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

2025/03/31 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mooney: I’m the Canadian who was detained by Ice for two weeks. It felt like I had been kidnapped

2025/03/20 Leave a comment

Horrific example of bureaucracy at work, implementing the cruel and flawed policies of the Trump administration:

There was no explanation, no warning. One minute, I was in an immigration office talking to an officer about my work visa, which had been approved months before and allowed me, a Canadian, to work in the US. The next, I was told to put my hands against the wall, and patted down like a criminal before being sent to an Ice detention center without the chance to talk to a lawyer….

And that’s when I made a decision: I would never allow myself to feel sorry for my situation again. No matter how hard this was, I had to be grateful. Because every woman I met was in an even more difficult position than mine.

There were around 140 of us in our unit. Many women had lived and worked in the US legally for years but had overstayed their visas – often after reapplying and being denied. They had all been detained without warning.

If someone is a criminal, I agree they should be taken off the streets. But not one of these women had a criminal record. These women acknowledged that they shouldn’t have overstayed and took responsibility for their actions. But their frustration wasn’t about being held accountable; it was about the endless, bureaucratic limbo they had been trapped in.

The real issue was how long it took to get out of the system, with no clear answers, no timeline and no way to move forward. Once deported, many have no choice but to abandon everything they own because the cost of shipping their belongings back is too high.

I met a woman who had been on a road trip with her husband. She said they had 10-year work visas. While driving near the San Diego border, they mistakenly got into a lane leading to Mexico. They stopped and told the agent they didn’t have their passports on them, expecting to be redirected. Instead, they were detained. They are both pastors.

I met a family of three who had been living in the US for 11 years with work authorizations. They paid taxes and were waiting for their green cards. Every year, the mother had to undergo a background check, but this time, she was told to bring her whole family. When they arrived, they were taken into custody and told their status would now be processed from within the detention center.

Another woman from Canada had been living in the US with her husband who was detained after a traffic stop. She admitted she had overstayed her visa and accepted that she would be deported. But she had been stuck in the system for almost six weeks because she hadn’t had her passport. Who runs casual errands with their passport?

One woman had a 10-year visa. When it expired, she moved back to her home country, Venezuela. She admitted she had overstayed by one month before leaving. Later, she returned for a vacation and entered the US without issue. But when she took a domestic flight from Miami to Los Angeles, she was picked up by Ice and detained. She couldn’t be deported because Venezuela wasn’t accepting deportees. She didn’t know when she was getting out.

There was a girl from India who had overstayed her student visa for three days before heading back home. She then came back to the US on a new, valid visa to finish her master’s degree and was handed over to Ice due to the three days she had overstayed on her previous visa.

There were women who had been picked up off the street, from outside their workplaces, from their homes. All of these women told me that they had been detained for time spans ranging from a few weeks to 10 months. One woman’s daughter was outside the detention center protesting for her release….

The reality became clear: Ice detention isn’t just a bureaucratic nightmare. It’s a business. These facilities are privately owned and run for profit.

Companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group receive government funding based on the number of people they detain, which is why they lobby for stricter immigration policies. It’s a lucrative business: CoreCivic made over $560m from Ice contracts in a single year. In 2024, GEO Group made more than $763m from Ice contracts.

The more detainees, the more money they make. It stands to reason that these companies have no incentive to release people quickly. What I had experienced was finally starting to make sense.

This is not just my story. It is the story of thousands and thousands of people still trapped in a system that profits from their suffering. I am writing in the hope that someone out there – someone with the power to change any of this – can help do something.

The strength I witnessed in those women, the love they gave despite their suffering, is what gives me faith. Faith that no matter how flawed the system, how cruel the circumstances, humanity will always shine through.

Even in the darkest places, within the most broken systems, humanity persists. Sometimes, it reveals itself in the smallest, most unexpected acts of kindness: a shared meal, a whispered prayer, a hand reaching out in the dark. We are defined by the love we extend, the courage we summon and the truths we are willing to tell.

