More commentary on reduced immigration levels

More of the commentary that I found interesting and relevant:

The Line: Dispatch from The Front Lines: Have a great trip, Jen! And where are they moving? Right now, public opinion is probably fairly reasonably grounded in reality. We think it would be broadly true today to say that Canadians still see value in immigration in the abstract, and remain good at welcoming newcomers into their own communities. We suspect that most of us have direct relationships with immigrants, and have better lives for those relationships. But we are very worried. Many of the problems that our recently unchecked immigration rates have caused or (more fairly) contributed to — including overwhelmed social services and the housing crisis — are going to continue getting worse for a number of years, since so much is already baked in. This is scary, and could mean that we see anti-immigration sentiment evolve explicitly into anti-immigrant sentiment. That would take what we have today, an embarrassing public-policy failure, and turn it into a genuine social nightmare, one from which it could take many years to recover, as newcomers pay the price for our policy failures and report back home that Canada is a place to avoid at all costs.

So, great. It’s nice to have something to look forward to. Right?

But there was one other issue that jumped out at us after the announcement this week. Both Prime Minister Trudeau and Immigration Minister Marc Miller made all-too political acknowledgments of responsibility. The prime minister went so far as to concede that his government “didn’t get the balance quite right.” Not to be outdone in the race for the most fearless and blunt mea culpa, Miller said, “Did we take too long to adjust? I think there is some responsibility there to assume.”

Wow! By whom? Tell us more, minister!

Look, let’s be blunt about this. Both your Line editors support immigration. And we both know that there is plenty of blame to go around. Many business interests and provincial leaders were desperate for more people. The federal government didn’t come up with the idea of ramping up growth to unsustainable levels all on its own. They had a lot of friends and a lot of help. The buck does stop with them. And we’re not going to let them get away with their attempts to deflect the blame. But it is fair to note that a lot of people were demanding this, and that our failure to roll out enough housing and social services to keep up with the demand rests on us, not on the people we invited to start new lives in this country. They are victims here. We sold them a bill of goods we had no ability or willingness to deliver upon. And we should be ashamed of ourselves for that. We have essentially defrauded people who just wanted to build a better lives for themselves and their families so that we could keep reaping the economic benefits of their arrival, and we kept doing that until the moment that it stopped being a good deal for us. Some future descendent of Justin Trudeau is probably going to have to offer up a tearful apology for this in a century or so. 

And it’ll take that long, clearly. This was the feds’ responsibility, and they screwed it up. It would not kill them to admit as much, openly and clearly, with a bit less of a masterclass in the passive voice than what Miller just offered the voters.

Globe editorial: Canada’s past and present were built on immigration. Our future will be too. Ottawa responded too slowly to rectify its mistakes but last week moved past tinkering. Count it as a turning point. The changes will help start to restore broad confidence in an immigration system that was long embraced by Canadians, respected around the world – and helped to build this country over many decades.

Immigration changes a ‘black eye’ for businesses, families, students, warns B.C. lawyer
“Businesses are going to suffer. The people on the ground right now — the workers here, the people on temporary status — are suffering. The students (are) totally gutted,” said Victoria immigration lawyer David Aujla. “We had a really pro-refugee, pro-humanitarian outlook, accepting people who were in crises. I think that’s going to take a big hit. I think Canada’s now got a black eye.”

The new changes will be very difficult for some newcomers waiting to bring relatives to Canada, said Jonathan Oldman, CEO of the Immigrant Services Society of B.C.

The reductions, though, will make the new levels of permanent residents similar to what happened before COVID-19, said Oldman, whose agency helps settle more than 25,000 people each year who come to B.C. for humanitarian, economic or family reunification reasons.

Will Tao, an immigration lawyer with the Burnaby law firm Heron, worries these changes are designed to “nudge” people to leave Canada if they’re facing long waiting times to become permanent residents.

“They’re obviously scared and concerned,” he said of his clients.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government didn’t get the “balance quite right” when it increased immigration targets over recent years. But Tao said achieving that balance isn’t as simple as slashing targets, which affect people from countries ranging from war-stricken Ukraine to Afghanistan where women and girls are at risk.

The impact includes post-secondary schools losing a “cash cow” of funding by losing international students, who pay far higher tuition than Canadian youth.

Tao also said some employers in the last week have pulled their support for a Labour Market Impact Assessment, a document that’s necessary to hire foreign workers, because they can’t afford the new federally mandated increase in wages for temporary foreign workers.

