I am an immigrant myself (recent citizen). And I can tell you with confidence that the resentment towards NEW or UPCOMING immigrants is equally strong among existing immigrants. This is not a case of climb the ladder and pulling it up before the next person gets on it. This is a basic acknowledgement of the realities facing every single Canadian - native, immigrant or otherwise - that high immigration is leading to unsustainable pressures on infrastructure.
This is absolutely one of your best columns in recent memory, especially when you get into economic inequality and culture.
A pluralistic, live-and-let-live society can't survive the wholesale demonization of its history and culture. (And ours is one to be proud of: Our birth brought English and French, Catholics and Protestants, together). True, too, that economic inequality will hit new Canadians the hardest.
The Liberal/NDP wheelhouse used to be equality, economic injustice, and Canadian nationalism, but they've swapped the first two for critical race and gender theory, and trashed the third. (I worry Poilievre may whore for PPC votes, but his personal family history gives some comfort, and one thing is certain: We can't survive our current direction.
One of the features of the Trudeau government is that their policy seems to derive from analysis no deeper than watching a TED Talk. They'll seize on a glib observation, and charge ahead into something that feels right to them despite no more than a superficial understanding.
In the case of immigration, the Liberals justified themselves with the observation that it can counter the effects of population aging while also catering to the interests of various ethnic blocs in their voter coalition and suiting warm and fuzzy ideas about Canadian diversity.
In budgeting, they saw that Canada was in decent fiscal shape and could afford to run minor deficits, which allowed them to justify increased spending. They also glibly assumed "budgets balance themselves." There's an element of truth to that, but it's not sufficient. It also ironically undercuts Liberal claims to the great achievement of balanced budgets in the '90s by waving it away as a mere effect of a growing economy.
In energy and electric vehicles, the Liberals have gotten swept away by ideas that alternative energy sources are ready to replace conventional fossil fuels and a "climate crisis" compels immediate action. There's been little or no deep strategic analysis of how to transition a heavily energy-dependent Canadian economy. On electric cars, Liberals saw they were the new hot thing and decided we needed to be part of it. That manifested as shoveling huge sums into luring manufacturers here without actually positioning Canada to be part of the value chain.
Shallow understanding, shallow thinking, and getting caught by surprise by the fully predictable (and predicted) consequences - that's the Trudeau Liberals.
Great article. A hundred years ago, when someone got on a ship to emigrate to Canada they had to assume that they might never return and might never see their friends and loved ones again. Immigration to Canada was pretty much a life-long commitment. That helped inspire those people to work hard at building in their new land. With today's modern financial system, modern communications and air travel immigration isn't necessarily the same kind of commitment (unless you are a refugee that is). You can try Canada out and, if it doesn't work, you can return or move on to, say, the United States. On the one hand, this is good for the individual: there is no irreversible error. On the other hand, it is less good for Canada. To combat this, you need a strong, positive narrative that makes people want to stay. As you wrote, we no longer have a positive narrative. My mother arrived in Canada at Pier 21 seventy-five years ago. Prior to that, she and her family had been in a DP camp in Germany. My grandfather had decided they were going to Brazil and when he heard that she had arranged passage to Canada, he didn't speak to her for three weeks. Of course, he and the rest of the family followed soon after. Years later, he told my mother that he had been wrong ,she had been right and that Canada was the best country in the world. I hear less of that narrative these days and it's a shame because, despite everything, it still is.
While I fundamentally disagree with the premise that high immigration levels, permanent and temporary, are needed (most demographers note the limited impact), I do share the worry regarding the breakdown of the general consensus that immigration has and continues to benefit Canada and Canadians. But not the current and projected levels. Given the difficulties in ramping up housing, healthcare etc, the most rationale solution is trimming levels as the National Bank argues.
On whether or not the Conservatives should "articulate a Canadian identity and set of values," or just focus on the practicalities of housing, healthcare etc, I suspect the latter is a safer approach as it avoids being tarred with being xenophobic or racist. Housing and healthcare apply to both immigrants and non-immigrants, albeit more to immigrants as you note.
So I am reasonably optimistic that one can have a reasoned debate, as virtually all the recent commentary has demonstrated.
Here on Prince Edward Island many locals are starting to resent immigrants because of the housing shortage. If concrete measures are not started immediately, then we will have full blown racism break out here. And that would be simply sad. Our social services are unable to keep up.
When people say that "Canada is becoming a third world country", they were either joking or thought to be delusional. But now Canada is facing a problem that's literally associated with third world countries issue.