Source: I’m the Canadian who was detained by Ice for two weeks. It felt like I had been kidnapped

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

May: Transition How-Tos [Zussman]

2025/03/17 Leave a comment

Good list, drawing from Zussman. Rings true from my experience under the Harper government (Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism):

Here are a few do’s and don’ts from seasoned bureaucrats who’ve weathered many a transition:

This is a test of impartiality and neutrality. Many public servants have only worked for a Trudeau government and this will be their first transition. A new government, especially under a new party, may want to undo, change or scrap policies, programs and your pet projects. Don’t be attached to the programs you worked on — it’s not your role.

Zussman argues deputy ministers must ensure employees are prepared for these shifts and get “past the mindset that they have formed over the last decade and to think in different terms.”

Time for the PS to shine. Be well-prepared, do your homework, know the platform, and show you’re a committed, non-partisan public service that can be relied upon. That builds trust. Have some “early wins” ready for them. Don’t say things can’t be done.

Keep it professional. Don’t greet a new government like an overeager puppy. Don’t try to be their best friend or badmouth the outgoing one. Your role is simple: work with them, understand and implement their agenda, and recognize the legitimacy of their agenda. (They are elected. Public servants aren’t.) If you can’t live with that, it’s time to move on and leave.

Let them lead. Some incoming governments have been watching, planning, and know the system better than public servants assume. Treating them like rookies can backfire — especially if they’ve seen the bureaucracy in committee, dodging questions. “Let them lead the dance,” said one bureaucrat. They know what they want, and the public service’s job isn’t to teach them “government 101” but to deliver.

Expect skepticism. New coach, new game. One former deputy minister likened a newly elected government to a new coach who comes in because the previous leadership was seen as not delivering. So, expect the new government to be skeptical that the public service is up to the job and can execute its agenda. This skepticism is justified. Acknowledge and adapt to it. Demonstrate you can work under the new leadership and deliver its priorities.

Don’t assume you know what the new government’s relationship with stakeholders will be.

Don’t recycle the last government’s or minister’s contact list of stakeholders to call. That could backfire.

Be cautious.

Let the incoming team define its own relationships without speaking for the stakeholders.

Source: May: Transition How-Tos [Zussman]

Filed under Government Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Canada Case Study Explores the Limits of Immigration to Ease Demographic Decline

2025/03/01 Leave a comment

Good and relevant study by Dan Hiebert on the need for realism and a shift towards population policy framework:

High-income countries globally face a stark demographic transition as their populations age and fertility rates decline, with key implications for productivity and the maintenance of retiree benefits if tax bases decline as workforces shrink. Questions remain about how and to what extent immigration can help slow this transition and soften the impact on labor markets. 

Canada offers a unique vantage point on the role that immigration can play in easing demographic decline—and the potential drawbacks. Over the past decade, rising permanent and temporary migration accounted for the entirety of Canada’s labor force growth. But the rapid pace of change has come with challenges. By 2024, Canada’s historic embrace of immigration had cooled amid public concerns about its impact on housing costs and public services. 

In a new report out today for the Migration Policy Institute’s Transatlantic Council on Migration, respected Canadian researcher Daniel Hiebert investigates the efficacy of immigration in addressing population change and the old-age dependency ratio. The report examines Canada’s demographic challenges (its total fertility rate of 1.26 children per woman is among the lowest rates globally) and recent changes in migration policymaking before exploring the consequences of setting immigration rates at different levels. The report uses six scenarios for admissions and population projections over the next half-century that were commissioned from Statistics Canada. 

The report finds that while the six scenarios, which range from high- to near net-zero immigration, would produce very different overall population sizes by 2046 and 2071, the old-age dependency ratio would rise even under the highest immigration rate. “These scenarios point to an important lesson: Immigration can grow the population and slow the effects of falling fertility, but it is less efficient at changing the age composition of the population,” writes Hiebert, emeritus professor of geography at the University of British Columbia. That is because immigrants themselves age and eventually retire alongside their native-born peers. 

To tackle the rising old-age dependency ratio and the prospect of shrinking workforces, policymakers would need to also consider other interventions, such as raising the retirement age, Hiebert writes. 

