Connect with us

MacDonald Laurier Institute

British Columbians have long reveled in their political uniqueness, but in 2024 they are providing a preview of the next national election.

Published

6 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Ken Coates

Electoral warning signs from the West Coast: Ken Coates for Inside Policy

The upcoming election in bitterly divided British Columbia, long an outlier in federal politics, has emerged as a critical test run of the intense, polarized and highly emotional national political contest that looms ahead.

When British Columbians go to the polls on Oct. 19, they can choose between an activist NDP government and the Lazarus-like Conservative Party of B.C. that now dominates the political agenda with a “common sense” platform.

As on the national scene, the B.C. vote is more than a classic “left versus right” contest, although the different approaches to the role of government, public spending, state intervention, and social and identity concerns are evident.

The NDP government shares a lot in common with the federal Liberals, including an increasingly unpopular leader in David Eby, a positive and creative approach to Indigenous affairs, an environmentally activist agenda that is seemingly blind to economic dislocations, and now a wavering position on the province’s long-standing climate change and carbon tax policies.

John Rustad revived the moribund Conservative Party of B.C. by bringing conservative fiscal values back into the mainstream and took strong and previously unpopular positions on Indigenous and environmental matters. Along the way, he dismantled the BC United Party, formerly the BC Liberal Party.

Recent polls suggest the election will be close, likely defined by a deep rift between the Vancouver and Victoria urban support for the NDP and the Interior and small-town flirtation with the Conservatives.

The NDP government has spent generously but not always wisely, running up sizeable deficits that undercut the province’s reputation for fiscal reliability. It stood strongly with the Canadian government on the “safe supply” approach to excessive drug use and has failed, like the federal Liberals, to manage the housing crisis in major cities.

Eby’s government took a cautious approach on natural gas development and pipeline construction, leaving the government several billion dollars short in revenues.

On Indigenous matters, the Eby government became a world leader, particularly in its efforts to implement and respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It walked while the federal government has mostly talked.

The recognition of Indigenous title on Haida Gwaii outside the treaty process establishes a new model for engagement with First Nations. Strong and consistent concessions to Indigenous communities on resource development (which have not, incidentally, stopped activities as critics forecast) empowered First Nations and set the groundwork for improved relationships.

Echoing the national popularity of the federal Conservatives, the B.C. Conservatives’ “common sense” platform outlines support for small-town economic development, fiscal restraint, lower taxes (including carbon pricing), expanding LNG production, promoting resource development, constraining the interventions of activists, and reforming education and health care.

Rustad offers a dramatically different approach to the regulation of hard drugs, a tough approach on crime, opposition to identity politics, a promise to eliminate tent cities and a commitment to walk back support for UNDRIP.

The Green party, once the key power broker and partner with previous premier John Horgan’s NDP government, seems to be in sharp decline.  Andrew Weaver, former Green leader, has been highly critical of Eby and the current NDP and professed his support for Rustad, based largely on his concern over the premier’s approach to governing.

The Conservatives’ positions, like their federal counterparts, can be summarized simply: government has gone much too far on many fronts, has amassed an unsustainable deficit, and has undermined the core work of government.

The B.C. NDP, like the Trudeau government, leaves the impression that “you ain’t seen nothing yet” in both government activism and spending.

British Columbians have long reveled in their political uniqueness, but in 2024 they are providing a preview of the next national election.

The resurgent B.C. Conservative party has many policy similarities to the Conservative Party of Canada, with a powerful commitment to economic development and a desire to put identity politics in the rearview mirror.

The B.C. NDP, like their federal counterparts, has turned soft on carbon taxes, leaving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as one of the few political leaders who have tied their political fortunes to this increasingly unpopular policy.

Should Eby lose or win narrowly, it would reinforce the rise of the right in the country.  Perhaps most importantly, the B.C. electorate would signal it has lost enthusiasm for an activist provincial leader with a willingness to spend freely on social programs, build large deficits, and pays little attention to building the economy. Sound familiar?


