The Paul Wells Show - Immigration Minister Marc Miller

Episode Date: April 3, 2024

A few years ago, the government drastically increased their immigration targets, leading to record levels of immigration into Canada. But recently, they’ve decided to temper those numbers, among concerns that such high immigration is exacerbating housing shortages. Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, talks about why the government made that decision.

Suddenly, Canadian politics is all about immigration, which means it's really interesting to be this guy. It's no question that we look at the numbers and the impact that that has had on cost of shelter, affordability. Sometimes I think the mistake we make is not looking at the benefit that these people that are coming into the country have, but it's come with that conundrum in and around affordability. Sometimes I think the mistake we make is not looking at the benefit that these people that are coming into the country have, but it's come with that conundrum in and around affordability that I think we need to face responsibly. Today, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Mark Miller. I'm Paul Wells, the Journalist Fellow in Residence

at the University of Toronto's Monk School. Welcome to the Paul Wells Show. There's a saying that's become popular among political strategists in the last few years. If you're explaining, you're losing. The idea is that if you've got an opponent who's launching a lot of accusations at you, and you get stuck in the weeds explaining the details of this thing that you're managing, then that's a bad place to be in a debate. Because they've got certainty and you've got complexity. They've got simplicity and you've got, well, you never really know. So that's why people say this thing. If you're explaining, you're losing. I hate that saying. I think the philosophy behind it is lobotomizing our politics and making our entire discourse hostage to the least attentive, least thoughtful voters. I think a lot of things need explaining. And to me, it's a mark of courage when people are willing to do it. the show, he was the Minister of Crown Indigenous Relations, which was hard enough. But now he's the Minister of Immigration. And to the extent people worry that we're losing control of an immigration

system that's been admired around the world, that's his problem. To the extent people think immigrants and temporary residents are making our housing shortage worse, that's his problem. Fortunately, he's a born explainer. He's been making the rounds lately, talking to a lot of my colleagues. but I think he and I had a particularly rich and detailed conversation, and I'm happy to share it with you. Mark Miller spoke to me from Montreal. Hey, Mark Miller, thanks for coming back on the show.

Thanks for having me on again. You're doing what seems to me to be a bit of a media blitz. You talked to John Iveson for his column yesterday. You were on Mike Moffitt's podcast. You've been talking to Rosie Barton. How come? It actually, there's no deliberation behind it. And usually, as you know, when we pitch you guys to do something, you either see it as an opportunity to get us on another topic or it gets totally blown away and doesn't work. This is sort of just random. You know, there've been a lot of big decisions that my department has taken over the last little

while. And I think it's attracted a lot of attention, even though they weren't necessarily entirely intended to be focused on affordability. The two big decisions that we've taken in the department with respect to reducing people that are here on a temporary basis by about 20%. And the big whirlwind in and around international students and the stabilization reduction of those numbers for the integrity of the system are ones that have been seen as very, very important affordability measures that will play into some of the decision making into potential reductions of the interest rate, which will have an impact across Canada, but also on the perception that Canadians have that

immigration is something that they want their governments, including the federal government, to be a little smarter about. So it's naturally garnered attention and obviously glad to talk about it. I don't think we talk perhaps enough about the positive side of immigration, what it brings to the country, and what the consequences are if we don't move along the path that I think that we're trying to trace for Canada. Do you watch Letter Canada at all? I do. I haven't watched it consistently as a series, but yes, is the answer. Yeah.

Among the many kind of catchphrases on that show is to tap the brakes on something. And it strikes me that to some extent, that's what you've been doing in the last few months on various aspects of Canada's immigration. Would you agree with that perception? And why do you think that those decisions have come to dominate your 2024? It isn't about tapping the brakes. It's about looking at the immigration system as it currently stands. After being in power for eight years, looking at the good, the bad, and the ugly, and making some adjustments.

It's no question that we look at the numbers and the impact that that has had on the cost of shelter, affordability. Sometimes I think the mistake we make is not looking at the other side of the equation is the really the benefit that these people that are coming into the country have. But it's come with that conundrum in and around affordability that I think we need to face responsibly as a government. If we don't have these responsible conversations as governments, as a society, we're going to have some irresponsible ones. I truly think that we've gotten lazy as a country about talking in the value of immigration.

