Two similar takes, focussing on the welcome and rare, compared to other countries, support for immigration across political parties.
Starting with Ivison:
In mid-May, Bloc Québecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet put his Conservative counterpart, Pierre Poilievre, in a ticklish spot.
The Bloc introduced a motion denouncing the goal of an organization called the Century Initiative — co-founded by former ambassador to China Dominic Barton — to increase Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100. It is a goal consistent with the federal government’s immigration intake targets, the motion said; a goal that would diminish the French language and Quebec’s political weight, as well as adversely impact housing and health-care availability.
The Conservatives, always keen to curry favour in Quebec, supported the motion that called on the House to reject the Century Initiative objectives. That allowed NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan to claim Poilievre “wants fewer immigrants to come to Canada.”
“The Conservative leader is showing his true colours and giving Canadians a sneak peek into how a Conservative government would set the country back decades,” she said.
That would be big news, if true. It would suggest that the postwar consensus that has characterized Canadian attitudes towards immigration for the past four decades is under threat, and that a future Conservative government would dramatically reduce the number of permanent residents arriving in Canada every year.
The problem with Kwan’s claim is that there is no evidence to support it in anything Poilievre or his immigration critic, Tom Kmiec, has said publicly.
In his contribution to the debate on the Bloc motion, Poilievre criticized wait times for those caught up in the immigration backlog, and the failure by the government to speed up credentials recognition for foreign-trained doctors and nurses.
“It boils my blood, sitting for five hours in hospital with my daughter, who has a migraine headache, that there are not enough doctors and nurses, while the gatekeepers block them,” he said.
True, he took potshots at Barton and criticized the Century Initiative goals as a “Utopian idea.” But his plan is to make the system more dynamic, not blow it up. “We don’t need Utopian schemes, what we need is some common sense,” he said.
Kmiec’s critique has been focused on the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, which he pointed out has seen its budget double since 2016, yet still has a 2.4-million application backlog.
The Conservatives, he said, would put greater emphasis on employer-driven immigration streams and address critical labour needs, such as the 100,000 construction workers the province of Ontario says it is short.
There have been no attacks from the Conservatives on what Maxime Bernier has called “radical multiculturalism,” which the wild-eyed People’s Party leader defined as “the misguided belief that all values and cultures can co-exist in one society.”
Bernier will have noted that recent public opinion polls suggest around 40 per cent of respondents think the Trudeau government’s immigration targets — 500,000 permanent newcomers in 2025 — are too high. He will also be aware that Conservative voters are most concerned that immigration is a burden, not a benefit.
His party claims immigration should not be used to “forcibly change the cultural character and social fabric” of the country and that target numbers should be substantially reduced to between 100,000 and 150,000. They are arguments that will resonate with many Conservative voters.
Yet, on this issue at least, Poilievre has not pandered to his political base.
This is curious, given that there are growing calls from policy experts for the government to re-examine its targets, or at least rein in the number of temporary residents coming to Canada.
In 2022, there were 437,000 new permanent residents, in line with the government’s projected target. But there were also 1.6 million workers and students who arrived as temporary residents — far more than had been anticipated.
Statistics Canada projects the population of Canada will be as much as 43 million within five years, but those projections could prove off-base if the growth in non-permanent residents continues at the current pace.
Lisa Lalande, chief executive of the Century Initiative, said there are legitimate concerns about the deepening housing crisis and the accessibility of quality jobs. “Without planned, strategic investments, population growth will put a strain on the quality of life. We have always advocated for smart, planned population growth,” she said.
Mike Moffat, senior director of the Smart Prosperity Initiative at the University of Ottawa, tracked the impact on the housing market of 504,618 new arrivals in Ontario in 2022–23.
In a similar time period, 71,838 new units were built, almost half of which were one-bedroom apartments — a new home for every seven people.
“There is a real risk that Canada runs if it doesn’t get its housing situation in order — namely the consensus (on immigration) could crumble,” Moffat said.
He pointed out there is no cap on non-permanent residents.
In particular, the number of international students has soared, to the point where enrollment numbers for Ontario’s colleges suggest that half of all students this year will have come from overseas. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that a large number are essentially guest workers, registering for some classes online while spending most of their week working in coffee shops and gas stations. Since the federal government is responsible for issuing those entry visas, this is one area that one might expect to see Poilievre promise to clamp down.
Yet, in a speech to Parliament, he accused the government of allowing international students to be abused and exploited by “human traffickers and shady consultants.”
Poilievre’s reasons are not that hard to fathom. Aside from the fact that his wife, Anaida, arrived in Canada as a refugee from Venezuela, Poilievre is competing for the support of the votes of many recent immigrants to Canada in the suburbs around the big cities. Not surprisingly, they are very keen on maintaining high family reunification numbers.
