(Photo by TheTruthAbout via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 2.0)
Listen to this article:
On February 21st, 2024, at a press conference in Kitchener, Ontario, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada Pierre Poilievre described the country’s immigration system as “ruined.” He blamed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for, “open[ing] the floodgates in a way that was disconnected from the number of homes to house people, and the number of jobs to employ them.”
Growing calls for policy changes to Canada’s immigration system came after a historic period of admitting over a million people annually. Canada has admitted upwards of 400,000 permanent and 600,000 temporary residents annually in the past several years, breaking nationwide records yearly since 2021.
Though Poilievre’s comments are not overtly bigoted or xenophobic, they represent a noticeable shift in public opinion. From the mid-1990s until 2019, most Canadians reported being at least okay with keeping immigration levels about the same. The number of Canadians agreeing that current levels of immigration are “too much” increased from 26% to 40% in 2019, according to data from Elections Canada.
With both public and political discourse shifting to more skepticism about immigration, it is necessary to further examine this new sentiment. Rather than solely focusing on elite political discourse or public opinion, academic perspectives can help provide clarity.
Public Opinion on Immigration and How It Has Changed
Canada has historically taken pride in its relatively high rates of immigration and consistently positive public opinion about newcomers in comparison to other Western nations. Dr. Daniel Hiebert, in his 2016 report titled “What’s Special About Canada?,” argues that this stems from a cultivated narrative about Canadian immigration that views immigrants as an economic benefit to Canada.
Since the mid-1980s, immigration numbers typically hovered around 250,000 individuals or 0.7% of the country’s total population annually. This period changed the immigration system to one based on points, called the Express Entry system. Applicants are scored based on their skill sets and given prioritized admission based on their potential ability to contribute to the economy. This system is largely in accordance with a wealth of academic literature and economic common sense that suggests that immigration is a net economic benefit.
Since Dr. Hiebert’s 2016 report, the tides of public opinion have shifted. The 2019 federal election saw the number of Canadians unhappy with current immigration jump to a 20-year high. Additionally, a survey conducted by the Environics Institute in September of 2023 demonstrates that the trend of dissatisfaction with immigration has continued. This significant change showcases a sudden and concerning shift in public opinion that had remained consistent for nearly three decades.
What Is Behind These Changes (and Why Now?)
Banking groups and policymakers often point to the coinciding housing and cost-of-living crisis as the major reasons driving Canadians to become increasingly skeptical of immigration numbers. While these economic issues are important, others suggest people are overemphasizing them. A 2024 study from Utah State University investigating public attitudes toward immigration in Canada shows that economics is only a small part of what is influencing the opinions of Canadians.
Based on polling data from Elections Canada from 1988 to 2019, the researchers examined several variables and their impact on respondents’ attitudes toward immigration. One of the main takeaways of their study is the notably sharp increase in political polarization from 2006 to 2019. From 1988 to 2004, affiliation towards a political party explained only 5.2% of differences in people’s responses. Between 2006 and 2019, however, political party affiliation grew to explain 27.6% of differences in people’s responses. As a result, political affiliation has become the strongest single predictor for whether someone is for or against further immigration. Respondents who identified with the Conservative Party were more likely to have negative attitudes towards immigration than those who identified with the Liberals, New Democratic Party, or Green Party.
Poilievre’s strategy of leveraging disapproval of immigration numbers aligns with a broader Conservative Party trend of rallying right-wing skepticism towards immigration. Rather than blindly blaming Conservatives for manufacturing this change, it is important to consider these results in context.
In an interview with Spheres of Influence, Dr. Mohsen Javdani, a contributor to the 2024 study conducted by Utah State University study, states that: “Although there are clear indications of diverging views on immigration among supporters of different parties in Canada […] this shift has not yet significantly influenced the political discourse of the Conservative Party.” Though there is a growing percentage of Conservative supporters advocating for reduced immigration levels, Javdani argues that with immigrants and ethnic minorities making up a significant demographic in Canada, this makes it difficult to count them out in electoral strategies.
What Are The Risks Moving Forward?
As Canada moves towards an election in late 2025, Poilievre and the Conservatives could shift from mild immigration skepticism to overt anti-immigrant sentiment. Dr. Javdani argues that by linking housing and cost-of-living concerns to immigration, the Conservatives have found a way to appeal to anti-immigrant voters without alienating immigrant voters with outright xenophobia.
