Economy could suffer as political support for immigration drops

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/02/2025 (205 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Immigration has no friends in Canada.

At present, there is no political party with even a theoretical chance of forming government that has any interest in a robust immigration policy.

The Conservative Party — which remains the presumptive government-in-waiting — believes the immigration system is “broken,” and has promised to significantly restrict admissions while also gutting the temporary foreign worker and international student streams.

The Liberal government, desperate to find some way to cling to power, has already slashed immigration targets for the next two years. And both Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland, top contenders in the race to become the next federal Liberal leader, have promised caps on certain classes of immigration if elected.

It wasn’t so long ago Canadian political leaders of all stripes celebrated the country’s aggressive immigration targets as net positives for society and for the economy. Deals with specific provinces to admit skilled and semi-skilled workers were recognized with news releases and photo opportunities.

Today, not so much. Canadians have soured on immigration, in a big way.

Depending on how the question is asked, between half and two-thirds of all Canadians believe immigration is too high. Even among newcomers, opposition has grown: a survey last fall found more than 80 per cent of immigrants believed increased immigration had made it more difficult to find housing and employment.

Why have so many politicians in this country turned their backs on a tool that was once accepted as a staple of Canadian political and economic strategy? For the most part, political leaders are merely riding a wave of sentiment that is coursing through developed countries all over the world.

Far-right parties built on anti-immigration policies have surged over the past two years across the European Union. At the same time, U.S. President Donald Trump’s boisterous pledge to deport millions of illegal immigrants helped fuel his historic political comeback.

Even self-described political progressives have adopted a hard line on immigration.

Denmark has drawn quite a lot of international attention lately because of Trump’s aspirations to assume ownership of Greenland, a Danish autonomous territory. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, the leader of Denmark’s Social Democrats party, has been acknowledged as a beacon of progressivism in a continent that is tilting increasingly to the right.

However, despite embracing progressive social policies — Denmark boasts free post-secondary education and a basic income program — the government has taken a hard line on immigration.

Years before the Social Democrats’ surprise win in Denmark’s 2022 election, the party advocated for lower overall levels of immigration and immediate deportation of illegal migrants. Currently, Denmark has fewer foreign-born residents as a percentage of overall population than most European countries.

When Frederiksen discusses immigration, she sounds less like a social democrat, and more like the leaders of other far-right parties in Europe. “There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society,” Frederiksen recently told the New York Times.

There is also, however, a price to be paid for cutting immigration.

The best data we have shows that immigration, even at the inflated numbers permitted by the Liberal government, continues to trigger overwhelmingly high net economic benefits.

With low birth rates, immigration is the only way for countries like Canada to sustain population growth, which is essential for economic growth. An increasing population means more people working, paying taxes, buying things and supporting government programs like the Canadian Pension Plan. This is particularly true in smaller provinces like Manitoba that would have a shrinking population were it not for immigration.

How does all this get ignored in the political debate? A look at the international student visa controversy explains the process by which rhetoric triumphs over reality.

Last year, under relentless criticism by the Tories, Ottawa cut student visas by one-third. That decision was denounced by post-secondary schools, who rely heavily on revenue from higher international student tuition to make ends meet.

The straw that broke the camel’s back in this instance were concerns about visa fraud.

A federal audit program discovered that immigration consultants in Asia and India had been giving clients fake offers of admission to apply for a Canadian student visa. Once in Canada, the students were told their school of choice would no longer accept them and they were told to apply to other schools.

Although some returned home, many of the students who had been victimized by the immigration consultants found placement at other schools and finished their study programs legitimately.

Less likely to be included in the political rhetoric is the fact that about 95 per cent of the international students who come to Canada had legitimate letters of acceptance. Thus, rather than improve the process of vetting visa applications, Ottawa cut a program by one-third to solve a five per cent problem.

Immigration may have no political friends at the moment, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have economic benefits. It may take a shrinking economy to remind us of that fact.

» Dan Lett is a Winnipeg Free Press columnist.