The report, Understanding the Impact of Immigration on Demography: A Canadian Case Study, argues that for immigration policy to effectively tackle Canada’s challenges, policymakers will need to frame a long-term strategy that considers a number of intertwining realities, including: 

  • Calibrating immigrant admissions together with decisions about social spending and investment in housing stock and infrastructure. 
  • Taking a longer lens than the standard three-year population plan, given the consequences of changing immigration targets play out over decades. This also means recognizing the need for different policy interventions as “fast” regions such as large cities face pressures on housing and infrastructure from above-average population growth, while “slow” regions such as rural areas will need help navigating depopulation and rising old-age dependency ratios. 
  • Effectively communicating with the public to set appropriate expectations for immigration. 

“Canada is frequently seen as an exceptional case, globally, with a population that has been willing—enthusiastic, even—to accommodate a relatively high rate of immigration. This consensus has become frail and the Canadian government (like others around the world) has changed its tone on immigration, acknowledging that there are costs to immigration-led population growth,” Hiebert writes. “Nevertheless, demographic challenges are resolute and ignoring them will, eventually, also carry economic and political consequences.” 

While few governments globally have clearly and forcefully articulated the unprecedented levels of old-age dependency that are looming, and the resulting painful economic adjustments ahead, embarking on a national conversation around demography, engaging with the tough policy trade-offs involved and building a population strategy could help raise Canadian public awareness, the author concludes.

Read the report here: www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-demography-canada. 

Source: Canada Case Study Explores the Limits of Immigration to Ease Demographic Decline

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , ,

Liberals set tighter rules for coming leadership race amid foreign interference concerns

2025/01/11 Leave a comment

Finally reading the room! One can argue about the age but the party has done the necessary in limiting participation to citizens and Permanent Residents:

The Liberals will pick a new leader to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on March 9 under tighter new rules meant to address concerns about potential foreign interference.

Trudeau’s successor will take the reigns of the party just weeks before parliament is set to resume on Mar. 24. The government is almost certain to face a non-confidence vote which would trigger a spring election.

The Liberal Party board decided it will restrict voting rights in the leadership race to permanent residents and Canadian citizens in contrast to its wide-open approach which previously allowed non-Canadians to vote.

“Protecting the integrity of our democratic process, while still engaging as many people as possible, is one of the Liberal Party of Canada’s top priorities,” the party said in a release. 

The party retained rules that allow minors as young as 14 to become registered Liberals and to cast a vote.

To be a registered Liberal, an individual must simply “support the purposes of the party,” not be a member of any other federal party and not have declared to be a candidate for any other federal party.

Source: Liberals set tighter rules for coming leadership race amid foreign interference concerns

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Immigration department received intelligence about huge rise in clandestine U.S.-Canada border crossings last year

2024/12/07 Leave a comment

Good questions regarding senior official and minister awareness:

Intelligence experts within Canada’s border agency informed the federal immigration department last December about a big rise in illegal crossings of the Canada-U.S. border, including into the States, which raises questions about why action to curb it was not taken earlier.

An intelligence document sent to senior Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials, says smugglers were moving people across the border in both directions, with some foreign nationals flying into Canada at major airports and swiftly slipping across the border into the United States.

The Canada Border Services Agency’s intelligence analysis says clandestine entries have led to thousands of refugee claims, mostly in the Greater Toronto Area.

The document says “the Southbound movement into the United States (US) has grown significantly since 2022″ adding that “the majority of individuals who attempt to cross southbound illegally arrive by air, mainly at Montreal Trudeau International Airport and Toronto Pearson International Airport and move quickly.”

It found that “the vast majority were very likely in Canada for less than 6 months of which a large portion were in Canada for less than 3 weeks.”

Ministers have insisted in recent weeks, amid heightened tensions between U.S. president-elect Donald Trump and Ottawa over illegal immigration into the U.S., that Canada’s borders are secure.

But the emergence of the detailed analysis by the CBSA’s Intelligence and Investigations Directorate raises questions about whether ministers were ignorant of the extent of people smuggling into the U.S. from Canada, and in the other direction….

