LILLEY: As StatsCan shows immigration soaring, is it time for pause?

Will be interesting to see whether the increased discussion of the linkages between immigration and housing pressures (not just in right wing media) will have an impact on the Conservatives being public about any reservations they have regarding current levels of permanent and temporary migrants:

Have we reached an immigration tipping point in Canada? Figures released by Statistics Canada on Friday definitely point in that direction.

In releasing the latest employment figures, StatsCan said we are bringing in people faster than we are creating jobs.

“Employment rose by 40,000 (+0.2%) in August. This increase in employment was outpaced by population growth (+103,000; +0.3%) and the employment rate — the proportion of the population aged 15 and older who are employed—fell 0.1 percentage points to 61.9%,” the report said.

That figure of 103,000 in a month is only the working age population of people 15 and older. It doesn’t include young children. Still, bringing in 103,000 in a month is the equivalent of adding Pickering in Ontario, Lethbridge in Alberta or Kamloops in British Columbia.

Since the beginning of the year, StatsCan says we have averaged 81,000 newcomers aged 15 and older per month. That will equate to just over one million new people this year if the trend continues.

“Given this pace of population growth, employment growth of approximately 50,000 per month is required for the employment rate to remain constant,” the report said.

This level of growth is double what Canada was experiencing between 2017-2019 and before the pandemic effectively closed borders.

So, can we create 50,000 jobs per month so that employment keeps pace with immigration?

In the last 12 months we’ve been over the 50,000 jobs mark four times, lost jobs in two of those months and for the other six, didn’t hit the mark. If we continue to bringin in an average of 81,000 working aged people per month but don’t create at least 50,000 new jobs, then the unemployment rate will go up.

A report from StatsCan issued on August 1 looked at this issue of immigration and employment and found that for the most part, employment has kept up with immigration. That was before this latest increase though and with each increase it becomes more difficult to manage.

Over the last several years we have gone from bringing in between 250,000 to 300,000 new permanent residents each year — people who are immigrating to settle here — to more than 430,000 permanent residents in 2022. The government’s goal is to lift that to 500,000 new permanent residents a year by 2025, a mark they will easily hit.

We have gone from a few hundred thousand international students studying in Canada each year to more than 800,000 last year and estimates of more than 900,000 this year. None of this takes into account the thousands of people claiming asylum in Canada each month or the hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers.

A recent CIBC report suggested that Canada’s population count could be off by one million thanks to an undercounting of non-permanent residents, mostly temporary foreign workers.

We have a housing crisis driven by more demand than supply and the ever-increasing population, especially among foreign students, is adding to that. This week we saw a story of international students in North Bay living in tents because of the lack of housing options available.

For the most part, Canadians have been supportive of high levels of immigration. All the major political parties have supported policies of increased immigration.

The current levels, though, unprecedented in our lifetime, could change all of that and result in calls to slow things down.

We don’t have enough housing for the people already in the country, never mind adding a new city per month, but we are also told we need the new arrivals to fill the jobs to build the houses. Our health care system is regularly at a tipping point without enough doctors and nurses to deal with the population already here, but we are also told that we need newcomers to fill the jobs in health care.

Yet, when they get here, we won’t have proper housing, health care, education for their children or infrastructure for the communities they settle in.

It is quite a conundrum.

Is any of this good for the country, or good for the people who are coming here, quite possibly on the false notion that Canada is a country that still functions properly?

Perhaps now is a time to hit pause, perhaps slow the intake until we have a handle on the situation and are sure we can absorb this many people so quickly.

Source: LILLEY: As StatsCan shows immigration soaring, is it time for pause?

@charlesadler: Affordable housing — or else

Another voice jointing the chorus:

“I think we need to do some serious thinking here.” — Housing Minister Sean Fraser discussing the idea of putting a cap on the number of foreign students in Canada, Aug. 21 in Charlottetown, P.E.I.

Let’s begin with a fact of life that most Canadians are unaware of — about 800,000 foreign students are now living in Canada.

The minister for housing revealed the number. The key reason is university economics.

Tuition for foreign students is substantially higher than it is for Canadian citizens. And universities are always looking for money.

There is no easier place to find it than young people around the world seeking a university education in Canada.

Most of these students are not living in university campus housing. There isn’t nearly enough of that housing stock available. So they compete for mostly rental housing with millions of Canadian citizens.

Eight hundred thousand is the kind of number that is forcing the housing minister and his government to do some “serious thinking” about limiting the number of foreign students Canada admits every year. There is no doubt the government is also revisiting its immigration targets.

The government plans to bring in an estimated 500,000 immigrants every year. But if we continue to have a dearth of housing in this country, we have to take seriously the idea of bringing in fewer people.

It’s axiomatic that politics cannot change the math.

But the math can and does change politics.

The most credible information on housing statistics comes from the federal Crown corporation known as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). CMHC figures say the country will need to build nearly six million new housing units in Canada in the next seven years to accommodate our population growth. One out of three will be rentals.

There is a multitude of reasons we may not hit those targets.

Ironically, one of those reasons might be any decision to slow down immigration. Canada’s construction trades rely heavily on immigrant workers.

The sad truth is many countries do a good job of encouraging their citizens to take up various trades. Canada is not one of them. But if we continue to have more newcomers than places where we can house them, we will continue to have a housing crisis in this country.

In some cities, rents are becoming outrageously expensive. As is always the case in conversations about the price of shelter in Winnipeg, we have it good relative to places like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, the three cities that have been largely responsible for electing the last three Liberal governments. But relatively good is not the same as actually good.

While the housing picture is murky, especially in Canada’s largest population centres, the politics could not be clearer.

Justin Trudeau’s government will be evicted by the voters two years from now unless steps are taken to reduce the growth in the price of homes and rent.

There is no point in pretending that housing is a one-size-fits-all issue.

We need different kinds of new housing for different people. For low-income people, we must build new government or co-op housing at affordable prices. The same goes for seniors who rely exclusively on their pension income to be involved in the housing market. The government has the means to create its own market for people without means, whether they are old or young.

The same goes for student housing. It’s no mystery where the students are. They’re on campus. And so apartment units have to be built close to campuses and rented out at rates that are lower than the free market in buildings that aren’t competing for the free market.

They’re owned by government agencies created for the needs of students, working-class families and low-income seniors.

Can the government do this in Canada? Of course they can. There is nothing I am suggesting that governments calling themselves liberal democracies or social democracies aren’t doing in many parts of the world.

After the Second World War, it made sense for the federal government to build housing across Canada for veterans returning home to young families. We’re in a cost of living war right now.

And for the government of the day, on this day and this year and next year and the year after that, it’s a political war for hearts and minds that it cannot afford to lose. The next election hinges on it.

More importantly, a less stressful quality of life for millions of Canadians, requires it.

Charles Adler is a longtime political commenter and podcaster.

Source: Affordable housing — or else

Watt: The Liberals tied immigration to housing: they need to prove it can work

But given the time lags involved in building new houses, even assuming the federal government provides funding, most municipal zoning restrictions are relaxed and service fees reduced where appropriate, any concrete results in terms of “shovels in the ground” will take a few years.

