The Decibel - Diagnosing what’s wrong with Canada’s immigration system

Episode Date: December 16, 2024

Immigration policy indirectly shapes a lot of aspects of Canadian life: the economy, the housing market, the labour force. And in 2024, the federal government made a major policy change by cutting immigration targets. In doing so, it acknowledged that the balance they had previously struck was not quite right.So The Globe and Mail’s Editorial Board studied the issue and looked at ways Canada can improve the system and restore the balance. Editorials Editor Patrick Brethour explains.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

One of the biggest policy issues in Canada in 2024 was immigration. In October, the Liberals made big news by reversing course and cutting immigration targets. At the time, the minister in charge, Mark Miller, came on the show to explain. I think over the last year, we've seen significant concerns from Canadians about the pace of immigration increase, including the volume. And that's a fair criticism. I think it's one that we absolutely have to own. So the government set new, lower targets. Instead of accepting half a million permanent residents next year, we'll take in just under 400,000. And that number is even lower for 2026.

They also put caps on the number of temporary residents, the first time Canada's government has done this. But is that enough of a difference to help an overwhelmed system? The Globe's editorial board studied the issues and looked at what changes Canada can make. Patrick Brethauer is the Globe and Mail's editorials editor, and he's on the show today. I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms, and this is The Decibel from the Globe and Mail. Pat, welcome to the show. Hello. To start, I think it would be beneficial to do just like a very short primer on what the editorial board is, because this is something a lot of newspapers have, of course.

But can you tell us how it works at The Globe? Sure. So I think the most important thing is that the editorial board is a group and it's not the opinion of any one person in that group. It's an opinion we arrive at through discussion that is then the view of the organization. So that's a key point. So even though an editorial can often read a bit like an opinion column, it's not a column. Columns are the view of one person. And who makes up that group? So the board's made up of journalists drawn throughout the newsroom. And we look at various issues of the day and call on that expertise from economics, politics, and everywhere else in the newsroom. So we'll discuss issues and make sure that we're sort of looking at the issue from all angles and then come to a consensus that's consistent, though, with the globe's philosophy, a philosophy that heavily

values individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and a general sort of view of the world that values institutions, but also wants to make sure that they're responsive to change. So why do newspapers even have an editorial board? So a great question. One is that it gives a voice to the organization. And in the English speaking world, generally, that's an unsigned editorial, underscoring that it's not the view of an individual, it's the view of the organization. That's not true, interestingly enough, in a lot of French speaking parts of the world, including Quebec, where signed editorials are much more common. But it's a way of highlighting issues and by putting the stamp of the editorial board on it, the Globe is signaling that we

think not only is this issue important, but the points we're making within it are also important. All right. And so last week, the editorial board chose to focus on immigration policy in Canada. So, Pat, of all the issues that Canada is facing at this moment, why did you choose to write about immigration? For a couple of reasons. One, it is just seems to be a foundational issue that's just affecting so many other things. The economy, where there's a big debate over how well the economy is doing

or not, given the population surge of recent years. Certainly housing markets, there's no doubt there that although temporary migration didn't cause the housing crisis, it certainly intensified it. And then generally a question of whether we have a good grip on our border. So we wrote on immigration in a series about 18 months ago, and then it was more highlighting, hey, look, this is an unprecedented surge in population. What's going on with that? This time around, we're really more focused on the consequences of that population surge and what can be done to deal with those consequences and mitigate those consequences. Okay. So for this series, you identified, it looks like five issues within immigration policy

that you say really need to be addressed. Can you just highlight for us, Pat, what are those five issues? So the first one we looked at was the system that determines who gets to come here as an economic migrant. It's called the point system. And right alongside that, the issue of credentials, that once you're here as a skilled immigrant, are you able to make use of the skills that sort of brought you here in the first place? The second was border security. Obviously, that's been in the news recently, particularly with the concerns that incoming President Donald Trump has raised. The third was the system for determining refugee and asylum claims. The fourth was enforcement. So once we've made determinations on who should or shouldn't be here, are we able to back up those decisions and ensure that they hold? And then lastly,