I think as a country, we can face these challenges in a mature way, like through most of our history, we actually have. But that optimism is one that can easily be dash long, around enough to know that we're only one political statement or two away from a national leader, from being in one of these toxic whirlwinds that we see happening in the United States, for example. Let's back up a little bit. You've now been in this portfolio since late June. And before that you were in Crown Indigenous Relations. When something like this happens, do you find out basically about an hour before the you were in Crown Indigenous Relations. When something like this happens, do you find out basically about an hour before the swearing in that you've got this new portfolio,

or do you get to make representations about what you'd like to do, or how did this happen? Yeah, and I think those that do too forcefully usually don't end up in cabinet or end up with a nasty surprise. We've seen particular pertinent examples of that in the past. I've never, I mean, we can get into my relationship with the prime minister, but I've never asked the prime minister for any particular favors other than being able to make a difference. And he's given me that opportunity. I'm really thankful to him for it.

I did have, to answer your question, I did have a sense going into this that I would be switching portfolios. So I kept quite quiet about it. I didn't know what until a relatively short period of time, not an hour before, but a relatively short period of time before that. And that interim period is kind of interesting, personally, because you have a piece of information that you can't divulge except for to your spouse. And heaven knows you should not be telling your kids because they communicate with other kids on all sorts of social media platforms. So that's sometimes how leaks occur. But it is an interesting period to reflect on because you're reflecting upon perhaps your hopes, disappointments, anything in between, and aspirations. This is a challenge. It's a challenging portfolio. I love what I'm doing.

But it's one also that is consequential, I believe, for the next election. So I'm happy I'm in it. But I also loved what I was doing before. So those are periods of personal reflection that you go through, usually within a week or 48-hour period before the actual shuffle is announced. What were the sort of broad takeaways from your initial briefings? I mean, you came out and you told reporters quite early on that there was something pretty badly amiss in international student visas. And some of the first headlines in your portfolio was, who's this jackass Mark Miller blaming higher education for our immigration problems? And then over time, some of us read some of what you had seen and it became a lot less critical. What was it like taking stock of that phenomenon?

It's funny, you talked about political communication impressions that commentators, phenomenon. It's funny you talked about political communication impressions that commentators, journalists, reporters have on what people say at their initial sortie from cabinet or first initial briefings. I've always been a bit of a political heretic and thinking that good policy makes good communication. I still believe it. It's why I am, and I have a lot of colleagues like that, I'm quite serious about getting fully briefed up. Obviously, I wasn't fully briefed up going into the portfolio. And once I had got my team together, it was quite clear that we were facing a bit of a cliff when it came to the untapped availability of international students to provincially regulated post-secondary institutions, and that there weren't being measures taken by provinces to stem that flow. If we continued on the path that we were continuing, we would have had 1.4 million students. And further, if I hadn't put into place some important solvency and integrity measures at first, but also put a cap on things. Cap is not a perfect way to do things. It has all sorts of potential perverse effects, particularly when you're potentially regulating areas of provincial jurisdiction, like post-secondary

institutions. But we had to do it for, one, the integrity of the system and sort of short-term school year cycles, but also in the long term. What scared me, I think, the most was the number of asylum seekers that was coming out of these institutions, which is a trailing indicator insofar as the recent waves and uptick has not been fully reflected on those that have claimed asylum as a result of entering Canada and not having a successful experience in Canada than claiming asylum.

But the Ontario school system, for example, had 10,000 people that claimed asylum over the last three years. That is not the sign of a healthy system. It's not what the international visa system was intended for. Ideally, those people are solvent when they come into the country. They have to be. And they should be getting the best education that Canada has to offer. That's what we pitch on the international stage. And that's who we compete with on the international stage against Britain, against Australia, against America, that have

similarly situated institutions that offer a lot of possibilities to the same top talent. That's the reputation that we're supposed to cultivate. The reality is that this is a system that's been sort of perceived as a backdoor entry to Canada. Not that the pool of people that are here are entitled to dignity, respect, and perhaps integration into a workforce that needs to get younger. These people are largely kids, they're younger, so perhaps ideal candidates, but that was not the designated principle behind that international visa student that has largely gone uncapped for 40 years. So it was a difficult decision, but I think it was one that was very important for the next few years and beyond as we try and get that system under control, as well as other aspects of people that are here on a notionally