A concerning consequence of rising anti-immigrant sentiment is the growing misunderstanding of Canada’s immigration policy. Firstly, by referring to Canada’s system as “ruined” and those responsible for it as “incompetent,” Poliviere ignores how political decisions are made through political consensus and in accordance with the country’s needs.
Trudeau himself admitted in April of 2024 that the number of temporary non-permanent residents being admitted to the country needs to get “under control.” His pledge to reduce these numbers and his proposal of a cap on international students in January of 2024 reflect that the federal government is at least aware of the problem, even if their proposed solutions may be problematic in their own ways.
Highlighting the Conservative Party’s Role in Creating These Conditions
Focusing solely on Liberal immigration policy deflects responsibility away from Conservative policymakers and their role in shaping the current cost-of-living crisis. Immigration policy is formed at the federal level in cooperation with each province. Alberta and Ontario are both run by Conservative premiers, giving the Conservatives a role in these decisions.
Furthermore, as Poilievre rails against the housing crisis supposedly caused by Trudeau, he continues to meet privately with high-end real estate developers. His proposed ‘solutions’ are less about solving the crisis and more about changing whose hands development money goes to.
The Potential for Misinterpretation and Misinformation about Immigration
Additionally, studies like those conducted by the Environics Institute have often been taken out of context by media outlets and misinterpreted. The right-leaning publication National Post reported on the “significant jump in the proportion of Canadians who believe the country accepts too many immigrants.”
Yet, they don’t highlight that “Canadians are still more likely to disagree than agree that immigration levels are too high” or that “a strong majority of Canadians continue to believe that immigration is good for the economy.” Irresponsible reporting risks fueling anti-immigrant sentiment and further damaging trust in the media.
Altogether, Pollievre’s tactics pose the danger of casting all immigrants with a wide net. There is no doubt that valid criticism can be made of Canada’s large-scale expansion of temporary foreign workers. A recent UN report from July of 2024 concluded that the nation’s temporary worker system “serves as a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery.”
It goes on to argue that, “it institutionalizes asymmetries of power that favour employers and prevent workers from exercising their rights.” Criticisms of immigration must then be directed towards policies like this that empower corporations to import temporary low-cost workers rather than towards immigrants themselves.
What Are The Solutions?
Solving the issues bound up in this current political moment can seem like a daunting task. With many misunderstandings at the centre of this discourse, offering correct and timely information is one crucial way of moving forward. A 2020 study of European societies showed that the more an individual misperceived the number of immigrants coming into their country, the more likely they would have negative attitudes. The study highlights how important it is for the media and political actors to provide credible information about immigration statistics.
“Since sociopsychological factors are deeply ingrained in our value systems, beliefs and attitudes, addressing them is not as simple as launching awareness campaigns and initiatives,” says Dr. Javdani. Several studies show that even when misperceptions about immigration are corrected, people will often reinterpret these facts to suit their beliefs. Educational efforts, then, must go beyond correcting misinformation and focus on promoting long-term understanding and empathy for immigrants’ contributions to society.
Javdani also stresses the importance of addressing the underlying economic challenges that often fuel anti-immigration, “even when there is no causal link” between the two. For example, blaming immigration for the housing crisis overlooks the fact that the Liberal government allocated only $1.5 billion for affordable public housing in its 2024 budget, compared to the $15 billion for private developers. To uphold its 2015 declaration of housing as a human right, Canada must first tackle the growing privatization and financial investment into housing that has driven rental and housing prices.
Lastly, it is important to highlight decentralized, non-governmental movements supporting immigrants while aiming for policies that advocate for immigrant rights. “Involving immigrant communities in the policy-making process ensures their perspectives are considered, fostering a sense of belonging and mutual respect,” says Javdani. Fundamentally, a collaborative approach and more inclusive national dialogue are essential in order to help bridge the divides present in current immigration discourse.
Fostering Conversations, Not Hate
Though it is more prominent in this upcoming election than in the past, immigration in Canada still remains a relatively low priority for Canadians. To avoid adopting the same xenophobic narratives towards immigration common in other Western countries like the U.S. or the UK, Canada must continue to stress the values that newcomers provide at every opportunity. At the same time, the country must work to address the root causes of the cost-of-living crisis that has, in part, caused bad-faith actors to place blame on immigrants.
Edited by Qiu Guan
