Immigration in Canada

A smaller welcome mat

Some Canadians are having second thoughts about their traditionally liberal immigration policy. But many still support it

See article

Readers' comments


Mr. Deep Pockets

Immigration is going to be fine, as long as it is not seen as an opportunity for people to suck off the govt teat or take advantage of the kindness of Canadians.
Canada's real income levels have barely risen since the early 90s. The education system is run by the most powerful union with the largest private equity pension fund to pay the massive pensions. Govt and union people have the pensions, but not private sector.
Immigrants were supposed to be th entrepreneurs, but they are more likely to be hired into the PC govt.
This reminds me of the UK mid century.
I hire people for my business and Chinese MBAs will work for less than my Canadian secretary. This wage drop is due to immigrants willingness to work for nothing, and this is how it began in the UK too in the mid 60s until the work just moves out of country altogether. See UK's textile industry - the Scottish weavers - gone.
I work in private equity and every week listen to upset business owners crying that they have to shut their factories, lay off people their fathers hired, and move the work to China as they can not compete in Walmart with imported competitive products. Competition is good, but this level of competition is nuts - how can a Canadian worker compete with a 3rd world worker?
It's all about where capital is cheapest and that is China.
Toronto has elected an angry mayor and there will be more of these Sarah Palin types to come voted in by upset Canadians, until govt looks at these stagnant incomes and has an honest conversation about what is really driving changes.
As for multiculturalism, everyone wearing jeans and watching Justin Bieber is not multiculturalism - that is assimilation. That is fine with most Canadians. As other posters are saying, now there are groups wanting their ways imposed on others and bringing in the 1919 Treaty of V. as grudges. Past history in far off lands and a century ago are being used to fire up discontent, something unheard of in Canada 20 years ago. It is causing multi-culturalism to fall apart.
Vancouver is now dominated by China/Hong Kong. The wealthy immigrants bought property. The tax paying Canadians could not keep up as it is very hard to accumulate capital when you pay your fair share of taxes t cover pensions, health care, schools and the rest. When you have made your capital in low tax countries, but retire safely in a nice country like Canada, you can now get health care and even pensions despite never paying a cent of personal tax, maybe some property and consumption tax. So Prussians own Whistler properties and downtown Vancouver is a large percentage Asian. All the downtonw hotesl are now Asian decor, no Mr. Beaverbrooke or old CNN photos in picture frames. All gone. So, it depends on how you feel about Vancouver's prime industry being around retirees from Hong Kong. I look at it and think at least it is clean, industrious and quiet. My Asian friends with retired Hong Kong parents living in Vancouer all get the reasons for this hand over of property to an incoming group and they are sympathetic. IT is that debate of culture.
Montreal has a less affluent immigrant group and that brings a whole different set of challenges. Go to small town BC, and see the poor, old Canadians, sucked dry and no place in universities for their children because they do not work hard enough at their studies. They spent too much time playing baseball, doing plays and not studying math.
Politicians do not want to discuss this tax payment issue. Canadians are the kindest, most generous people I have ever met, but they are being pushed out. Their gentle and sharing value system is going too. There is a decline in charitable giving, enough to make headlines here.


They're many groups taking advantage of the lax refugee system by
jumping queque and certain quarter in Mexico even enrol refugee wannabe in their refugee class of how to handle immigration and apply refugee status when in Canada. Tamil refugees too are
giving thousands of dollars to snakehead to secure space in a vessel that are bound to Canada coast knowing that Canadian system has compassion heart not to repatriate them unlike Australia, or US

each refugee coming ashore cost the taxpayer thousnads of dollars to
house them in transit camp, and refugee hearing, welfare to feed them and later finding job and resettlement.

Canada needs to tighten up its loopholes, otherwise, it'll be a safe haven for refugee, terrorist and criminals alike, or perhaps it's already a safe haven for many criminals now

Jomo Wanjala

California is proof that if you open the flood gates to immigration nothing but good happens. Look at California's state ranking in education, almost last place. Who would have thought letting millions of illiterate people move into your state would cause the average level of education to drop. Oh well, an economy based on cheap labor is the definite way to go, otherwise you have to think, be innovative and use technology, leave that to Japan and Korea, the USA and Canada need to increase cheap unskilled labor, best thing to do in an era of high unemployment. Torono will be the Sao Paulo of the north, how multicultural, how beutifull.

Jomo Wanjala

Funny how the Economist would contribute to the unscientific aging populaton myth. A study by the C. D. Howe Institute, a well respected Canadian think tank, suggests that immigration cannot keep Canada's population young and in fact contributes to population ageing.

-No Elixir of Youth: Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young, Backgrounder, C. D. Howe Institute, Number 96, September 2006


I think this article is blowing Canada's thoughts on scaling back on its liberal immigration policy out of proportion. It is natural for a country to question its policies, especially when people are concerned about the economic downturn. Immigrants have become the scapegoats in many countries, unjustly I might add. The only real surprise is thiat it is coming from Canada, which is very liberal. But these concerns are only concerns. Once the economy bounces back, what the Conservative minority says will have no bearing and Canada will go back to normal.