Ken Coates is a distinguished fellow and Director of Indigenous Affairs at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Economy

Federal mismanagement to blame for Canada’s immigration backlash

Published on

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Sonia Orlu for Inside Policy

Canada’s welcoming attitude towards newcomers makes it one of the most sought-after places to live in the world. However, this image is being tested by a growing backlash against immigration. Immigrants make up 23 per cent of the population, yet economic, social, and cultural anxieties are increasingly challenging the country’s commitment to diversity. More than four-in-ten Canadians now agree – either strongly (23 per cent) or somewhat (21 per cent) – with the statement, “There is too much immigration to Canada.” It is crucial to understand that this backlash is not rooted in opposition to immigration or immigrants themselves, but rather in frustration over mismanagement and inadequate planning by the federal government. It reflects a growing unease about the country’s economic outlook, raising urgent questions about how Canada can uphold its values while addressing legitimate and pressing concerns.

Public reactions and political responses

Canadian political leaders have generally maintained a measured tone on immigration, focusing on economic pressures and service delivery rather than hostility toward immigrants. However, tensions are rising, and a thoughtful debate is increasingly needed.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has accused the Conservative Party of spreading misinformation to stoke fears about immigration. Such remarks risk alienating those with legitimate critiques of his administration’s policies and practices. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has linked immigration to housing shortages, criticizing Trudeau’s policies as disconnected from infrastructure needs. This aligns with public frustrations over housing availability and the need for better coordination between immigration levels and capacity. Quebec Premier François Legault echoed similar sentiments, raising issues of resource management and culture. His critics accuse him of xenophobia, but dismissive responses like Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s remark that people are “always blaming immigrants” overlook genuine challenges and deepen frustration.

These exchanges illustrate the delicate balance required in navigating immigration policy and public sentiment. Canadians’ attitudes toward immigration are more nuanced than a simple pro- or anti-immigration divide. Most Canadians aren’t driven by fear or racism; rather, they are focused on how immigration impacts housing affordability, strains public finances, and increases job competition. While apprehension about immigration levels is growing, attitudes toward immigrants themselves remain largely positive. In fact, more than four-in-ten Canadians (42 per cent) say that immigrants make their community a better place, with fewer than one-in-ten (9 per cent) feeling that they make it worse. Still, public concerns must be addressed to prevent further polarization.

The housing crisis: a catalyst for frustration

A significant driver of the immigration backlash is the housing crisis. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) reported in 2024 that Canada needs an additional 3.5 million housing units by 2030 to restore affordability. Cities like Toronto and Vancouver have seen housing prices soar, partly due to increased demand from population growth.

The “housing theory of everything” highlights how housing affects multiple societal issues – such as economic inequality, social mobility, and political polarization. Immigration is no exception. Housing shortages drive up costs, deepen inequality, and create competition between immigrants and long-term residents, eroding social trust and cohesion.

The rise in temporary residents, including international students and temporary foreign workers, compounds these issues. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) reports that the number of temporary residents increased by over 50 per cent from 2017 to 2022 and continued to rise sharply  into 2024. This influx contributes to increased demand in the rental housing market, particularly in urban centres with large universities, driving up prices and reducing availability.

The Trudeau government’s ambitious plan to admit nearly 500,000 new permanent residents annually by 2026 marks one of the highest per-capita immigration rates globally. By comparison, Canada admitted around 200,000 landed immigrants per year in the 1990s and 250,000 per year in the early 2010s. Without matching investments in infrastructure and housing, these elevated immigration levels – often referred to as “mass immigration” – could exacerbate housing shortages, strain public services, and heighten public frustration. Internal documents from Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada revealed that as early as 2022, officials warned that large increases in immigration could worsen housing affordability and strain public services. Yet, no substantive steps were taken by the government to revise its targets.

Given the realistic timelines for development, it is improbable that infrastructure can keep pace with rapid population growth. The construction industry faces labour shortages, regulatory hurdles, and lengthy timelines for project completion – often several years. The CMHC maintains that due to these complexities, expecting cities to rapidly scale up infrastructure to meet immediate demands is unrealistic.

If these housing issues are not resolved, public frustration could escalate, potentially shifting from concerns about immigration policy to resentment toward immigrants themselves.

Cultural integration: balancing diversity and cohesion

Economic challenges, such as housing affordability, often intersect with social and cultural anxieties. As communities experience rapid change and strained resources, questions arise about society’s ability to integrate newcomers without compromising its social fabric. While only about 4 per cent of Canadians express fears that immigration weakens local culture and identity, concerns about the effectiveness of integration are more widespread. In fact, approximately half of Canadians are concerned that some immigrants may not be adopting Canadian values or fully participating in the broader community. When asked which values immigrants should adopt, Canadians often prioritize language proficiency and respect for the country’s history and culture, highlighting the importance placed on cultural integration. Interestingly, both native-born and foreign-born Canadians largely agree on the values newcomers should embrace, indicating a shared vision for integration.