Source: Immigration department received intelligence about huge rise in clandestine U.S.-Canada border crossings last year

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

Misleading Canadians: The Flawed Assumption Behind the Government’s Planned Reduction in Temporary Residents

2024/11/22 Leave a comment

This analysis was prompted by questions regarding the projected numbers of departures with no methodology mentioned, and the suspicion, subsequently confirmed, that it was based on the false assumption that all temporary residents would leave upon expiry of their visa

—

When IRCC released its annual immigration plan last month, eyebrows were raised over the plan’s prediction of large outflows of temporary residents upon expiry of their visas. The Parliamentary Budget Office noted that “there is significant risk to the demographic projection presented in the Government’s new immigration plan—particularly to the projected outflow of non-permanent residents.” The plan included a table covering projected outflows without indicating the methodology and assumptions behind the table. Subsequently, IRCC has confirmed that the calculations assumed that all temporary residents would leave when their visa expired, save for those who transitioned to permanent residency.

This assumption is just wrong as many temporary residents may well remain in Canada and appears aimed at misleading the public. For illustrative purposes, I revised the plan table to include four assumptions: 100 percent of temporary residents leave (the plan’s assumption), and three alternatives where 80, 75 and 70 percent leave. Should 60 percent or less leave, there would not be any net reduction in the temporary resident population.

The overly precise nature of the numbers—down to individual persons—highlights that the government adapted a purely mathematical approach in its estimates. In the case of permanent resident levels, the government more sensibly uses ranges rather than precise numbers which reflect more accurately operational realities. While politically difficult to admit that some non permanent residents will remain, by not doing so the government attracts more scepticism regarding its plans.

Moreover, as Canada does not track outflows systematically, we will not have accurate data on how many actually leave. The government should explore coordination of flight and CBSA data to obtain better anonymized information on outflows and those who overstay their visa.

The Prime Minister has stated that “Between the amount of people coming and going, we’ll effectively pause population growth for the next two years, then from 2027 onwards, it will balance out and slowly start increasing again at a sustainable pace.” However, this is based on the false assumption that all temporary residents will leave when their visa expires. Unfortunately, as we will not know how many people will stay versus how many people will leave, it will not be possible to verify the extent of errors and estimates.

In short, while inclusion of temporary residents in the annual immigration plan is both overdue and welcome, a more serious approach is needed that better reflects the reality and challenges.

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

Immigrants Didn’t Steal the Election After All

2024/11/07 Leave a comment

Yet another myth questioned:

Among the rampant absurdities about immigration that spread from both the obscure and prominent corners of the Internet, the idea that the Biden administration was “importing” voters from abroad to help Kamala Harris win was simultaneously the silliest and the most common. Setting aside the conspiracy theories, the 2024 election provides the best evidence to date that Republicans can compete when immigration is high.

For reasons I can’t appreciate, many Republicans act as if they cannot do well if there are many immigrants in the electorate. Vice President-elect JD Vance saidrecently that immigration would permanently tilt the balance of power in favor of the Democrats. He said this even as his running mate was poised to make historic gains among Hispanic voters, many of whom are immigrants or children of immigrants. Regardless, the historical evidence shows that GOP performance improves with more immigration, so there are no data behind Vance’s fears.

The immigrant share isn’t associated with a stronger performance of either party in presidential elections. But there is a relationship between stronger Republican performance and a larger immigrant share of the US population. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 83 percent of the years from 1935 to 1994 when the immigrant share of the US population was below 10 percent. Since 1995, Democrats have not controlled either house of Congress 53 percent of the time.

https://e.infogram.com/3b1be832-bfdb-442b-976a-d354eccf75b2?src=embed&wmode=transparent&auto=1

Republicans have performed much better during the high immigration periods of US history. Why? Not only do new populations assimilate, but the more Democrats compete and cater to the votes of naturalized citizens, the more US-born voters drift toward Republicans. An additional factor is that the immigrant share has been high when the unionized share of the labor force has been low, possibly because immigrants undermine unionization. 

Unions were historically the base of the Democratic Party until recently. Any benefit from naturalized citizens did not outweigh losses among the unionized population.

Does this mean that Democrats needed to be even more anti-immigrant to win? That was Kamala Harris’s assessment of the situation. But my view is that her (and Biden’s) immigration gambit backfired. Polls show that from 2019 to 2023 the share of voters saying immigration should be decreased grew just 6 points. Even though illegal immigration fell sharply in 2024, the share of Americans saying that immigration should be restricted suddenly jumped 14 points in June 2024.