the question of capacity and really, you know, are there, is there enough housing? Is there enough health and other social services to accommodate, you know, four or five, 600,000 new people a year? Okay. We are going to get into these issues that you'd mentioned and the solutions that the editorial board is suggesting. But I think, can we just start by explaining in broad terms how Canada's immigration system works, Pat? So, for example, if I want to come to this country, what are my options? What different streams does Canada have? Sure. How do you come to Canada? Well, you can come as an economic migrant through the point system, as I was just mentioning. That's basically permanent residency then,

right? You're coming to stay here. Permanent residency, that's right. Another kind of permanent residency is family reunification. And another kind of permanent immigration is the humanitarian stream, generally through a refugee claim, whether from within Canada or outside Canada. And then there are other specific programs. You might recall several years ago, we brought tens of thousands of people from Syria, for instance. So that's a specific kind of program. And then separate from that, there are different kinds of temporary migration. There are temporary foreign workers. There's a couple of different streams, but without getting into the complexities, the idea is you come here for a specific purpose to work and then also leave after a specific period of time.

Student visas, same idea. You come here for a specific period of time to study, maybe a little bit of extra time to work. But unless you get permanent resident status, you then leave the country. Okay. So you mentioned the point system is the first issue. So let's talk about this. How does Canada typically decide on who gets to become a permanent resident here? How does this point system work? Again, so we're talking about economic migrants, not refugees, not family reunification. Historically, it's been to assess a fairly broad criteria, language, experience, and expertise, and assign various parts of those

criteria, different points. It all adds up to a single score. And then when a candidate wants to add more permanent residents, it just starts at the top score. That person receives a permanent resident invitation and then goes down the list until we run out of spots. And then that is how we determine who gets invitations for permanent residency. That's how things worked historically. So as recently as 2019, almost all of the permanent resident invitations were in that general stream. That's changed a lot under the liberals in the last couple of years where they've been peeling off separate little streams, one for agriculture, some for francophone positions, so that the overall percentage of permanent residents that are selected solely because of their skill score

has dropped considerably. Okay, so why has the government recently made those changes, where they're not just looking at the point system, but they're looking at those kind of other exceptions, basically, that they'll make a priority? Sure. I think this is all part of a fundamental mistake the government made, which was to try and somehow use the immigration system to plug specific holes in the labor market, rather than saying what we need are smart, skilled people who will generally help the economy grow and they'll find their way once they're here. So if you think, you know, the government ramped up temporary foreign workers, why? Well, business said, oh, we have this huge labor shortage and

they brought hundreds of thousands of people here rather than saying, well, you have to compete with workers and the overall economy like everyone else. Maybe you have to add, you know, offer higher wages, maybe you have to automate more, but you should figure that out. We're not going to do your recruiting job for you. But the liberals chose the path that we will do recruiting for you. We will split off specific programs. We will ramp up the temporary foreign workers program. Okay. I wonder though, because as you're saying, this is, yes, pressure from business as well, but we do have a shortage of certain kinds of workers, right?

Like I'm thinking about healthcare workers. We talk a lot about the shortages there. Sure. Instruction workers are trying to build a lot of new houses. So don't we need a specific kind of workers? Wouldn't this make sense? So certainly, yeah. I mean, there's a shortage of workers in some industries by definition at the current wages they're offering. And I sort of like to joke, you know, there's a shortage of workers who want to work at minimum wage the same way there's a shortage of, for me, a shortage of $5 champagne. For sure, yeah, I can't buy $5 champagne. But why is that? Because I'm not offering enough, right? If I increase the price I'm willing to pay, I'll have all the champagne or workers that I want.

OK, so so just lay this out for me then. So the issue what is the issue, I guess, with bringing in these workers that are not ranked on that traditional point system like you explained? Yeah. So the issue is that those workers, they still have a points ranking. But if you look in the individual programs, their points score tends to be much lower than people in the general stream. So that's one problem. We're letting in people with lower scores. And then the other effect, since the number of spots in the general stream is smaller, the score that you need to get into Canada is higher. So what is, I guess, a possible solution here to address the issue in how the government picks permanent residents?

