Articles of interest: Immigration

Additional polling on souring of public mood on current high levels, related commentary on links to housing availability and affordability among other issues:

‘There’s going to be friction’: Two-thirds of Canadians say immigration target is too high, poll says

Worrisome trend but understandable:

Two-thirds of Canadians say this country’s immigration target is too high, suggests a new poll that points to how opinions on the issue are taking shape along political lines — a shift that could turn immigration into a wedge issue in the next federal election.

A poll by Abacus Data has found the percentage of people who say they oppose the country’s current immigration level has increased six points since July, with 67 per cent of Canadians now saying that taking in 500,000 permanent residents a year is too much.

“The public opinion has shifted in Canada to a point where if a political leader wanted to make this an issue, they could,” said Abacus chair and CEO David Coletto.

“We’re headed into a period where there’s going to be friction.”

Source: ‘There’s going to be friction’: Two-thirds of Canadians say immigration target is too high, poll says

Affordability crisis putting Canadian dream at risk: poll

Yet another poll, focussed on immigrants:

The Leger-OMNI poll, one of the largest polling samples of immigrants in recent years, surveyed 1,522 immigrants across Canada between Oct. 18 and 25. It is one of the few polls specifically surveying immigrants.  

The research finds the cost-of-living crisis is hitting immigrants hard. Eighty-three per cent polled feel affordability has made settling more difficult. While financial or career opportunities were the motivating factor for 55 per cent of immigrants’ journey to Canada, just under half surveyed think there are enough jobs to support those coming in. 

A quarter (24 per cent) feel their experience in Canada has fallen short of expectations.

Source: Affordability crisis putting Canadian dream at risk: poll

Kalil: We simply don’t have enough money to solve Canada’s housing crisis 

Reality:

Housing does not magically appear when there is demand for it. It takes time, infrastructure needs to be built to support it, the construction industry needs to have the capacity to deliver it, and our housing economy needs to hold enough money to fund it – which it does not.

Source: We simply don’t have enough money to solve Canada’s housing crisis

Burney: Trudeau, please take a walk in the snow

Burney on immigration and his take on the public service:

A rapid increase in immigration numbers was touted until it was seen simply as a numbers game, lacking analyses of social consequences, notably inadequate housing, and unwelcome pressures on our crumbling health system. Meritocracy is not really part of the equation, so we are not attracting people with needed skills. Instead, we risk intensifying ethnic, religious and cultural enclaves in Canada that will contribute more division than unity to the country.

The policy on immigration needs a complete rethink. But do not expect constructive reform to come from the public service, 40 per cent larger now than it was in 2015 and generously paid, many of whom only show up for office work one or two days per week. Suggestions that they are more productive or creative at home are absurd.

Source: Trudeau, please take a walk in the snow

Keller: The Trudeau government has a cure for your housing depression

Here’s what Stéfane Marion, chief economist with National Bank, wrote on Tuesday. It’s worth quoting at length.

“Canada’s record housing supply imbalance, caused by an unprecedented increase in the working-age population (874,000 people over the past twelve months), means that there is currently only one housing start for every 4.2 people entering the working-age population … Under these circumstances, people have no choice but to bid up the price of a dwindling inventory of rental units. The current divergence between rental inflation (8.2 per cent) and CPI inflation (3.1 per cent) is the highest in over 60 years … There is no precedent for the peak in rental inflation to exceed the peak in headline inflation. Unless Ottawa revises its immigration quotas downward, we don’t expect much relief for the 37 per cent of Canadian households that rent.”

What are the odds of the Trudeau government taking that advice?

Source: The Trudeau government has a cure for your housing depression

Conference Board: Don’t blame immigration for inflation and high interest rates – Financial Post

Weak argumentation and overall discounting of the externalities and wishful thinking for the long-term:

Of course, immigration has also added to demand. Strong hiring supported income growth, and immigrants coming to Canada need places to live and spend money on all the necessities of life. This adds to demand pressures and is especially concerning for rental housing affordability. Such strength in underlying demographic demand is inflationary when there is so little slack in the economy. Taking in so many in such a short period of time has stretched our ability to provide settlement services, affordable housing  and other necessities. But there is also no doubt that the surge in migrants has alleviated massive labour market pressure and is thus deflationary. Without immigration, Canada’s labour force would be in decline, especially over the next five years as Canada’s baby boomers retire in growing numbers. Steady immigration adds to our productive capacity, our GDP and our tax take — enough to offset public-sector costs and modestly improve government finances.

One thing is certain, if immigration is aligned with our capacity to welcome those who are arriving, it will continue to drive economic growth and enrich our society through diversity, as it has through most of our history.

Mike Burt is vice president of The Conference Board of Canada and Pedro Antunes is the organization’s chief economist.  

Source: Opinion: Don’t blame immigration for inflation and high interest rates – Financial Post

More international students are seeking asylum in Canada, numbers reveal

Another signal that our selection criteria and vetting have gaps:

The number of international students who seek asylum in Canada has more than doubled in the past five years, according to government data obtained under an access-to-information request.

The number of refugee claims made by study permit holders has gone up about 2.7 times to 4,880 cases last year from 1,835 in 2018, as the international student population also surged by approximately 1.4 times to 807,750 from 567,065 in the same period.

Over the five years, a total of 15,935 international students filed refugee claims in the country.

While less than one per cent of international students ended up seeking protection in Canada, the annual rate of study permit holders seeking asylum doubled from 0.3 per cent to 0.6 per cent between 2018 and 2022.

Source: More international students are seeking asylum in Canada, numbers revea

‘It’s unfair’: Haitians in Quebec upset province has opted out of federal family reunification program

Well, Quebec has the right to opt-out and face any resulting political pressure:

The federal program, announced in October by Canadian Immigration Minister Marc Miller, will open the door to 11,000 people from Colombia, Haiti and Venezuela who have immediate family members living in Canada either as citizens or permanent residents.

But when it launched on Nov. 17, it made clear that only those who “reside in Canada, outside the province of Quebec,” would be eligible to sponsor relatives.

The province of Quebec had opted out of the program.

