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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Todd: This should be the first Canadian election that focuses on migration

I suspect, however, that it will not given that immigration, like so many other issues, is drowned out by the existential crisis of the Trump administration. But yes, appointments by PM Carney provide a hook to raise the issue and cite the excessive influence of the Century Initiative in past government policy before former immigration minister reversed course. As I have argued before, his changes provide space for immigration policy discussions without being labelled as xenophobic or racist.

Skuterud’s comments on rotating immigration ministers is valid and unfortunately former minister Miller was shuffled out by PM Carney:

A controversial appointment put migration in the headlines on the same weekend that Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a snap election.

The investment fund manager and former head of the Bank of Canada, who won the Liberal leadership contest two weeks ago, became the subject of news stories focusing on how he has chosen Mark Wiseman, an advocate for open borders, as a key adviser.

Wiseman is co-founder of the Century Initiative, a lobby group that aggressively advocates for Canada’s population to catapult to 100 million by 2100. Wiseman maintains Canada’s traditional method of “screening” people before allowing them into the country is “frankly, just a waste of time.” The immigration department’s checks, he says, are “just a bureaucracy.”

Wiseman believes migration policy should be left in the hands of business.

The appointment of Wiseman is an indication that Carney, a long-time champion of free trade in capital and labour, is gathering people around him who value exceptional migration levels and more foreign investment, including in housing.

Carney denied a charge by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre that bringing in Wiseman “shows that Mark Carney supports the Liberal Century Initiative to nearly triple our population to 100 million people. … That is the radical Liberal agenda on immigration.”

Carney tried this week to distance himself from the Century Initiative, telling reporters Wiseman will not be advising him on migration.

For years, migration issues have been taboo in Canada, says SFU political scientist Sanjay Jeram.

But the Canadian “‘immigration consensus’ that more is always better” is weakening, Jeram says. Most people believe “public opinion toward immigration has soured due to concerns that rapid population growth contributed to the housing and inflation crises.” But Jeram also thinks Canadian attitudes reflect expanding global skepticism.

Whatever the motivations, Poilievre says he would reduce immigration by roughly half, to 250,000 new citizens each year, the level before the Liberals were elected in 2015. The Conservative leader maintains the record volume of newcomers during Trudeau’s 10 years in power has fuelled the country’s housing and rental crisis.

Carney has said he would scale back the volume of immigration and temporary residents to pre-pandemic levels, which would leave them still much higher than when the Conservatives were in office.

What are the actual trends? After the Liberal came to power, immigration levels doubled and guest workers and foreign students increased by five times. Almost three million non-permanent residents now make up 7.3 per cent of the population, up from 1.4 per cent in 2015.

Meanwhile, a Leger poll this month confirmed resistance is rising. Now 58 per cent of Canadians believe migration levels are “too high.” And even half of those who have been in the country for less than a decade feel the same way.

Vancouver real-estate analyst Steve Saretsky says Carney’s embracing of a key player in the Century Initiative is a startling signal, given that migration numbers have been instrumental in pricing young people out of housing.

Saretsky worries the tariff wars started by U.S. President Donald Trump are an emotional “distraction,” making Canadian voters temporarily forget the centrality of housing. He says he is concerned Canadians may get “fooled again” by Liberal promises to slow migration, however moderately.

Bank of Canada economists James Cabral and Walter Steingress recently showed that a one per cent increase in population raises median housing prices by an average of 2.2 per cent — and in some cases by as much as six to eight per cent.

In addition to Carney’s appointment of Wiseman, what are the other signs he leans to lofty migration levels?

One is Carney’s choice of chief of staff: former immigration minister Marco Mendicino, who often boasted of how he was “making it easier” for newcomers to come to the country. Many labour economists said Mendicino’s policies, which brought in more low-skilled workers, did not make sense.

By 2023, the Liberals had a new immigration minister in Marc Miller, who began talking about reducing migration. But Carney dumped Miller out of his cabinet entirely, replacing him with backbench Montreal MP Rachel Bendayan. Prominent Waterloo University labour economist Mikal Skuterud finds it discouraging that Bendayan will be the sixth Liberal immigration minister in a decade.

New ministers, Skuterud said, are vulnerable to special interests, particularly from business.

“It’s a complicated portfolio,” Skuterud said this week. “You get captured by the private interests when you don’t really understand the system or the objectives. You’re just trying to play whack-a-mole, just trying to meet everybody’s needs.”

Skuterud is among the many economists who regret how record high levels of temporary workers have contributed to Canada being saddled with the weakest growth in GDP per capita among advanced economies.

Last week, high-profile Vancouver condo marketer Bob Rennie told an audience that he pitched Carney on a proposal to stimulate rental housing by offering a preferred rate from the Canada Mortgage Housing Corp to offshore investors.

