The annual Jack Layton Prize for a Better Canada in partnership with the Douglas Coldwell Layton Foundation is an essay competition for McGill graduate students. This year’s winning essay, entitled “Peak Canada? Raising the Ceiling on Canadian Immigration,” penned by MPP students Gabe Blanc, Kiran Gill, and Cyrus Nagra, includes recommendations for a better immigration system in Canada.
The End of the Immigration Consensus
At a packed Massey Hall on October 14th, 1904, Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier proclaimed that the century to come is Canada’s. At the time, Canada was home to a population of only six million. But as Laurier looked ahead to the next 100 years, Canada was to be “the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come.” Pointing to the young men and women in the crowd and met with applause, Laurier suggested that Canada should welcome a population of at least 60 million. Today, Canada is home to 41.5 million people, 20 million shy of Laurier’s target. Yet, the trend in contemporary discourse is that immigration has peaked, and Canada is at capacity.
Since the Justin Trudeau-led Liberals took power in 2015, immigration numbers have soared. From 2015 to 2024 permanent resident targets rose from 272,000 to 485,000. In the same period, temporary foreign workers and student visa holders increased by 200 percent. At first Canadians welcomes these increases. In fact, Canadian satisfaction with immigration was at a 25 year high well into Trudeau’s first term. “Sunny ways” for the Canadian consensus on immigration were part and parcel of a fresh-faced Liberal government’s forecast. In the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, long-standing issues such as unaffordable housing, the rising price of groceries and the unreliability of the healthcare system came to the fore of Canadian civil discourse. Unlike in previous economic downturns such as the global financial crisis, the current backlash against immigration is unique: 58 percent of Canadians believe that there is too much immigration to Canada. Four out of five newcomers themselves think that the government has accepted too many immigrants and international students.
Many Canadians feel materially insecure and that immigrants are exacerbating the situation. These attitudes are tied to the perception that there is an insufficient capacity to accommodate more people in Canada. Perhaps more alarming is that Canadians and immigrants alike do not have faith in the country's ability to grow. This results in short-term individualistic thinking that politicians are more than happy to exploit. This essay contends that not only is Canada's immigration system flawed and in need of a rework, but that the government must commit itself to the belief that a bigger, better Canada is attainable for all.
To better contextualize immigration under Justin Trudeau since 2015 requires widening the aperture on Canadian history. An inclusionary approach to Canadian immigration began in 1957 with Prime Minister Diefenbaker’s campaign promise of reforming the 1952 Immigration Act. A promissory Speech from the Throne in the fall of 1957, and a White Paper by Lester B. Pearson in the fall of 1966, both failed to actualize change. The introduction of the points-based system under Pearson in October of 1967 and the passing of the Multiculturalism Act in 1971 built momentum on the rhetoric of Pearson’s previously tabled White Paper; that the new Immigration Act should be “expansionist, non-discriminatory and balanced in reconciling the claims of family relationship with the economic interest of Canada.”
The new Immigration Act passed under Pierre Trudeau in 1976 concretized this progressivity and loosened the regulations for non-Europeans entering Canada. As indicated by Figure 1, public opinion polling on immigration has, since the turn of the millennium, been positive. Post cold-war commentators like George Grant stressed the dependency of Canada on the U.S and the loss of a sovereign, Canadian “identity.” Yet, seeds were concurrently being sown to frame and lend form to a new Canadian imaginary. The emergence of an immigration consensus, as shown in Figure 1, can be attributed to the wedding of Brian Mulroney’s economically-incentivized immigration strategy with a philosophy of multiculturalism and an emerging “Charter Canadian” Identity.
Figure 1) This graphic demonstrates the consensus on immigration that persisted from the 2000s up until the end of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The recent housing crisis, public service congestion and stagnant wages have Canadians wondering if we have taken on too many immigrants. In the late stages of Covid, labour shortages required loosening the temporary foreign worker admission system to meet employer demands. This temporary increase in unskilled labour saw meteoric and unprecedented rises in newcomers entering Canada. Much of the recent backlash against immigration has been attributed to the temporary resident model, and the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) in particular. Yet, given Canada’s aging demographics, low population density and declining birth rates, think tanks like The Century Initiative believe in echoing Laurier’s vision: that Canada should still be aiming to attain 100 million people by 2100. While immigration accounts for 90 per cent of Canada’s labour force growth and 75 per cent of its population growth the question remains, how are we to square these lofty ambitions with waning public support?
Figure 2) This graphic from the Angus Reid Institute demonstrates the approval rating for various Liberal party policies since 2015; Immigration has the lowest approval rating.