Source: ‘It’s unfair’: Haitians in Quebec upset province has opted out of federal family reunification program

Douglas Todd: Californians taken aback by vast gap between wages and housing costs in Vancouver

More evidence of the disconnect between housing affordability, income and population:

Last month, scholars at the University of California, Berkeley invited a Canadian expert to offer his analysis of the riddle that is crushing the dreams of an entire generation.

“What really surprised them in California was the sharp decoupling there is in Metro Vancouver between incomes and housing prices,” said Andy Yan, an associate professor of professional practice at Simon Fraser University who also heads its City Program.

It’s relevant that Yan was invited to speak to about 75 urban design specialists in the San Francisco Bay area, since it also has prices in the same range (adjusted to Canadian dollars) as super-expensive Metro Vancouver.

But there is a big difference. Unlike Metro Vancouver, the San Francisco region also has the fourth-highest median household incomes in North America.

Indeed, median wages in the California city come in at the equivalent of about $145,000 Cdn., 61 per cent higher than $90,000 in Vancouver.

In other words, while things are rough for would-be homeowners in the San Francisco area, they are horrible for those squeezed out of the Metro Vancouver market.

Why is that? In his California presentation, Yan talked, quite sensibly, about the three big factors that normally determine housing costs: supply, demand and finance.

Source: Douglas Todd: Californians taken aback by vast gap between wages and housing costs in Vancouver

Glavin: Is there a triumphant Geert Wilders in Canada’s future? Not yet, but …

The risk exists but overstated:

….To object to this state of affairs doesn’t make Canada a racist country, and state-sanctioned rejection of the very idea of mainstream Canadian values, coupled with the catastrophic mismatch between immigration levels and Canada’s capacity to accommodate them all, doesn’t mean there’s some hard-right turn just around the corner with a Geert Wilders figure coming out of nowhere.

But it does mean that Canada is barrelling towards a brick wall, and we should stop and turn around.

Source: Glavin: Is there a triumphant Geert Wilders in Canada’s future? Not yet, but …

Antiquated U.S. Immigration System Ambles into the Digital World

Similar challenges as Canada:

Notorious for its reliance on antiquated paper files and persistent backlogs, the U.S. immigration system has made some under-the-radar tweaks to crawl into the 21st century, with the COVID-19 pandemic serving as a catalyst. Increased high-tech and streamlined operations—including allowing more applications to be completed online, holding remote hearings, issuing documents with longer validity periods, and waiving interview requirements—have resulted in faster approvals of temporary and permanent visas, easier access to work permits, and record numbers of cases completed in immigration courts.

While backlogs have stubbornly persisted and even grown, the steps toward modernization at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the State Department have nonetheless led to a better experience for many applicants seeking immigration benefits and helped legal immigration rebound after the drop-off during the COVID-19 pandemic. Swifter processes in the immigration courts have provided faster protection to asylum seekers and others who are eligible for it, while also resulting in issuance of more removal orders to those who are not.

Yet some of these gains may be short-lived. Some short-term policy changes that were implemented during the pandemic have ended and others are about to expire, raising the prospect of longer wait times for countless would-be migrants and loss of employment authorization for tens of thousands of immigrant workers. Millions of temporary visa applications may once again require interviews starting in December, making the process slower and more laborious for would-be visitors. This reversion to prior operations could lead to major disruptions in tourism, harm U.S. companies’ ability to retain workers and immigrants’ ability to support themselves, and create barriers for asylum seekers with limited proficiency in English.

Source: Antiquated U.S. Immigration System Ambles into the Digital World

Thousands of Canada’s permanent residents are afraid to leave the country. Here’s why

Another policy and service delivery fail:

According to an email from Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), there are over 70,000 Ahmad Omars out there, waiting on their first PR cards. This situation has left them trapped in a travel limbo, unable to leave the country or make future plans.

“Initially, the estimated waiting time for the PR card was 30 days. However, 30 days later, it extended to 45 days, and then, 45 days after that, it became 61 days. Now, I find myself significantly beyond the expected waiting time,” Omar said.

“It doesn’t feel like I am actually a permanent resident until I get the card.”

Source: Thousands of Canada’s permanent residents are afraid to leave the country. Here’s why

Saunders: How the push for border security created an illegal-immigration surge

Agree, but likelihood low:

If we wanted to reduce legal immigration numbers, as Mr. de Haas argues, we’d need to change the underlying economy: fund universities and colleges so they don’t rely on overseas student fees; incentivize farms to rely on technology rather than cheap labour (at the cost of higher food prices); make domestic housecleaners and child-minders a strictly upper-class thing again; and settle for lower levels of competitiveness and economic growth.

What doesn’t work is the entire false economy of border security – as years of expensive, dangerous experiments show, it actually amplifies the problem it’s meant to solve.

Source: How the push for border security created an illegal-immigration surge

Rise in net migration threatens to undermine Rishi Sunak’s tough talk – The Guardian

Leaving others to clean up the mess:

Of Boris Johnson’s many broken promises, his failure to “take back control” of post-Brexit immigration is the one that Tory MPs believe matters most to their voters.

Johnson has long fled the scene – Rishi Sunak is instead getting the blame from his New Conservative backbenchers who predict they will be punished at the ballot box in the “red wall” of the north and Midlands.

The former prime minister’s battlecry of “getting Brexit done” at the 2019 election went hand-in-hand with a manifesto promise to reduce levels of net migration from what was about 245,000 a year.

A tough “points-based immigration system” was going to be brought in by the then home secretary, Priti Patel, and supposedly allow the UK rather than Brussels to have control of the numbers.

And yet the latest net migration figures of almost 750,000 for 2022 show that far from decreasing, net migration has gone up threefold. Many economists believe this level of migration is necessary and the natural consequence of a country facing staff shortages and high domestic wages.

