Social housing should be national in scope, and part of a major income reform. Immigration and refugee support should be regionally based, and there should be incentives for moving to underpopulated regions.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 5, 2024.

OTTAWA—Immigration Minister Marc Miller made a $362-million refugee housing announcement last week.

Instead of garnering positive impact, the announcement opened the door for provincial governments and critics to claim that the amount in question is simply too little to deal with the problem.

Quebec is looking for a cheque for $470-million, as outlined in a letter from Premier François Legault last month.

Legault is also asking the federal government to stem the flow of refugees finding their way into the country by land, sea, and air.

Miller’s announcement seemed to reinforce Legault’s concerns.

“I think we owe it to Canadians to reform a system that has very much been a stopgap measure since 2017 to deal with large historic flows of migration.”

Miller is speaking frankly, but his admission simply sets the government up for further criticism.

If 2017 is the date when things went sidewise, the federal government has had seven years to come up with a solution.

Like the housing crisis, the Liberals are taking the full brunt of criticism for immigration spikes.

The link between the two is tenuous at best, but the government doesn’t seem able to convince the public about who is responsible for the housing crisis in the first place.

It is not refugee spikes.

It was bad public policy foisted on Canada when the federal government was convinced by the provinces to get out of the housing field back in 1986.

For 30 years, the provinces had full responsibility, including federal transfer funding, for housing construction in their jurisdictions.

For the most part, they did nothing to fill the gap in social or Indigenous housing, while city hall used housing payments for new builds as a way to finance municipal coffers.

The responsibility for housing was completely in provincial hands for three decades until Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the courageous step of getting back into housing in 2017.

The refugee housing problem would not exist if sufficient social housing had been built over 30 years for residents in need. Help should be available to anyone who cannot afford market solutions.

Meanwhile, the cost of market rental housing for those who can pay continues to rise as demand outstrips supply.

That is a completely different issue from the cost of immigration and refugee services.

For the federal government to defend itself against accusations that it caused the housing crisis, it needs a national strategy engaging cities and provinces in the solutions.

There are a few provinces that have continued to support social housing in the past three decades but, by and large, the availability of housing for the poor has not been increased.

The Liberals have worked to tackle child poverty, and some of those direct payments have definitely made a difference.

According to statistics, more than two million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty because of the Canada Child Benefit.

But as incomes grow, the cost of living grows along with it.

The Liberals need a big new idea that goes beyond simply ministers making announcements in their own bailiwicks.

At one point, the government was looking at the creation of a Guaranteed Annual Income for all Canadians.

That idea needs to be dusted off, and the feds need to invite provinces and municipalities to the table to see who can help in what manner with the creation of a guaranteed income.

Basic housing should be a human right for all Canadians, with the guaranteed income built on the cost of housing by region.

Social housing should be national in scope, and it should be part of a major income reform.

Immigration and refugee support should be regionally based, and there should be incentives for moving to underpopulated regions of the country.

A big vision on how to house the underhoused, feed the underfed, and finance the poor would get everyone to the table.

In the current system, everyone is blaming the federal government for a problem that has largely been caused by provincial indifference and municipal greed.

The country also needs to understand what constitutes a basic housing right.

What should be the average housing size for socially funded financing?

Many Canadians live alone these days, which changes the type and size of housing we should be building.

There are no magic bullets. But the federal government needs to think bigger than single housing announcements if it wants to spread the responsibility—and the blame—for the current crisis.

A guaranteed income is the answer.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Sure, it comes with some demographic challenges. With increased demand, the cost of housing in Canada’s major cities is under extreme stress. But that is something that smart government immigration policy can plan for.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 27, 2023.

OTTAWA—One million new Canadians is something to celebrate.

Statistics Canada’s announcement last week that the country’s population will shortly reach 40 million was something of a shocker.

I remember when we were only 15 million strong.

But what is so fantastic about this population jump is that the majority of Canadians are happy about it.

In most nation-wide surveys, by and large, Canadians believe the country’s immigration has led to economic prosperity.

Sure, it comes with some demographic challenges. With increased demand, the cost of housing in Canada’s major cities is under extreme stress.

But that is something that smart government immigration policy can plan for.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser announced last week that his department would be making some changes to the immigration policy. They include targeting specific subsets of workers for the immigration fast track, and incentivizing the immigration point system for people who are willing to move to underpopulated areas of the country.

Both moves make sense. We need skilled workers to cover off the job gap in certain sectors, and if they can come from abroad, the holes will be filled more quickly than waiting for apprenticeship and college graduates.

That doesn’t minimize the need for the government to aggressively promote apprenticeship and interprovincial migration of skilled labour. But it can supplement the shortages on a short-term basis.