And while fewer immigrants may lead to less competition for affordable housing, will Canada also lose the temporary residents who are construction workers building the much-need housing?

“Immigration is a driver of economic growth and is the primary source of population growth in the near term,” Fiona Famulak, the chamber’s president, said in a statement last week. “Decreasing the labour pool will therefore add to (businesses’s) burden, not improve it, in the coming years.”

High-profile Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said his email inbox has been clogged with messages from clients, lawyers and immigration consultants looking for solutions to this “fiasco” created by the federal government.

Those wanting to increase their chances of permanent residency should “look at your options seriously and immediately.”

C.D. Howe Institute Advisory Group on Immigration Targets: In conclusion, the Advisory Group agreed that Canada’s immigration system requires reform to better balance population growth with the country’s economic capacity. With some members supporting an annual intake of under one percent of the population for permanent immigration, the group broadly supported a gradual reduction in both permanent and temporary immigration over the coming years, with a focus on maintaining sustainable, long-term levels. Members stressed the need for a stable, transparent immigration policy that prioritizes high-skilled immigrants, addresses housing and healthcare challenges, and restores public confidence. They called for a more rigorous assessment of immigration programs and improved enforcement capacity, urging the government to set realistic, evidence-based immigration targets.

St-Arnaud : Ottawa’s cut to immigration flow may lead to economic challenges: The recent years are an example of how Canada’s immigration policies can dramatically affect the economy. The government went from one extreme, the population growing too fast, to another, growing too little. This volatility shows that both extremes can lead to economic challenges.

Orsini: Canada has lost its reputation for bringing in the best and brightest students: So what can the federal government do to rebuild Canada’s global reputation? First, when in a deep hole, stop digging. The blunt policy changes have created confusion and uncertainty, which is discouraging students from coming to Canada. We need the world’s top scientists, researchers and innovators to help grow our economy and to make up for our slowing labour-force growth rate.

Second, the federal government needs to accelerate its targeted approach to international student enrolment through a simplified and streamlined “Recognized Institutional Framework” that incentivizes good performance and focuses on quality programming and students applying to Canada. Unfortunately, including master’s and PhD students under the international student cap will further discourage highly skilled students from coming to Canada, and add further delays to an already lengthy process.

Third, the federal government needs to work with the provinces, industry and the postsecondary sector to rebuild our brand so that Canada once again becomes a destination for top talent from around the world. Our country has lost our global reputation as a top destination for talent because of changes like the latest student-permit cuts.

Alicia Planincic: What will the cut in immigration mean for Canada’s economy?  The result, however, is that at least 40 percent of the now more limited spots available for permanent residency (395,000 in 2025) will be granted based on whether a candidate is already in Canada rather than who brings the most value to the Canadian economy, longer-term. Though it’s difficult without more information to determine the extent of the impact, many current temporary residents work in lower-skill positions, meaning that higher-skill candidates—the engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and skilled tradespeople—who don’t yet live here could be passed over as a result.

Blit: Ottawa’s immigration cut is a chance to boost productivity: Ottawa’s policy shift sends the right signal. But further changes to immigration policy are needed. It’s time to end the recently introduced category-based immigrant selection process, which encourages companies to invest in lobbying rather than in technology. We need a full return to the “points system,” one that’s data-driven and targets the most highly skilled talent to fuel innovation and growth. The best and brightest knowledge workers are not only productive themselves, they can make others around them more productive as well.

Last week’s announcement, then, is more than just a return to sensible immigration levels. It’s a rallying cry to Canadian businesses: no more shortcuts. If Canada’s economyis going to thrive in the 21st century, it will be through ingenuity, investment and the right kind of talent – not an endless supply of cheap labour.

Century Initiative | Slashing immigration is a political shortcut, not a real solution: When a country faces large-scale social or economic change, as Canada does, we need leadership from government, and a vision based on where we are today and where we can aspire to go. Instead, we’re seeing our policymakers swing from month to month based on the opinion environment, chasing after the low-hanging fruit to reduce demand for housing over the nation-building need to plan for supply.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can replace these fragmented, whack-a-mole efforts with a long-term, national smart growth framework — one that builds inroads between immigration targets and housing, workforce, and infrastructure.

It’s not enough to change the tires; we need to rebuild a more resilient economic engine for Canada’s future. [I almost have pity for the CI given how rapidly the debate has turned]