It might be that I am clinging to an inherent optimism from growing up in this absolute fluke of a place where this was true for so much of my life. Nevertheless, more than I have faith in the Conservatives to pull any of this off, specifically, I have faith that while our consensus on immigration levels is absolutely waning - I still don't believe that there is enough animosity among the average Canadian towards immigrants themselves that going nativist would be a winning Conservative strategy. I feel like they simply wouldn't have the support for this.
Jen, an interesting take on the issue but let's look at a couple of your points; brushing off Alberta's concerns about high immigration with a "fine whatever" is a bit dismissive don't you think? How much does Alberta contribute to the economy and government pockets that keep this country going but just dismiss them. Second, Ontario is the recipient of immigrants in very high numbers - why is beyond me what with the costs and all but if Ontario is turning then there is an issue!
A woman who used to work with me who had immigrated from Russia with her family told me that she moved to small city Saskatchewan in able to improve her English and to avoid living in a Russian speaking country in a country in Toronto. It was her opinion that - in the 80's - Canada was allowing too many immigrants to live in enclaves where they never had to learn English or French and could live in their own language adn be served in their own language. She summed it up as 'Canada is crazy to allow this!' So what has changed? Nothing, it has gotten worse.
You didn't mention the fact that we have doctors, lawyers, nurses, engineers, and so forth who were trained in their home countries but can't get their credentials recognized in Canada. The woman above was a doctor, her husband was an engineer but worked as a carpenter here. How is it that we can't have a doctor from India have credentials recognized after a short period of time integrating and then turn him/her lose to practice? Why is there an Indian trained lawyer/accountant working as a greeter in a large chain store because we don't accept his credentials - last I knew one plus one equaled two all over the world except in Canada where it is a colonial construct.
If you think that multi generationla Canadians are going to benefit from high housing prices and so forth you best think again. Our federal government is looking at taxing the sale of a principal residence just like it is wanting to tax an under-utilized housing unit. Canadians are looking at reduced productivity, reduced GDP numbers, reduced foreign investment and increased taxes for the foreseeable future. You also need to think that increased numbers of workers are going to drive down real wages and productivity - if the employee can't speak english or french how will he/she end up with a good job?
I'm not against immigration but we need to get a handle on how we make the process work. Simply opening the flood gates with no plan is a plan of failure. With no requirement to become 'Canadian' then we end up with the issues we see played out on the streets today - support for terrorists. That support is not just the shouts or 'river to sea' but the machine gun secals on cars in Regina and other cities, sticker of terrorist leaders on vehicles and so forth.
One thing you can say is that JT is going to claim that a CPC government will take us all back to the 50's. In a lot of ways that may not be a bad thing - Canada built large projects, had a plan and goals, expected immigrants to integrate and immigrants gladly integrated to belong to Canada and to call themselves Canadian adn they knew that if they worked hard they would succeed and that their kids would do even better. Now, I'm not at all sure that any of that is the case in the Canada outside my window.
Poilievre talks with all Canadians in his myriad of youtube vids, plenty of cultures, and his repsectful holiday greetings are refreshing compared to leftist pandering. Watch and see his dedication to the Canada that Liberals destroyed.
I actually think Pierre more than many of them is capable of striking balance on this issue because of his wife. Finding the comm ability to not let it splinter the conservatives though - that is another story. Fingers crossed he can manage it.
Jen, great article. Very good points. However, with respect to your comment "the odious debates about illegal and uncontrolled immigration south of the border. (The fact that we don't have a lot of illegal or uncontrolled immigration owing to our geography has always allowed us to be unduly smug on the issue.) " The debate may not seem so odious if you lived on the US/Mexico border and paid taxes there. Consider the uproar in Canada over Roxham Road - the numbers were miniscule compared to what happens every day in the US. I believe that the residents of the US that live on the US/Mexico border have a valid complaint.
- The Liberals are slyly telegraphing that immigration may be exacerbating the housing crisis, but also slyly playing a blame game. Unrepentant about their own ludicrous immigration targets for the housing crisis, numerous government officials are eyeing the temporary foreign workers and international students and targeting them for a huge reduction in numbers. Full speed ahead on their own territory though.
- We need to build a lot of housing both as rentals and single family dwellings. Over time, this might bring down the median price point of all housing but don’t bet on it. If the needs are constrained by a lack of skilled tradesmen and building materials then the inflationary pressures will continue to push up costs. Also, how many lenders will be happy to see their housing portfolios decline in value over the next 20 years? Everyone hates inflation, but deflation is a concern too.