In other words, after the election. The federal and provincial (save Quebec) government fixation on increasing immigration, temporary and permanent, while largely ignoring the impact on housing, healthcare and infrastructure, will deservedly come back to haunt the Liberal government if no change occurs to planned permanent immigration levels and unrestricted temporary migration (students and workers):

The revamped Liberal cabinet retreats to Prince Edward Island this week while their party languishes in polling and the Conservatives surge. Underestimate Trudeau at your peril, perhaps, but something seems to have become particularly challenging.

While it is difficult to put your finger on just what that something is, it has become clear that much of that something is Canada’s housing crisis.

Apart from the PM himself, perhaps no one feels the heat on the way to Charlottetown more than Sean Fraser, the new housing minister. Fraser got this job because the Liberals have embarked on a strategy to tie immigration (Fraser previously led this portfolio) inexorably to housing, supposedly using newly arrived skilled labour to build the houses we desperately need.

All well and good, but it doesn’t seem Canadians are having any of it. The problem is, most Canadians aren’t convinced this works — and with house prices swelling, interest rates rising, and immigration continuing exponentially, I fear by combining these issues so closely the Liberals risk sparking a major backlash against their record-setting immigration plans.

Fraser has outlined his answer to the conundrum: add more supply through incentives to local governments and increase immigration rates to, in part, provide the labour required for this.

The new housing minister tackles this after the prime minister bluntly argued, “housing isn’t a primary federal responsibility.” On cleanup duty, Fraser later stated the federal government should be more active in developing and enacting housing policy, as it once was.

This, of course, is the right approach. Nevertheless, Fraser’s major challenge will be convincing Canadians that high immigration levels are good when many can’t afford homes.

This week, videos of Canadians tearily lamenting the cost of living went viral. The narrative that, after eight years in office, this government has left many — the very ones they promised to fight for — behind is beginning to set like cement.

Federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has taken the government to task on housing with brutal effectiveness. He has managed to own this rhetorical stance while still supporting immigration — making the disconnect between the Liberal’s immigration policy and inaction on housing even harder to ignore.

Under Fraser’s oversight, immigration increased exponentially but integration remained plagued with accreditation issues and failed to correspond with housing supply: the national housing strategy has only resulted in just over 100,000 homes. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation determined 5.8 million more are needed over the next decade. In 2022, our population grew by over a million.

The Bank of Canada also acknowledged recently that immigration drives up housing demand. As the problem becomes more acute, this is where people will focus — not on the “mirage of economic prosperity” immigration otherwise contributes to.

The Liberals, if they are to have any hope of winning the next election, must convince Canadians immigration is in their near-term interests and that it will result in more houses being built. That’s a tall order when voters are being priced out of even the remotest dream of owning a home. It’s a disconnect that also dissuades immigrants from wanting to come here in the first place.

By failing to acknowledge this and rectify the integration issues in our immigration system so newcomers can positively contribute to the housing supply, the Liberals risk allowing the social cohesion they so value to fray. And when that starts, the uniquely Canadian support for significant levels of immigration will fray with it.

That would be a terrible shame. No one needs a lecture on the fundamental role immigration has played in our past and the crucial role it will play in our future — much less that it is simply right.

What isn’t right is an approach to this issue driven by complacency and inaction rather than by a fundamental commitment — not just to policy statements but to actually building new homes.

Source: The Liberals tied immigration to housing: they need to prove it can work

SHEPHERD: Poilievre repeatedly refuses to offer his own immigration target numbers

Don’t normally post articles from “True” North but of interest that they are criticizing Conservative leader for not commenting or engaging on immigration targets.

Personally, I have some sympathy for his refusing to comment given that any reduction might well be portrayed as anti-immigration or even racist by the Liberals and NDP (which or course it would not be as I have argued elsewhere):

Immigration Minister Marc Miller hinted recently that he may soon announce an increase in Canada’s immigration targets. The usually outspoken Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre seemingly has nothing to say about that.

“Whether we revise them upwards or not is something that I have to look at,” Miller said earlier this month. “But certainly, I don’t think we’re in any position of wanting to lower them by any stretch of the imagination.”

Officially, Canada plans to bring in 465,000 permanent residents this year, 485,000 next year, and 500,000 by 2025.

But don’t be fooled: we also invite in hundreds of thousands of additional residents every year, such as temporary foreign workers and international students, so our population actually grew by 1.05 million in 2022 even though we have a below-replacement fertility rate of 1.40 births per Canadian woman.

Canada’s exorbitantly high immigration numbers are straining the housing supply, the healthcare system, and social services such as food banks.

Many journalists, myself included, have been asking Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre what his immigration targets would look like if he becomes prime minister.

In a July press conference for ethnic media, blogger Darshan Maharaja asked Poilievre whether reducing immigration targets could help relieve the demand side of Canada’s housing crunch.

“In order for housing to become affordable at current rates of immigration we need to build six million homes by 2030,” Poilievre answered. “Right now we’re on track to build about 1.4 million homes. So we have to choose, either we’re going to build more homes or we’re going to have a big problem.”

“We gotta build, we gotta build now,” Poilievre said.

When I asked Poilievre’s office whether he would keep Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s immigration targets, and what he thinks about immigration minister Marc Miller possibly increasing the targets this fall, I received no answers to my questions and was instead sent a link to a CPAC video.

“My common sense policy on immigration will be driven by the number of vacancies that private sector employers want to fill, the number of charities that want to sponsor refugees, and the families that want to reunite quickly with loved ones,” Poilievre stated in the video during a stop in Ottawa.

“What’s wrong with the 500,000 target in your mind?” another journalist asks Poilievre.

“I think what’s wrong is Justin Trudeau’s incompetence… I’ll make sure we have housing and healthcare so that when people come here they have a roof overhead and care when they need it.”

People who would have been hesitant to say it out loud even a year ago are now admitting it: our high immigration levels make it more difficult for Canadians to house themselves.

Even individuals with full-time employment can’t keep up with the average rent of $2,000 per month ($3,000 in Vancouver), and end up living out of their vehicles at highway rest stops.

Immigration is now becoming a ballot issue for voters who historically may have only ever expressed support for our system. According to a poll commissioned by Bloomberg News, 68% of Canadians believe Trudeau’s immigration targets negatively impact the housing market.

So, yes, Poilievre should be offering up a quantitative figure to let us know where he really stands on the matter, instead of always deflecting with calls to ‘build, build, build.’

Until he does, we can only conclude that the Conservative party does, in fact, agree with Trudeau’s immigration targets.

With no opposition or critique of Trudeau’s immigration levels from any political party in the House of Commons, there will be no acknowledgment that Canada’s immigration plan actually does not work to counteract an aging population and workforce. Because immigrants themselves age and most come with dependents, parents, and grandparents, immigration does notultimately address the problem of replacing retirees.

