Federal mismanagement to blame for Canada’s immigration backlash

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 values, contribute 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.

Related Topics:#CanadaImmigration #HousingCrisis #MacdonaldLaurierInstitute CanadianCulture CanadianValues feature SoniaOrlu

Up Next

Free Money? What a UBI Would Really Do to People … and the National Debt

Don't Miss

Did the CBC prove in 1962 that no children are buried at Kamloops?

Todayville

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

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 12 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 12 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

Alberta

Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess

Published on December 21, 2024

Dan McTeague

By Dan McTeague

Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.

There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.

It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.

Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.

But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.

First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”

Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).

But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.

Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”

And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.

Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.

In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”

Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.

(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)

Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”

This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.

While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.

As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Business

Canada needs to get serious about securing its border

Published on December 19, 2024

Todayville

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Todd Hataley for Inside Policy

US President-elect Donald Trump has made clear his intention to call out Canada on weak enforcement on migration, money laundering, and the cross-border trafficking of narcotics, especially fentanyl.

Until just very recently, Canada has remained largely silent on these issues. Security agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), have tried to secure the border via memorandums of understanding, framework agreements, and legislated agreements that allow them to share information and even work together.

However, resources are limited for cross-border law enforcement co-operation. CBSA remains understaffed and RCMP Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (which work with US security agencies) have limited geographic reach, leaving much of the enforcement between ports of entry left to police of jurisdiction, who already are hard pressed to provide services to the communities they serve.

The Canadian government’s apparent strategy of largely ignoring the problem is becoming more difficult to maintain. With the United States Border Patrol intercepting increasing numbers of illegal migrants crossing into that country from Canada, it’s clear the porous border is a concern. Exacerbating the situation is the recent discovery of illegal narcotic super labs in Canada – where production far outstrips the market – and Canada’s unfortunate, albeit well-deserved reputation as a haven for global money launderers.

Thanks to Trump’s 25 per cent tariff threat, the crisis is now endangering Canada’s relationship with its largest and most-important trading partner. This announcement sent all sectors of government and the private sector into a frenzy, prompting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to fly to Florida to seek out an early audience with Trump at his Mar-a-lago resort home. Trudeau’s team spun the trip as proof that the federal government is serious about working with the US to address its border security and public safety concerns.

But with political crises piling up, it will be difficult for Trudeau to also manage the political optics of kowtowing to Trump, who is widely unpopular among Canadians. Spending extra money to appease Trump during the ongoing housing, immigration, and health care crises could make the Trudeau’s popularity nosedive even further. Adding insult to injury, Trump is essentially demanding that Canada do America’s work by stopping illicit goods and people from entering the United States: customs and border security officials generally work on the principle of stopping goods from entering their country.

Trudeau faces many practical challenges, including the need to ramp up the number of border and law enforcement agents who have the skill sets and training required to police offences such as drug production, money laundering, and the cross-border smuggling of goods and humans. Purchasing helicopters and drones to conduct surveillance will do little to aid enforcement, since most goods smuggled across the border pass through legitimate border crossings. RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme even suggested putting RCMP cadets along the border – a challenging proposition since vast swathes of the border are either wilderness or water. Surveillance is one thing, but the act of enforcement takes skilled people with the capacity to investigate, gather evidence, and articulate that evidence into something that can be used by the courts for convictions. These concerns are not being addressed in this current frenzy to spend money on border security.

There is also good evidence that fortifying the border, or what has become known as forward deployment along the border, does nothing to stop the cross-border transit of contraband goods and people. One need only look as far as the United States-Mexico border to see the failure of forward deployment.

As authorities increase border enforcement activities, the costs of smuggling goods and people mounts for criminals. Eventually, it drives out amateurs, leaving only the professional, skilled, and well-equipped criminal groups. This, in turn, often leads to increasing levels of violence along the border, making interdiction and disruption far more difficult for law enforcement agencies.

Canada has several clear options to address Trump’s border concerns. It can increase the staffing of frontline CBSA officers, including border agents, inland enforcement units that actively investigate and remove individuals from Canada, international liaison officers, and customs processing staff. It can also create a plan for CBSA to take over enforcement between ports of entry. Currently, CBSA enforces entry into Canada at the ports of entry and the RCMP are responsible for the areas in between. Having a single agency manage the border builds capacity and expertise, avoiding inter-bureaucracy competition and confusion.

Canada can also work to better integrate law enforcement, intelligence units, and border services at all levels of government and across international boundaries. Cross-border crime operations are often planned and execute far from the border.

Some of this already takes place, as noted above, but it needs to go much deeper and be more supportive at both institutional and individual levels. This process must also include private sector stakeholders: companies such as FedEx, UPS, and Amazon, as well as freight forwarders, trucking companies, and customs brokers, are all involved in cross-border trade. Their participation as partners in reducing cross-border criminal activity is essential.

Finally, the government needs to designate laws specific to cross-border crime and include meaningful penalties as a means of deterrence.

Hyper-focusing on the border while ignoring other aspects of cross-border crime may be good political optics, but it is a bad strategy. What we really need is functional enforcement – including an integrated process extended vertically and horizontally across all sectors of border stakeholders, at and away from the border, supported by strong policy and legislation. This is the path forward to better cross-border crime enforcement.

Dr. Todd Hataley is a professor in the School of Justice and Community Development at Fleming College. A retired member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, he worked as an investigator in organized crime, national security, cross-border crime, and extra-territorial torture. He is a contributor to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.