Recommendation #1: Improving the Points-based System
In 1967, the Pearson government established a points-based system for immigration. Potential immigrants were evaluated based on their language skills, education, and age, and those who scored highest offered permanent residency. When Mulroney introduced permanent increases (from 84,000 to over 250,000) to annual immigration levels, the points-based system became increasingly important in determining who received admission. For the first time, economic class immigration (assessed through the point system) outpaced family class immigration. Canada’s immigration system was the envy of the world for its ability to absorb newcomers while fostering economic growth. Recent changes to the immigration system have threatened this balance: Much of Canadian immigration policy now follows a purely utilitarian, market-based approach.
Express Entry, an accelerated immigration program introduced in 2015, integrates employer labour market demands into the points-based immigration process. This policy has resulted in an inordinate number of workers with homogeneous, non-technical skill sets being admitted to Canada. While anecdotes about “taxi drivers with MDs” can be written off, numbers cannot: Merely 44 per cent of immigrants who came to Canada within the last ten years are employed in jobs that match their education level, compared to 64 per cent of Canadians aged 25 to 34. The Express Entry program has three federal pathways, but the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) is by far the most used. CEC is intended for skilled workers who have Canadian work experience and want to become permanent residents. Bringing skilled and experienced workers to Canada is important, however, the ultimate hope is that these individuals thrive for themselves and not just their employers. A policy lever that measures the propensity for financial success in Canada is necessary.
Empirical research has demonstrated that those who have held well-paid Canadian jobs before immigrating had high earnings post-immigration. Canada is not realizing the full economic potential of tens of thousands of immigrants and could benefit from considering Australia's General Skilled Migration Model. Like Australia’s model, Express Entry applicants under the CEC should earn points based on their earnings in Canada prior to permanent residency. Assigning points for prior earnings ensures that an individual is being adequately assessed based on the labour market value of their skills. Taking Canadian earnings into account for permanent residency is also an acknowledgement of the changing nature of immigration. In 2022, 69 per cent of successful applicants through Express Entry were from the CEC stream. If pre-immigration earnings prove to be an effective measure in the Express Entry program, the government should expand it to all economic class permanent residency applications, where the increasing trend towards those with Canadian experience is even more prominent. In 2000 only 12 per cent of new economic class permanent residents had Canadian experience, in 2018 that number was 59 per cent. Immigrants increasingly have Canadian work experience, and the points-based system needs to account for it more accurately; out of fairness to applicants but more importantly so that immigrants can help build a bigger, better country for all.
Recommendation #2: Reimagining Foreign Workers
The TFWP and foreign workers more broadly, have been maligned for causing labour market stagnation. The liberal government, heeding to public pressure, announced cuts to the low-wage stream of the TFWP this past fall. While cuts to the low-wage stream were long overdue, simply scaling back the TFWP is a missed opportunity to utilize foreign labour to grow the country. The TFWP was introduced in 1973 as a way for employers to attract foreigners with specialized professional skills, in addition to agricultural workers and caregivers. Over the years, new streams, namely the Global Talent Stream and Low-Wage Worker Stream, have been added. The nature of the TFWP has fundamentally shifted over the last fifteen years. TFWs are now overwhelmingly employed in low-paying industries; in 2010, 33 per cent of TFWs were employed in low-wage sectors; in 2019 that number jumped to 45 per cent. More concerning is that over the same time period the number of study permit holders reporting income rose ninefold, with nearly all of this growth coming in low-wage sectors. The federal government must work with provincial partners and universities to ensure sufficient on-campus employment opportunities exist for international students, while reducing off-campus work hours, to ensure that they are not exploited by unscrupulous employers while protecting the Canadian labour market from “diploma mill” schemes.
While the use of low-wage foreign workers was exploding in the late 2010s, Employment Social Development Canada quietly introduced the Global Talent Stream (GTS). The GTS allows for shorter processing times for highly skilled workers. The expedited process pre-approves organizations or specific job classifications, such that in return, employers commit to hiring and training new Canadians. All workers brought in through the GTS earn salaries in excess of $80,000 annually. These individuals grow the Canadian economy while ensuring the development of job opportunities for Canadians. Despite the demonstrable benefits of these workers, only 2,851 were admitted in 2018 compared to 21,394 from the low-wage stream in the same year. The Global Talent Stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program offers an opportunity for growth. Currently, the pre-approved positions within the Global Talent Stream are primarily focused on tech. Yet by 2028, close to twenty per cent of Canada’s skilled trades workers are expected to retire. With no concrete domestic plan to replace these workers, Canada must look abroad: The Global Talent Stream should bring in skilled trade workers from around the world. These are the workers who will aid the government in finally delivering on the infrastructure promises it has been making for decades.
