Geoff Russ: Immigration made affordability worse. Liberals gaslighted us all

I lean more to incompetence and overly political objectives. But the debate is here, largely focussed on the practicalities of housing, healthcare and infrastructure, which are shared between immigrants and Canadian-born but with some increase of concern over values, with some of the excesses of pro-palestinian demonstrations and activities, likely contributing to those concerns:

…So what happened to Miller and Trudeau’s demands that Canadians ignore the changes wrought by millions of newcomers who arrived under their government?

There are two unflattering possibilities.

First, they may have been dishonest. Swelling the number of people living in Canada superficially boosts GDP and allows the Liberals to brag about growth while ignoring worsening GDP per capita. Many skeptics correctly termed this trick “human quantitative easing.”

The second possibility is simple incompetence. Perhaps they believed that demand for housing and supply would magically align if enough potential construction workers entered the country, and municipalities would build at a scale unseen since the Second World War.

In either case, the people who noticed that both were nonsense received scolding and spin in return.

In 2023, Maclean’s published a piece defiantly declaring that “limiting immigration isn’t the solution,” and suggested that blaming the surge of newcomers was to shoot at an “easy target,” while also noting that the population had grown by over a million people in 2022 due to temporary and permanent immigration.

On the hard left, arguments that there was too much immigration were slandered as a moral panic, with critics instead blaming the evils of capitalism, and castigating those asking questions for apparently scapegoating foreigners.

Trying to ignore the relationship between the numbers of immigrants, government policy, and negative economic pressure is akin to ignoring the connection between peanuts, people with allergies, and anaphylactic shock.

Do you notice the sleight of hand? It is perfectly acceptable to believe that bad housing policies are to blame, and that zoning, fees, and the lack of purpose-built rentals all matter.

But if you so much as imply that historically outsized immigration levels worsened the lot of everyday Canadians, you are suspect, and those suspicions were endorsed by the Liberals.

This is why the pivot matters. The Liberals were eventually forced to half-admit their mistakes, or malpractice, with Trudeau confessing his government “didn’t get the balance right” on immigration after the pandemic, as if it were a mediocre martini with too much vermouth. They spent years denying that population growth was a central pressure on rising housing prices, and now want to congratulate themselves for changing course when most young Canadians are deeply pessimistic about their future.

Advocates for mass immigration have lost the economic argument, and most Canadians want a reduction in the annual numbers. After years of Ottawa and its ideological allies minimizing the material effects of immigration, Canadians should insist on an honest second conversation about the social and cultural consequences of rapid change.

Surveys show Canadians want sterner expectations regarding assimilation and mainstream national norms, and they deserve that debate without being smeared for noticing the changes around them.

The supposed Canadian exceptionalism when it comes to the pitfalls of immigration and multiculturalism is winding down. For those who want a truly responsible approach to both subjects, now is the time to keep pushing the boundaries of debate and discourse.

Source: Geoff Russ: Immigration made affordability worse. Liberals gaslighted us all

Geoff Russ: Immigration is how Poilievre will get back on top

Reasonable foreshadowing of likely Conservative attack lines, some more valid than others:

Expect the Conservatives to come out swinging on immigration like never before when the House of Commons reconvenes next month.

Donald Trump gave the Liberals a lifeline to eke out another term in government in the spring, but the Liberals’ failure to get immigration under control is negatively impacting Canadians across the country.

In a statement released on August 25, the Conservatives pointed out that the government set an annual cap of 82,000 temporary foreign workers (TFW), but 105,000 had already been issued.

As for applicants to the International Mobility Program, they wrote 302,000 had been admitted by the first six months of the year in June, despite a promised cap of 285,000 permits.

“Moreover, their so-called caps on permanent residents were already among the highest in our history, yet they’re on track to exceed their own reckless targets, welcoming the equivalent of twice the population of Guelph and four times the population of Abbotsford,” read the statement, credited to Poilievre and Shadow Immigration Critic Michelle Rempel Garner.

This month, Poilievre released a series of graphics on social media highlighting the disparity between the Carney government’s promised targets, and how they are on-track to be exceeded.

This is a taste of what to expect for the fall session of Parliament, and Canadians will be receptive.

Sixty-two per cent of respondents in a Leger poll conducted in July believe there are too many newcomers arriving in Canada, and just 42 percent think they can be trusted. The poll also found that there was little disagreement between immigrant and native-born citizens in this regard.

Last year, Abacus Data found that 53 per cent of those surveyed had a negative view of immigration, and 72 per cent thought that the government’s immigration targets were “too ambitious”.