temporary basis. Now, to some extent, why these mostly colleges are doing this is not your problem. Your problem is to note the effect of that ramp up and deal with it. But why do you suppose they are? I mean, you clearly suspect that some of them are just profiteering, but you've said that not all of them are. Why is it important for colleges near where I grew up to hand out tens of thousands of student visas? We've spoken a lot about diploma, you know, puppy mills, fraud, really bad actors in the ecosystem. But the ecosystem is one that isn't limited to fraud. Clearly, the federal government has a role to stem fraud. The more and more it sticks its nose into post-secondary education, the more it is

jurisdictionally fraught. And the corresponding ability of the federal government to actually take measures to deal with those matters, otherwise it's not lawful. That doesn't prevent us from noting that this is an ecosystem that has been created largely by massive underfunding by provinces of post-secondary education and institutions. And those institutions are bright, they're smart, and they have looked abroad. I think, sadly, not to condemn the source country, but to one source country for about 45% of its applicants. But they've gone abroad to get people that'll pay three, four, perhaps even five times

what my kids pay now currently, at least two of them, and university and other Canadians that are entitled to lower fees, sometimes regulated in the case of Ontario quite strictly. So to fill those coffers, they've looked abroad, created programs, filled up other programs, and that has carry-on effects. One, in the nature and quality of the programs, but also the student experience that is expected when someone's paying 40 50 000 and shoved into a room with 15 other colleagues that is not what the program was designed for so it's important for the federal government to step in highlight this

and make sure the provinces are doing their jobs yesterday or the day before ontario made i think what is a responsible announcement in realigning the visas that will go to public institutions. That's a good step. Obviously, it has to be followed through on, but it is a good step. And BC, which has been the other province that has had a disproportionate amount of international students, has also taken some responsible steps. So I think the system is moving, and that's very encouraging. So your big decision on international student visas was to cap it at current levels. That's still a very high level of visas. It is. And I think it addresses a number of issues, but it isn't the final point in the discussion. I think because we need to see how this plays out,

it was important to take a principle of no net new growth, but there's no denying that that growth that has occurred in the last few years has been significant. What we're doing is stemming the exponential growth that was threatening to occur and seeing how institutions, governments, provincial principally will adjust to that. There will be some natural readjustment based on some

of the solvency criteria that we've put into place based on the acceptance rate formulas that exist across the province and how sort of the visa applicant goes through the sausage grinder to become an actual visa holder. So that's to see. But, you know, I am prepared to take additional measures if need be, including access to postgraduate work permits, including spousal permits, which do create an impact and a potential on the number of people that are here on a temporary basis. So make it harder for somebody to launch a career here and to bring their spouse over? I'm giving the impression that we don't want that to occur. I think to some extent we do,

but we want that to occur with the right talent targeted towards the proper workforce stream and not simply a sham business degree or MBA that gets people in businesses that are just cheap labor. That isn't the intention of that visa stream in particular. And it's something we need to fix. It's not an overnight thing. I think it was an important first step, but it was a significant shock to the system that will create turbulence during the first year. But we'll have to see how that plays out.

So we're talking about the effects of a decision that you made a couple, that you announced a couple months ago to cap student visas. You made another high profile decision more recently, which is to reduce the absolute number of temporary residency visas in Canada. Tell me about that. Yeah, this is a measure that we felt needed to be taken. The current profile of people that are in Canada on a temporary basis is, I think, wildly misunderstood. It's something that's jumped from a couple percentage points to about 6.2, 6.3 percent of the population in 2023. It is perhaps even higher given the influx of Ukrainian temporary residents.

But it is one that has jumped significantly with impact on affordability and the cost of shelter. Economists attribute that as one of the contributing factors to increase in rental prices, pressure on the education system, pressure on the health system. It's uneven in different provinces. And I think it's something that we've needed to and do need to get under control. What I announced last week was a soft target of 5% to be achieved over the next three years. That's a significant reduction of about 20% in the current number of people that are here on a temporary basis. Understanding what that pie chart looks like is key to this discussion. The impression most people have about temporary residents is that they are people that are working in the fields or working in the fish transformation industry. That's only a small percentage of that pie chart. The rest is