Here’s what happened: Harris and Biden endorsed a bill to “shut the border” in 2024, which they reiterated as their position repeatedly before finally acting unilaterally to ban asylum in June 2024. It’s no surprise that when the heads of both parties endorse immigration restrictions, more people move toward that position. We have seen similar swings on other issues, like trade, when the head of a party (Trump) suddenly endorses a different view. Rather than neutralizing Trump’s immigration attacks, Harris’s flip validated them.

Source: Immigrants Didn’t Steal the Election After All

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

Selected commentary on Government’s reversal of immigration policies

2024/10/26 Leave a comment

The plan, apart from the numbers and the addition of targets for temporary residents, also had high level discussion of impacts on housing, healthcare and education, as I argued for in my December 2022 article Has immigration become a third rail in Canadian politics?

Major and overdue reversal, one that allows for a more serious discussion regarding immigration policies and priorities without accusations of xenophobia or racism (although see that some activists have already gone there).

Some selected commentary, mix of serious and agenda driven, no doubt more will follow.

Advocates:

A Dark Day for Canada: CILA Condemns Immigration Levels Plan 2025-2027: As an example of this, the federal government’s decision to aggressively increase permanent resident levels in 2021 during a challenging pandemic operating environment created a cascading effect on permanent and temporary resident programs which are still placing immense pressure on the immigration system today and will continue to do so over the foreseeable future. Another example was to allow international students to work full-time while class was in session. This change added to the growing number of foreign students coming to Canada, primarily to seek employment opportunities rather than academic pursuits. Consulting widely with stakeholders would give IRCC the information it needs to plan for the long-term and make policy decisions that are sustainable.  

While we are unable to change the past, it is incumbent on IRCC to learn from its recent shortcomings and ensure it hosts genuine stakeholder consultations moving forward so that immigration levels planning and other major policy decisions consider various viewpoints and we can proactively and effectively manage a healthier immigration system. 

OCASI: Immigration Levels Plan leaves behind refugees, families and people without status: We are deeply concerned that the government continues to incorrectly tie immigration numbers to housing pressures. Scapegoating immigrants for the lack of affordable housing is disgraceful, and will only increase anti-immigrant sentiment from politicians and the public. We expect better from the government and leaders of all political parties. 

These cuts also contradict the government’s acknowledgement that immigration is essential to Canada’s economic success and growth, and that 100% of Canada’s labour market growth comes from immigration. We call on the government to provide greater clarity on how the new levels plan is expected to resolve the public concerns it claims to address.

Canada betrays refugees – CCR Statement on 2025 Levels Announcement: In a shameful abdication of responsibility, the Canadian government has massively reduced its commitment to offer protection to those fleeing persecution and danger in the world, and all but ensured that refugees in Canada will remain separated from their spouses and children for years to come. The CCR condemns today’s announcement and calls on the government to reverse this dangerous course.

Media commentary

Clark: The day Justin Trudeau (sort of) admitted a mistake on immigration: The U-turn is unusual for governments, and out of character for this one. But it had become a political necessity to tell Canadians the Liberals are changing course. Mr. Trudeau even admitted he made a mistake. Or sort of.

Keller: The Trudeau government wants to restore the immigration consensus that it broke: Good news: Canada’s immigration consensus is back. Better news: It’s being restored by the people who broke it.

That means immigration is not going to become a divisive, polarizing and potentially explosive issue in the next federal election. Unlike our peers in Europe and the United States, we’re not going to have a radical left versus radical right brawl over the issue.

Why not? Because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has come to its senses on this issue. It’s been moving in that direction for the last year and a half, and as of this week, it’s close to fully there.

Phillips | Don’t be fooled into thinking Canadians have soured on immigration — the truth is remarkable
Canadians, by a significant majority, still believe in the value of immigration and they aren’t scapegoating immigrants for their problems, which compared to what’s happening in other countries is quite remarkable. Apparently, not even massive screw-ups in the immigration system can change that. Be grateful.

John Ivison: Red flags all over Trudeau’s flawed plan to curb runaway immigration: The new immigration plan says that 62 per cent of permanent resident admissions will come from the economic class next year, up from 58 per cent in 2024.