Source: Rise in net migration threatens to undermine Rishi Sunak’s tough talk – The Guardian

The Provincial Nominee Program: Retention in province of landing

Good analysis of retention rates by province:

“The Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) is designed to contribute to the more equitable distribution of new immigrants across Canada. A related objective is the retention and integration of provincial nominees in the nominating province or territory. This article examines the retention of PNP immigrants at both the national and provincial or territorial levels. The analysis uses data from the Immigrant Landing File and tax records, along with three indicators of retention, to measure the propensity of a province or territory to retain immigrants. Results showed that the retention of PNP immigrants in the province or territory of landing was generally high. Overall, 89% of the provincial nominees who landed in 2019 had stayed in their intended province or territory at the end of the landing year. However, there was large variation by province or territory, ranging from 69% to 97%. Of those nominees located in a province at the end of the landing year, a large proportion (in the mid-80% range) remained in that province five years later. Again, there was significant variation by province, ranging from 39% to 94%. At the national level, both short- and longer-term provincial and territorial retention rates were lower among provincial nominees than among other economic immigrants. However, after adjusting for differences in the province of residence, sociodemographic characteristics and economic conditions, the provincial nominee retention rate was marginally higher than that among federal skilled workers during the first three years in Canada, and there was little difference after five years. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia had the highest PNP retention rates, and Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick, the lowest. This gap among provinces tended to increase significantly with years since immigration. Accounting for the provincial unemployment rate explained some of the differences in retention rates between the Atlantic provinces and Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. However, even after adjusting for a rich set of control variables, a significant retention rate difference among provinces persisted. Provinces and territories can benefit from the PNP not only through the nominees retained in the province or territory, but also from those migrating from other provinces or territories. Ontario was a magnet for the secondary migration of provincial nominees. After accounting for both outflows and inflows of provincial nominees, Ontario was the only province or territory that had a large net gain from this process, with significant inflows of provincial nominees from other provinces. Overall, long-term retention of provincial nominees tended to be quite high in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, particularly when considering inflows, as well as outflows. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia tended to have an intermediate level, but still relatively high longer-term retention rates. Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador had the lowest retention.”

Read the full report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2023011/article/00002-eng.htm

Keller: Why are our schools addicted to foreign student tuition? Because government was the pusher

Unfortunately, a large part of the visa system has been diverted to other purposes. We’re basically selling citizenship on the cheap, with the funds backfilling for provincial governments’ underfunding of higher education.

Source: Why are our schools addicted to foreign student tuition? Because government was the pusher

International students, advocates say Canada should permanently lift 20-hour work cap

Advocates underline point that international students have become a back-door immigration worker stream:

Advocacy group Migrant Workers Alliance for Change has been calling for this change since 2017 and has been fielding increasing calls from concerned students.

The alliance’s organizer, Sarom Rho, said it has been organizing against the 20-hour work limit since international student Jobandeep Singh Sandhu was arrested for working too many hours outside school in 2019.

“This is a question about whether we want to live in a society where everybody has equal rights and protections, or if we’re going to allow a system that sections off a group of people on the basis of their immigration status and denies them the same rights,” she said.

“There are six weeks left until the end of this temporary policy. Every day matters and the clock is ticking. We’re calling on Prime Minister Trudeau and Immigration Minister Mark Miller to do the right thing and permanently remove the 20-hour work limit.”

Source: International students, advocates say Canada should permanently lift 20-hour work cap

‘Canadian experience’ requirements are not just discriminatory – they harm the economy

Change happening but too often Canadian experience applied unevenly. That being said, during my experience during cancer treatment, there were some cultural differences in patient care, reminding me that immigrants would encounter also encounter differences:

In 2021, immigrants made up nearly a quarter of the Canadian population, a historic high. As Canada ages, immigration is projected to fuel the country’s entire population growth by 2032.

It is often said that immigrants help drive Canada’s prosperity. But if “Canadian experience” remains a stumbling block for newcomers to enter the job market, that vision will be nothing but a pipe dream.

Fortunately, I am now employed, working in a field where my past skills are highly relevant and respected. In hindsight, I would have answered that recruiter’s question differently.

There is nothing alien about my “foreign experience,” I would have emphasized. What I learned in China – skills like collaboration, research, empathy and writing – still applies. And I say this as a writer and communicator: a skill is a skill, regardless of where I call home.

Owen Guo is a freelance writer in Toronto. He is a former reporter for the New York Times in Beijing and a graduate of the University of Toronto.

Source: ‘Canadian experience’ requirements are not just discriminatory – they harm the economy

Australia’s political opportunists have stoked hysteria and robbed refugees of their humanity – The Guardian

By former Minister of Immigration 1079-82:

There was a time in Australia when refugees were heroes. In the late 1970s, when thousands of Vietnamese refugees settled in Australia, the then Fraser government publicised their “stories of hardship and courage”. They were presented as individuals with names and faces, possessing great resilience and ordinary human needs. Giving these brave people – nurses, teachers, engineers among them – and their children sanctuary made sense. When we are humane and welcome refugees, we assist them and ourselves.

Much has changed since then. As Fraser’s former minister for immigration and ethnic affairs, I have watched with dismay the shift in Australian public attitudes to refugees over the past two decades, since the Howard government began to pedal hard on the issue, depicting people seeking asylum as a threat to the Australian way of life. The humanity and individuality of refugees has been lost in political opportunism, as dog-whistling slogans stoked the hysterical, sometimes racist elements of public discourse. Yet this politics proved a winner and over the past two decades both major parties came to share the same dehumanising asylum policies. This is evident in the recent ugly, bitter parliamentary debate following the high court’s decision that it is unlawful for the Australian government to indefinitely detain people in immigration detention and the hasty legislative response.

Ian Macphee AO was minister for immigration and ethnic affairs in the Fraser government (1979-1982)

Source: Australia’s political opportunists have stoked hysteria and robbed refugees of their humanity – The Guardian

Star editorial: Canada needs immigrants. It also needs a plan for the influx of new Canadians.

Even the Star is critical of the government’s approach to immigration.

Money quote: “On the larger immigration question it must come to grips with the reality that bigger isn’t always better when there’s no strategy.”

Marc Miller characterized it as a mere piece of housekeeping. Canadians were telling his Liberal government, he said, to “be a little more organized” and plan a little better when it comes to immigration policy.

But Canadian immigration policy needs a rethink, not just better organization. While the federal immigration minister rightly says Canadians are not xenophobic, they are paying more attention to immigration than they have in recent years. As Miller concedes, it’s time for the Trudeau government to pay more attention as well. It’s time to tailor the number of immigrants to our needs because in recent years Liberal immigration policy has been a set of numbers in search of a coherent strategy.

The numbers are not just big – they are historic.