Abacus published the results of another survey earlier this month, finding that 25 per cent of Canadians now consider immigration to be the top issue facing Canada, and the Conservatives lead the Liberals 56 per cent to 15 per cent when respondents were asked which party was best equipped to handle the issue.

During the last federal election, young Canadians swung heavily towards the Conservatives, 44 percent to 31.2 per cent among 18 to 34 year olds, and with good reason.

Youth unemployment is the highest it has been since the late 1990s, with almost 15 per cent of Canadians aged 15 to 24 unable to find work before returning to school in the fall.

Employers have been greatly incentivized by the TFW program to hire foreigners instead of hiring and training their fellow Canadians.

The reliance on surplus foreign labour is dragging down productivity, while suppressing wages and per-capita GDP. There is no long-term upside to flooding the country with low-skill labour that pushes Canadians out of the job market, and the short-term effects have been socially and economically undesirable.

Investigations by the Toronto Star in 2024 found that government officials in Ottawa told their staff to skip fraud checks on TFW applications. Predictable wrongdoing ensued, such as no confirmation with employers to confirm that posted jobs actually existed, while migrant workers paid up to $70,000 for fake jobs.

As of now, it is estimated that there are somewhere between 600,000 and over 1 million undocumented people within Canada, and federal and provincial agencies seem incapable of remedying the issue.

Expelling people from the country is not a pleasant task when so many people have been duped by villainous immigration consultants who sold them fake dreams. The job must still be done.

You cannot have trust in a government that fails to meet its own immigration caps and enforce deportations.

It is unfair to Canadians, and unfair to newcomers who went through the proper channels.

One of the most infuriating aspects of it all is that Canada should not have an immigration crisis. Our geography gives us the privilege of being generous, and up until 2015 we were more selective about newcomers.

Stephen Harper’s government ran a very tight ship on immigration, and this should be the expectation of every Canadian government, not an exception.

This all started going downhill when Justin Trudeau became prime minister in 2015, and the numbers started climbing sharply. For example, his government lowered the benchmark for Express Entry from 866 out of 1200 points, to just 75.

Nearly five million people have entered the country since 2014, and few can say this country is fairer, more prosperous or more hopeful for it. Those who want Canada to continue as a welcoming country for new arrivals would do well to push for reform.

We are bordered by three oceans and an undefended border with the world’s most powerful economy. Our admission of newcomers is something we can control, and there is no reason why Canada should not have one of the most well-run, careful immigration systems in the world.

The idea that Canadians have been almost unanimously in favour of immigration since the Second World War is a pervasive myth. It has always been controversial among the public, but rarely has it been debated with ferocity in the House of Commons.

Canadians want a debate on current immigration levels to happen, and they will get their wish this fall.

Mark Carney will need creative excuses for why his government blew past its own caps, did not release immigration data for months, and presented no plan to end the economy’s dependence on cheap foreign labour.

For the Conservatives, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to finally turn immigration into an issue our politicians can openly and honestly debate.

The Liberals got us into this avoidable mess, and they must be held accountable for it.

Source: Geoff Russ: Immigration is how Poilievre will get back on top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoff Russ: Quebec’s cultural integration bill is a model for the rest of Canada

Contrary view to much of the commentary on Bill 24. Russ is correct in stating that multiculturalism was always about integration, allowing space for cultures and religions, with reasonable accommodations where warranted, and within limits:

…Nothing in Bill 84 suggests an intention to erase diverse identities or arbitrarily impose a dominant monoculture upon Quebec’s population. What it does attempt is to make a shared national identity possible in this era of digital globalization and mass immigration, both of which challenge our long-held assumptions about integration.

Civic identity is an issue that grows more pressing by the year. By the 2026 census, about one-third of Canadians will likely have been born abroad. They will more than likely be dual citizens and people who remain connected to their mother countries like never before, due to the spread of social media platforms such as X and TikTok, as well as streaming services.

The unspoken agreement to forget the conflicts and prejudices of the old world, which once helped newcomers integrate into Canadian society, is under threat of extinction. Since October 7, 2023, and even before that, we have seen the consequences play out in the streets of our cities and in our foreign policy.

Anti-Israel mobs have roamed freely, causing civil disorder and committing violence against the Jewish community. Khalistani protests outside Hindu temples have turned violent, and the separatist group’s presence in Canada has become so strong that it has damaged diplomatic relations with India. This is a new phenomenon: older generations of immigrants, such as Albanians, Croats and Serbs, did not bring the Yugoslav wars to Canada.

It’s also a global phenomenon, as synagogues are being outright burned down in Australia. With United States President Donald Trump’s recent pledge to take over the Gaza Strip and “resettle” the Palestinians elsewhere, do not expect this wave to end anytime soon.