But that might simply reflect the adoption of a proposal circulating in the Immigration Department that would create a new economic class of permanent residents for people with high-school education or less, who would otherwise not pass the Comprehensive Ranking point-system that has served Canada so well when it comes to selecting the best and brightest.

The fear among some economists is that this might apply the brakes to a situation that is out of control but risk derailing the whole locomotive by undermining the skills-based system and lowering the standard of permanent resident that Canada accepts.

SUN EDITORIAL: Reducing immigration necessary, not racist: We aren’t going to fault Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for admitting his high immigration policies were a mistake that contributed to today’s affordability crisis, including high housing costs.

We do fault him for his government’s false depiction of Canadians who were raising these concerns long before he did, as racists.

Jesse Kline: Toronto Star paints a skewed picture of Trudeau’s immigration cuts: The bigger problem is that Keung’s story ran in the news section, where reporters have traditionally been expected to provide unbiased accounts of the day’s events. Although Keung is a veteran of the Star’s newsroom, the issue of reporters blurring the line between news and opinion is becoming increasingly common — particularly among young journalists fresh out of university, where many professors now see it as their duty to train activists, rather than extol the virtues of objective journalism.

This influx of woke young journalists has fundamentally changed the culture of many newsrooms, even ones as storied as the New York Times, as its former opinion editor, James Bennet, lamented in a lengthy feature published in The Economist last December. Bennet noted that when he began working at the paper as a reporter in 1991, he started from the bottom and was taught to aspire to “journalistic neutrality and open-mindedness.” In 2006, he left to become editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, where he started to “see some effects of the new campus politics.” [Ironically, the NP increasingly resorts to anti-woke younger columnists.]

Academic

Worswick: As Canada cuts immigration numbers, we must also better select immigrants
The reduction in the immigration and temporary-resident targets can be seen as sound economic policy so long as we as a country maintain our historical focus on selecting economic immigrants who are likely to have high earnings in the Canadian labour market. This focus has played no small part in maintaining our pro-immigration consensus, which can continue under a properly designed set of immigration policies.

Various (Star selection)

Canada’s major changes to immigration targets met with widespread criticism: Diana Palmerin-Velasco, a director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said the business community understands the need for a sustainable immigration system but is concerned about the plan’s implications on the labour market.

“It seems that the government might be overreacting,” she said. “It’s not just 100,000 fewer permanent residents. We are also expecting to see 400,000 fewer temporary residents. We are talking about 500,000 people.”

Scotiabank economist Rebekah Young said the drastic cuts to both permanent and temporary immigration are going to have a near-term macro impact on the economy, and there will be trade-offs.

“They are a source of labour supply and they provide economic activity through the workforce, but they also consume,” said Young. “We’re likely left with lower GDP, but not necessarily a stronger trajectory for the growth outlook.”

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said the cuts are troubling to employers and small businesses.

“A restaurant owner who can’t find a cook ready and willing to work in their community will not have work for the Canadians who may work in the front of the house,” he said. “We need to rethink many of these recent changes and be ready to turn the dial back up.” 

The cuts mean migrants will be forced to remain temporary or become undocumented, and pushed further into exploitative jobs and conditions, said Syed Hussan of the Migrant Rights Network.

The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association called the pullback a “dark day” for Canada, warning of economic, fiscal and social damage.

“We still have an aging population, low birth rate, and pressing economic and fiscal pressures,” said Barbara Jo Caruso, its co-president. “Canada’s fundamental need for immigration has not changed.”

Diana Gallego, president of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said behind the numbers slashed from the humanitarian component of the levels are 14,000 real people struggling under persecution or in conflict zones around the world.

Business

Statement by Century Initiative in Response to Federal Government’s 2025-2027 Immigration Levels Plan: “Cutting immigration targets is the ultimate hammer solution to a problem far more complex than a few loose nails. This decision projects panic and instability at a time when the country needs clarity and foresight. Canada’s reputation as a stable, welcoming environment for business and talent is now at risk.” — Lisa Lalande, CEO, Century Initiative 

CFIB statement on the latest immigration cuts: These decisions hold huge implications for small business owners, Canadian workers as well as permanent immigrants and temporary workers. A restaurant owner who can’t find a cook ready and willing to work in their community will not have work for the Canadians who may work in the front of the house. We need to rethink many of these recent changes and be ready to turn the dial back up whenever and wherever needed.