- The economic outlook is so grim for anyone under the age of 30, how can we expect them to have children that will sustain our population? What a sad mess. Having to open floodgates for immigrants because our young people can’t have affordable housing and decent healthcare to sustain a growing family. Which reminds me, everything is local but access to obstetrical care in my sightline is limited. The days of delivering babies in a rural hospital setting is as outdated as Bonanza reruns.
- The Conservatives may not have the will or the tools to solve some of these challenges, but the opportunity is there to try. Canadians who are paying attention know that our country is up to its neck in trouble and some determination and grit to face the backlash from some corners will be rewarded.
Recent tributes to Ed Broadbent reminded me of a significant shift that has taken place in political outlook. Once upon a time political leaders put forward their ideas of what would work to make the country/world a better place and folks debated them, picked one and voted for their guy. How long has it been now that the main, probably the only, objective is to WIN? Period, full stop.
Say whatever it takes; stir up whatever emotion will work for you and beat it to death until the electorate gets angry enough, or hates the other guy so intensely that they'll vote for you. Then muck around with the power you've "earned" until the tide shifts again and around we go again.
I think the notion of a consensus at the parliament level on this topic very important. Debating the number of immigrants is not racist or xenophobic, it is an operational issue as to how Canada accommodates the numbers in all the very obvious ways - healthcare, housing, work, etc.
The question for PP and the Tories in general is how prepared are they to work in consensus-oriented fashion? I am not confident that he and they are as, per Jen's observation, the Prime Directive is 'own-the-Libs' at all costs. Frankly, JT has so damaged the overall Liberal brand that I believe that a grown up conversation on this issue won't deliver the next election to them no matter what the outcome (that is, a sensible, practical, and doable policy fair to the immigrants and to the country).
One aspect doesn't get much attention and that is the percentage of the new arrivals that are students. As we all know, students pay three to four times what domestic students pay and so the universities are incented to pull in as many as possible in order to square their books. If numbers are driven down with a consensus-oriented immigration policy, then the provinces, God help us, are going to have find the funds to make up the difference. Underinvestment in the universities has been a decades long problem which has been papered over with foreign student revenues. Perhaps it is time to correct this matter. (Also, some percentage of students go home after completing their studies; another percentage never goes to school and simply disappears into the general population - not sure how they administratively do this long-term, but apparently it is an issue.)
Pieces like those are why I subscribe. My God, you guys are good.
I am an immigrant myself (recent citizen). And I can tell you with confidence that the resentment towards NEW or UPCOMING immigrants is equally strong among existing immigrants. This is not a case of climb the ladder and pulling it up before the next person gets on it. This is a basic acknowledgement of the realities facing every single Canadian - native, immigrant or otherwise - that high immigration is leading to unsustainable pressures on infrastructure.
This is absolutely one of your best columns in recent memory, especially when you get into economic inequality and culture.
A pluralistic, live-and-let-live society can't survive the wholesale demonization of its history and culture. (And ours is one to be proud of: Our birth brought English and French, Catholics and Protestants, together). True, too, that economic inequality will hit new Canadians the hardest.
The Liberal/NDP wheelhouse used to be equality, economic injustice, and Canadian nationalism, but they've swapped the first two for critical race and gender theory, and trashed the third. (I worry Poilievre may whore for PPC votes, but his personal family history gives some comfort, and one thing is certain: We can't survive our current direction.
One of the features of the Trudeau government is that their policy seems to derive from analysis no deeper than watching a TED Talk. They'll seize on a glib observation, and charge ahead into something that feels right to them despite no more than a superficial understanding.
In the case of immigration, the Liberals justified themselves with the observation that it can counter the effects of population aging while also catering to the interests of various ethnic blocs in their voter coalition and suiting warm and fuzzy ideas about Canadian diversity.
In budgeting, they saw that Canada was in decent fiscal shape and could afford to run minor deficits, which allowed them to justify increased spending. They also glibly assumed "budgets balance themselves." There's an element of truth to that, but it's not sufficient. It also ironically undercuts Liberal claims to the great achievement of balanced budgets in the '90s by waving it away as a mere effect of a growing economy.
In energy and electric vehicles, the Liberals have gotten swept away by ideas that alternative energy sources are ready to replace conventional fossil fuels and a "climate crisis" compels immediate action. There's been little or no deep strategic analysis of how to transition a heavily energy-dependent Canadian economy. On electric cars, Liberals saw they were the new hot thing and decided we needed to be part of it. That manifested as shoveling huge sums into luring manufacturers here without actually positioning Canada to be part of the value chain.
Shallow understanding, shallow thinking, and getting caught by surprise by the fully predictable (and predicted) consequences - that's the Trudeau Liberals.