Canada’s sense of nationhood is deeply tied to its history of migration and its commitment to cultural and ethnic diversity. However, diversity is not inherently beneficial in all forms; its value depends on whether it leads to greater tolerance, creativity, or economic growth. When cultural and ethnic diversity is celebrated without deliberate efforts to foster interaction and promote unity, it risks becoming fragile. Poorly managed diversity can lead to social fragmentation, lower trust, and weakened civic engagement.

The challenges of integration are well-documented. Language barriers, different social norms, and unfamiliarity with Canadian institutions can make it difficult for immigrants to fully integrate. This can sometimes lead to the formation of cultural enclaves, where newcomers find comfort in communities with shared backgrounds but have limited interaction with the broader society. While these enclaves provide crucial support, they can inadvertently hinder full participation in Canadian life. Sociologist Robert Putnam found that, in the short term, diversity can reduce social capital and lower community engagement, particularly when institutions fail to promote integration – a concept he refers to as “hunkering down.” In such cases, both newcomers and long-term residents may feel isolated.

Despite these challenges, diversity, when managed effectively, can yield benefits. Exposure to different cultures fosters creativity, innovation, and economic growth, even though research suggests that immigration itself is neither inherently good nor bad for the economy. Cities like Toronto and Vancouver have thrived in part due to their multicultural populations, which have helped them become global hubs for technology and the arts. Additionally, evidence shows that successful integration is common in Canada. Many immigrants actively embrace Canadian valuescontribute to the economy, and participate in civic life. The majority of eligible immigrants become Canadian citizens, demonstrating a strong commitment to their new country. Many immigrants choose Canada precisely because they align with its principles of democracy, equality, and respect for human rights. Cultural integration, in the end, is a dynamic process – one that, when approached thoughtfully, strengthens rather than weakens the social fabric.

Bridging policy failures with sustainable solutions

Addressing public frustrations with immigration requires a serious reassessment of the policies that have exacerbated these concerns.

First and foremost, tackling the housing crisis through integrated planning is essential. Governments should incentivize affordable housing development and reform zoning laws to allow for higher-density projects. Recognizing the realistic timelines for construction and development, planning must begin immediately and be synchronized with immigration targets. Public sentiment strongly supports this approach. A recent Nanos Research survey found that 72 per cent of Canadians want to reduce immigration levels until housing becomes affordable.

Aligning immigration levels with the country’s capacity is crucial. Dynamic targets based on real-time economic data and infrastructure development would ensure that immigration aligns with Canada’s ability to provide services and opportunities. Returning to historical admission levels of 200,000 to 250,000 immigrants per year could help ease pressure on housing and public services. Adjusting the composition of immigration streams is equally important.

Temporary measures – such as pausing or reducing programs for international students and temporary foreign workers – could relieve immediate pressures while infrastructure catches up. For instance, although international students contributed over $30 billion to the economy in 2022, lowering their numbers could help reduce housing demand in university towns. Likewise, managing temporary foreign worker intake would address labour shortages without overwhelming resources.

Effective integration and support services must also be given priority. This should begin with implementing consistent selective immigration measures that evaluate an applicant’s potential to integrate both economically and culturally into Canadian society. Such measures would reduce reliance on extensive post-arrival support and help ease cultural tensions. According to a 2018 Angus Reid survey, two-in-three Canadians believe that greater emphasis should be placed on screening for alignment with Canadian values. However, it’s important to note that defining “Canadian values” can be subjective and risks being perceived as discriminatory.

Improvements to post-arrival services like community centres offering language classes, job search support, and cultural orientation programs are necessary to significantly ease the transition for newcomers. Research shows that when immigrants are effectively integrated, they are more likely to find employment, increasing tax contributions and reducing their reliance on social services. Additionally, well-integrated immigrants are more likely to engage in civic life, fostering social cohesion and strengthening community resilience.

Cultural diversity, while valuable, cannot be assumed to sustain itself without active support. Integration is not just about where people live or demographic representation; it also involves cultivating a shared sense of purpose and belonging. Successful integration depends on a reciprocal relationship: immigrants need the resources and opportunities to succeed, and in turn, they must engage with and contribute to the broader societal and cultural framework. Without deliberate policies that encourage community engagement, cross-cultural dialogue, and mutual respect, there is a risk that cultural diversity will falter.