Size of Ottawa’s cuts to immigration targets takes business by surprise: Since the reduction is likely to take place when the economy is becoming less inflationary and interest rates decline, this could inspire “existing Canadians to ramp up their spending,” said James Orlando, director of economics at Toronto-Dominion Bank, instead of depending upon newcomers.

Bank of Montreal economist Robert Kavcic in a note on Thursday said that while the government’s decision will reduce demand, the narrative that slower population growth is bad for the economy needs to be dispelled.

He said gross domestic product per capita, which measures the total production of goods and services during a certain period divided by the total population, has fallen in seven of the eight quarters since the second quarter of 2022.

Canada’s immigration pullback may impact economic growth, BoC governor says: “If population growth comes down faster than we have assumed, headline GDP growth will be lower,” Macklem said in response to a question on how the immigration curbs would impact the bank’s forecasts.

If household spending recovers more quickly due to continued cut in interest rates, economic growth could also be higher, he said, while addressing reporters virtually from Washington.

Other

Peter Csillag: Bigger numbers, fewer safeguards, and no accountability—How to fix Canada’s foreign worker program woes: The government’s signal this week that it is willing to not only entertain but actually implement restrictions on its broader immigration agenda is welcome, but far too little, too late. While the high-profile announcement of cuts to the number of permanent residents allowed into Canada is much needed, broader problems persist, particularly with the TFW program. It will be up to the next government to solve them.

Liberals to reduce immigration levels by 135K over two-year period: Sergio Karas, a specialist in immigration law agrees, he told True North that while this reduction is necessary given the housing crisis and the current state of the economy, he still believes that number should be further reduced. 

“As usual, the Trudeau government is doing it wrong,” said Karas. 

“The total number should be reduced to the 2015 levels of approximately 300,000 because the federal government inflated the number exponentially in the last nine years, but more important are the categories where the reduction should be applied. Not all applicants have the same ability to adapt, job security, language skills, and expertise required to ensure economic growth.”

Government announcement

The 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan is expected to result in a marginal population decline of 0.2% in both 2025 and 2026 before returning to a population growth of 0.8% in 2027. These forecasts account for today’s announcement of reduced targets across multiple immigration streams over the next two years, as well as expected temporary resident outflows resulting from the 5% target, natural population loss and other factors.

With this year’s levels plan, we have listened to Canadians. We are reducing our permanent resident targets. Compared to last year’s plan, we are:

  • reducing from 500,000 permanent residents to 395,000 in 2025
  • reducing from 500,000 permanent residents to 380,000 in 2026
  • setting a target of 365,000 permanent residents in 2027

The Levels Plan also supports efforts to reduce temporary resident volumes to 5% of Canada’s population by the end of 2026. Given temporary resident reduction measures announced in September and this past year, Canada’s temporary population will decrease over the next few years as significantly more temporary residents will transition to being permanent residents or leave Canada compared to new ones arriving.

Specifically, compared to each previous year, we will see Canada’s temporary population decline by

  • 445,901 in 2025
  • 445,662 in 2026
  • a modest increase of 17,439 in 2027

These reductions are the result of a series of changes over the past year, including a cap on international students and tightened eligibility requirements for temporary foreign workers, implemented to decrease volumes and strengthen the integrity and quality of our temporary resident programs. The changes are designed with long-term economic goals in mind to make sure that we continue to attract the best and the brightest.

These changes will help provinces, territories and stakeholders align their capacities and allow the population to grow at a sustainable pace as we encourage institutions to do their part in better welcoming newcomers.

Other measures from the 2025-2027 Immigration Levels Plan include the following:

  • Transitioning more temporary residents who are already in Canada as students and workers to permanent residents
    Representing more than 40% of overall permanent resident admissions in 2025, these residents are skilled, educated and integrated into Canadian society. They will continue to support the workforce and economy without placing additional demands on our social services because they are already established, with housing and employment.
  • Focusing on long-term economic growth and key labour market sectors, such as health and trades
    Permanent resident admissions in the economic class will reach 61.7% of total admissions by 2027.
  • Strengthening Francophone communities outside Quebec and supporting their economic prosperity
    Of the overall permanent resident admission targets, Francophone immigration will represent
    • 8.5% in 2025
    • 9.5% in 2026
    • 10% in 2027

Through this plan, we are using our existing programs so that everyone—including newcomers—has access to the well-paying jobs, affordable homes and social services they need to thrive in our beautiful country.