The solution is pretty basic, which is to go back to the system that worked for decades and that didn't involve trying to game labor markets. And if you do that, you have people that are well positioned to adapt to their new life in Canada, to find fruitful work and to contribute to Canada and to contribute to building their own lives. Of course, there's an important caveat that we made, which is we should make sure that you can use the skills that brought you here. So for instance, we wrote about this, there's estimates that there are 13,000 internationally trained medical graduates in Canada that are able, or at least not allowed, to practice medicine, even when we have a dire shortage

of doctors. So that's a bit perverse. It's probably true that not all of those 13,000 doctors are qualified, or at least qualified enough, but a lot of them would be. And really, the solution is to have an expedited credentials process that allows those people to find out pretty quickly if their credentials hold in Canada, and if not, where the gaps are. Okay. So as you're saying, of course, we need to acknowledge that credentials do exist for a reason, because that's setting the standard. And from what I understand,

the federal government isn't setting those standards, right? Those are professional bodies setting those standards. Indeed. So not all of this is on Ottawa's shoulder at all. And not all is even on the shoulders of the provincial government. Some of this comes down to industry associations. So, yeah, I mean, doctors don't have exclusive jurisdiction over who's going to become a doctor, but there is a heavy influence they have. So yeah, there's some onus on a bunch of groups outside of Ottawa, for sure. We'll be back in a minute.

So Pat, another issue that you looked at was around Canada's refugee system. So let's talk about that. What is the issue there? So the issue primarily is the backlog. In other words, the number of outstanding cases that have yet to be decided on. So if you look back at 2015, the start of the Liberals' time in power, the backlog then was just a shade under 10,000 cases. As of the end of October, that number was above 260,000. So that's an enormous growth. Now, it's true, you know, the number, just generally in the world, the number of sort of movements of refugees around the world has increased.

So that, you know, that's true. Nevertheless, though, given the current rate at which Canada processes refugee claims, that's around three years waiting time. And that, in our view, creates an issue that if I have a borderline or even fraudulent claim and I make it, I can count on being in Canada at least three years. And then there are appeals and other legal avenues that could extend that. But I can certainly count on being in Canada a good long stretch, even if my claim doesn't really have a solid basis. Okay, so you're identifying the issue that because we have this huge backlog, it could mean that we get more fraudulent claims

because people know it'll take a while to get through all those claims. Why can they count on being in Canada until their claim is being heard? Those are the rules. So there's a 39-year-old Supreme Court decision that shorthanded the Singh decision that said that once you're in Canada, you're entitled to due process, which in the case of refugees means a full oral hearing and including knowing the points that the government wants to make against your application. So previous to the same decision, a lot of this was dealt with by way of written communications and written decisions. The Supreme Court in 1985 said, not good enough. Refugees, like everyone else, have the protection of the charter, so they must have a full oral hearing. The process that the government set up is that those hearings are held by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and that the pace at which they're hearing them is slow enough that if I make an application today,

I can reasonably assume that it's not going to be heard until many months in the future, about three years at this point. Do we actually have a sense of how big of an issue the problem of fraudulent applications is? Because what you're saying, it seems to be, is that this could encourage fraudulent applications. But do we actually know that? There's no count on fraudulent applications. And I should say, I'm sure there may be some fraudulent applications, but there are also applications that are simply not that likely. And I think people might have a sense in their mind that I don't really have a case,

but maybe I have a case. So it wouldn't necessarily be out and out fraud. But a reasonable way of looking at this is that there's two categories called abandoned cases and withdrawn cases. In other words, cases that are never heard or at least not heard till there's a decision. And if you look at the pattern in those categories, nine years ago, only about five and a half percent of cases were abandoned or withdrawn. And almost all cases ended in a yes or a no. But so far in 2024, that five and a half percent proportion has jumped to 21%. So more than a fifth of cases are either abandoned or withdrawn, and only about four-fifths of cases end in a yes or a no. To us, that indicates that there's a fairly significant number of people that realize that they don't have very strong claims. And once their case

comes up to a yes or a no, withdraw those claims. So, I mean, it sounds like at the heart of this, though, you're saying the issue is this massive backlog of over 260,000 applications. What can be done to fix that backlog? So one thing the government's already done is to increase resources for the IRB. And that has, in fairness, has had some effect. The IRB is processing more cases per month than it has ever done. The problem is just that the new cases outstrip even that bigger capacity. The point we've made is that you can't just keep doing the thing you've done that is not working. You need to take a new approach, have new thinking. So one thing would be for the IRB to no longer hear cases in the order that they're received. If I made an application today and I know that my hearing is going to occur within the next two or three months, if I have a fraudulent claim, I'm probably not going to make it.