Finally, responsible political discourse is crucial. Leaders must choose their words carefully, as rhetoric shapes public perceptions. By fostering nuanced and empathetic dialogue, they can bridge the gap between public concerns and policy realities, preserving national unity.

Canada stands at a crossroads. While immigration has long been one of our greatest assets, the current backlash highlights cracks in its management. This is not a rejection of immigrants – it’s a call for better policies and improved management. High immigration levels without careful planning will continue to harm our society. Our leaders now face a choice: fan the flames of division or unite the country around meaningful, evidence-based solutions.


Sonia Orlu is a Ph.D. student in Political Science at Simon Fraser University and a commentator on politics and culture. She is a contributing writer to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Continue Reading

MacDonald Laurier Institute

Are gender interventions helpful? First do no harm!: David Zitner for Inside Policy

Published on

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By David Zitner

Canadian public health bodies are lagging far behind peer nations in calling for evidenced-based approach to gender-affirming care.

Public health bodies in Europe and the United States are sounding the alarm, calling for serious research into the safety and benefits of youth gender transition interventions. On August 12, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons became the first major US medical association to challenge the consensus of medical groups over “gender-affirming care” for minors.

Meanwhile, systematic reviews of evidence conducted by public health authorities in Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom concluded that the risk/benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavourable.

According to a US study, each stage of gender affirming treatment – social affirmation, pubertal blockade, administration of cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgery – poses harms and risks that are not fully disclosed to minors and families.

Regulators in Europe and the UK have already reacted accordingly, with more emphasis on psychosocial support over medical interventions.

Canadian regulators, on the other hand, have been mum on the need for evidence-based treatment and they have not even insisted that proponents of aggressive treatments track the long-term physical and mental health outcomes of gender-affirming interventions.

Doctors and parents trying to support children with gender issues are faced with important, sometimes conflicting, moral and ethical dilemmas as they try to help distressed children while avoiding harm.

For most established treatments across the various areas of medicine, researchers have studied the chances and types of benefits and harms, the research is accessible, and patients can choose based on their own values and subjective assessment the anticipated benefits and risks. It is entirely different for those who consider gender-affirming interventions.

Parents acting as agents for children with gender identity issues are in a particularly desperate situation because of the absence of reliable research identifying those children who will someday detransition. Too many parents will likely feel deeply aggrieved when they realize that what might have been a passing fancy of childhood or adolescence produced permanent, irreversible harms.

In pursuing gender-affirming care, doctors and parents simply cannot avoid harm because the evidence is insufficient to identify those who might benefit from aggressive therapies and those who will be harmed.

Unfortunately, this absence of reliable scientific research does not prevent people, including Canadian regulators, from expressing strong opinions in favour of aggressive gender interventions.

Some adolescents experience gender fluidity and uncertainty as they grow. From time to time, a person might change how they feel, expressing their identity one way and subsequently another. Such persons might dress and accept the identity compatible with their genetic identity (male or female) at one period of their life, and at other times identify with or express an identity incompatible with their genetics. Like other emotional preferences, they can change over time.

British Medical Journal article commenting on the Cass Review emphasized that anyone who genuinely cares for children should recognize that “gender medicine is built on shaky foundations.” Citing numerous articles in peer-reviewed pediatric journals, it concludes: “The evidence base for interventions in gender medicine is threadbare, whichever research question you wish to consider — from social transition to hormone treatment. Of more than one hundred studies examining the role of puberty blockers and hormone treatment for gender transition only two were of passable quality…. Intervention studies — particularly of drug and surgical interventions — should be designed to evaluate relevant outcomes with adequate follow-up.”

Despite the opinion of some professional gender-modification advocates, evidence of benefit is scant. On the other hand, the risk of aggressive gender-transition interventions include changes to fertility, bone, and cardiovascular health, and growth. It simply must be said that tampering with a young person’s hormone levels and appearance leads to dramatic, and often permanent, harmful biologic changes.

Canada’s peers are waking up to the dangers of gender-affirming care for minors and the threadbare evidence on which it has progressed thus far. Where is Canada?

Canadian public health bodies and regulators should follow other international bodies and insist on evidence-based care following the systematic study of the benefits and harms of aggressive gender interventions. Until that study is complete, we must insist that doctors remember their obligation to “do no harm.”


David Zitner is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. He has participated at every level of Canadian health care including clinical practice, research, administration, governance and patient and professional education.

Continue Reading

Trending

X