Deeper questions arise once you know these facts: do our high immigration targets exist solely so that banks have an endless supply of debtors, landlords an endless supply of renters, and corporations an endless supply of workers who are less aware or assertive of their rights?

I await Poilievre’s answers and numbers.

Source: SHEPHERD: Poilievre repeatedly refuses to offer his own immigration target numbers

Sun editorial: High immigration fuels housing shortage

As it appears from Minister Miller’s initial public comments that the government has no intention to revise or freeze current and planned levels, they risk being labelled, correctly, as being pro-immigration ideologues and oblivious to reality.
There is enough concern about the impact of permanent and temporary migration across most of the political spectrum that this presents a major political risk to the Liberals in 2025.
The weakness, or course, is that all the provinces want more immigration save for Quebec and are thus equally complicit to the Liberal government: 
Federal Immigration Minister Marc Miller has responded to repeated economic warnings the Trudeau government’s high-intake immigration policies are contributing to Canada’s housing shortage with a turn of phrase that doesn’t address the problem.
He said Friday we need more immigrants to build more housing.

“Without those skilled workers coming from outside Canada, we absolutely cannot build the homes and meet the demand that exists currently today,” Miller said, as reported by Global News.

But if the federal government’s plan to bring in almost 1.5 million immigrants to Canada between now and 2025 is already contributing to the housing shortage and raising the cost of housing, how will bringing in more immigrants solve it?

As TD Bank warned recently: “Continuing with a high-growth immigration strategy could widen the housing shortfall by about a half-million units within just two years. Recent government policies to accelerate construction are unlikely to offer a stop-gap due to the short time period and the natural lags in adjusting supply.”

The National Bank of Canada cautioned: “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.”

BMO (Bank of Montreal) reported “heightened immigration flows designed to ease labour supply pressure immediately add to the housing demand they are trying to meet … The infrastructure in place and the industry’s ability to build clearly can’t support unchecked levels of demand, so the affordability conundrum continues.”

It’s true there is a shortage of workers in the construction industry and Miller recently announced a plan to encourage skilled trade workers to immigrate to Canada, but the federal government can’t guarantee how many immigrants will end up in the construction trades.

Given the fact most immigrants end up in cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary, the feds should be consulting with provincial and municipal governments about the number of immigrants they can reasonably absorb.

This as opposed to obsessing about reaching a target of almost 1.5 million immigrants by 2025.

Source: EDITORIAL: High immigration fuels housing shortage

Griffith: Canada badly needs an immigration reset 

My latest, hoping to provoke a more concrete discussion on what a reset needs and what it would mean:

The government has largely ignored the impact of high levels of immigration on housing availability and affordability, health care and infrastructure. Belated recognition that current policies are not working to the benefit of all Canadians may be the reason behind the appointment of a new minister of Immigration, Marc Miller, and the reassignment of  the former minister of Immigration, Sean Fraser, to housing and infrastructure.

Minister Fraser arguably will have to deal with some of the mess he and the government created with the large increases in both permanent and temporary residents, pushing up housing costs and burdening existing infrastructure. Minister Miller will likely be more attuned to concerns about immigration given that he is from Quebec and thus more familiar with immigration critiques regarding the demographic impact on Quebec.

Moreover, the nature of conversations has changed. When, some two years ago I wrote an article for Policy Options entitled Increasing immigration to boost population? Not so fast, there were few voices questioning the government’s planned expansion of immigration. Now, there are almost weekly commentaries and reports, ranging from the banks to economists, the International Monetary Fund and others, noting deteriorating productivity, housing availability and affordability, stress on health care and infrastructure. Even the major boosters of increased immigration have shifted their messaging to “growing well” or even calling for a pause in increases.

While immigration is not solely responsible for the increase in housing costs, the link is being seen and could lead to newcomers being the scapegoats for poor policy decisions. The significant drop in support for the Liberal government may reflect this very personal issue to Canadians.

While at Immigration, Fraser was able to increase levels easily, whereas as housing and infrastructure minister, he will be confronted with the real time lags, making it impossible to show concrete results before the 2025 election. So it’s not a matter of “better communications” but rather of complex delivery with a wide range of government and private sector actors.

Miller, depending on his mandate letter, has an opportunity to reset or at least adjust  immigration policies and programs to take account of recent commentary and realities. He will not be able to ignore these issues even if his initial comments confirm planned increases. The annual plan on the number of immigrants this fall provides an opportunity for a reset should the government choose to do so.

Given that a complete pivot to a more evidence-based approach is unlikely, here are some modest suggestions that make sense from an immigration and economic perspective that may be politically sellable.

To start with, the plan should be broadened to include plans for temporary residents levels rather than just permanent residents levels, given that some 60 per cent of all new residents are temporary workers and students, many of whom transition to permanent residency.

Given time lags in building housing, increasing the capacity of the health-care system and addressing infrastructure gaps, the government should freeze 2023 levels of 465,000 for the next few years. More ambitiously, the government could reduce future levels to the lower 2024 range of 410,000.

The current open-ended levels on temporary residents (students and workers) should be replaced by hard ranges based on 2023 levels for similar reasons. Furthermore, the government needs to consider seriously the introduction of a cap-and-trade system for temporary residents to reduce the numbers over time to address weak productivity, as the University of Waterloo’s Mikal Skuterud has suggested.

Lastly, the government needs to take steps to further broaden the plan to include the impacts of immigration on housing, health care and infrastructure, including measures to address these impacts, rather than as a discrete program.

Miller’s mandate letter will indicate the extent to which this is possible. But these changes would not necessarily be perceived as divisive or xenophobic given that the impacts on housing, health care and infrastructure affect everyone, immigrants and Canadian-born alike. Failure to pivot to a more comprehensive approach that incorporates these considerations into immigration programs will not only worsen the quality of lives of Canadians but may prove politically damaging to a government long-in-the-tooth and losing popular support.

Source: Griffith: Canada badly needs an immigration reset

William Watson: In 2023 is it possible to have a reasoned discussion of immigration?

Good commentary, but ducking the numbers question:

Marc Miller just finished five years as a federal minister working on Indigenous issues. Now, ironically, he’s minister of immigration, encouraging an influx of new Canadians many Indigenous Canadians think hasn’t served them so well.

He’s better off than the person he’s replacing, however, rising Liberal star Sean Fraser. After 21 months at immigration, Fraser is off to housing, infrastructure and communities to work on the big headaches caused for, ahem, housing, infrastructure and communities by the record number of immigrants he let in. It’s just desserts of a sort you don’t often see in politics — even if the prime minister’s recent disavowal of federal responsibility for housing, motivated more by hot-potato politics than respectful regard for the constitutional division of powers, may let Fraser off the sharpest of those three hooks.

Minister Miller says he’ll listen to arguments about whether current immigration targets are correct. The official target has been bumped up to 500,000 a year from 400,000, though in 2022 we hit 1.2 million — the only target Ottawa has bested in recent years.