He is also aware that the majority of Canadians are in favour of secure, economically driven immigration. For all the comparisons with Donald Trump — contempt for civility, “insiders” and experts — Poilievre is an economic conservative, not a culture warrior.
It all suggests that the Conservative leader is not “anti-immigration,” as Kwan claimed, and that the political consensus on bringing in hundreds of thousands of newcomers to this country every year continues, whoever wins the next election.
That is to Canada’s advantage. “Immigration has not been a political issue in past elections because the political parties, the business community and Canadians in general have recognized the importance of immigration to our long-term prosperity,” said Lalande. “If it does become a political issue, it’s to our detriment.”
Source: John Ivison: As immigration doubts grow, Poilievre keeps the faith
In the Globe, Lawrence Martin, Canada’s best story might be immigration:
In the run-up to Canada’s 156th birthday celebrations there were reports, based on what people were telling pollsters, saying that Canada has never been more divided.
It appears these people weren’t around in the late 1980s and early 1990s when Quebec was aflame, when the West was up in arms with the Reform Party, when our deficits and debt approached Third World-levels, when we faced a crippling recession, when the separatist Bloc Québécois was our Official Opposition party, when a Quebec referendum nearly tore the country apart.
Conditions are worse now than then? Who are they trying to kid?
As a measure of today’s alleged divisiveness, the pessimists may wish to consider the issue of immigration. By the numbers, Canada is growing in leaps and bounds, with more than 400,000 newcomers arriving annually. According to Statistics Canada, the country’s annual population growth rate is currently 2.7 per cent, the highest it’s been since 1957.
Such incoming waves can test the temper of any land. They have certainly done so in other countries. But how much prejudice, acrimony, or backlash have we seen in Canada? By comparison, a pittance. Our huge influx of newcomers has proceeded calmly, and peaceably – and it’s a tribute to the character of Canadians and the strength of the national fabric.
On Canada Day, praise for the country was not in abundance. In these times it’s the curmudgeons who hold court. But while there are plenty of things to grouse about, how we are doing on the critically important issue of immigration is not one of them.
We’re dwarfing our competitors, outpacing the population growth rate of the United States, Great Britain and other G7 countries by large percentages. Some countries’ populations have also stagnated or are tumbling, like that of Russia’s or China’s.
Canada’s large number of retiring baby boomers and its lower birth rate necessitate the great expansion. It is indispensable to nation-building.
The influx is accompanied by many problems, like housing shortages, that are not to be underestimated. But these hardly compare to the situations in the United States and the countries of Europe and elsewhere where the arrival of immigrant waves have become powder kegs, triggering bigotry, racism and hard-right movements that threaten stability and democracy.
Immigrants to Canada are not feared, but welcomed. Some have gone so far as to say we’re creating a multicultural Mecca. That’s a bit of a stretch. But how many other countries are doing better at cultivating a more diverse and inclusive society; an ethnic mosaic?
Politically, the country has become increasingly polarized. But immigration is one big issue that offers an exception. There is consensus among the major parties for the expansion.
With the influx, abetted by several government programs, comes an infusion of brains, talent, and creativity. While we once worried about a brain drain to the U.S., it’s now the U.S. that should be worried about a brain drain in our direction. The Trump administration viewed foreign-born scientists and engineers as a threat. Washington cut back on visas allowing highly educated foreigners residence, leaving an opening that Ottawa has happily taken advantage of.
Immigration from India is an example. In recent years, the number of Indians moving to Canada has tripled. At Canadian colleges and universities, the number of Indian students has boomed, while the number of science and engineering graduate students from India at American universities has steadily declined in recent years.
Where immigration may run into strong opposition is in its potential to exacerbate the housing shortage crisis. If Canada can’t adequately house its population, critics can reasonably challenge the advisability of bringing in so many newcomers.
But while he is a staunch critic of the government’s housing policies, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has steered clear of placing the blame on immigration policies. To go there would run the risk, given Canadian sensibilities, of charges of prejudice and racism. People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier has called for major decreases in immigration numbers, but the issue hasn’t helped him at the polls. This isn’t the United States.
The housing crunch and other stresses, such as fears in Quebec over the declining use of French, need to be weighed against the advantages. As economists attest, given our labour force shortages, newcomers are required to sustain Canada’s economic growth. New brain power is necessary if we are to improve our dismal record on productivity.
Throughout history, immigration has shaped Canada. It is doing so now on an even more imposing scale. Few issues are of more importance. It is our big story and it may be our best.
Source: Canada’s best story might be immigration
Multicultural Meanderings 