Migration issues will test Liberals
From refugees to housing, immigration policy defined this election and will shape Trudeau’s term of office
The federal election will be remembered for the way it ignited over an issue that directly affects a handful of migrant women — those who feel it necessary to wear the niqab during Canada’s citizenship ceremony.
The symbolic controversy — which decimated the NDP but left the Liberals unscathed despite their shared defence of religious freedom — was one of many hot migration-related subjects that peppered the campaign won by Justin Trudeau.
In a country in which one of five people are born outside the country — rising to one of two in Toronto and Vancouver — matters of migration are deeply embedded in electoral politics, especially in urban centres.
Before examining how Trudeau will handle related refugee issues, family reunification programs, rising housing costs and immigrant intake, it’s worth analyzing the ways migration realities played out in election 2015.
Migration politics is as multifaceted as Canada’s population.
While some commentators, for instance, judged the Conservative’s anti-niqab stance as “antiimmigrant,” they were making a common mistake. There is no single “immigrant community” in Canada.
The country’s foreign- born population is diverse and fragmented. Hailing from more than 100 countries, immigrants have no shortage of competing interests. And the Conservatives have learned how to attract a solid chunk of immigrants’ votes.
Even though the Conservatives often appeared to be scapegoating Canada’s one million Muslims, Stephen Harper recognized it is not only the majority of Canadians who are appalled by the patriarchal niqab, but also many Muslims.
Most Muslims in Canada come from regions such as Lebanon, the Balkans, Turkey, Tunisia, Fiji, Tanzania and Indonesia, where fundamentalists are despised and the niqab is considered oppressive.
Aware of such internal divisions, Canada’s major political parties were able to carve out support among different immigrant groups, including Muslims.
University of Toronto political scientist Peter Loewen found the Conservatives tend to receive about four percentage points more support from immigrants than from non-immigrants, all of whom vote differently based on ethnicity.
“The Tories do very well among Chinese immigrants and not well at all among South Asians,” Loewen said. “We found that 57 per cent of Chinese immigrants indicated a Tory vote choice in the last week of the campaign. But only 18 per cent of South Asians indicated a Tory vote intention. The Tories also do comparatively well (40 per cent) among immigrants who self-identify as white.”
In B.C., Insights West pollster Mario Canseco found Harper had solid support from people with links to China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Korea, while the NDP’s Tom Mulcair scored high among those rooted in India and the Philippines. Canseco suggested the Liberals’ last-minute B.C. surge occurred because Trudeau gained approval from people seeking change, including ethnic Chinese and South Asians.
The voting intentions of ethnic Chinese people are key to Metro Vancouver, since they make up 21 per cent of the population. Many ethnic Chinese, but by no means all, are socially conservative, including the 100,000 who are evangelical Christians. The Conservatives, therefore, ran ads in Chinese-language media claiming, falsely, that Trudeau would make marijuana available to children and approve brothels.
While many factors contributed to Liberal success in all three of Surrey’s largely IndoCanadian ridings, few issues were likely more important there than Trudeau’s unique promise to double the number of parents and grandparents allowed into Canada. Reunification is a crucial subject among extended families in India.
What can we make of those who accused Harper of trying to appeal to another ethnic group — voters of European extraction?
When Harper briefly referred in one debate to “old- stock” Canadians, his Liberal and NDP opponents argued he was a “racist” and “xenophobe” trying to pit whites against visible minorities.
Quebeckers for decades have talked about “old-stock” Canadians, the offspring of French settlers who arrived in the 1700s. So do some English-speaking Canadians in the East whose ancestors arrived a century or more ago.
But the accusations against Harper were dubious, since Trudeau and other Liberals also use the term “old stock.” And Harper defined the term as meaning Canadians “who have been the descendants of immigrants for one or more generations,” which includes millions of non-whites.
In a country where aboriginals are called “First Nations” and their status is often based on how long their ancestors have lived on the continent, was it hypocritical for opponents to condemn Harper for using the term “old stock?”
Whatever the answer, it’s clear ethnicity and migration remain potent subjects in Canada. It’s worth monitoring how they play out under a Liberal majority. Four things to watch:
Refugees
Given the migrant crisis in Europe, Trudeau promised to allow 25,000 Syrian refugees to move here before the end of 2015 — which was 15,000 more, and faster, than pledged by the Conservatives.
Canadian and United Nations refugee officials are already saying Trudeau’s timeline is impossible, if not reckless. They note it takes time to screen asylum seekers for health and security risks.
A former Canadian ambassador to Syria and Lebanon, Martin Collacott, also worries that, since Syrian refugee camps are dominated by Muslims, persecuted Christians and other minorities avoid them, which means they won’t be selected for Canada. In addition, Collacott warns about half those picked in refugee camps will be psychologically traumatized, with many unable to work.
The British government has issued an extra reminder to humanitarian taxpayers: Each Syrian refugee will cost about $40,000 Cdn in the first year. And UN officials generally maintain refugees should remain close to their homelands, so they’re able to rebuild the country when stability returns.
Family reunification
Trudeau promised to double the number of parents and grandparents who could come to Canada to 10,000 a year.
A Forum poll has found, however, that Canadians oppose, by a 2.5-to-one margin, boosting such family reunification programs. Canadians support high immigration levels because they believe, correctly or not, the country needs young people to replace aging baby boomers.
Even though South Asians are especially eager to bring parents and grandparents to Canada, a majority of Canadians realize welcoming thousands of seniors will cost billions of dollars to Canada’s struggling national health care and pension systems.
Housing
Harper was the only leader to boldly respond to the housing affordability crisis in Toronto and especially Vancouver — promising to collect data on foreign ownership and to consider following the example of Australia, which significantly restricts foreign speculation on housing.
Economists applauded Harper’s gestures, with some saying foreign ownership, plus high immigration to big cities, combine to make urban prices soar. It is difficult to read Trudeau’s intentions on housing.
Lower immigration rates
The Conservatives last year raised immigration levels to 275,000 a year from 250,000.
Collacott, who has appeared 16 times before parliamentary committees on migration, said the Tories did so largely to “please the private sector,” which the former diplomat said seeks high immigration to keep wages low and stimulate the real-estate industry.
What might Trudeau do? Even though the Liberals campaign in the name of multiculturalism and keeping Canada the world’s most welcoming country, Justin’s father, Pierre, reduced immigration levels at the end of his time in office.
In the 1980s recession, Pierre Trudeau trimmed immigration by 25 per cent so newcomers would not compete with Canadians for jobs. Is it possible Trudeau junior would cut intake levels so Canadian workers can better survive the current economic slowdown?
Whatever Trudeau does with his mandate, there is little doubt thorny migration issues will continue to intensely shape the strategies of all parties.