But the minister will only listen so much. Attack lines are at the ready. As he said shortly after taking his new office: “In every wave of migration that Canada has had, there has been a segment of folks that have blamed immigrants for taking houses, taking jobs, you name it. Those are people that don’t necessarily have the best interest of immigrants at heart and we have to call that out when we see it and we won’t hesitate to do that.” No one who has watched the prime minister drive wedge after wedge into Canadian policy debates over the last eight years has the slightest doubt the Liberals will do that. People who would like to debate the immigration targets may well be anti-immigrant, Miller’s statement suggests, which is but one step of slippery logic away from the R-word: racis

In this day and age, of course, we never actually discuss a policy issue: we look for the slightest doctrinal misstep in our ideological adversaries’ arguments and pounce, self-righteously claiming the moral high ground while accusing our opponents of having fallen into an ethical ditch.

Immigration seems an area where informed and informative debate will be especially difficult. So kudos to TD Economics for recently issuing a short study of the issue: “Balancing Canada’s pop in population,” by Beata Caranci, James Orlando and Rishi Sondhi. At a time when big banks seem to specialize in serving up politically correct pablum, this piece raises hard questions about how desirable a big boost in immigration is.

Nobody opposes some level of immigration. The question is: how much? In theory, there is an optimal level where the benefits brought by the next new member of our society just offset the costs he or she imposes. In theory, both short-run and long-run costs and benefits can be considered. In theory, they can even be discounted by an appropriate interest rate. Policy should hit that sweet spot and not go beyond it.

In practice, the optimal level is very hard to calculate. People will disagree — perfectly reasonably — on what, and how big, the benefits and costs are, how they may change as more people come, and what the discount rate should be. (Do you know what interest rates will be 10 years from now?) On the whole, I think the TD Economics folks are too optimistic about our ability to discover this right “balance,” but they do us all a great service by describing some of the costs of high rates of immigration.

For instance, if the inflow stays high, we may need 500,000 more housing units (i.e., homes) over the next two years — which seems a task well beyond the capacity of our politico/builders/planners complex. As for health care, the OECD ranked us 31st among 34 member-countries in acute care hospital beds per capita in 2019 — and we’re rapidly raising the number of our capitas without commensurate increases in beds.

There’s also some doubt as to whether immigration is serving the econo-strategic purpose governments have laid out for it, which is to provide young, skilled and therefore high-earning labour that can pay enough taxes to finance the health care and retirement incomes of us older folk. But 40 per cent of people in the rapidly expanding temporary foreign worker program work in agriculture, forestry and fishing, and another 15 per cent in accommodation and food. Those are important jobs which, increasingly, people born here won’t do. But they aren’t the tax bonanzas we locals are looking for.

Immigration may even raise interest rates. Eventually it increases the economy’s capacity but in the short run it boosts demand, which is the last thing we need as we fight inflation. To make sure that doesn’t get out of control, the Bank of Canada may have to keep interest rates 50 basis points higher than if immigration rates were lower. Which hardly helps us build new housing or infrastructure.

Every one of those points is debatable, of course. So let’s have the debate. And don’t anyone use the R-word.

Source: William Watson: In 2023 is it possible to have a reasoned discussion of immigration?

Laying down routes: Here’s what transit in the GTA needs to keep up with Canada’s population boom

Another example of the disfunctionality in immigration, not planning and implementing for the effects of the large number of immigrants and temporary residents:

Like most immigrants to Canada, when Srikeit Tadepalli first came to Toronto from Mumbai, India, in February, he had a laundry list of things to do to get settled: get his social insurance number and his permanent residency card, apply for OHIP, look for a job and a place to live, and get to know the city.

Arriving in Toronto in the middle of winter without a car, Tadepalli was grateful for Toronto’s well-connected and accessible transit system. But particularly in the beginning, he had trouble navigating it.

“For such a developed transit system, there is very little communication directed towards newcomers about how to get around using transit in the city,” Tadepalli said. “Basic stuff, like: What is a PRESTO card? Where do I get a PRESTO card? … Even to this day, I sometimes struggle with it.”

Tadepalli is just one of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who come to Canada each year, a number that continues to grow, with the federal government pledging last year to welcome 1.5 million more people by 2025. If trends continue, most of these people will settle in Toronto and surrounding municipalities, where immigrants already make up around half of the population.

Even with all of its challenges, Toronto’s transit system is among the best in the world, with several big projects underway promising to make the GTA even more connected. Still, new immigrants and transportation experts say there is more the city can be doing to help newcomers get around: from small tweaks, like better communication targeted at newcomers, to expanding surface transit with a focus on the suburbs. Also crucial to support a growing population will be shoring up the TTC’s finances, with current shortfalls threatening the transit system’s ability to operate with adequate service and maintain a state of good repair.

Tadepalli said basic instructional videos targeted at newcomers about how to use the TTC would have gone a long way when he first arrived. In his first few days in the city, Tadepalli said he got on the streetcar assuming he could pay for his fare on board, then was told he had to come back with exact change or a loaded PRESTO card. He ended up relying on independent YouTubers to show him the ropes.

The TTC is always looking to improve, spokesperson Stuart Green said in a statement, adding the transit agency is creating an “enhanced wayfinding strategy” to make navigating the system simpler. On maps and signage, the TTC uses words, symbols, colours and numbers to help all customers, Green added. The TTC’s website also has a Google translate function which can translate to over 100 languages.

Transportation is one of the most critical aspects of Canada’s infrastructure for newcomers. It serves as a gateway for economic participation, getting people to school or work, gives immigrants access to important services such as health care and language lessons, and allows people to travel to enjoy different aspects of city life.

Already people in Canada’s densest city are finding it harder than ever to get around, especially in a downtown core paralyzed by construction. Toronto’s traffic congestion ranks among the worst in the world. It’s taking almost as long to travel by car as it did before the pandemic, even with fewer vehicles on the road, according to city data.

Meanwhile, the city cut TTC service and hiked fares this year to make up for lagging ridership on the transit system, which faces a $366-million operating shortfall this year. Unless the provincial and federal governments step up, the TTC will not have enough money to run the system at current levels or replace aging trains and buses.

When newcomers first come to Canada, they are more likely to rely on public transit, cycling and walking than established immigrants and Canadian-born people, said Valerie Preston, professor of urban social geography at York University. That means that expanding and investing in the TTC and regional transit, as well as building walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods, will be essential for supporting more immigration.

“If we’re going to have half a million people arrive every year, and we’re also trying to meet our climate goals, those people need to be able to live in places where they can either use transit, and it’s efficient to use transit, or they can walk to and from work,” Preston said.

It’s not all bad. Toronto is beginning to invest in public transit after several decades of neglect. The 15.5-kilometre Ontario Line subway, when complete in about a decade, will run from Exhibition Place to the Ontario Science Centre through the heart of downtown, bringing 227,500 more people within walking distance to transit, according to Metrolinx, the provincial agency overseeing the project.

While locals are quick to complain about the TTC, which can be unreliable and crowded, many who come here marvel at the efficiency of the system.