international students. It is people that are here on postgraduate work permits. It is people that come in under our international mobility pathway, which has a lot of iterations, including fulfilling our international obligations under our trade agreements, intercompany transfers, as well as what I mentioned earlier, asylum seekers and humanitarian pathways. Now, last time I checked, the war in Ukraine is not about to end, and we will not be sending Ukrainians back to a war zone. Some of them may want to become permanent residents here. So there are things that we can control and then there are things that we can only manage. If we do things the wrong way,

and the Desjardins report that came out the other day clearly highlights that, we have the potential of impacting the economy negatively, which is what we don't want to do. And so there's a huge role that provinces need to play in taking a look at their workforce, taking a look at the over-reliance on temporary workers, and to work with us to adjust that. My colleague, Randy Blasano, at the same time announced the reduction in one of the measures that we have, which is to reduce in some sectors the availability of temporary workers from three to 10 workers to two to 10 workers, which is to reduce in some sectors the availability of temporary workers from three to ten workers to two to ten workers, which is important and will reduce that number. There are differences within provinces at the same time.

Quebec does not have the international student challenge that Ontario does. It does have a challenge in the manufacturing industry where there is three times more temporary workers than there is in Ontario, which has a bigger manufacturing base. So that's work that needs to be done. I need those guys at the table telling me where their needs are and where they will use their responsibility to reduce the number of people that are here temporarily. That's the inflow, Paul. And I think another discussion that we need to have as well is what the outflow of those people look like. All those people will not leave the country. There needs

to be increased paths to permanent residency domestically. A lot of that is on my shoulders, how I use that $500,000 allocation we have for permanent residency, looking at more domestic draws, which is important because it doesn't mean another person coming into the country needing more services and shelter or a house. It means that I take those people out of the temporary pool into the permanent pool. Now, it has to be done the right way. It can't be just done to juke the stats, to use an expression from The Wire. It needs to be done in a way that makes sense and entitles people that are qualified to become permanent residents. That makes a ton of sense. Even Premier Smith, that I don't think I agree with on much, if anything,

has said she wants more asylum seekers from Ukraine to transition into permanent residence. There's some geopolitical discussions to be had there. But my point is that if you are a province and you have entitlements to select workers into the permanent residence path, which all of them do, Quebec has the most responsibility. Use that to draw from the current pool that's here and let's be smarter about how we're using our labor pools. You've mentioned Ukraine a couple of times. I'm just wondering how many Ukrainians have moved to Canada as a result of the war? I had the impression that Canada was generous in offering places to Ukrainians, but that in the nature of things,

they were stopping a lot closer to home than Canada. Do you have a sense what the numbers are? It'll be about 300,000 in a month. So it's a lot and not insignificant. No one would forgive us if we did anything else. And we don't track departures, but so these are rough numbers, but it's really significant.

There will be at some point a pressure for people to want to stay. There are pathways currently that we have as part of Canada's programs to transition some people to permanent residency, but not all are eligible. So there will be a point at which we'll have to have a discussion, including a geopolitical discussion with all our partner countries that welcomed Ukrainians as to how we do a managed repatriation or pathways to permanent residency. This wasn't intended to be an exodus from Ukraine. It was intended to keep people safe and alive.

Now there's a bigger narrative here or a bigger fact which is that general immigration numbers went up quite a bit as a matter of government policy from about 2021. Canada has always been a country of high immigration. It's nearly consensual that that's a good thing. But a few years ago, really on the exit out of COVID, your predecessors bumped the number up. Why? That discussion predates COVID. We have been struggling during COVID, but even before then with real labor shortages. A very negative demographic curve, not dissimilar from any of our partner G7 G20 countries. countries and it should scare the hell out of people. It's not as politically expedient to discuss in four year, two year, I guess, since we're in one of our electoral cycles, but it is one that if we don't address it in a responsible way in generational terms, we'll face a cliff and a wall that will jeopardize the services that Canadians consider, in the case of health care, part of our national identity.