Great article. A hundred years ago, when someone got on a ship to emigrate to Canada they had to assume that they might never return and might never see their friends and loved ones again. Immigration to Canada was pretty much a life-long commitment. That helped inspire those people to work hard at building in their new land. With today's modern financial system, modern communications and air travel immigration isn't necessarily the same kind of commitment (unless you are a refugee that is). You can try Canada out and, if it doesn't work, you can return or move on to, say, the United States. On the one hand, this is good for the individual: there is no irreversible error. On the other hand, it is less good for Canada. To combat this, you need a strong, positive narrative that makes people want to stay. As you wrote, we no longer have a positive narrative. My mother arrived in Canada at Pier 21 seventy-five years ago. Prior to that, she and her family had been in a DP camp in Germany. My grandfather had decided they were going to Brazil and when he heard that she had arranged passage to Canada, he didn't speak to her for three weeks. Of course, he and the rest of the family followed soon after. Years later, he told my mother that he had been wrong ,she had been right and that Canada was the best country in the world. I hear less of that narrative these days and it's a shame because, despite everything, it still is.
While I fundamentally disagree with the premise that high immigration levels, permanent and temporary, are needed (most demographers note the limited impact), I do share the worry regarding the breakdown of the general consensus that immigration has and continues to benefit Canada and Canadians. But not the current and projected levels. Given the difficulties in ramping up housing, healthcare etc, the most rationale solution is trimming levels as the National Bank argues.
On whether or not the Conservatives should "articulate a Canadian identity and set of values," or just focus on the practicalities of housing, healthcare etc, I suspect the latter is a safer approach as it avoids being tarred with being xenophobic or racist. Housing and healthcare apply to both immigrants and non-immigrants, albeit more to immigrants as you note.
So I am reasonably optimistic that one can have a reasoned debate, as virtually all the recent commentary has demonstrated.
Here on Prince Edward Island many locals are starting to resent immigrants because of the housing shortage. If concrete measures are not started immediately, then we will have full blown racism break out here. And that would be simply sad. Our social services are unable to keep up.
When people say that "Canada is becoming a third world country", they were either joking or thought to be delusional. But now Canada is facing a problem that's literally associated with third world countries issue.
It might be that I am clinging to an inherent optimism from growing up in this absolute fluke of a place where this was true for so much of my life. Nevertheless, more than I have faith in the Conservatives to pull any of this off, specifically, I have faith that while our consensus on immigration levels is absolutely waning - I still don't believe that there is enough animosity among the average Canadian towards immigrants themselves that going nativist would be a winning Conservative strategy. I feel like they simply wouldn't have the support for this.
Or maybe, I just hope.
Jen, an interesting take on the issue but let's look at a couple of your points; brushing off Alberta's concerns about high immigration with a "fine whatever" is a bit dismissive don't you think? How much does Alberta contribute to the economy and government pockets that keep this country going but just dismiss them. Second, Ontario is the recipient of immigrants in very high numbers - why is beyond me what with the costs and all but if Ontario is turning then there is an issue!
A woman who used to work with me who had immigrated from Russia with her family told me that she moved to small city Saskatchewan in able to improve her English and to avoid living in a Russian speaking country in a country in Toronto. It was her opinion that - in the 80's - Canada was allowing too many immigrants to live in enclaves where they never had to learn English or French and could live in their own language adn be served in their own language. She summed it up as 'Canada is crazy to allow this!' So what has changed? Nothing, it has gotten worse.
You didn't mention the fact that we have doctors, lawyers, nurses, engineers, and so forth who were trained in their home countries but can't get their credentials recognized in Canada. The woman above was a doctor, her husband was an engineer but worked as a carpenter here. How is it that we can't have a doctor from India have credentials recognized after a short period of time integrating and then turn him/her lose to practice? Why is there an Indian trained lawyer/accountant working as a greeter in a large chain store because we don't accept his credentials - last I knew one plus one equaled two all over the world except in Canada where it is a colonial construct.
If you think that multi generationla Canadians are going to benefit from high housing prices and so forth you best think again. Our federal government is looking at taxing the sale of a principal residence just like it is wanting to tax an under-utilized housing unit. Canadians are looking at reduced productivity, reduced GDP numbers, reduced foreign investment and increased taxes for the foreseeable future. You also need to think that increased numbers of workers are going to drive down real wages and productivity - if the employee can't speak english or french how will he/she end up with a good job?