“The connection, from buses, to GO trains, to trams, everything is very, I would say, flawless,” said Akbar Siddiqui, who came to the city one month ago from Mumbai and lives with his wife in Etobicoke. “I come from a country where the transportation network is a little flawed. There are a lot of delays. Everything is very congested primarily because in India, back in Mumbai, there are a lot of people, in a relatively small area.”

Still, Toronto is not where it needs to be to move a growing population, said longtime transit watcher and blogger Steve Munro.

“We have to stop assuming that building a couple of subway lines will solve our transportation problems.” As the city becomes more populated, and living downtown becomes less affordable, people are increasingly being pushed further from the city, meaning the demand for transit is becoming more diffuse, Munro said.

In 2021, the distant suburbs (30 minutes or more from downtown) of Canada’s three biggest cities — Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal — grew at a faster rate than the urban fringe or suburbs closer to the core, according to StatCan.

Newly elected mayor Olivia Chow has promised to invest in transit and active transportation, including by reversing recent TTC cuts and creating a dedicated busway in Scarborough. But the TTC is facing a significant money crunch that cannot be solved at the city level alone. The TTC relies on the farebox to fund about two-thirds of its operating costs, and ridership is currently just 74 per cent of what it was before the pandemic. On top of this year’s $366-million deficit, the transit agency anticipates an “operating pressure” next year as high as $600 million, according to a recent CEO report to city council.

The TTC is also short on money to maintain, and invest in, capital. The TTC recently cancelled a Request for Proposals for new subway trains because it did not get the funding it needed from the provincial and federal governments. The trains it had intended to replace are currently between 24 and 27 years old, with an intended life of 30 years.

“The combined operating and capital investments required to sustain the level and quality of transit service required to support Canada’s largest city cannot be supported solely through expenditure reductions, or revenue streams currently available to the TTC,” the recent CEO report warned. Ottawa announced in April that it would chip in $349 million to help the TTC buy more electric buses, but no new money to help run them.

“We need to really think about how we’re going to move hundreds of thousands more people with the same amount of road space,” said Steve Farber, transportation geographer and spatial analyst at the University of Toronto. Farber and Munro agree that the best way to accommodate a growing population over the short term is to invest in the city’s bus network, and to give those buses the right of way, so that more people can move more efficiently.

“We have to think about making transit a more desirable option for a much larger number of potential trips,” Farber said. “So, in the short run, get buses moving faster and more frequent everywhere. I think that will move the needle quite a lot.”

Tadepalli said even with its shortcomings, the TTC has been a lifeline for him since he got to the city, and continuing to invest in it will be crucial for future immigrants to thrive.

“Without affordable, accessible and clear information about transit, a lot of immigrants tend to not engage with the city and to stay home.”

Source: Laying down routes: Here’s what transit in the GTA needs to keep up with Canada’s population boom

How we can right-size Canada’s health system as the population grows

Good illustration of the impact of current and planned high levels of permanent and temporary immigration, offering little hope in the near and medium-term:

Last year, while knocking on doors during her campaign to be mayor of Whitby, Elizabeth Roy got a firsthand feel for the community’s top concerns.

The town of 150,000, on the shore of Lake Ontario about 50 kilometres east of Toronto, is among the fastest-growing communities in the country.

As she fielded questions about building new roads, preserving green space and upgrading infrastructure, Roy also heard resident after resident describe how difficult it was to get much-needed medical care, with many saying they feared the situation would get even worse amid Whitby’s population boom.

“Whether it was a young family needing a doctor for their newborn or a senior who just had their doctor retire and was left stranded, about one out of every five residents expressed concern about some type of medical care that they required,” says Roy, who is serving her first term as mayor after 17 years as a member of council.

“It’s clear we have gaps in our health-care system, and they need to be dealt with now, today. We need to start being proactive.”

The population of Durham Region, which includes Oshawa, Ajax and Pickering as well as Whitby, is likewise swelling rapidly. It’s expected to almost double over the next 20 years, surging from about 697,000 in 2021 to 1.2 million by 2041.

Municipal and health-care leaders worry its health system, straining to meet the community’s needs even now, won’t be able to cope with the influx of new residents.

Already, Durham faces an escalating family doctor shortage. Figures from the Ontario College of Family Physicians reveal more than 44,000 Durham residents don’t have a family doctor, though a recent report from the Town of Whitby puts the number much higher, citing estimates that suggest a third of the region’s population — some 230,000 residents — lack a family physician who practises in Durham.

Lakeridge Health, the region’s medical network, is unable to keep up with demand. Its four acute-care hospitals typically operate above capacity and wait times in its ERs continue to be “higher than usual,” according to a June alert to the community. The hospital system, Roy notes, will need 1,793 beds by 2041 — more than double its current count.

Noting that it’s primarily a provincial responsibility, Roy says “One would think that at the municipal level health care wouldn’t be a concern for us to be advocating for. It’s actually far from that. It’s actually the reverse. Daily, I hear about the health care needs in our community.”

With Canada’s population recently hitting 40 million — a milestone that arrived faster than expected — and the country set to welcome 500,000 people a year by 2025, health policy experts are warning that bolstering our fragile system, still recovering from years of pandemic pressures, has never been more important.

Across Ontario, where the head count is racing toward 16 million, communities face struggles similar to Whitby’s. More than 2.2 million people do not have access to a family doctor or a nurse practitioner, which puts their long-term health at risk and makes them more likely to visit the ER, placing further strain on the system.

Hospital emergency departments continue to overflow; the most-recent data from Ontario Health shows that patients admitted to the hospital from the ER wait an average of 19 hours before getting a bed.

And despite efforts to strengthen the health-care workforce, ongoing shortages are triggering temporary closures — and in a recent case in Minden, the permanent shuttering — of some of the province’s hospital emergency departments. 

“We are in an extremely difficult moment in our health system in Ontario,” says Dr. Jane Philpott, former politician and dean of Queen’s Health Sciences and director of its medical school.

“It’s probably in a more critical state than at any other point in the four decades that I’ve been involved in health care. The only thing that makes me hopeful is that it’s reached such a state of crisis that there is a broad public and political imperative to find solutions and to do the things that we should have done long ago.”

Among the first steps to propping up the system in the near term — and preparing it for future demand — is to ensure everyone in the province is connected to a family doctor or nurse practitioner.

“It’s the only way we’re going to be able to cope,” Philpott says. “We need to get a very firm commitment from all orders of government to establish a primary-care-for-all system.”

Across the country, calls are growing for targeted reforms to primary care, including the expansion of team-based care, which connects patients to interdisciplinary groups made up of pharmacists, social workers, dietitians and other health-care professionals, in addition to nurses and physicians. Evidence suggests such teams improve patient outcomes.

Health leaders also want to see primary care shift to a geographic model to ensure every resident has access to a family doctor within a 30-minute drive of where they live or work. As well, there is a push to allow patients in a team-based environment have a non-physician health professional co-ordinate their care. 

Such reforms are necessary given the scale of primary-care needs in the province, says Dr. Rick Glazier, scientific director of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Health Services and Policy Research. 