What a load of cr*p! The author and The Economissed have done it again! A thoroughly misleading article full of falsehoods and one eighth truths. For example. Suffered no terrorist events? How about one of the largest in the world at the time 289 people in the Air India flight before it got to Ireland from Toronto by Sikh extremist bombers from the lower mainland of British Columbia. How about the Sikh editor in that area killed by his fellow immigrants who disagreed with his views. How about the Toronto 18 Muslims recently found guilty of terrorist activities? OH! You forgot those?

Immigration is supported by most Canadians, it is the queue jumping and false refugee claimants who are not wanted. The "family reunification" claims that are being abused. These are some of the issues that render some refugees unpopular. By the way, destitute economic refugees may be entrepreneurial, but have no capital to start a business. Uneducated refugees have little expertise that is sorely needed here. Such people just add to the welfare costs in a difficult economy.That is probably a revelation to the author apparently.


It is true that a lot of people have taken advantage of the refugee entry program, which has created a nuisance for honest, educated and deserving candidates looking to immigrate to Canada. Canada needs to further limit the immigration through refugee program. Most of the refugees live off the government welfare and have problems integrating with the society.

Having said that, The foundations of North American Society was laid down by immigrants. In essence, Canada should look forward to attract more talent from across the world. These will be the people who will drive the country forward. They are energetic, enthusiastic and open-minded and have no problems integrating with the society.

If Canada could reform its immigration program in favor of the people who deserve to settle here, then it would achieve it's purpose of immigration reform.


The vast majority of Canadians have no problem with immigration, or indeed people of other cultures coming to Canada. What many Canadians have a problem with is immigrants that bring their ethnic and religious issues with them and trying to impose their values on Canadians....example pressing for Sharia Law....etc. I am a Conservative voter, as is my wife, a first generation immigrant from Latin America. I am also a active member of a multi-cultural and immigrant settlement society. Canada and Canadians are very accomodating but tolerance levels are being stretched by immigrants that don't want to change to become Canadians but work at trying to get Canada to reflect their former countries society.


As a Quebecer, I used to wonder why I should feel proud to belong to a multicultural country. After all, don't Quebecers already have their own culture? Couldn't our provincial neighbours get their own culture instead of borrowing that of the United States? Isn't multiculturalism the expression of a lack of identity or elitist social re-engineering.

Then I met a beautiful Mexican woman, had children with her and realized that no civilization will ever last. Nationality is like a leash on a dog. Nationality is a brand name. It eventually becomes obsolete - like Rome and the Aztec Empire.

But do I believe that all immigrants are qualified to live in Canada? Yes, so long as they work hard, don't collect welfare, don't engage in criminal activities and respect the middle class lifestyle.

Gerry Van Kessel

The story's headline is at odds with its contents. The welcome mat remains extraordinarily welcoming. Numbers have not been reduced. In fact, adding the number of temporary workers to the permanent residents accepted annually the numbers are increasing. The changes the Government is pursuing are, indeed, "tinkering". It is much what the previous Liberal governments did when they added control measures such as visitor visa requirements to deter bogus refugee claimants, tightened appeal provisions for permanent residents who had committed serious crimes and passed new legislation designed to streamline the refugee determination process. Control measures are essential if a government is to maintain a respected and accepted legal system; if illegals are accepted without impediments than what is the point of legal immigration. Just let in everyone who wants to come and dispense with the pretense of legality. Both Liberal and Conservative governments behave the same suggesting little difference in beliefs and acceptance of public support for immigration. It was Mulroney's Government that increased immigration to an annual 1% of population (rarely fully realized)regardless of the economic sitaution whereas the Liberal Government had tied annual intake more closely to economic need. It is hardly surprising that immigrant unemployment today is much higher than it was before the 1% came into effect. What neither party is willing to deal with are the immediate and long-term consequences of large scale immigration. A debate is much needed but unlikley to come.


Well, this is a rather selective bit of “journalism” . . . indeed, it’s more akin to lying-with-statistics than any sort of proper reporting. For example, the characterization of our immigration policy as becoming more restrictive is misleading at best, as a more difficult citizenship test (an assertion that’s in itself a bit of a joke) is an issue only for people who are ALREADY PERMANENT RESIDENTS – i.e., it has nothing whatever to do with gaining entry as an immigrant. Similarly, doubling the lump sum for the investor class restricts access only for those who cannot meet the minimum – i.e., while the investor stream is now limited to richer applicants, the total number admitted under this category REMAINS UNCHANGED. Moreover, people-traffickers ARE CRIMMIMALS whose activities fall outside of our regular immigration policy – i.e., locking them up is NOT an immigration issue, but a legal matter. And “cracking down on crooked immigration consultants” again HAS NOTHING TO DO with the flow of immigrants to Canada.
Next we have the declaration that “All this adds up to slight tinkering . . .” which reminds of devious phrases such as “I’m not saying he’s a crook, but . . .” The reality is that, contrary to what is suggested by your exceedingly narrow focus on extremist perspectives, NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE HAS CHANGED in our immigration policy that would suggest a reduced flow of immigrants. Indeed, you provide, and likely have, NO BASIS to declare that “Public opinion in Canada has been affected by the European backlash,” let alone to suggest a link between the two. It may well be, and probably is so, that “Conservative voters are twice as likely to believe Canada has too many immigrants . . .” but “conservative voters” represent LESS THAN ONE THIRD of all voters, so the immigration naysayers among them make up a very small minority indeed. And the parenthetical assertion that Canada has been free from terrorist attacks “in recent years,” is the squirmiest sort of “truth”, as we have NEVER BEEN A VICTIM OF TERRORISM THAT CAN BE LINKED TO IMMIGRATION. Seriously, the tripe spewed forth in this “article” smells very much like a regurgitation of the inflammatory rhetoric sprayed around by the two right-wing opinion-making lobbyist groups quoted within – shame on you.
While the Harper government is certainly not shy about pushing its ideological biases into policy, the changes to Canada’s immigration policy are, on their face, intended to REDUCE APPLICANT PROCESSING TIMES – they have had NO IMPACT on the total number of immigrants.