If I have a flimsy claim, I'm going to think pretty hard about whether I want to do that. But, of course, you've got people who've been waiting for two years, though, that are still just going to be waiting then, I guess, if we're seeing the most recent cases first. That's a very fair point. I think one key thing is for most people, not all, but for most people, they would be waiting in Canada. So it would impart, unfortunately, some air of uncertainty into their lives. They wouldn't know for sure. But in exchange for creating that problem, we would hopefully be solving the problem

of creating an incentive to join the queue. And over time, then that backlog would fall. Another great suggestion that has been made is to then break apart this sort of process for hearing cases. And for the immigration department, which is separate from the IRB, to hear cases in the first instance and to make decisions on cases that are an obvious yes. Then for the borderline cases or cases that seemed an obvious no that remained, those could go to the IRB, which could hold an oral hearing and fulfill the constitutional obligations that the Supreme Court laid down. But I'd guess that volume would be much diminished. Let's move to the last issue that you mentioned, Pat. This is

around the idea of capacity and the question of exactly how many people Canada can bring in and integrate. What did the editorial board find when it looked into the issue of capacity? So, Vanneka, one thing I want to make very, very clear, we are not talking about the idea of cultural assimilation or somehow the idea of integration into the culture of Canada. We're really just looking at things on an infrastructure level, like is there enough housing? So the parliamentary budget officer, which is a sort of a fiscal watchdog that's part of the federal government, estimated that if the federal government followed through on its pledge to really roll down temporary migration,

that that would cut the housing gap in Canada by a lot, but it would still leave about half of the gap in units that were needed even after those goals were achieved. And our point is that setting immigration goals has got to take that gap into account. That is not fair to Canadians to bring in, you know, hundreds of thousands of new people that are going to exacerbate that housing shortage, drive up rents, drive up housing prices. And it's also not fair to the newcomers because a lot of them, when they first arrive, are lower income folks who are one of the primary victims of a housing shortage. So it's really not fair to anyone to, by all means, get to work on the housing crisis and get housing starts increased.

But at the same time, you have to calibrate immigration levels to take into account the current reality of the housing market. How does the government calculate its targets now? Well, the official list is priorities and objectives for immigration, including goals that are set out in legislation, economic and regional needs. A third one is international obligations and commitments. So, you know, what are our international humanitarian commitments? A fourth is processing capacity. Boy, if they're taking that into account, they better check their sums because as we've just discussed, there is a big, big problem with backlogs. And fifth is the factor that we've just been talking about, the capacity to settle, integrate, and also retain newcomers.

Just to end here, Pat, we've talked about a lot of issues. And these points that the editorial board has raised, they're obviously they're not simple issues. The solutions themselves are quite complex. Right. I guess I wonder how feasible are these changes for a system that is really already quite overburdened? First of all, the idea that we're going to fix these problems right away is is not a realistic one. And I think that's that's an important point. Secondly, these problems are not brand new. The conservatives were working at these

kind of issues 15 odd years ago, but the scale today is much bigger. But there are some issues, I think, that we've identified where the problems are feeding on themselves. And if left unchecked, they're really going to threaten to undermine the immigration system, perhaps catastrophically. And hence, that's the name of the series on the brink. So we need to pull back from that brink and start making some changes that at least send things in the right direction, even if that might take some time. So there's no magic solution, but it does require political will on the part of the government. And a tough thing to do to also say we have made mistakes.

We are going to do things differently. You know, that that's a tough pill for most people to swallow and for most governments to swallow. But they do have to do it. Pat, thank you for being here today. Thank you. That's it for today. I'm Mainika Raman-Wellms. Our producers are Madeline White, Michal Stein, and Allie Graham.

David Crosby edits the show. Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Matt Frainer is our managing editor. Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.