Even as the need grows for more family doctors to fill the gaps, research shows about 17 per cent of Ontarians are attached to a physician over the age of 65 who is nearing retirement. Glazier says there aren’t enough MDs graduating medical school to replace the aging workforce.

“We don’t have the generation coming behind those people who are retiring,” says Glazier, a family doctor at St. Michael’s Hospital, a part of Unity Health Toronto.

“We will need these interprofessional teams for primary care. We will not be able to do this with doctors alone.”

Dr. Andrew Boozary, a primary-care physician and founding executive director of the Gattuso Centre for Social Medicine at Toronto’s University Health Network, agrees governments must firmly commit to primary-care expansion and reform.

Finding new ways to connect people to a family doctor or nurse practitioner will be key, not only in anticipation of the growing population but also because of the country’s aging demographics, as older patients typically have greater health care needs.

Boozary sees an expanded role for community health workers in primary care, noting that they played a crucial part during the pandemic by bringing health services including COVID-19 vaccines into neighbourhoods, building trust with residents who wouldn’t otherwise have easy access to health care.

“Through the pandemic, community health workers supported people in apartment buildings, in parks and basketball courts, in religious settings,” Boozary says. “They brokered the trust. They had the lived experience and understanding of the needs of their communities.”

Including such workers in primary-care delivery would lead to more equitable access and could mean helping patients connect with social supports, accompanying them to medical appointments, helping with medication (including adherence to prescription renewals), and working closely with a nurse practitioner. 

This kind of model could be especially important in marginalized communities, Boozary says, including refugee and newcomer populations.

“We can’t say we have a universal health-care system when millions of people don’t have access to primary care,” Boozary says. “This mirage of universality was exposed during the pandemic and has been further eroded.”

In his role at CIHR, Glazier is leading an initiative that’s mobilizing research teams to better understand the country’s health-care workforce. That data, he says, will be used for “evidence-based planning” to help Canada meet its future health-care needs.

Ivy Bourgeault, a professor of sociology at the University of Ottawa and lead of the Canadian Health Workforce Network, says when political and health leaders talk about capacity within the health system, they are primarily talking about its workers.

“This is a labour-intensive industry,” she says. “Three-quarters of the costs of the health system are related to the workforce, which means that health system responsiveness — in wait times, in backlogs — it’s the workforce that’s the rate-limiting factor.

“Primary care issues. Long-term-care issues. These are workforce issues.”

Boosting nursing numbers is among the top priorities, Bourgeault says. This includes finding ways to retain nurses working in the system, bring back those who left (through retirement or a profession change or dropping to part-time), and strategically recruit new nurses to fill gaps in the system.

All of this, though, is to only solve the crisis at hand, she says. Preparing for the more-populous future will require understanding the gaps in the system, collecting and analyzing workforce data and studying and evaluating new models of care.

“We need to build a culture of planning,” Bourgeault says. “The most expensive situation is continuing to do what we do now: Not plan. Not retain. Just constantly trying to recruit to fill a system that is like a sieve.”

Sara Allin, an associate professor at the University of Toronto’s Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, says Canada doesn’t track health-workforce numbers thoroughly enough. Data that is available is often fragmented, inconsistent between regions and not easily available to policymakers.

And while having a view of regional and professional gaps in the workforce is key, Allin says it’s also imperative to collect data on patients’ medical needs to help inform planning. For example, she says, an aging population, the rise in chronic disease, such as diabetes, and social risk factors, including food insecurity and unsafe housing, all play into population health. 

“We need to project and model our future medical needs and map those against future capacity,” Allin says, adding that there is currently a “mismatch” between the two. “Good data is fundamental to both exercises. And we’re not able to accurately and effectively measure these things right now.”

Given the health system’s current “precarious” state it will be difficult to meet the needs of the growing population, she says. This sentiment is shared by Farah Ahmad, an associate professor in York University’s School of Health Policy and Management, who agrees solutions must be found to the workforce challenges ahead of the country’s projected population growth. 

“We are going to have a lot of newcomers, which is great for our overall economic development,” she says. “But if we are not preparing our health system, who will take care of them?”

Ahmad points to the most recent figures from the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that show Canada has only 2.8 physicians for every 1,000 residents, a rate well below other countries. In the 2021 OECD data, Canada also graduates far fewer physicians than other countries, ranking 33rd out of 36.

While Canada’s immigration goals provide a partial solution to the country’s worker shortage by bringing in internationally trained professionals, Ahmed worries too much burden is being placed on newcomers. “The answers, they cannot all come from new immigrants.”

Philpott, a family physician and a former federal health minister, says the country should be able to build and train its own health-care workforce even as it removes barriers to let internationally educated professionals work here, also an important strategy.

She points to a unique initiative from Queen’s University and Lakeridge Health, designed to train and graduate family physicians, as one type of solution. In September this program will see 20 medical students interested in family medicine train in Durham, with the goal of having them graduate and set up their practice in the region. 

Eight months into her term as mayor, Roy says advocating for more health-care services gets pushed higher and higher on Whitby Council’s list of priorities.

Last month, council approved funding to help support the Queen’s-Lakeridge Health MD Family Physician Training Program as well as a plan to establish an incentive program to recruit and retain family doctors to the region. And Roy herself is advocating for the province to approve a $3-million planning grant for a new hospital in Whitby, the location recommended by an independent task force. 

She notes a provincial task force in 2015 recommended a new acute-care hospital for somewhere in Durham. Eight years later, and with the region’s population ballooning faster than ever, that plan remains stalled.

“This crisis is one that’s here today,” says Roy. “Lakeridge Health Oshawa is operating at one and a half times what it was first built for, and it will take at least 10 years after approval for that hospital — anywhere in Durham — to open its doors.”

Roy fears that as time passes, and the population grows, the health-care gap in the community, already stark, will continue to widen, putting residents health even further at risk.

“I’m really concerned,” she says. “We have to have a community that provides all the health-care supports. But if we don’t have them in place, we may end up having residents whose ailments are further along, their cancer diagnosis not diagnosed at an earlier stage, that it takes longer for treatments or medications to be prescribed.

“We know early intervention is key. And that may be at risk.”

Source: How we can right-size Canada’s health system as the population grows

Canada is getting bigger. Are we setting the country and its newest citizens up for success?

Good overview of some of the issues:

Debbie Douglas was 10 when she came from Grenada to join her parents in Canada.

On her first day of school in 1973, her family had to fight with the principal, who wanted to put her back a year and have her take ESL because she spoke English with a Grenadian accent. In the end, she was allowed to attend Grade 5.

“But by the end of the first week on the playground, I got called the N-word, and it shook me to my core,” Douglas recalls. “And I looked around to see if anybody had heard and nobody said anything … In a school of 500, there were three Black kids and I don’t recall any other kids of colour.”

Despite a degree in economics from York University, her stepfather could only find a job as a financial planner. Her mother, a teacher back home, ended up working in a nursing home. 