As for the changes to where new immigrants live, that will be met with approval by big-city and small-town politicians.

Big-city mayors know that increasing populations put additional pressures on high-ticket items like local transit and infrastructure.

Municipalities are also grappling with the challenge that most downtown locations are becoming too expensive for the locals, pressuring developers into messy evictions and legal disputes with long-term tenants.

By moving immigrants into smaller communities, the changes plug the workforce gap that those communities are facing and simultaneously encourage local economic growth with the arrival of new families who need to purchase housing, appliances, furniture, and other big-ticket items.

With the exception of the People’s Party of Canada, most federal political parties seem to approve of the direction the government is taking in announcing an increase in the number of annual immigrants welcomed into the country.

Parties usually follow the wishes of the population. In most regions, the population is favourable to the hike in numbers.

However, Quebec is always tricky as the voters there do not want to see the French language undermined by immigrants who have a tendency to prefer raising their children in English.

Quebec has not exactly rolled out the red carpet to newcomers, with rules that prohibit religious headgear in public service positions, including teaching.

It is probably the only province where the majority of citizens would likely oppose a plan for mass migration.

As for the rest of the country, most provincial governments have experienced a direct economic boom related to immigration.

If the current population growth rate continues, the country will end up with almost 50 per cent immigrants within the next quarter century.

At the moment, immigrants comprise one-fifth of the country’s population.

But you only have to visit cities like Toronto and Vancouver to see the impact of migration on the new face of Canada.

And thus far, communities seem to be adapting and thriving.

Of course, there are problems. Triads and some gang elements well-established in their home countries have taken root in Canada.

But most studies show that Canadian-born residents are far more likely to commit crime than those who have come from other countries.

That doesn’t stop PPC Leader Maxime Bernier from railing against all forms of immigration.

But the Conservatives are playing it a lot smarter. For those who oppose immigration, they have been very active in demanding that the government close off leaky borders. In that respect, they are able to satisfy those who oppose immigration while at the same time wooing the communities who very much depend on family reunification and the chance to move to Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had to tackle that issue when the American president put migration front and centre on the bilateral agenda.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to Ottawa has partly focused on amending the safe country agreement so that land borders cannot be used by those who want to transit illegally from the United States to Canada.

With a better safe country agreement, the boom is welcome.

It makes the country stronger.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 7, 2022.

OTTAWA—Canada is bucking a global trend by announcing a major increase in immigration targets over the next three years.

The announcement that 1.45 million newcomers will be welcomed made headlines around the world.

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Sean Fraser delivered a clear message at his press conference, “Look, folks, it’s simple to me. Canada needs more people.”

Fraser is right. The country’s future depends on a growing labour force and the only way to achieve that growth is by immigration.

The numbers move rapidly over the next three years to hit the half-million mark in 2025.

While the numbers are large, they are consistent with a historic plan which has Canada welcome the equivalent of one per cent of the population annually.

The minister broke the plan down into details involving family reunification, provincial sponsorship, economic immigration, and refugee sponsorship.

The announcement was met with a positive reaction across the country.

Framed as “An Immigration Plan to Grow the Economy,” the minister explained the plan was a way to allay the burgeoning labour shortage in multiple domains.

There was significant explanation of the why, and most observers greeted the explanations positively.

Even Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has not fallen into the trap of his predecessors who thought they could use anti-immigrant sentiment to whip up electoral support.

With 23 per cent of our population currently made up of immigrants, going after them politically could have very negative consequences.

It is fair to say that the proposed “barbaric cultural practices” snitch line proposed by the Tories during the 2015 election dealt a fatal blow to their election hopes.

Poilievre is not about to make the same mistake. His own wife is an immigrant, so he is unlikely to fall into the trap of opposing a hike in immigration targets.

What he will do is focus on the bread-and-butter issues of how well the program is being delivered.

In that regard, there is some fertile ground for Conservatives to attack the current mess in immigration processing.

The 2023 immigration system, without the announced increases, suffers a backlog of 2.7 million applicants.

Those applicants do not have the political power of Canadians looking to get their passports renewed. But both programs are managed by the same department and they have both been failing.

In IRCC immigration queues, you do not even have the right to get an answer from a human being.

Even MPs are stymied when it comes to assisting applications of family members in queue for a visa.

I have been trying to help a friend who initially applied to immigrate to Canada in 2013. His application was approved in the Quebec nomination process back in 2019.

A university professor from Lebanon who specializes in design, Antoine Abi Aad would be an ideal immigrant.

We met several years ago at a world design summit where he was one of the presenters. He reached out two years ago after he was approved to immigrate to Canada.

All he needed was a travel visa. I offered to help and reached out to the office of then-Global Affairs minister Marc Garneau, whose team did their best to assist.