Miller will stay the course for the life of his government, sticking to previously announced plans to welcome 485,000 permanent residents in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025, but will freeze that number for 2026. When the Liberals were elected in 2015, the immigration intake was set at 265,000 per year, but under its steadily increasing levels in non-pandemic years, 98 per cent of the country’s population increase now comes from international migration, Statistics Canada reports.

The real numbers eclipse permanent resident targets. Canada’s population hit 40 million last summer, part of the largest year-over-year percentage increase in population in 66 years, with the country on a path to double its population in 25 years. The 2.2 million non-permanent residents living in this country on July 1, 2023, comprised largely of temporary workers and international students, was up 46 per cent over the previous year. They now outnumber Indigenous Canadians.

Miller agrees his government has become “quite addicted” to temporary foreign workers and mused about capping the number of international students in this country, now estimated at 900,000. The temporary workers too often find abusive working conditions. Students are too often lured to private colleges with fraudulent claims only to receive substandard education and false hope.

Miller has promised renewed scrutiny on those issues, but the larger picture also needs greater scrutiny. Yes, we are getting older and workers are needed, including those who can fill what the government estimates is a shortfall of 100,000 needed to build homes. But those workers, too, need some place to live, adding more pressure on the market. The Liberal argument that growing immigration means a growing economy is also being questioned, because Canadians’ personal standard of living has not grown with an influx of new arrivals.

None of this is the fault of immigrants, temporary workers or international students. It is a fault of lack of government planning. Canadians facing financial stress are right to worry that a glut of workers available through immigration will drive down wages. They are correct to be concerned about more stress being put on the country’s health care system and social services. They have seen refugees sleeping on the streets in Toronto.

Canada’s worker to retiree ratio of three-to-one and a low birth rate will put greater stress on our social programs, necessitating the open-door policy, Miller says. He has begun work to better integrate federal policy with the needs of provinces who deliver services for newcomers and will upgrade services in smaller centres in the hope that more will settle outside Canada’s three largest cities. All this will take time.

A recent Environics and Century Initiative poll found 44 per cent of Canadians agreed to some degree that there was too much immigration in Canada, the largest one-year jump in that view since the annual survey started in 1977. Importantly, 42 per cent of respondents said immigrants made their community a better place and only nine per cent felt newcomers made things worse.

This country is indisputably enriched by immigrants. The Liberal government must guard against Canadians scapegoating immigrants as they face increased financial stress. It must get a handle on the ever-increasing number of temporary workers and international students in this country. On the larger immigration question it must come to grips with the reality that bigger isn’t always better when there’s no strategy.

Source: Canada needs immigrants. It also needs a plan for the influx of new Canadians.

Jesse Kline: Liberal immigration plan exposes the folly of big government

Bit of a stretch to link the flawed immigration plan to the “folly of big government” as bad immigration policy can also be the “folly of small government.” And of course, the vast majority of immigrants have the ” potential to contribute to the tax base for the next three or four decades” as any cursory analysis of the data shows:

It is becoming clear to an increasing number of Canadians that the rapid influx of new immigrants brought in by the federal Liberals is exposing cracks in a country with an overburdened health system, a massive social safety net and a bureaucracy that stifles the economy and prevents housing and infrastructure from keeping up with population growth.

A series of recent polls found that 44 per cent of the country thinks immigration levels are too high, with even higher levels of dissatisfaction in Liberal strongholds such as Vancouver (49 per cent) and the Greater Toronto Area (57 per cent).

Source: Jesse Kline: Liberal immigration plan exposes the folly of big government

Canada is curbing immigration — but this lawyer says newcomers still drive our economy – Toronto Star

I rely more on labour economists like Mikal Skuterud than immigration lawyers for assessing impact of immigration on the economy, particularly productivity and GDP per capita growth:

The engine driving Canada’s economic growth isn’t cars, crude or softwood lumber — it’s immigration. In spite of lagging productivity compared with other economic superpowers, like the United States or China, Canada has propped up its aging labour force with newcomers.

Last year, Canada’s population grew by nearly one million people, according to Statistics Canada. Almost all of them were newcomers: refugees fleeing persecution, post-secondary students in pursuit of a Canadian diploma and job experience, farm workers with the country’s agricultural temporary foreign worker program.

Just last summer, months after U.S. tech giants like Meta and Amazon were laying off thousands of qualified tech professionals, then-immigration minister Sean Fraser launched a program to give U.S. H1-B visa holders a shot at Canadian work permits. Within 48 hours, 10,000 applications had been submitted.

But Ottawa appears to be tapping the brakes on its ambitious immigration targets. Earlier this month, the federal government announced it would “stabilize” immigration levels at 500,000 per year starting in 2026, despite years of continually raising its target. Meanwhile, Northern College, an Ontario post-secondary institution, has revoked around 700 acceptance letters from international students over the past year due to what it described as a lack of local jobs and housing.

These decisions come in the face of stubbornly high housing and food costs affecting everyone living on Canadian soil: permanent residents, citizens and undocumented alike. Stephen Green, managing partner at immigration law firm Green and Spiegel, spoke to the Star about the current economic — and educational — landscape for immigrants from his Toronto office earlier this week:

There is an argument that amid competition for housing and jobs in Canada, immigration at our current level is unsustainable. Do you buy this argument?

I don’t buy that at all. First, unlike some countries like the U.S., where they have a lottery system based on country of origin, we have a really rigorous and thought-out selection system based on “human capital.” They look at a newcomer’s age, their education, whether they’ve worked or studied in Canada, whether they have family in Canada, whether they can speak English and French — that sort of stuff. We’re selecting immigrants based on a model that economists and various policy experts have said are considered very important factors.

I think the only major issue is that a lot of people in their forties have a very difficult time immigrating to Canada because of the point system. An applicant’s age is about 30 per cent of it. So if you are 45 years old, you run a really successful business outside of Canada and you want to come here, you’re going to have a tough time. But I don’t buy the notion about jobs. Even at my firm, we’ve been trying to find some skilled workers for over two years. We can’t find people. And I’m hearing from the construction industry that there are no workers. We have a really serious problem finding carpenters and plumbers — and these are the people who are supposedly going to help us with our housing crisis.

So how do those folks fare in Canada’s immigration system?