But if you were to ask Douglas’s mother what her migration experience has been, Douglas says, she would say Canada has been very good to her family.

“My parents worked hard. We went to school. We now have a middle-class life. It’s a great migration story,” Douglas, executive director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, told a forum about Canada’s immigration narrative this past May.

“Great” has never meant “easy” for newcomers arriving in this country. Douglas says the stories of immigrants’ struggles and sacrifice were just often not heard.

Yet Canada has long maintained its status as a destination to which newcomers aspire. The immigration story that’s told has, for decades, been one of perceived success — both from the perspective of those forging new lives here, and from the viewpoint of a country eager to grow.

Today, that national narrative appears to be under new strains that are threatening the social contract between Canada and its newcomers.

Canada’s population has just passed the 40-million mark, and it’s growing thanks to immigration. 

Immigration accounts for almost 100 per cent of the country’s labour-force growth and is projected to account for our entire population growth by 2032.

Governments and employers from coast to coast have been clamouring for more immigrants to fill jobs, expand the economy and revitalize an aging population. The more, the merrier, it seemed, even during economic recession of recent years.

Post-pandemic, Ottawa is set to bring in 465,000 new permanent residents this year, 485,000 in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025 to boost Canada’s economic recovery after COVID.

Amid this push, there have been critiques that immigrants are too often being reduced to numbers — to units meant to balance the equations of our economy. While it is clear our economy needs immigration, what is it that newcomers need of Canada to ensure they can settle and thrive here? Are those needs being met?

Meanwhile, the federal government’s plan to bring in a historic level of immigrants has been met with some reservations domestically, as Canadians struggle with stubbornly high inflation amid global economic uncertainty resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and volatile geopolitics.

There is a sense of scarcity emerging in Canada, despite the country’s seemingly great wealth — whether it manifests in the housing crisis, a strained health-care system, or in the lack of salary increases that keep up to inflation. 

While a national dialogue about Canada’s immigration strategy is overdue, some fear anti-immigrant or xenophobic backlash amid news, op-eds and social-media conversation that ties immigration to the strains already being felt.

One poll by Leger and the Association of Canadian Studies last November found almost half of the 1,537 respondents said they believe the current immigration plan would let in too many immigrants. Three out of four were concerned the levels would strain housing, health and social services.

“Canada is at a crossroads in terms of being able to continue to be a leader in immigration. It’s at a crossroads in its ability to provide the Canadian dream to those who move to the country,” says University of Western Ontario political sociologist Howard Ramos. 

“It’s at a crossroads in terms of the infrastructure that’s needed to support this population, and it’s at a crossroads potentially at having widespread support for immigration.”

How Canada got to 40 million

Canada’s immigration strategy has long been about nation-building to meet both the demographic and economic aspirations of the country.

In 1967, Canada introduced the “points system,” based on criteria such as education achievements and work experience, to select economic immigrants. It was one of a series of measures that have gradually moved the immigration system away from a past draped in racism and discrimination.

The point system shifted a system that favoured European immigrants and instead helped open the door to those from the Global South for permanent residence in this country. The 2021 Census found the share of recent immigrants from Europe continued to decline, falling from 61.6 per cent to just 10 per cent over the past five decades. 

Ottawa had turned the immigration tap on and off depending on the economic conditions, reducing intake during recession, until the late 1980s, when then prime minister Brian Mulroney decided to not only maintain but to increase Canada’s immigration level amid high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. 

“There are real people behind those numbers — people with real stories, real hopes and dreams, people who have chosen Canada as their new home,” Mulroney’s immigration minister, Barbara McDougall, said back in 1990 of a five-year plan to welcome more than 1.2 million immigrants.

The plan, too, was met with what today sound like familiar criticisms of the country’s ability to absorb the influx of people.

“We don’t think the federal government is taking its own financial responsibility seriously. The federal government is cutting back. They’re capping programs,” Bob Rae, then Ontario’s NDP premier, commented.

“They’re not transferring dollars to match the real cost, whether it’s training, whether it’s (teaching) English as a second language, whether it’s social services.”

Another big shift under Mulroney’s government was the focus on drafting well-heeled economic and skilled immigrants to Canada, which saw the ratio of permanent residents in family and refugee classes drop significantly from about 65 per cent in the mid-1980s to about 43 per cent in 1990s, and about 40 per cent now.

Mulroney’s measures severed Canada’s immigration intake from the boom-and-bust cycle of the economy. Successive governments have stuck to the same high-immigrant intake, regardless of how good or bad the economy was performing.

It has set Canada apart from other western countries, where immigration issues are often politicized. Coupled with the official multiculturalism policy introduced by the government of Pierre Trudeau in 1971 in response to Quebec’s growing nationalist movement, it has contributed to Canada’s image as a welcoming country to immigrants.

Public support for immigration has remained fairly high and Canada seemed to have fared well despite such economic challenges as the burst of the dot-com bubble from the late 1990s to mid-2000s, the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, and the economic downturn driven by the oil-price slump in the mid-2010s.

Observers, however, note the challenges and circumstances of those economic fluctuations were different than what we see today: there was enough housing stock in the 1990s and the impacts of the crashes in the financial, tech and oil markets since were sectoral, regional and temporary.

Canada’s infrastructure problem

Except in Quebec, which has full control over its newcomer targets and selection, immigration is a federal jurisdiction in Canada, planned in silo from other levels of governments that actually deliver health, education, transportation and other services. Yet the impacts of immigration are felt locally in schools, transits and hospitals. 

A lack of infrastructure investments and the rapid immigration growth have finally caught up with the country’s growth. “We spent decades not s upporting our communities,” says Douglas.

“We were not paying attention to building infrastructure. We were all under-resourcing things like community development and community amenities. We haven’t built adequate affordable housing.

“It’s now become a perfect storm. We have all these people and not enough of what is needed for everybody.”

While the majority of newcomers have historically settled in the big cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, a growing number are moving to smaller cities and towns that in some cases are not ready for the influx. The share of recent immigrants settling in the Big Three dropped from 62.5 per cent in 2011 to 53.4 per cent in 2021, with second-tier cities such as Ottawa-Gatineau, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, London and Halifax seeing significant growth.

“I don’t think it occurred to them that they need to build infrastructure to be able to welcome people in. It’s a lack of planning. It is a lack of funding,” Douglas says.

“We’ve raised these immigration numbers without paying attention to what it means, what it is that we didn’t have. We are already facing a crisis and we are bringing in more people without addressing the crisis.”

Canadian employers are champions for more economic immigrants. Half of employers surveyed told the Business Council of Canada they were in favour of raising the annual immigration targets — provided there are greater investments in the domestic workforce, as well as in child care, housing and public transportation.

Goldy Hyder, the council’s president and CEO, says many of the day-to-day challenges Canadians and immigrants face are in fact driven largely by labour shortages, whether it’s in health care, housing, or restaurants and retail.

Around the world, he says, countries build infrastructure to spur population — and economic — growth, but in Canada, he contends, it’s been vice-versa.