Just so long as Americans are granted political asylum should Sarah Palin gain the Presidency...


I fear that the “smaller welcome mat” that you are referring to in an article published today perfectly reflects reality. I find this shocking. How can a country, which claims itself a “cultural mosaic”, restrict refugee entrees of 36%? This is an extremely high number. I understand how Canadian citizens and the government might be afraid of a potential abuse of the refugee system but don’t you think that those refugees would actually try to get in if they didn’t have a good reason too? A reason involving their own safety or the well-being of their relatives. I don’t think so. According to Citizen and Immigration Canada: “Refugees and people needing protection are people in or outside Canada who fear returning to their home country. In keeping with its humanitarian tradition and international obligations, Canada provides protection to thousands of people every year.” But why even affirm this when this is not the case? The humanitarian tradition that is mentioned is well on its decline since the new government of Stephen Harper was elected in 2006. And the most needy of protections are the ones on who visas were imposed. Sure, protection of our country is great but no major terrorist attack has happened in the past few years, and it is rather useless to protect ourselves from it by denying other human beings’ rights to good life conditions. Canada has always been seen as a hospitable country glad to welcome immigrants and refugees. And as much as it is beneficial for them, it is beneficial for our economy. Although the grand majority or your arguments made sense, I strongly disagree about the one concerning competition from immigrants. Why then give priority to the highly skilled workers instead of help the most needy first? Isn’t that contradictory? Plus, our population is aging and a labor shortage has been predicted to happen within the next few years and decades. If immigration policies restrict entrees now, we will have to deal with many more problems in the future. Immigration is a key factor to the well being of this society and a solution for labor shortage.

Alicia Angel-Despins
Québec City

Joe Marlowe

Canada has an aging population. The ratio between the number of workers paying taxes and supporting the country to the number of non-workers is falling. The birth rate is also falling.

There is, therefore, no substitution for immigration if our public finances are to be restored to health.

Since the 1780's Canada has done very well from immigration, yet each successive wave of immigrants has faced barriers of prejudice. Nonetheless, wave after wave of immigrants has driven our economy forward. It is no different now.


The current "Conservatives" like to fire up their base with hot button emotional issues - their idiotic pandering on gun control would top the list, closely followed by their "tough on crime" agenda that ignores the fact that the crime rate for all major crimes has fallen 40% in the last 20 years - and stoking up fear of, and prejudice against, immigrants fits their style entirely.

Yet do they have any intention of changing the basic policy that has served this country well for two centuries? No, despite all their pretending. Why? Because changing that policy would be economic disaster for Canada, and everybody in Parliament, on both sides of the House of Commons, knows it.

It's economically stupid, and it's intellectually dishonest, but that will not deter them in the least. They'd sell their grandmothers if they thought it would get them one seat closer to a majority. So let's pour more gasoline on the fires of hatred and prejudice.

Such is ethos of our ruling party.


If there is or is going to be a backlash it is because of the growth in population unmatched with investment in infrastructure. The money is available but it is bled out of cities to finance rural pork projects. Immigration is mostly a federal area but the majority of immigrants go to cities, especially Toronto and Vancouver. Infrastructure, welfare, health care and education are provincial areas and are somewhat devolved to the city's budget. Population increases strains these areas the most. There is an obvious disconnect between policy and funding made worse by the gerrymandering of federal and provincial legislatures where rural ridings and less populated provinces have more ridings then their populations warrant. The result is very crowded and uncomfortable cities further agitated with suburbanites listening to anti-immigrant right wing talk radio (entertainment) during those long commutes.


When my grandfather and grandmother left the Ukraine 100 years ago, they left with the knowledge that because of the lack of money and the political situation in Russia, they would never see their parents, aunts/uncles or cousins ever again. They chose Canada and made a life here. They DID not bring every relative or in-law with them. With the economy being what it is these days in contrast to what it was and with air travel what it is, there is no reason for the so called family re unification program. It's nice for the families but it's a killer on our government coffers.


The Economist forgets to mention that Canadian Immigration levels have been hovering around 200,000 - 250,000 for almost quarter of a century. In % terms the number of immigrants have dropped in Canada over the past 20 years. I don't the government is going to decrease it or increase it.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