However, finding Trump’s plan for Gaza unacceptable does not legitimize further violence and intimidation in Canada. No matter what happens thousands of miles away, it never gives anyone licence to break Canadian law.

Welcoming different cultures into this country is not the problem. We all have friends whose parents or grandparents were born abroad and who have retained their ancestral cultures and religions.

The problem today is the inability of many of our governing politicians to articulate the need for integration — and their fear of even broaching the idea. Multiculturalism was not intended to enable the balkanization of our communities into ethnic blocs that command more loyalty than that owed to pan-Canadian society.

Canadian multiculturalism was meant to be a process by which cultural traditions of all kinds could be retained alongside a shared Canadian identity, but that identity has been deeply eroded in 2025.

Even the current surge of patriotism felt across the country, triggered by Trump’s threat to wage economic warfare on us, should be treated as a dead-cat bounce. The moment external pressure from the White House begins to subside, Canada will revert to its previous state — an ever-fragmenting society coming apart at the seams. It cannot truly be recovered without a push for integration.

Many people shudder at the word “assimilation,” both in Quebec and the rest of Canada. There is no pride to be had in the forced assimilation of Indigenous peoples over the past few centuries, nor in the softer attempts to erase Francophone culture. Still, despite the darker parts of Canadian history, governments today have a responsibility to build unity and prevent cultural division and destruction. Bill 84 is Quebec’s most recent attempt to see to this duty.

For too long, it has been assumed that cultural integration was inevitable and would happen by itself. However, that’s a misguided assumption: when communities remain separated and many of their most politically active members mobilize for foreign causes, Canada will fracture.

Government action in this delicate area cannot simply consist of words anymore, and Bill 84 recognizes that.

Far from scorn, Quebec’s proposed model for integration is something to emulate on both sides of the political spectrum. On the left, integration should be recognized as the only way to preserve a peaceful, diverse society that will not collapse under the weight of its own imported tensions. For those of us on the right, strengthening national unity is a pillar of conservatism.

The late English philosopher Roger Scruton wrote that conservatism is the simple preservation of what a society knows and loves. What Canadians and Quebecers recognize and cherish in their communities is part of what continues to attract newcomers, and this should be actively protected.

Integration has never meant abandoning one’s culture. When realized, it is the creation of shared civic and cultural bonds that allow all groups to co-exist peacefully. While those bonds steadily erode in English Canada due to its generally negligent, hands-off approach, Quebec is taking action to stop the same from happening.

Many may be asking why Quebec’s government is doing this. The real question is: why isn’t the rest of Canada doing the same?

Source: Geoff Russ: Quebec’s cultural integration bill is a model for the rest of Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Russ:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoff Russ: A future Conservative government must fight the culture war, not stand idly by 

Of note and likely reflects some of the thinking among conservatives given some of the excesses of the current government and elsewhere. Would prefer the term “correction” or “rebalancing” to “war:”

…There is much to be undone from the past ten largely unpleasant years. Canada Day fireworks celebrations are no longer hosted by the federally-funded Port of Vancouver, for example. The new lyrics that made “O Canada” gender-neutral are grammatically inaccurate, horrific to listen to and another example of this Liberal government’s love of making headlines without any worthy substance. If restoring the older lyrics is off the table, replacing the lazy “In all of us command” with a lyric befitting the style of the anthem, like “In all thy souls command,” would be a welcome correction.

Making “O Canada” sound nice again or once again funding fireworks celebrations on July 1st that are worthy of the country’s birthday would be great first steps, but we need much more than that. The Conservatives need a year-round, muscular cultural policy that is active, aggressive, and interventionist. This could start with a bold appointment of a Canadian heritage minister who is actually viewed as a senior member of the cabinet.

There will be major pushback from the usual suspects at university faculty lounges and in the opinion pages of newspapers like the Toronto Star, but the Conservatives and their supporters must stand their ground. This is not the 1980s anymore, when wokeness hadn’t yet reared its ugly head. Conservative attitudes toward the role of government and crafting national culture need to change.

If someone constantly strove to focus only on their past mistakes and embarrassments, they would lead a very miserable life, possibly even going insane. That is exactly what Canada has been inflicting on itself for nearly a decade, with the federal government’s full backing.

There are certainly more effective and creative ways to fight the culture war than those suggested here, but fighting back against post-nationalism or the “woke” vandalism of Canada is a task that only a Conservative government can undertake.

Given the current atmosphere of progressive politics, there should be no expectation that the Liberals or NDP will abandon post-nationalism. If the Conservatives will not fight the culture war with a will to win, they may as well just embrace post-nationalism themselves.

Source: Geoff Russ: A future Conservative government must fight the culture war, not stand idly by