Hyder sees this moment as a crucial one for raising immigration targets and maintaining public support. “We are at a seminal moment in the life of this country, because we’re at a seminal moment in the life of the world right now,” he says.

Hyder says the country’s immigration policy shouldn’t be just about bringing in people, it should be part of a bigger workforce and industrial strategy to ensure skills of all Canadians and immigrants are fully utilized in the economy in order to maintain the public support for immigration.

“We need to plan better. We need to be more strategic in that plan. And we need to work together to do that: federal, provincial, municipal governments, regulatory bodies, professional bodies, business groups,” he says.

“Let’s address the anxieties that Canadians are facing. You don’t sweep them aside or under a rug. We must have honest discourse with Canadians, fact-based about what we’re trying to do to make their lives better.”

The tradeoffs that come with population growth

The case made for increased immigration is often an economic one. That said, research has generally found the economic benefits of immigration are close to neutral. That’s because when it comes to population growth, there are always tradeoffs.

While bringing in a large number of immigrants can spur population growth and drive demand for goods and services, it will also push up prices even as the government is trying to rein in out-of-control costs of living, warn some economists. 

When more workers are available, employers don’t have to compete and can offer lower wages. Further, just adding more people without investing into social and physical infrastructure such as housing and health care is going to strain the society’s resources and be counterproductive, economists say.

“For housing and health care, it takes a long time to catch up with the increased demand,” says Casey Warman, a professor in economics at Dalhousie University in Halifax, whose own family doctor is retiring. (He is now on a wait list seeking a new one, with 130,000 ahead of him.)

One of the main metrics of economic success has traditionally been a country’s overall GDP. Immigration and population growth can fuel the pool of labour and consumers and boost the overall GDP.

But there’s an emerging chorus of economists arguing that there is a better reflection of the standard of living and economic health in a country. That’s GDP per capita — productivity per person. The growth of Canada’s GDP per capita has been quite flat over the recent years, growing marginally from $50,750.48 in 2015 to $52,127.87 last year. Despite the recovery and high inflation amid the pandemic, it’s still below the $52,262.70 recorded in 2018.

Uncertainty about rapidly changing economic conditions, as well as the fast pace of technological adjustments, have also created uncertainty about what skills and labour will be in demand as the country moves forward.

“One big unknown now is how automation and especially AI is going to change the landscape for labour demand in the next five, 10 years … Is it going to decrease demand for labour?” Warman asks. 

How to adapt in the face of this uncertainty, and how immigration should be approached in light of it, is a conversation Canada needs to have, experts say.

Ivey Business School economics Prof. Mike Moffatt says that who Canada is bringing in matters as much as immigration levels, and what’s happening with the economy is nuanced.

Economic, family and humanitarian classes are the three main streams of permanent residents coming to Canada, and each group has different impacts on the economy, generally with those who come as skilled immigrants having the highest earnings and weathering economic downturns best.

The profiles of the incoming immigrants and their ability to integrate into the economy matter, says Moffatt. Bringing in foreign-trained doctors and nurses who can’t get licensed from stringent regulators, for example, won’t help address the health-care crisis.

Still, Moffatt says his critique of Canada’s immigration plan is less about the ambitious targeted numbers than the pace of the increases, as well as the short notice for provinces and cities in planning for the influx.

“Whether it be on education, immigration support programs, labour market programs, all of these things, there’s no time to adjust,” says Moffatt, senior director of policy and innovation at the Smart Prosperity Institute, a think tank with a stated goal of advancing solutions for a stronger, cleaner economy.

“I do think we can have robust increases in the targets. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem, but let the provinces and cities know what you’re doing.

“There’s no collaboration. There’s no co-ordination. They are not working with the provinces and municipalities and the higher-education sector in order to come up with any kind of long-term thinking. It’s very short-term in nature.”

Should Canada cap international students and migrant workers?

Aside from questions about the immigration plan Canada has, there are also questions about the plan it doesn’t have.

The national immigration plan sets targets for the number of permanent residents accepted yearly, but leaves the door wide open for temporary residents. 

That has become a bigger issue over the years as Canada has increasingly shifted to a two-step system to select skilled immigrants who have studied and worked in Canada, bringing in more international students and temporary foreign workers than permanent residents.

According to Statistics Canada, there were close to a million (924,850) temporary residents in Canada in 2021, making up 2.5 per cent of the population.

The majority of them, including asylum-seekers, can legally work here; the remaining 8.7 per cent who don’t have work permits includes visitors such as parents and grandparents with the so-called super visa, who can stay for up to five years.

Temporary residents, who don’t have credit history for loans and mortgages in Canada, are more likely to be renters and public transit users (but eligible for some provincial health care), says Anne Michèle Meggs, who was the Quebec Immigration Ministry’s director of planning and accountability before her 2019 retirement.

“In the past, it wasn’t an issue, because we had a relatively small temporary migrant population, so we managed, even though we took the approach that we just bring them in and we don’t look after what happened to them afterwards,” says Meggs, whose book “Immigration to Quebec: How Can We Do Better” was recently published.

“That’s fine. That population wasn’t out of control. So that’s why we still successfully managed and it didn’t become a crisis.”

However, under tremendous pressure from post-secondary institutions to recruit international students, and from employers to quickly bring in foreign workers, she said the balance has tipped. To not set targets for temporary immigration is to get into trouble, Meggs warns.

“We want people to come and we want people to stay. You want things to be good for everybody, including immigrants and including children. And I think the objective has to be to make sure that everyone gets treated with dignity,” she says.

“Immigrants are not just sources of labour or sources of financing of institutions or spending money to increase our national GDP. These are people. We have to get back to talking about the immigrants and not just immigration.”

Canada ‘cannot afford to allow for polarization’

Canada immigration overall has been a success in terms of forging positive public attitudes toward immigration and the political participation by immigrants, says Andrew Griffith, a retired director general of the federal immigration department.

He feels Canada now has the maturity to have an honest and informed conversation about immigration without the fear of being labelled as racist and xenophobic. The focus of the discussion, he says, should be on Canada’s capacity to ensure a good quality of life for those who are already here and those who will be coming.

“It’s not about keeping the immigrants out. It’s more that if we’re going to do this, we have to do it right,” says Griffith. “We have to make sure we have the right infrastructure, the right housing policies and everything like that.”

Any immigration plan, Griffith says, should go beyond the intake levels but study the potential socio-economic impacts and include inputs from provincial and municipal governments.

Canada has grown to become a country of 40 million, and it has not always been smooth sailing.

But Canadians have worked hard to make immigration work for everyone and the success has come down to how the growth has been managed and how the public support for immigration has been maintained.

“We cannot afford to allow for polarization, populism and xenophobia to kick in here because it’s a very slippery slope,” says Hyder, whose family arrived in Calgary from India in 1974 when he was seven. “Other countries have seen it. It can go downhill very fast.

“Immigration is part of the arteries of our soul. It is who we are as a people.”

Source: Canada is getting bigger. Are we setting the country and its newest citizens up for success?