And it's short-term educational challenges, schools emptying, and people aren't having the number of babies that are needed solely to make that workforce younger. The seven to one ratio that existed when I was in 1973 is now getting closer to three and then two to one of workers to retirees. You just have to look at the pie chart of where the government of Canada spends its expenses. It goes to an older segment of the population, which can lead to disenfranchisement from younger segments of the population. And that can have electoral repercussions. I think solving these problems in a smart way, solving these problems in a smart way, not to say that we necessarily deserve an A on this,

is important. Although the Bank of Canada has highlighted that this government in particular has done a singularly good job at making the workforce younger compared to its peers. It's measurable. But that has come with a conundrum, the conundrum being the impact on affordability, impact on housing, impact on infrastructure, impact on social services. Yes, run by the provinces. But whenever we do in-depth polling or strategic review that my department did before I became minister of it, consensus over immigration is usually challenged by criticisms of efficiency and the need to get our, lack of a better expression, get our acts collectively together as provincial and federal governments. The case for higher immigration as a sort of a long-term economic policy, a structural

policy for Canada's long-term future, was made in 2017 by Dominic Barton's Economic Advisory Council, a sort of a ginger group that was set up by Minister Morneau in the early days. And among their sort of half dozen recommendations was annual immigration at 450,000, which in 2017 seemed like just an almost impossibly ambitious number. But again, since 2021, it's been higher than that, 500,000, which is where you're going to hold it for a couple of years. Did Dominic Barton's group influence the government's thinking on this sort of stuff? I can't speak for other ministers, certainly not my thinking, although I respect the guy. I've only met him a couple of times.

Interesting point. Some were sort of take it or leave it ones. But the discussions are ones, but the discussions are ones I think truly that we've reflected through the cabinet, some of the consultations we've had with our provincial partners trying to put together all those numbers. Immigration target level setting takes a parallel path as creating the budget. Ministers, in this case provinces or chambers of commerce, come forward with their numbers. They're always wildly above what ends up being in the budget. So too with the immigration

level numbers and there's a lot of picking and choosing between programs that are sort of jealously guarded bureaucratically and I think the decisions that we make between sort of the large categories, economic migration, which is the target that we aim is about 60% of the migration, something less talked about, but it brings capital in the country at low cost. And then less economic related, but very important for well being a family's family education, about 20%, and then 20% humanitarian are ones that have varying levels of costs associated per individual, I think all beneficial in the long run. But there's a balancing act that occurs there once you get sort of all the numbers into the aggregator into that.

And it's never a comfortable discussion with everyone fighting really hard for their constituents. So that is a bit of the level setting sausage making that I see. And we obviously look at heavily influenced these days by some of the analyses from economists and banks, but that's not solely the only consideration. We also have considerations of language, making sure the French is vital outside Quebec, inside Quebec as well, less my job, but I have an important role in helping them. And other humanitarian considerations that we can't necessarily predict all the time. We see things boiling in Haiti right now. We see other pathways that constituents diaspora ask us to open our hearts to, and we have some very difficult choices to make. So it's difficult, but I think

all these studies are informative, but we never rely solely on one of them. You pick and choose, and what comes out is through the announcements that we make. solely on one of them. You pick and choose, and what comes out is through the announcements that we make. Okay. I'm creeping up to a theory that has been aired out in some detail by my colleagues at Radio Canada, which is that the Dominic Barton Economic Advisory Panel

gave way to this NGO group called the Century Initiative, which is a group of quite prominent Canadians who are arguing for Canada's population to grow to 100 million. And I might as well air this out. I find it a fascinating theory, even if it isn't entirely persuasive, that Barton comes from McKinsey. Massively increasing immigration causes a lot of administrative problems, which generates a lot of contracts for McKinsey, and therefore everyone's happy.

You will have seen the reporting on Radio Canada that airs out this theory and I'm sure that you, I know that you've been asked about it. What do you make of this notion that this is essentially ginning up business for consultants? Look, I think they have lots of ways of making a lot of money, sometimes frustratingly so. I've been sort of singularly uninvolved in that effort. Not that I haven't seen what's been produced. These are some smart people. There's some take it or leave it stuff in there. It's a group of, in some constituencies, in some circles,

that has taken on sort of this conspiracy theory narrative. And, you know, if life were that easy, we might be in a different situation. But it's certainly a little wild sometimes, some of the projections they make. And some of the aspersions they cast on some fundamentally pretty decent people. But it's taken on right now in Canada, this Illuminati-esque angle to it that is just bullshit. So it is what it is. I don't disrespect those people.