We also learned this week that Carney invited former Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson to run as a Liberal candidate. Robertson was mayor during the time that offshore capital, mostly from China, flooded into Vancouver’s housing market. When SFU researcher Andy Yan brought evidence of it to the public’s attention, Robertson said his study had “racist tones.” Two years later, however, Robertson admitted foreign capital had hit “like a ton of bricks.”

It’s notable that Carney, as head of the Bank of England until 2020, was one of the highest-profile campaigners against Brexit, the movement to leave the European Union.

Regardless of its long-lasting implications, Brexit was significantly fuelled by Britons who wanted to protect housing prices by better controlling migration levels, which were being elevated by the EU’s Schengen system, which allows the free movement of people within 29 participating countries.

For perhaps the first time, migration will be a bubbling issue this Canadian election.

While the link to housing prices gets much of the notice, SFU’s Jeram also believes “the negative framing of immigration in the U.S. and Europe likely activated latent concerns among Canadians. It made parties aware that immigration politics may no longer be received by the public as taboo.”

Source: This should be the first Canadian election that focuses on migration

Yakabuski: Mark Carney turns the page on Justin Trudeau’s postnational Canada 

Of note:

….To be sure, Canada’s identity is strong, resilient and regenerative enough to survive without The Bay. But at a time when Canada’s existence is being threatened by our superpower neighbour and erstwhile best friend, we need leaders who are unafraid of celebrating the history of a country that remains one of the world’s most envied.

Mr. Carney seems to get it. “The ceremony we just witnessed reflects the wonder of a country built on the bedrock of three peoples: Indigenous, French, British,” he said after being sworn in on Mar. 14. “The office of Governor-General links us through the Crown and across time to Canada’s proud British heritage …Our bilingual identity makes us unique. And the French language enriches our culture.”

Of course, it will take more than replacing the words “Canadian Heritage” with “Canadian Culture and Identity” in a ministerial title for Mr. Carney to prove he is an uninhibited Canadian nationalist willing to challenge those who disparage our history and our (yes, flawed) heroes, all while encouraging a respectful dialogue about our past and future.

Still, Mr. Carney does appear to have turned the page on postnational Canada – an entity which, it must be said, only ever existed in our ex-PM’s imagination. In this respect Mr. Carney has more in common with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, a stalwart defender of Canadian symbols and all things John A. Macdonald. They are both post-postnationalists.

Vive le Canada.

Source: Mark Carney turns the page on Justin Trudeau’s postnational Canada

Lisée: Identité canadienne, après l’éclipse [change of emphasis and tone, citizenship ceremonies]

Lisée also notes Poilievre’s commitment to restore in person citizenship ceremonies, a welcome change given that the vast majority are virtual:

….Poilievre a dégainé le premier, dans son discours de refondation de ses thèmes électoraux, le 15 février, sous le slogan « Canada d’abord ». Il fut question de pipelines et de baisses d’impôt, mais pas seulement de ça. Il a annoncé la fin de « la guerre contre notre histoire », en particulier la guerre contre le fondateur du pays, John A. Macdonald, qui a eu le grand mérite d’être conservateur. Son successeur, s’il est élu, veut « renforcer les sanctions contre ceux qui détruisent ou dégradent nos symboles ». Il annonce aussi le retour des héros et des symboles canadiens sur les pages de notre passeport, évincés comme on le sait par l’équipe postnationale de Justin.

Il peste, avec raison, contre l’introduction par le désormais ancien régime de cérémonies d’assermentation à la citoyenneté à distance. Non seulement il rétablira l’obligation de se présenter en personne, mais il ajoutera un passage au serment. Le voici : « Je témoigne ma gratitude à ceux qui ont travaillé, se sont sacrifiés et ont donné leur vie pour défendre la liberté dont je me réjouis aujourd’hui et pour bâtir le pays que j’appelle maintenant mon chez-moi. Comme eux, je m’engage à remplir mes devoirs de citoyen canadien. »

Pour mémoire, car c’est difficile d’y croire, le serment actuel est : « Je jure que je serai fidèle et porterai sincère allégeance à Sa Majesté le roi Charles III, roi du Canada, à ses héritiers et successeurs ; que j’observerai fidèlement les lois du Canada, y compris la Constitution, qui reconnaît et confirme les droits ancestraux ou issus de traités des Premières Nations, des Inuits et des Métis, et que je remplirai loyalement mes obligations de citoyen canadien. »

Avouez que cette simple lecture fait douter de l’existence d’une identité canadienne, du moins autre qu’indigène et royale.

