Canada’s Immigration ‘Problem’ isn’t what you Think
The new conversation on immigration reflects a turn away from Canada’s core values, and a shift to reactive politics.
By Sean Jenner
Canada doesn’t have an immigration ‘problem,’ it has a social infrastructure problem. With immigration targets set to reach 500,000 new permanent residents annually from 2024-2026, a national debate has emerged over whether these numbers are sustainable. New polling by the Leger group shows that 65% of respondents feel that Canada will admit too many immigrants. Doesn’t Canada pride itself on being a great multicultural society; and do we not agree that immigration is good for society and needed for the economy? I think we do. The real issue behind the changing sentiment on immigration by Canadians is Canada’s overpromised and underperforming social infrastructure.
It's no secret that Canada is not receiving a passing grade on social infrastructure, which refers to essential services – healthcare, education, housing, etc. that support a population's wellbeing. Right now, these services are faltering. Affordable homes are almost nonexistent, people can’t find family doctors, emergency rooms are spilling out into the halls, and grocery prices are through the roof. In 2021, Statistics Canada reported that 2.5 million Canadians had unmet healthcare needs.
Given these strains, it’s not surprising that people are becoming concerned about increasing immigration. Our systems are already starting to buckle under pressure. This is an important distinction — the issue isn’t that Canadians oppose immigration, it’s that they feel the targets are overwhelming relative to our capacity. It’s easy to see why people feel this way. Not only are Canada’s social services unable to keep up with the current population; they are well on their way to being overloaded. If we’re already struggling to meet the health needs of 2.5 million Canadians, we certainly can’t cope with a population surge without major investments in this infrastructure.
Immigration is getting a bad rap with Canadians in part because of what they see in the media and hear in the House of Commons. The discussion shouldn’t be that we are out of bounds on immigration, it should be that we aren’t ready or haven’t prepared our social services to have the capacity to support an increased population (via immigration or other means). If Canadians agree that we value immigration, multiculturalism, and want to have a diverse and prosperous country, we need to shift the narrative to focus on being ready to increase our population by investing and implementing effective solutions to the issues that we care about.
Some may still argue that immigration is the problem. However, if we reframed the conversation as ‘Canada to grow by 500,000 new Canadians each year for three years, starting in 2024’ the focus would likely shift towards preparing for growth, rather than fearing it. With this new framing, the headlines would focus on the need to prepare for these new Canadians by increasing social infrastructure to ensure we can keep up with the clear demands of an increasing population; not a sentiment that we don’t want to increase our population.
Consider the alternatives. Immigration is a privilege, both for those arriving and for Canada that benefits from new skills and contributions. Thus, if Canada doesn’t provide adequate support, immigrants may choose to leave and our appeal on the global stage will diminish. If we want to have immigration, we need to ensure that our services can support it. If life in Canada does not prove beneficial, we may see the alternative; people not wanting to immigrate to Canada or worse, leaving.
Ultimately, Canada’s challenge isn’t immigration; its inadequate social infrastructure to support immigration. Canadians aren’t asking for governments with a crystal ball (though that would be nice) – just one that understands the basic interplay of supply and demand. By investing in social services that will grow with our population, we will ensure Canada can remain a place where newcomers and long-time residents can thrive. There are two important pieces of the puzzle. Not only do we need better and more social infrastructure to keep up with an increased population, we need infrastructure that is responsive to population changes. Consequently, we need services and infrastructure that are proactive instead of reactive. We know that we can’t increase our population on our own: In 2022, Statistics Canada noted the largest decline in fertility rates since 1971. We need immigration.
Canada has the potential to welcome new immigrants while ensuring a thriving country – that is if we can manage to make the necessary investments in our social infrastructure. The choice is clear: will we continue to react to population growth, or will we prepare for it? It’s time for leaders to act, not just in reaction to crises but in preparation for our future.
Disclaimer: Sean Jenner is currently on education leave from the Government of Canada. All views expressed in this editorial are his alone and do not represent any government agency or department.
Sean Jenner holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology and Health from Dalhousie University. Currently, Sean is a Project Manager for the Canadian Coast Guard in the Search and Rescue Directorate. With a strong academic background in health policy, Sean has contributed to campus-wide policy development initiatives through his work with the student-led medical response team. Professionally, Sean's work with Search and Rescue has led him to aid in both regional and national policy development work. Sean is excited to learn more about public policy, make new connections with public and private sector stakeholders, and collaborate with peers of various backgrounds.
Doesn't "the basic interplay of supply and demand" hold that a 500,000 person annual shock to demands on social infrastructure will have corresponding impacts on the price / availability of those goods and services? If Canada indeed has a social infrastructure deficit (a 'stock' problem) which requires time and investment to rectify, should government not also look at the 'flow'?
Essentially, you write that the problem is not immigration levels but is, instead, a problem with social infrastructure. I suggest that they are one and the same insofar as if we had a lower immigration level our social infrastructure would be adequate. Put differently, if the immigration levels remain high then the social infrastructure must be increased dramatically. In other words, they are essentially the same issue expressed from either end.
By contrast, I start from a somewhat different premise. I start from the idea that immigrants to this country must be able to get an understanding of what Canada is and the core values of our society. We must encourage - nay, require! - immigrants to leave their old country hostilities and intolerances in the old country and to accept our diversity and tolerance. No acceptance of those values, no admission! As just one example, the recent intolerance toward our Jewish population is, well, intolerable. Yes, resident Canadians have sometimes participated in that intolerance but, apparently, so have many newcomers.
For years, I have said that I would, all other things being equal, like to open our borders to all immigrants who wish to come that we can reasonably accommodate. Note: "that we can reasonably accommodate." That means that we have quality jobs to offer newcomers while we offer quality jobs to Canadians; that means that we have to offer appropriate medical and education to newcomers while we offer appropriate medical and education to Canadians; that means that we have to offer acceptable housing to newcomers while we offer acceptable housing to Canadians. And so on and so forth.
To me, that means that until we are a larger country we simply do not have the resources to be able to handle the current rate of newcomers. That is not intolerance but is, instead, the desire to ensure that both newcomers and current residents can receive acceptable levels of services. If there is a shortfall in the level of services, the level of immigration must decrease. Again, not intolerance but simply recognition that we cannot bring in the world if we cannot provide housing, medical care, jobs, etc. for newcomers and Canadians alike.