It’s very difficult for them under the point system. A lot of those skilled workers don’t speak great English and don’t have a great education. The trades have a very difficult time immigrating, and the government has always known that, and they’ve struggled to try to make the system better. But the real problem is that the provinces are responsible for licensing, and the feds are responsible for bringing people in. There are situations where you may have a carpenter that will make it through the immigration system, but then they can’t get their licence as a carpenter.

Look at doctors. Look at nurses. We make it so difficult for these people to get the proper licence. You can’t tell me that a doctor that’s graduated from Harvard and wants to practise in Canada — or a pharmacist from Europe — has to go through a horrendous licensing process. It’s wrong, and that was really holding up the ability of individuals that immigrate to our country to really perform their professions.

During the first years of the pandemic, there was some talk about getting more doctors from abroad into Canada’s health-care system. It sounds like the issues haven’t improved.

It’s a little better. They’re moving way too slow. It’s interesting, on the medical side — it costs the province more money to license more doctors. And the doctors want to protect their turf a bit. But I think Canadians have had it. You have people that can’t find family doctors, that can’t find specialists, and they’re saying there’s no reason why doctors should go through such craziness to get licensed.

International students have gotten a lot of attention from the federal government recently. First there was last summer’s acceptance letter scam, then Northern College’s recent revocation of 700 international student acceptances. Can you explain what’s going on?

Former immigration minister Jason Kenney once said foreign students were the best future immigrants to Canada. Why? They pay for their own education. It’s a funny word — but they become Canadianized much easier than other immigrants. Our foreign students fund my kids. They pay $40,000 to $50,000 a year to go to the University of Toronto, when Canadian-born students pay $7,000 to $8,000. But the federal government only let foreign students go to schools that have been designated “learning institutions” — by provinces. And the provinces have failed Canadians by designating far too many that don’t deserve it.

As for the fraudulent letters — the issue is that post-secondary institutions have asked for help finding students in foreign countries, and there is no compliance on them. I was in Chandigarh in India recently. It would blow your mind. Massive billboards by immigration consultants promising to get students into schools. The problem is that the Canadian government knows about it, but they can’t enforce anything because it’s happening in a foreign country. The foreign country can’t do anything.

What’s made it worse is that the Canadian government lifted a requirement that immigration consultants be permanent residents or citizens. Now, if I’m living in India, I can take an online course to become an immigration consultant and the college regulating immigration consultants can’t go after me.

Do you think more institutions will start reneging on international student acceptances, as Northern College has done?

I don’t know. But I hope the provinces will look at those institutions and make them understand what they did to these students. You have to understand that in places like Chandigarh, the parents of these students are selling everything possible to make their child’s life better than theirs. If you get accepted to this college that you mentioned and you’ve got your plane ticket, you’ve booked everything — and they say sorry, you can’t come? I mean, that’s bad.

Have you noticed an increasing reluctance by international students to come to Canada?

Our government has made some statements against certain countries in the Parliament of Canada, and I think it has tremendously affected the way they look at Canada now. So we’ll have to see how the government is going to manage that. I think, regardless of whatever India may or may not have done, I think there were different ways to handle that.

We depend on immigration for economic growth. If Canada decided to flatten or even lower immigration targets, what kind of effect do you think that would have on our economy?

It would be disastrous. Here’s something that most Canadians don’t have a clue about. Do you know what a fellow in a hospital is?

No, I don’t.

That’s someone who is an expert in their area of medicine from abroad, or even in Canada. Our medical system relies so heavily on these doctors from abroad, but we pay them 70 per cent less than what a doctor in Canada makes. Five years ago, the Saudi government pulled 800 fellows home after a dispute with us, and the Canadian government worried the medical system would crash.

Immigration is so important to Canada. It is a very emotional area of the law because, a lot of the time, people don’t understand the effects. They make decisions based on what they think is happening — that an immigrant is taking their job, or that temporary agriculture workers get paid less than Canadians. They aren’t.

Temporary foreign workers are tied to specific employers, and it can be very difficult for them to report labour violations. Is the federal government trying to change that?

On the one hand, the government has a compliance regime that puts a lot of stress on workers — on the other hand, they have to ensure there is an employer-employee relationship, and ensure there are parameters on what workers will do. It’s a difficult balance, and the government is aware of that. They’ve heard those concerns. Like all of us, they want to make the system better. But some people take advantage of it, and we have to look at how to prevent abuses. Maybe, for now, a restricted work permit is the best way to prevent the abuses in our system.

Source: Canada is curbing immigration — but this lawyer says newcomers still drive our economy – Toronto Star

Michael Taube: Leave it to Trudeau to destroy his party’s reputation on immigration

Overly partisan but not without some valid criticisms. And Taube leaves out the bigger issue of the larger number of temporary residents:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s immigration plan is broken. His Liberal government may not have admitted it in so many words, but their recent actions speak quite clearly.

After steadily increasing the number of newcomers over the years, Ottawa has announced it will cap the number of permanent residents it accepts at 500,000 in both 2025 and 2026. It’s finally dawned on the Trudeau Liberals that there needs to be an economic reset. Canada’s housing market is too expensive and our health care system is overloaded — and the impact of costly temporary resident programs is too often overlooked.

From a historical perspective, the decision to put a forthcoming freeze on immigration is certainly interesting. For the first time in a long time, the Liberals will likely be viewed in a more negative light when it comes to Canada and its immigration policies.

The Liberals were consistently put on a high pedestal by many generations of newcomers due to their seemingly positive approach to immigration. The fact that former prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, a Liberal, committed one of the worst immigration-related atrocities in Canadian history, turning away 900 Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany aboard the MS St. Louis in 1939, and oversaw the disgraceful internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War, was largely (and conveniently) forgotten.

As for Conservative prime ministers like Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, who both supported immigration from a personal standpoint and as a means to enhance the country’s economic engine, they never received nearly the same amount of praise and adulation for their efforts.

In particular, Pierre Trudeau’s tenure as prime minister was consistently viewed in the most positive light by most Canadian newcomers. He could do no wrong when it came to immigration. Yet, here’s the historical irony. This Liberal leader actually oversaw a significant decline in total immigration numbers.

