Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

Federal mismanagement to blame for Canada’s immigration backlash

Published

15 minute read

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.

Business

We need our own ‘DOGE’ in 2025 to unleash Canadian economy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Canada has a regulation problem. Our economy is over-regulated and the regulatory load is growing. To reverse this trend, we need a deregulation agenda that will cut unnecessary red tape and government bloat, to free up the Canadian economy.

According to the latest “Red Tape” report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, government regulations cost Canadian businesses a staggering $38.8 billion in 2020. Together, businesses spent 731 million hours on regulatory compliance—that’s equal to nearly 375,000 fulltime jobs. Canada’s smallest businesses bear a disproportionately high burden of the cost, paying up to five times more for regulatory compliance per-employee than larger businesses. The smallest businesses pay $7,023 per employee annually to comply with government regulation while larger businesses pay $1,237 per employee.

Of course, the Trudeau government has enacted a vast swath of new regulations on large sectors of Canada’s economy—particularly the energy sector—in a quest to make Canada a “net-zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter by 2050 (which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting emissions with activities such as planting trees).

For example, the government (via Bill C-69) introduced subjective criteria—including the “gender implications” of projects—into the evaluation process of energy projects. It established EV mandates requiring all new cars be electric vehicles by 2035. And the costs of the government’s new “Clean Electricity Regulations,” to purportedly reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity, remain unknown, although provinces (including Alberta) that rely more on fossil fuels to generate electricity will surely be hardest hit.

Meanwhile in the United States, Donald Trump plans to put Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which will act as a presidential advisory commission (not an official government department) for the second Trump administration.

“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” the two wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. “DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited.”

If Musk and Ramaswamy achieve these goals, the U.S. could leap far ahead of Canada in terms of regulatory efficiency, making Canada’s economy even less competitive than it is today.

That would be bad news for Canadians who are already falling behind. Between 2000 and 2023, Canada’s GDP per person (an indicator of incomes and living standards) lagged far behind the average among G7 countries. Business investment is also lagging. Between 2014 and 2021, business investment per worker (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) in Canada decreased by $3,676 (to $14,687) while it increased by $3,418 (to $26,751) per worker in the U.S. And over-regulation is partly to blame.

For 2025, Canada needs a deregulatory agenda similar to DOGE that will allow Canadian workers and businesses to recover and thrive. And we know it can be done. During a deregulatory effort in British Columbia, which included a minister of deregulation appointed by the provincial government in 2001, there was a 37 per cent reduction in regulatory requirements in the province by 2004. The federal government should learn from B.C.’s success at slashing red tape, and reduce the burden of regulation across the entire Canadian economy.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Trudeau’s Tariff Retaliation Plan: Alberta Says “No Thanks”

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

After years of neglect and exploitation, Alberta refuses to back Trudeau’s countermeasure plan against Trump’s tariffs, exposing the cracks in Canada’s so-called unity.

Let’s take a moment to appreciate Justin Trudeau’s brilliant strategy for handling Trump’s latest stunt: tariffs. Trump, in true Trump fashion, threatens to slap a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, because apparently, Canada is responsible for all of America’s problems—from border security to fentanyl. And Trudeau’s response? A $150 billion countermeasure plan that includes the possibility of crippling Alberta’s energy sector. Genius! Except one small problem: Alberta said, ‘No thanks.’

Why wasn’t Alberta there? Because Premier Danielle Smith isn’t an idiot. Trudeau’s plan includes export levies on Canadian oil, a move that would essentially tell Alberta to torch its own economy to help Trudeau look tough on Trump. Alberta exports $13.3 billion of energy to the U.S. every month, making it the lifeblood of this country’s economy. But sure, let’s just gamble that away because Trudeau needs a distraction from his sinking legacy.

But Alberta’s refusal isn’t just about this plan. It’s about years—years—of Ottawa treating Alberta like the black sheep of Confederation. Remember the Northern Gateway Pipeline? Trudeau killed it. Energy East? Dead, too. Those projects could’ve given Alberta access to global markets. Instead, Trudeau left the province landlocked, dependent on the U.S., and completely vulnerable to economic extortion like this. And now, after all that sabotage, he expects Alberta to ‘unite’ behind his plan? Please.

And don’t even get me started on Bill C-69. They call it the ‘Impact Assessment Act,’ but Albertans know it as the ‘No More Pipelines Bill.’ This masterpiece of legislation basically made it impossible to build anything that moves oil. And just to twist the knife, Trudeau slapped on a carbon tax—because nothing says ‘we care about your economy’ like making it more expensive to run it.

And then there’s Quebec. Oh, Quebec. The province that’s spent years wagging its finger at Alberta, calling its oil sands ‘dirty energy’ and blocking pipeline projects that could’ve helped the whole country. Meanwhile, Quebec gleefully cashes billions in equalization payments, heavily subsidized by Alberta’s oil wealth. That’s right—the same people who call Alberta the bad guy are more than happy to take their money. And now Trudeau wants Alberta to step up and take one for the team? Give me a break.

Danielle Smith saw this nonsense for what it is: exploitation. She flatly refused to sign onto any plan that includes export levies or energy restrictions. And you know what? Good for her. She said, ‘Federal officials are floating the idea of cutting off energy supply to the U.S. and imposing tariffs on Alberta energy. Until these threats cease, Alberta cannot support the federal government’s plan.’ Translation: Alberta is done being Ottawa’s doormat.

Let’s not forget why Alberta is even in this mess. For nine years, Trudeau’s government has treated Alberta like its personal piggy bank, siphoning billions through equalization payments while doing absolutely nothing—zero—to support its economy. When oil prices collapsed and families were struggling, what did Alberta get? Crickets. Trudeau was too busy virtue-signaling to his globalist pals to care. And now, with Trump threatening a 25% tariff that could cripple Alberta’s economy, Trudeau has the audacity to turn around and ask Alberta to make the ultimate sacrifice. You can’t make this stuff up.

And then Danielle Smith does what any rational leader would do—she heads to Mar-a-Lago to defend her province’s interests. And what does Trudeau’s cabinet do? They lose their minds, clutch their pearls, and call her ‘unpatriotic.’ Unpatriotic? Are you kidding me? This is coming from the same government that has spent nearly a decade treating Alberta like the annoying little sibling of Confederation—good enough to bankroll Quebec’s luxurious equalization payments, but not important enough to actually listen to. And now, after years of kicking Alberta to the curb, they expect Smith to roll over, play nice, and ‘work together’? Please.

Doug Ford says, ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’ Great soundbite, Doug. But unity doesn’t mean asking one province to carry the load while others reap the rewards. Quebec Premier François Legault says, ‘Nothing’s off the table.’ Of course not—Quebec isn’t paying the price. This isn’t unity; it’s a shakedown.

Here’s the reality: Alberta isn’t at the table because Ottawa hasn’t earned the right to ask them to be. You don’t treat a province like an ATM for nearly a decade and then expect them to roll over when you need a favor. Danielle Smith stood up and said, ‘Enough.’ And frankly, good for her.

So here’s the real question: how long does Ottawa think it can keep exploiting Alberta before the province decides it’s had enough? Because let me tell you, when Alberta’s done, it’s not just the energy sector that’s going to feel it—it’s the entire country.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X