Recommendation #3: Rebuilding Civic Ambition
A leger poll found that seventy-eight per cent of Canadians felt that excessive immigration was contributing to the housing crisis. Zero-sum thinking has led people to believe that immigrants are gaining at the expense of other Canadians. The government must show Canadians that positive-sum growth is possible through ambitious nation-building projects. Our most important prescription then, is for a renewed civic ambition. Where it was easy to find criticism of immigration policy from opposition parties, it was comparatively difficult to find their plans for the social infrastructure that would enable a bigger, better Canada. This deficit in vision only lets the government off the hook for its own failures. Anyone who hopes to lead this country into a period of growth and rebuild the Canadian consensus on immigration, must have credible plans for nation-building projects. Whether they are projects to connect our country, like high-speed rail, or to assert our sovereignty through a national energy grid. All levels of government must also return to an active role in homebuilding, and remove the fetters of excessive zoning, ensuring there is the space for millions more Canadians. Each of these contribute to untethering ourselves, economically and culturally, from an increasingly regressive and belligerent southern neighbour.
Vancouver offers a promising model for Indigenous-led nation building. The Musqueam Squamish Tsleil-Waututh (MST) Development Corporation, is building much-needed housing infrastructure with their flagship project Sen̓áḵw. This eleven tower project is located in the heart of Vancouver and, when completed, will house close to ten thousand Indigenous and non-Indigenous people at below-market rates. Unlike other developers, MST has committed to reinvesting the profits from Sen̓áḵw and other projects into housing in the lower mainland for at least seven generations. Exempt from the restrictive zoning regulations of nearby wealthy neighbourhoods, Sen̓áḵw is a trailblazer in the resurgence of Indigenous-led real estate development. MST is also developing a number of even larger communities in the Vancouver-area. In Toronto’s Canary District, the Anishinaabe are in the process of building the Indigenous Hub, a development that will include below-market housing, employment services and a childcare facility.
To fulfill Laurier’s dream requires not only more proud Canadians, but also more for Canadians to be proud of. While the twentieth century saw the construction of social infrastructure including world-class public spaces and tens of thousands of publicly-owned homes, the response to the crises of the twenty-first century has been limited to short-term solutions and vote-buying gimmicks. This lack of ambition has weakened our trust in institutions, and in turn, in each other. Polling has found that social trust and trust in government have both declined significantly in the past few years. Replacing the vicious circle of civic apathy with a virtuous circle of civic ambition begins with protecting the objects of national pride that already exist. Here, incumbent governments are no better than opposition parties: Ontario Premier Doug Ford lambasted one of the few marvels of modern architecture owned and operated by the province when he called the science centre “a total mess” in an attempt to build support for its closure. In British Columbia, costly renovations to the Royal B.C Museum were criticized as a “vanity project.” While the cost of building things in this country is too high (and rising), the opposition in B.C may have underestimated the value of public spaces. The governing habit of selling off pieces of public infrastructure reduces the number of critical third spaces – like the largest neighbourhood-based library system in the world – which have an incalculable impact on social cohesion, civic engagement, and the integration of new Canadians.
A party that promotes national pride is investing in its own political capital to complete the major projects of the next decade: building enough homes and third spaces for more Canadians. An opposition that promotes grievance politics only feeds a nihilism and apathy that will come back to bite it. The end of the immigration consensus is not only a testament to the Trudeau government’s mismanagement of the file, but also a sign that pessimism’s stock is rising. With a housing crisis and Donald Trump south of the border, Canadians have plenty to fear. But to achieve Laurier’s vision of a Canadian century Canadians need something to hope for.
Gabriel Blanc is from Toronto, Ontario. As the former co-chair of the Young Greens of Ontario, he is passionate about policies to protect the environment, promote accessible public transit, and affordable housing. At UNICEF and UN-Habitat, he developed his knowledge of global education policy and best practices for sustainable urbanization.
Kiran Gill is originally from Vancouver. He moved to Montreal to undertake his undergraduate degree at McGill, receiving a Bachelor of Industrial and Labour Relations. Kiran's experiences have led him to believe in the power of policy to create a more equal world.
Cyrus Nagra is a recent graduate receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Philosophy from the University of Ottawa. He has gained some work experience in both the financial services and legal sectors. First with a small wealth management family practice in Toronto and more recently at RBC, assisting with the merger of the domestic operations of HSBC. He has also held contract work in the legal department of the fin-tech startup HelloBrigit. Cyrus has also undertaken social justice and education reform work in Maharashtra, India with the YUG Foundation, by working to amend municipal school curricula for Pune's institute for the blind. These experiences have influenced his interest in understanding the policy process and the Public Good. Cyrus is hoping to gain new skillsets from the MPP program that will help in his future study of the intersection of law and policy both in Canada and abroad.