According to Bob Plamondon in his book, The Truth about Trudeau, Canada had 183,974 immigrants when he was first elected in 1968, or roughly one per cent of the population. When Trudeau left politics in 1984, the immigration rate dwindled to 0.3 per cent.

“These reductions did not reflect an anti-immigrant policy per se, but flowed out of a choice made by the Trudeau government in response to a weaker economic climate and higher unemployment,” Plamondon wrote.

His assessment was that “holding the line on immigration is exactly the opposite of what Trudeau is known for,” and it’s entirely accurate. That’s not what most Canadians know or want to remember about him, however.

They would rather focus on the elder Trudeau’s decision to introduce the Canadian multiculturalism policy in 1971 that touted personal and cultural freedom for ethnic minorities.

“A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians,” he told the House of Commons on Oct. 8, 1971. “Such a policy should help to break down discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies … It can form the base of a society which is based on fair play for all.”

They also remember when he brought in a new Immigration Act in 1976 with fondness. The act supported economic and cultural policies for newcomers, the need for diversity and promoting non-discrimination against newcomers. Government and the volunteer sector would work together to help new immigrants adapt to our country, and refugees became a distinct group of immigrants protected under Canadian law.

Many immigrants therefore viewed the elder Trudeau as a political saviour and their champion. Criticism of his leadership and policies was often ignored or disregarded. When it came time to vote, most would enthusiastically select the candidate with the word “Liberal” next to his or her name.

But what the elder Trudeau giveth, the younger Trudeau taketh away.

The younger Trudeau’s government has hiked Canada’s immigration numbers far more than most western democratic governments — and his own father’s. When he was first elected in 2015, Canada’s target for permanent residents was below 300,000. We’ll be at 485,000 in 2024 and at 500,000 in 2025.

“Make no mistake. This is a massive increase in economic migration to Canada,” then-immigration minister Sean Fraser told the Canadian Press in 2022. “We have not seen such a focus on economic migration as we’ve seen in this immigration levels plan.”

It was a massive increase, but to what end?

The younger Trudeau’s poor reputation on the international stage has tarnished Canada’s reputation as a welcoming country to newcomers; this is a result of, for instance, icy relations with G20 leaders, problems with India (costumes and otherwise), older instances of blackface and more. Trudeau also paid plenty of lip service to Syrian and Afghan refugees in past years — in practice, however, refugee resettlement has dropped overall from 76,000 in 2023 to below 73,000 in 2025.

Furthermore, the Trudeau government’s decision to ignore the affordability crisis until just recently has made Canada a tough environment for newcomers, who now have trouble finding work, paying rent and feeding their families.

Whereas the elder Trudeau and other Liberal prime ministers regularly built voter confidence with new immigrants, the younger Trudeau has developed into a leader who tries to desperately grab immigrant votes at all costs. Based on his economic mismanagement and forthcoming freeze on newcomer numbers, that political farce won’t be happening for much longer.

Source: Michael Taube: Leave it to Trudeau to destroy his party’s reputation on immigration

Le plafonnement annoncé en immigration n’est qu’illusion

Certainement:

En se targuant d’enfin tenir compte de la capacité d’accueil du Canada et des provinces, déjà mise à rude épreuve, le gouvernement de Justin Trudeau prévoit maintenant de « stabiliser » ses cibles d’immigration… dans trois ans. Mais, d’ici là, la crise du logement, facteur principal de ce semblant d’ajustement libéral, ne se résorbera pas miraculeusement. La flexibilité exhibée traduit plutôt un entêtement persistant.

Les avertissements brandis par le Québec, voulant que l’éducation, la santé ainsi que l’offre de logement peinent à répondre à l’immigration pléthorique fédérale, sont maintenant partagés par d’autres provinces canadiennes. La population aussi s’en inquiète désormais. Un récent sondage révélait qu’un nombre record de citoyens croient que le Canada accueille trop d’immigrants (44 % des Canadiens, 37 % des Québécois).

Nonobstant, le fédéral maintient la hausse prévue encore deux ans : la cible passera à 485 000 immigrants en 2024 et à 500 000 en 2025. C’est l’année suivante que ce chiffre restera figé. Or, d’ici ce gel annoncé, ce sont 55 000 personnes arrivantes de plus que si le gouvernement avait stabilisé son accueil dès aujourd’hui aux 465 000 immigrants attendus cette année. Un ralentissement plus rapide aurait cependant renié les valeurs libérales, s’inquiétait-on dans ses rangs.

Les signaux étaient pourtant encourageants. Le plan stratégique pour l’immigration dévoilé cette semaine s’engageait à « chercher à intégrer la planification du logement et de la santé, et d’autres services importants, à la planification des niveaux d’immigration du Canada ». Le tout, « en collaboration étroite avec les provinces ». Le gouvernement Trudeau a même appuyé une motion bloquiste, non contraignante, l’appelant à revoir ses cibles d’accueil après consultation du Québec et des provinces « en fonction de leur capacité d’accueil ».

Mais ce nouvel arrimage, promis par Ottawa, ne se fera qu’a posteriori. Le fédéral persiste à ignorer les volontés d’accueil du Québec. La « consultation » fédérale ne servira qu’à répartir ce nombre de nouveaux arrivants fixé unilatéralement.

Qu’importe que des experts, comme ceux de la Banque TD, aient averti qu’un « choc de la demande » guette le filet social du Canada. Qu’importe aussi que la vérificatrice générale ait dénoncé l’embourbement du traitement des demandes d’immigration, qui s’éternise à 22 mois pour les immigrants économiques et à quatre ans pour les réfugiés. L’arrivée d’un demi-million de nouveaux arrivants par année n’aidera pas ce goulet d’étranglement.

Le gouvernement du Québec, de son côté, maintient ses cibles à 50 000 nouveaux arrivants pour les deux prochaines années. En comptabilisant les diplômés accueillis par le Programme de l’expérience québécoise (PEQ), le chiffre annuel avoisinera les 60 000 immigrants.

S’y ajoutent cependant les centaines de milliers d’immigrants temporaires que Québec et Ottawa persistent à exclure de cette équation d’accueil. Ils sont, depuis deux ans, trois fois plus nombreux que les immigrants permanents.

