A few crucial questions on immigration
The immigration levels for 2018 announced this week by Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen come as no surprise. The Liberals have been vying to go beyond their predecessors since they took office; their plan would welcome one million new entrants by 2020 (there were 260,000 in 2015 alone).
For a relatively under-populated country like Canada, this otherwise routine policy is extremely contentious.
On the one hand, Canada is vying to be seen as a global leader in everything Canadian, particularly goodwill. On the other, it has to manage the economic demands and social expectations of rising immigration. A scarcity of global economic resources makes this issue both divisive and necessary for national growth.
Even before the announcement, some online comments spewed vicious vitriol, implicating immigrants in acts from mass terrorism to inciting racial hatred, to bleeding the country dry. Once the plan was out, you could barely hear yourself over the din. But reckless paranoia aside, increasing immigration levels do raise many legitimate questions.
For instance, there is the question of declining skills and resources in countries of origin which desperately need their youth to stay rooted at home, but are unable to keep them. The loss of their skills leads to a dangerous economic and social vacuum that ultimately spills across borders.
Similarly, why are immigration levels geared toward combating an aging population and declining birthrate, when Canada has one of the fastest growing youth cohorts: Indigenous people? The current census shows a 42 per cent increase in their population over the last decade; the average age of our Indigenous people is now 31. The rationale behind increasing immigration levels dangerously ignores this fact, even as Canada tries to better its relationship with its Indigenous communities.
Additionally, as the world becomes more transient and employment opportunities shift globally, how long will Canadians, including naturalized Canadians, remain in Canada and contribute to its growth, if Canada’s own opportunities see a decline — as with the oilsands, for example?
There is also the question of the high cost of living in Canada such as housing, child care and higher education that new immigrants may be unprepared for. And there is the question of the environmental impact of immigration on crowded urban areas, if there is no sustainable mechanism to attract immigrants to lesserpopulated parts of the country and keeping them there, as Hussen has also stated.
Finally, the new levels raise the sensitive question — as we have recently seen vis-àvis the Syrian refugees and Quebec’s Bill 62, for instance — of how willing newcomers are to giving up certain conditions of their cultural lifestyles in return for settling in a new country with differing values.
None of these questions should be framed as xenophobic, racist or bigoted, the way many Canadians at one extreme express themselves. Nor should they elicit unconditional support from many Canadians at the other extreme.
Instead, they must be addressed logically and intelligently — something immigration policy has ignored so far.
When I moved to Canada, there was no one to guide me on how to live, work and socialize. I was virtually left out in the cold. I survived because of my past familiarity with Canada. Many may not have that advantage. The system in place to support newcomers is poorly articulated because the focus is on numbers, not strategy.
I once went to a settlement agency for guidance, which they were unable to provide. But I still had to sign a form stating that I had used their services, because their client numbers reflected how much funding they received from the government. That’s not strategy; that’s creating artificial demand.
Numbers are easy. Managing them is not.
The lack of clarity as to how these 300,000-plus annual arrivals will negotiate and secure housing, employment and social services, is what is fuelling anxiety, as much as is the unfounded fear of terrorist threat.
Likewise, Canada needs to communicate to potential immigrants a realistic perception of what to expect without compromising its positive edge.
This does not need to be derogatory to other people’s cultures, but instead should take into account that there may be inconsistencies between those cultures and the way of life here.
Canada prides itself on its diversity, and it should. But targets cannot be developed in a vacuum.
There must be a clear accompanying economic and social strategy — and not after the fact — if Canada wants to gain positively from these numbers.
And let’s be clear: Immigration is ultimately about economics, not necessarily human kindness. The parameters of managing that are very different from just being welcoming.
Numbers are easy. Managing them is not.