Their opinions are important. Their main opinions and not the direction of the government of Canada. Your job does involve some pretty tricky implications on federalism. I mean, in the two biggest provinces, the ones where you and I spend most of our time, the Ford government wants basically as much immigration as they can get because they see that as a ready answer to some labor shortfalls. And the Quebec government, for traditional reasons, is a little more circumspect and a little more nervous about high immigration levels. And as a matter of fact, Premier Legault, a couple of weeks ago, asked the prime minister for even more control by Quebec over immigration

related decisions. And the prime minister turned him down. Can you explain to people who are less familiar with this, why Quebec has as much control over immigration decisions as it does and why the decision was made not to extend those powers? You know, I guess a couple of things. There's some, I think, bitter irony in the political narratives that are, there's some toxicity to it. If I look at some of the polling in those provinces, at least in one study that I just recently viewed, attitudes towards immigration are much more open in Quebec than they are, for example, in Ontario. That might be a surprise to some, but it happens to be true, at least according to at least a couple of things that I've read.

There's probably many reasons for that. That does not translate at the political scale. I think in Quebec City, there is a particular narrative that is electoralist in nature. And I think that's unfortunate. Quebec, when it does immigration, does it well. It has its challenges, but it's one where there's a lot of things that other provinces could learn from, particularly in some of the ways it has approached and integrated asylum seekers. Now, there's questions of volume. There's questions of absorptive capacity that are often unquantified and sometimes get conflated when they're not quantified properly with the willingness to welcome people.

But there are challenges in both provinces when it comes to asylum seekers and the right use and leveraging of these people that come to the country and how to integrate them into the permanent population and to have a successful immigration. I think about my province, which is Quebec. It has the existential challenge insofar as language is associated with identity and preserving the

French language in a sea of English. This is a challenge that Ontario has a responsibility for when it comes to its French-speaking part of the population, but it's not existential to the province of Ontario and who people see themselves as. And to the extent that we have favored and allowed immigration, particularly Anglophone migration, without properly federally creating the pathways for another prominent language across the world, fifth or sixth most important language, we've created and fueled a disproportion that Quebec has used politically, but also rightfully to demand more powers and more control over who comes in to Quebec. And I understand that. Robert Barassa negotiated this agreement in the 1990s, the Quebec Canada Accord, which basically has a mathematical formula that keeps increasing based on

federal expenditures, regardless of whether Quebec increases or decreases its population levels, that it has a large control over the economic segments of Quebec, contrary to Ontario and other provinces, can control its economic migration. I believe some other provinces are quite jealous of that arrangement. But it gets compensated to the tune of $750 million this year, $5.2 billion since we took government to integrate, including provide French services and resources to integrate people coming into Quebec under this agreement. So it is a very, is a foundational piece that defines our relationship with Quebec and immigration. It isn't the be-all and end-all. And when it comes to asylum seekers,

proper repartition allocation of asylum seekers across Canada, there's some work to be done to coordinate that. But I think some of the rhetoric has become a bit political and sometimes toxic in nature. The two discussions I've had with Premier Legault have dealt naturally about immigration. They are ones I think that we need to continue and have a bit more of a reasonable, rational conversation. I had a conversation yesterday with my colleague,

Christine Frechette, in Quebec City. I sensed that it was productive. But there's areas where we will not necessarily agree with the CAAC government on. And that's just the reality of politics. I have a responsibility federally to represent Quebecers and Canadians in one of the most important areas of our jurisdiction, which is immigration. Any country that gives away its power over immigration to a subnational entity or another body is not truly a country. So I think we can have really rational and sensible discussions over the use of the important powers that each of us has to make sure, particularly when it comes to Quebec, that we preserve its distinct identity as a nation. that we preserve its distinct identity as a nation.

As a matter of pure politics, because there's always politics when a premier meets a prime minister, were you and the prime minister helped by the relatively haphazard way that Premier Legault made his request? I mean, he hadn't mentioned that he was going to be asking for all powers in immigration

until question period the morning before the meeting. He said if he got a no, he'd explore his options. As far as I can tell, his options included tweeting about it and then moving on. I could imagine you guys having a tougher day at the office than what he handed you. Yeah, maybe. I mean, I know the prime minister sufficiently well enough to know that he would have said what he said regardless of what happened at the National Assembly a day or two prior. I think in terms of political pressure and narrative, that's probably a question that the Premier or Minister Fripp could probably answer better than me, but it certainly helps to go into a meeting with a reasonable sense of what is achievable without having wild