Faute de gérer leur arrivée, Québec s’en remet à exiger pour certains la maîtrise du français, après avoir fait de même pour les immigrants économiques et ceux du PEQ. Quelque 35 000 travailleurs étrangers temporaires autres qu’agricoles devront dorénavant en faire la démonstration eux aussi pour renouveler leur permis au-delà de trois ans — comme tant de ces travailleurs venus pour pallier le manque de main-d’oeuvre le font.

François Legault voit dans la protection du français, et, de ce fait, de l’identité québécoise, sa « responsabilité historique ». L’immigration n’y est plus une menace, à ses yeux, mais elle est devenue un outil.

L’exigence de ce test de français semble toutefois embryonnaire. Ces travailleurs temporaires, déjà surmenés, auront-ils le temps et l’énergie de s’y consacrer ? Leurs employeurs seront-ils forcés de le leur permettre, ou simplement encouragés ? Les ressources de francisation seront-elles au rendez-vous ?

Les prochaines années diront si ces plafonnements de l’immigration suffiront à stabiliser aussi la pression sur le filet social appréhendée par les gouvernements. Avant d’en redébattre en campagnes électorales, puisqu’ils ont préféré présenter des plans pluriannuels écourtés.

Source: Le plafonnement annoncé en immigration n’est qu’illusion

Yakabuski: Ottawa’s latest immigration plans fail to move the needle, on housing and in Quebec

Another good analysis, bringing in the Quebec dimension:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government this week took a baby step toward recognizing its immigration policy needs some fixing by halting future increases in the number of permanent newcomers the country intends to accept.

Source: Ottawa’s latest immigration plans fail to move the needle, on housing and in Quebec

Sun editorial: High immigration fuels Canada’s housing crisis

Unfortunately true:

While Canadians continue to worry about the availability of affordable housing, the Trudeau government announced Wednesday it will continue its current policy of boosting immigration levels to record highs through 2026.

Its existing plan, announced a year ago, of admitting 465,000 new permanent residents to Canada this year, 485,000 in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025, will now be extended to another 500,000 admissions in 2026.

Next year’s target of 485,000 new permanent residents will consist of 281,135 economic immigrants, 114,000 in family class, 76,115 refugees and 13,750 humanitarian admissions.

For 2025 and 2026, 500,000 new permanent residents will be admitted annually — 301,250 economic immigrants, 118,000 in family class, 72,750 refugees and 8,000 humanitarian admissions.

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has long argued higher immigration levels are needed to boost economic growth because of Canada’s low birth rate, its pursuit of high immigration policies flies in the face of growing public concerns about the lack of affordable housing.

A Nanos poll in September showed most Canadians surveyed — 53% — believe Canada’s current immigration levels are too high, compared to 34% who approve of them and 8% who think they should be higher. The remaining 6% were unsure.

An Environics poll released this week found stronger support for immigration — with 51% of those surveyed disagreeing with the statement “there’s too much immigration to Canada” compared to 44% who agreed.

But opposition to current immigration levels rose dramatically by 17 percentage points in one year, while support dropped by 18 percentage points — both huge reversals.

In recent months the TD Bank, BMO and National Bank of Canada, among others, have all warned the federal government that its policy of high immigration is exacerbating Canada’s housing shortage.

As the National Bank put it:

“The federal government’s decision to open the immigration floodgates during the most aggressive monetary tightening cycle in a generation has created a record imbalance between housing and demand … As housing affordability pressures continue to mount across the country, we believe Ottawa should consider revising its immigration targets to allow supply to catch up with demand.”

While Canadians have always welcomed immigration, there are clearly growing public concerns about federal immigration policy.

But on this issue, as on so many others, the Trudeau Liberals just aren’t listening.

Source: EDITORIAL: High immigration fuels Canada’s housing crisis

Clark: Time to address the immigration number that matters now

One of the better assessments, particularly on the lack of action on temporary residents, whose numbers have ballooned over the last 10 years:

Don’t look too closely at the immigration targets the federal government set Wednesday. They’re not the numbers that matter right now.

Immigration Minister Marc Miller kept the already-planned target of 500,000 in 2025, but said there’d be no increase in 2026. But that isn’t Canada’simmigration number.

The figure that matters more is the 2.2 million in temporary residents who are in Canada. That number has surged for reasons that have nothing to do with immigration planning. And the Liberal government should be screwing up their courage to do something about that, right away….

Source: Time to address the immigration number that matters now

Ottawa et Québec plafonnent leurs seuils d’immigration

Parallel approach but Quebec maintaining the current ceiling while the federal government does so in 2025.

Bloc leader Blanchet argues that levels are not fixed given that Parliament passed the Bloc motion that « de revoir ses cibles d’immigration dès 2024 après consultation du Québec, des provinces et des territoires en fonction de leur capacité d’accueil, notamment en matière de logement, de soins de santé, d’éducation, de francisation et d’infrastructures de transport, le tout dans l’objectif d’une immigration réussie ».

Translation: “To review its immigration targets as early as 2024 after consulting Quebec, the provinces and territories according to their reception capacity, particularly in terms of housing, health care, education, francization and transport infrastructure, all with the objective of successful immigration.”

La hausse constante du nombre d’immigrants temporaires force Ottawa et Québec à plafonner leurs seuils d’immigration pour les prochaines années. C’est ce qu’ont annoncé les deux ordres de gouvernement mercredi.

En plus du nombre record d’immigrants temporaires, la situation « volatile » du français contraint le gouvernement du Québec à limiter sa planification de l’immigration aux deux prochaines années. D’ici 2025, il choisit de maintenir ses seuils « réguliers » à 50 000 nouveaux arrivants par année, mais exclut les « diplômés » du Programme de l’expérience québécoise de son calcul.

Le premier ministre québécois, François Legault, et sa ministre de l’Immigration, Christine Fréchette, ont présenté en conférence de presse le plan gouvernemental en matière d’immigration pour la période 2024-2025. Contrairement à ce qui était prévu, le document, qui est le fruit de consultations menées en septembre à l’Assemblée nationale, ne contient pas de cibles pour 2026 et 2027.