I'm not against immigration but we need to get a handle on how we make the process work. Simply opening the flood gates with no plan is a plan of failure. With no requirement to become 'Canadian' then we end up with the issues we see played out on the streets today - support for terrorists. That support is not just the shouts or 'river to sea' but the machine gun secals on cars in Regina and other cities, sticker of terrorist leaders on vehicles and so forth.
One thing you can say is that JT is going to claim that a CPC government will take us all back to the 50's. In a lot of ways that may not be a bad thing - Canada built large projects, had a plan and goals, expected immigrants to integrate and immigrants gladly integrated to belong to Canada and to call themselves Canadian adn they knew that if they worked hard they would succeed and that their kids would do even better. Now, I'm not at all sure that any of that is the case in the Canada outside my window.
Poilievre talks with all Canadians in his myriad of youtube vids, plenty of cultures, and his repsectful holiday greetings are refreshing compared to leftist pandering. Watch and see his dedication to the Canada that Liberals destroyed.
I actually think Pierre more than many of them is capable of striking balance on this issue because of his wife. Finding the comm ability to not let it splinter the conservatives though - that is another story. Fingers crossed he can manage it.
Jen, great article. Very good points. However, with respect to your comment "the odious debates about illegal and uncontrolled immigration south of the border. (The fact that we don't have a lot of illegal or uncontrolled immigration owing to our geography has always allowed us to be unduly smug on the issue.) " The debate may not seem so odious if you lived on the US/Mexico border and paid taxes there. Consider the uproar in Canada over Roxham Road - the numbers were miniscule compared to what happens every day in the US. I believe that the residents of the US that live on the US/Mexico border have a valid complaint.
Great article this morning.
A few observations:
- The Liberals are slyly telegraphing that immigration may be exacerbating the housing crisis, but also slyly playing a blame game. Unrepentant about their own ludicrous immigration targets for the housing crisis, numerous government officials are eyeing the temporary foreign workers and international students and targeting them for a huge reduction in numbers. Full speed ahead on their own territory though.
- We need to build a lot of housing both as rentals and single family dwellings. Over time, this might bring down the median price point of all housing but don’t bet on it. If the needs are constrained by a lack of skilled tradesmen and building materials then the inflationary pressures will continue to push up costs. Also, how many lenders will be happy to see their housing portfolios decline in value over the next 20 years? Everyone hates inflation, but deflation is a concern too.
- The economic outlook is so grim for anyone under the age of 30, how can we expect them to have children that will sustain our population? What a sad mess. Having to open floodgates for immigrants because our young people can’t have affordable housing and decent healthcare to sustain a growing family. Which reminds me, everything is local but access to obstetrical care in my sightline is limited. The days of delivering babies in a rural hospital setting is as outdated as Bonanza reruns.
- The Conservatives may not have the will or the tools to solve some of these challenges, but the opportunity is there to try. Canadians who are paying attention know that our country is up to its neck in trouble and some determination and grit to face the backlash from some corners will be rewarded.
Recent tributes to Ed Broadbent reminded me of a significant shift that has taken place in political outlook. Once upon a time political leaders put forward their ideas of what would work to make the country/world a better place and folks debated them, picked one and voted for their guy. How long has it been now that the main, probably the only, objective is to WIN? Period, full stop.
Say whatever it takes; stir up whatever emotion will work for you and beat it to death until the electorate gets angry enough, or hates the other guy so intensely that they'll vote for you. Then muck around with the power you've "earned" until the tide shifts again and around we go again.
Makes me sad.
I think the notion of a consensus at the parliament level on this topic very important. Debating the number of immigrants is not racist or xenophobic, it is an operational issue as to how Canada accommodates the numbers in all the very obvious ways - healthcare, housing, work, etc.
The question for PP and the Tories in general is how prepared are they to work in consensus-oriented fashion? I am not confident that he and they are as, per Jen's observation, the Prime Directive is 'own-the-Libs' at all costs. Frankly, JT has so damaged the overall Liberal brand that I believe that a grown up conversation on this issue won't deliver the next election to them no matter what the outcome (that is, a sensible, practical, and doable policy fair to the immigrants and to the country).
One aspect doesn't get much attention and that is the percentage of the new arrivals that are students. As we all know, students pay three to four times what domestic students pay and so the universities are incented to pull in as many as possible in order to square their books. If numbers are driven down with a consensus-oriented immigration policy, then the provinces, God help us, are going to have find the funds to make up the difference. Underinvestment in the universities has been a decades long problem which has been papered over with foreign student revenues. Perhaps it is time to correct this matter. (Also, some percentage of students go home after completing their studies; another percentage never goes to school and simply disappears into the general population - not sure how they administratively do this long-term, but apparently it is an issue.)