canada is not a perfect country, but it’s a good country,” one participant told researchers. “You can do what you want in life; but you need to work hard, like anywhere, but here you have the tools for success.”
“I felt something I never felt back home. You’re free,” another was quoted as saying in the report. “Back in Syria, I had to iron my husband’s shirt every day, since I landed here, I never ironed a shirt once! People are all the same, there is no separation of classes.”
Although few arrived with a functional fluency in English or French, more than 60 per cent of those surveyed now rated their language fluency as excellent or good.
Half of the refugees interviewed were currently working, including three per cent reporting to be doing multiple jobs and seven per cent who were self-employed. Fifty-one per cent said their jobs fully or somewhat matched their past education, skills and experience.
Most people were employed in transportation, warehousing, retail, construction and accommodation and food services. Some were in professional, scientific and technical services.
Fourteen per cent of respondents reported their household income was “good enough and they were able to save from it,” while 63 per cent indicated it was “just enough.” The remaining quarter said they felt stretched or were having a rough time.
More than half of the survey participants said they feel a very strong sense of belonging to Canada, with most of the rest describing it as somewhat strong (35 per cent).
Those who were privately sponsored by community organizations and church groups have developed enduring relationships with their supporters, with three quarters of those surveyed saying they remain in touch years later.
Among the many aspirations of the Syrian immigrants were: owning a home (42 per cent); completing more education and training to improve their lives (39 per cent); sponsoring other family members to Canada (24 per cent) and ensuring their children finish higher education (22 per cent).
Canada’s Syrian refugee resettlement project was unique and there have been many takeaways for similar operations in the future, says Jobran Khanji, the research project’s community outreach lead.
“Different governments mobilized. Community agencies mobilized and the civic society mobilized. Your average Canadians came together in a crisis situation within weeks and months to support the families who were the first to arrive in Canada,” said Khanji, himself a Syrian immigrant from Damascus.
“It’s a great demonstration of what can be done when everybody mobilizes.”
Nabiha Atallah of the Immigrant Services Association of Nova Scotia said she was not surprised by the survey findings but said she was encouraged most Syrians felt welcomed and that they belonged.
Nova Scotia welcomed about 1,500 of the Syrian refugees. Most of them were among the most vulnerable, with many children, sponsored by the government. Yet, they were eager to start working right away.
“It has taken the five or six years. Language is not an easy thing to learn as an adult when some of the people did not even have much of formal education,” Atallah said.
“One of the important things of this report is for the community to see that their response was really effective, because we see that most of the people in this study said they felt they belong and they’re part of the community. That’s great confirmation for the general population.”
Chris Friesen of Immigrant Services Society of B.C. says the report was reflective of the experience of the clients served in the province that resettled more than 3,000 Syrians.
It’s important to track the well-being of the Syrians over time to identify areas of needs and take those lessons to other humanitarian operations, he said.
“We’ve really taken some of the approaches and experiences in Operation Syrian refugees forward,” said Friesen, referring to the resettlement of displaced Afghans and Ukrainians. “That’s encouraging. We’re not repeating it, but we’re building upon it.”
Multicultural Meanderings 