They could get no information on the file and were told that the IRCC was waiting on him for information. They couldn’t even ascertain the nature of the allegedly missing information.

Even with my help, he was never able to get an answer as to what information was missing.

Two years later, he is still waiting.

All his paperwork is in order and he cannot even speak to a human being on any of the IRCC computerized platforms.

Announcing new ambitious immigration targets is a good thing.

But being able to process the 2.7 million people who have been waiting in the queue for years is even more important.

Governments need to be able to deliver on basic services, like passports and immigration applications.

The IRCC was also responsible for the nation-wide mess that saw passport offices closed for more two years even though Service Canada actually paid the political price for the disorganization.

The passport mess that IRCC was responsible for is exactly the same mess currently facing prospective immigrants.

Canada will lose those immigrants we are hoping to attract if it takes years to even get an answer.

Antoine Abi Aad applied to immigrate to Canada in 2013.

Next year is the 10th anniversary of his application.

Shouldn’t the IRCC deliver the basics. That means ending its 2.7 million waiting list.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Many of the Brexiteers voted ‘Leave’ over immigration, but few in the U.K.—and Canada—seem to understand how vital immigration is for economic growth.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2019.

OTTAWA—Brexiteer Boris Johnson is taking his country to the brink.

Parliamentary chaos, left in his wake, is a reminder to all of us that governments matter.

British singer-songwriter Billy Bragg characterizes the current mess as “the most divisive years” in the history of his homeland. Bragg compared last week’s hasty prorogation to the work of the last proroguer, King Charles the First, who was ultimately beheaded.

“Consensus is further away than any time I can remember,” bemoaned Bragg in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview.

Brits are getting a bird’s eye view of the importance of government.

Johnson is pledging to leave the European Union on Halloween, whether or not his country has been able to negotiate an exit agreement. He may not succeed in prorogation, as senior members of his own inner circle have resigned in protest. But the self-imposed, drop-dead departure date of Oct. 31 is sure to throw the United Kingdom into deeper crisis.

The whole exercise is a glaring example of how not to operate in a democracy. The country is split right down the middle between Leavers and Remainers. The financial centre of London is overwhelmingly opposed to the decision, while most other parts of the country are slightly in favour.

The initial referendum was launched by former Prime Minister David Cameron as a way of shutting down internal Conservative opposition to the country’s increasing integration with the rest of Europe. Cameron made a foolish miscalculation on the matter, setting the benchmark for referendum victory at a simple majority. His country is now reaping the results of this ill-advised decision.

The younger the voter, the more likely they are to want to remain in the European Union. Conversely, older citizens, who remember the days before the United Kingdom joined the European Union back in 1973, are more likely to want to leave. Polling shows a strong correlation between age and a desire to exit the union. The majority of older people hold the view that European membership has deprived Britain of the power to control immigration. Younger pro-Europe voters believe immigration has made the country a more vibrant place and assisted economic growth, in complete contrast to their older counterparts.

Whatever happens in the next few weeks, one thing is certain: the importance of governments in planning for the long-term future has never been clearer.

Liberals took a beating in Canada when we asked the courts to establish a clear path forward in the event of another referendum on separation. The courts confirmed that separation approval would require a clear question supported by a clear majority. This principle was enshrined in the Clarity Act. A similar British law would have ensured that any decision to leave the European Union would have required a clear majority. The only thing clear today is that the country is split in half.

If the United Kingdom does exit with no deal, Scotland and Northern Ireland will quickly be knocking at Europe’s door to get back in. One country ends and another begins. The notion of a painless exit from the European Union is a pipe dream that not even Johnson will be able achieve.

Confusion belies a bigger question. Modern Canadian Conservatives claim that less government is better. They are positioning the upcoming federal election as a fight between over-governing Liberals and the party that wants to keep government out of your pocketbook and your life.

Libertarians like Maxime Bernier go even further. They believe the job of government is to get out of the way so the private sector can have free rein over the economy.

Most of us understand very little about how immigration policy and economic development go hand in hand. As Canadians have fewer children, the only way the country can meet workforce demand is by increasing immigration. Bernier’s plan to cut those numbers by more than a half is not only bad politics, it is bad economics, especially in struggling regions of the country. With an aging population, we need more young people to replenish the retiring workforce.

But the older we grow, the less we seem to understand or welcome the integration of immigrants and diverse populations into Canadian communities. Immigrants are key to revitalizing Canada’s flagging rural economies. They bring families, spending power, and entrepreneurial talent.

It is no surprise that British younger people welcome immigrant diversity as an economic asset. Their world has been turned upside-down by a generation that will not be around to bear the pain of Brexit madness.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.