« On va, pendant deux ans, regarder l’impact [de nos mesures]. En fonction de ces résultats-là, on prendra des décisions pour les années suivantes », a expliqué M. Legault. « La situation est volatile, a ajouté Mme Fréchette. On voit le nombre de résidents non permanents monter encore et encore. »

Même approche du côté d’Ottawa, qui a aussi annoncé un plafonnement de ses cibles d’immigration pour 2026. Le ministre de l’Immigration, des Réfugiés et de la Citoyenneté, Marc Miller, a confirmé que le Canada accueillerait 500 000 nouveaux résidents permanents en 2026, soit la même cible que l’année précédente.

Il s’agit d’une première pause dans la tendance à la hausse des objectifs d’immigration des dernières années. Les cibles du gouvernement canadien annoncées l’an dernier prévoyaient l’accueil de 465 000 résidents permanents cette année, 485 000 en 2024 et 500 000 en 2025.

« En stabilisant le nombre de nouveaux arrivants, nous reconnaissons que le logement, la planification des infrastructures et la croissance durable de la population doivent être correctement pris en compte », a déclaré le ministre Miller lors de son annonce.

Le gouvernement canadien vise également une immigration francophone hors Québec de 6 % en 2024, 7 % en 2025 et 8 % en 2026 — des cibles beaucoup plus modestes que ce que plusieurs organisations réclament.

Le statu quo semblait se dessiner depuis quelques jours à Ottawa. Mardi, le ministre Miller affirmait déjà qu’il ne « voyait pas un scénario où on diminuerait les niveaux [d’immigration] » et que « le mot d’ordre, c’est une certaine stabilisation ».

Le français sous la loupe

Pour deux ans, et pour agir dans le dossier « déterminant » de la protection du français, le gouvernement Legault maintiendra pour sa part ses cibles « régulières » d’immigration permanente aux niveaux actuels. « C’est important, pour nous, pour arrêter, pour inverser le déclin du français, de se limiter à 50 000 », a dit le premier ministre mercredi.

À ce seuil de base s’ajoutera toutefois une dizaine de milliers d’immigrants non comptabilisés dans les seuils de Québec. En mai, la ministre de l’Immigration avait proposé que les immigrants issus du volet « diplômés du Québec » du Programme de l’expérience québécoise soient exclus du calcul des cibles. Elle ira de l’avant avec cette mesure. Selon les estimations du ministère, ces nouveaux arrivants seront environ 6500 en 2024. Un arriéré de 6600 personnes du milieu des affaires doit également être « écoulé » l’an prochain, ce qui porterait le nombre d’immigrants permanents à quelque 63 000 en 2024.

M. Legault assure que la montée en force dans les sondages du Parti québécois — qui propose une baisse des seuils — n’explique pas sa décision de maintenir la cible migratoire de base à 50 000 nouveaux arrivants. Le gouvernement a aussi dû prendre en compte la capacité d’accueil du Québec, a précisé Mme Fréchette.

Comme il l’avait laissé entendre au printemps, Québec soumettra les immigrants issus du Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires, à l’exception des travailleurs agricoles, à des exigences en français. Au renouvellement de leur permis de travail, ils devront démontrer une maîtrise du français de niveau quatre, c’est-à-dire être capables de « discuter avec leur entourage » de « sujets familiers », a précisé la ministre Fréchette.

Cette « avancée historique » n’est qu’une première étape, a assuré l’élue de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ). « Autour de 35 000 » résidents non permanents seront soumis à cette mesure, soit moins de 8 % des 470 000 temporaires recensés au Québec en juillet.

Le gouvernement Legault souhaite donc convaincre Ottawa d’exiger les mêmes connaissances aux immigrants de son Programme de mobilité internationale — ils sont 119 000 au Québec.

Dialogue vague avec Québec

La ministre Fréchette s’attendait à une réduction des cibles fédérales d’immigration. En conférence de presse, mercredi, elle a reproché à Ottawa de ne pas avoir considéré « la situation qui prévaut au Québec » en fixant ses propres seuils.

« Au niveau politique, il n’y a pas eu de consultation. Et, normalement, le gouvernement fédéral doit tenir compte des cibles d’immigration du Québec avant de s’avancer sur ses propres cibles », a-t-elle relevé.

Questionné à ce sujet, le ministre Miller a affirmé avoir parlé à deux reprises avec Mme Fréchette à propos de l’accueil des réfugiés, des travailleurs étrangers temporaires et des étudiants étrangers. « Oui, j’ai aussi parlé de nos attentes pour l’accueil des familles. […] Est-ce que je dis [la cible de] 500 000 à tout le monde ? Non, ce serait violer le privilège du Parlement », s’est-il défendu.

« Est-ce que c’était à la hauteur [des] attentes [de Québec] ? Je ne peux pas y répondre. On s’était parlé sachant la position publique de la CAQ sur les cibles du Canada », a-t-il ajouté.

En vertu de l’accord Canada-Québec, le Québec fixe ses propres niveaux d’immigration. Le printemps dernier, Christine Fréchette avait annoncé qu’elle mettrait deux scénarios à l’étude. L’un d’eux, qui augmenterait la cible en 2027 à 60 000 immigrants, rompt avec l’affirmation faite par François Legault durant la campagne électorale selon laquelle rehausser les seuils serait « un peu suicidaire » pour le statut du français au Québec. Le second scénario vise un maintien du statu quo à 50 000 immigrants permanents par année.

Toutefois, pour le chef du Bloc québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, les cibles annoncées mercredi ne peuvent pas être finales.

Mardi, M. Blanchet a notamment mis en avant une motion demandant au gouvernement « de revoir ses cibles d’immigration dès 2024 après consultation du Québec, des provinces et des territoires en fonction de leur capacité d’accueil, notamment en matière de logement, de soins de santé, d’éducation, de francisation et d’infrastructures de transport, le tout dans l’objectif d’une immigration réussie ».

La motion a été adoptée à l’unanimité à la Chambre mercredi, juste avant l’annonce du ministre Miller.

« [Le gouvernement] a voté pour [la motion], donc il est d’accord avec moi. […] Ses cibles actuelles ne peuvent pas être finales et permanentes, c’est lui qui l’a dit ! » s’est exclamé M. Blanchet.

Source: Ottawa et Québec plafonnent leurs seuils d’immigration