Mark Carney n’a pas voulu être en reste. Dès son premier jour, il a créé un ministère de l’Identité canadienne. Pour un pays qui n’en avait officiellement aucune la veille, la chose est immense. Parmi ses premiers mots prononcés, notre nouveau chef de gouvernement a affirmé que « notre identité bilingue et la langue française enrichissent notre culture », car le Canada est « un pays construit sur le roc de trois peuples : indigène, français et britannique ». Le mot « multiculturalisme » ne fut pas prononcé. C’est à peine si fut mentionnée, au passage, la diversité. On sent donc une réelle volonté de se recentrer sur les fondamentaux. D’autant que Carney a de suite pris l’avion vers les trois pôles identitaires désignés : Paris, Londres et Iqaluit.

Mais à part nous annoncer que nous avons désormais une « identité bilingue », en quoi consiste celle-ci ? Il a choisi un Québécois, Steven Guilbeault, pour chapeauter le nouveau ministère, qui n’a pas dans son intitulé la responsabilité des langues officielles, mais qui y gagne au change, car il obtient la gestion des parcs du Canada. Le lien avec l’identité vous échappe ? Pas au premier ministre, qui explique que « la question de l’identité canadienne est beaucoup plus large que seulement les langues officielles. C’est beaucoup plus que notre héritage. Nous construisons l’identité canadienne, et c’est vraiment la clé ». Oui, car, dit-il, elle « inclut la nature ». Le ministre Guilbeault est chargé de « mettre ensemble toutes les responsabilités qui concernent la nature, les océans, la biodiversité, et de s’assurer que toutes ces choses sont protégées et promues ».

Résumons. Notre identité est bilingue, assise sur un roc, alliage de riches veines françaises, britanniques et indigènes, mais inclut la nature, les océans et la biodiversité. Cela fait un peu bouillabaisse, convenons-en. Mais on campe résolument dans l’anti-postmoderne, ce qui est archinouveau, non ? Reste à insérer le tout dans le serment.

On sent que Steven Guilbeault va bientôt s’ennuyer d’un dossier bien plus simple : rendre vert un pays producteur de pétrole.

Source: Identité canadienne, après l’éclipse

…. Poilievre drew the first, in his speech of refoundation of his electoral themes, on February 15, under the slogan “Canada first”. There was talk of pipelines and tax cuts, but not only that. He announced the end of “the war against our history”, in particular the war against the founder of the country, John A. McDonald’s, who had the great merit of being conservative. His successor, if elected, wants to “strengthen sanctions against those who destroy or degrade our symbols”. He also announces the return of Canadian heroes and symbols on the pages of our passport, ousted as we know by Justin’s post-national team.

He rightly plagues against the introduction by the now old regime of ceremonies of oathing to remote citizenship. Not only will he reinstate the obligation to appear in person, but he will add a passage to the oath. Here it is: “I express my gratitude to those who worked, sacrificed themselves and gave their lives to defend the freedom I look forward to today and to build the country that I now call my home. Like them, I am committed to fulfilling my duties as a Canadian citizen. ”

For the record, because it is hard to believe, the current oath is: “I swear that I will be faithful and pledge sincere allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, King of Canada, to his heirs and successors; that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and confirms the ancestral or treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and that I will faithfully fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen. ”

Admit that this simple reading makes us doubt the existence of a Canadian identity, at least other than indigenous and royal.

Mark Carney didn’t want to be left behind. From his first day, he created a Canadian Ministry of Identity. For a country that officially had none the day before, the thing is immense. Among his first words, our new head of government said that “our bilingual identity and the French language enrich our culture”, because Canada is “a country built on the rock of three peoples: indigenous, French and British”. The word “multiculturalism” was not pronounced. It is hardly if diversity was mentioned, in passing. We therefore feel a real desire to refocus on the fundamentals. Especially since Carney immediately flew to the three designated identity poles: Paris, London and Iqaluit.

But apart from announcing that we now have a “bilingual identity”, what does it consist of? He chose a Quebecer, Steven Guilbeault, to oversee the new ministry, which does not have responsibility for official languages in its title, but which wins in exchange, because it obtains the management of Canada’s parks. Does the link with identity escape you? Not to the Prime Minister, who explains that “the issue of Canadian identity is much broader than just official languages. It’s much more than our legacy. We’re building Canadian identity, and that’s really the key.” Yes, because, he says, it “includes nature”. Minister Guilbeault is responsible for “putting together all the responsibilities that concern nature, the oceans, biodiversity, and ensuring that all these things are protected and promoted”.

Let’s summarize. Our identity is bilingual, sitting on a rock, an alloy of rich French, British and indigenous veins, but includes nature, oceans and biodiversity. It’s a little bouillabaisse, let’s agree. But we camp resolutely in the anti-postmodern, which is arch-new, right? It remains to insert everything into the oath.

We feel that Steven Guilbeault will soon get bored of a much simpler file: making an oil-producing country green.