Source: Government of Canada reduces immigration


















Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Canadians increasingly divided on immigration, government research shows

2024/08/01 Leave a comment

Confirms other surveys. Karas is editorialized by adding DEI concerns to the mix as no such question was asked in the survey (https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2024/ircc/Ci4-183-1-2024-eng.pdf):

Canadians are becoming increasingly divided on the federal government’s current immigration targets, with over a third now saying we’re taking in “too many” people from other countries.

The Department of Immigration requested polling agency Ipsos conduct a national survey on its current immigration quotas. 

“Many participants felt that the targets set for the next three years, which were presented to them, were too high,” reads the survey. “They could not fathom how cities, that are already receiving high volumes of immigrants and where infrastructure is already under great strain, could accommodate the proposed targets.”

The survey cost $295,428 and included 3,000 people canvassed with two surveys and 14 focus groups.

When asked if they thought that immigration has a positive effect on their city or town, just over half, 55% agreed, while 22% said the effect has been negative. 

The results were similar when broken down provincially, with 58% saying that the immigration has had a positive effect on their province, compared to 24% who disagreed. 

Asked if immigration had a net “negative effect” on their province, 41% of Ontarians surveyed said yes, while a third of Prince Edward Islanders, 33%, and 27% of Albertans saw immigration as a net negative.

Only 48% of respondents felt that the current targets were “about the right number,” while a little over a third, 35%, said it was ‘too many.’ 

Another small cohort of 12% said that “too few” immigrants are coming to Canada. 

The “too many” sentiment was felt highest in Alberta at 52%, followed closely by Nova Scotia and Ontario at 51% and 49%, respectively.

On the national level, 63% said immigration has a positive effect and 23% said it’s negative. 

This shows the erosion of a long-held immigration consensus in Canada, one expert says.

“For the first time in recent history, support for immigration has eroded steadily amongst the public,” immigration lawyer Sergio Karas told True North.

“There are a multiplicity of reasons why this is happening. Still, the main issues are the cost of living, housing, competition for good jobs, and the general perception that the recent cohorts of immigrants do not contribute to the economy in the same way that previous generations have.”

The immigration department said the “broad sentiment” indicates support for immigration generally but with the caveat of “not right now” or “how are we going to make this work?”

Participants also expressed “strong appeals for reducing the barriers that prevent experienced newcomers from practicing in their fields of expertise,” citing nurses, teachers and skilled labourers as necessary examples. 

However, “reactions to prioritizing those with business skills were more mixed.” 

On the issue of family and immigration, respondents generally agreed on “setting a higher target for sponsoring spouses and partners, who are likely to be working-age, and a lower target for sponsoring parents and grandparents, who might put a strain on the healthcare system rather than contribute to the economy.”

Several participants suggested expediting immigration applications for healthier parents and grandparents over “frailer ones.”

“There is also resentment, especially from immigrants who have been in Canada for many years, that the current crop of newcomers is far more interested in receiving government benefits, and that their language and work skills are not up to par,” said Karas. “This seems to be especially acute about the large number of refugees that Canada has admitted.”

According to the department’s data, few participants believed that Canada was doing the “right thing” by providing asylum to large numbers of refugees. 

While some respondents recognized the “need to assist,” they were also concerned about Canada’s ability to “realistically support population growth given the current strains on public infrastructure.”

Karas said that a further reason for Canadians’ shifting opinion of immigration is the notion that the government is “admitting anyone” without properly vetting them for their skills, language ability and security. 

“While this is not always true, the public is sensitive to how immigrants from non-Western countries are changing the face of Canada,” said Karas. 

“The public concern is that the changes are too rapid and too deep and that immigrants should do more to adapt to existing customs, rather than the public being obligated to adapt to them. Current policies of  Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion have exacerbated that perception as organizations show a preference for EDI hires rather than using a merit system.”

Source: Canadians increasingly divided on immigration, government research shows

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

← Older posts

Newer posts →