expectations that you know for a fact will not be satisfied coming out of it. That goes from a political conversation, a business conversation, to a relationship conversation. Within the last several months, I actually interviewed your deputy minister at the time, Christiane Fox, about an ambitious structural reform in the department that she was presiding over. She promptly got moved to a job in the Privy Council office closer to the clerk and you have a new deputy minister. Does that interfere with these kinds of ambitious structural reforms that are underway? And what can you as minister do about that? Yeah, and I think I told you at the time that, and I didn't know it was happening,

but I think I told you at the time that what often happens is the best ones get plucked for somewhere else. I can't remember what I said, but that was quite the fateful comment. But she is one of the best out there. You want two things. You want consistency in the public service and the ability to get a job done over a certain period of time. And you want people moving around it. Even in a cabinet shuffle, there's always a lag that creates turbulence and there is always an impetus to slow things down for a number of reasons. That happens in any shuffle of senior officials. Luckily, I got a good deputy minister who had a very good reputation, but he has his own way of doing things. And he may want to shape

the department in his own image as any good corporate manager or executive will do. So that comes with, can be good or bad turbulence, but it certainly comes with a different approach to things. I've seen his way that he wants to do things. I support him in it, but it is different than what Chris was doing. At the same time, you don't want to keep people in positions simply because they suit your political purposes and they have to be effective for your own political purposes.

And I think there's a tension between political type people like ministers who, compared to deputy ministers, have a fewer set of qualifications to be in the expertise area that they're in. Deputy ministers earn their job after years of slugging away. And sometimes a number of us ministers just get put here for a variety of reasons, hopefully based on capacity but um getting getting elected doesn't necessarily require the cv that you would want for you know if you're a defense minister justice minister or an immigration minister so um there is that sort of tension and i know i sound like i'm rambling on but those qualifications when you want people in your place

for your own purposes you don't want to prevent their upward mobility because these are people that have taken a different career path and deserve to be properly promoted. And I'm really happy for her because she's excellent and she'll do a good, and I think a great job at the Privy Council that has its own challenges. Speaking of challenges, last time you were on the podcast, the Liberals were eight points higher in the polls than they are today. How does that change your work? I may stop going on your podcast. I hope we're not 10 points lower next time. This is the beginning of the comeback, Miller.

Let's hope. You know, whether you agree with his approach or not, and I think a lot of self-confidence in politics comes from the attitude and approach of your leader. But the prime minister is never worried all that much about being an underdog. So being here, I would say that the feeling in caucus and cabinet is not aligned with the polls. Obviously, people have a sense of urgency. We've had this sense of urgency for a variety of reasons throughout COVID, but ever since coming out of COVID. We're in a minority, so we have to respect,

we always have to respect Parliament, but you also have to respect the relationships in Parliament or else we'll be out vying for our own jobs tomorrow. But obviously, being in this position focuses the mind. It focuses on the mind on what's important, what is unimportant. And I think if there's anything, criticism that's been leveled against our government over the last while, particularly coming out of the global pandemic, is we have tried to be everything to everyone. People expect us to be everything to everyone. We can't be everything to everyone. And we need to sort of narrow the menu in what

we're offering to Canadians. And whether we succeed or not, we'll be tested in a year and a half or so. But I think that's the mindset. I think we've got to get into that mindset where we keep doing the small things right. We keep hitting singles, not necessarily always trying to swing for the fence, but get things right for the people that we serve and that got us there. Sort of very basic way of managing a G7 country. You've talked a little bit about immigration as a file where people need to get their act together or have needed to get their act together where everything hasn't worked out exactly as hoped. What would your druthers be looking back at the last five years of the immigration portfolio? What could have been done better at the time? And what are your hopes for immigration as a policy

area over the next few years? Well, I guess to answer your second question first, I hope it doesn't become some toxic cesspool because the first people to pay for that are people that are in a precarious position themselves, immigrants. I'm not going to necessarily pay for it. So I really do hope that we are able to continue the Canadian consensus on immigration, knowing we're not immune to what's going on in the States. In fact, sometimes some of us are inspired for the better, for worse, by what goes on to the south of us. I really only think we're one stupid statement or two stupid statements away from a major political leader. To have this as a main point in the next election, it will be an important point in the next election.

But I do really hope that we remain responsible in that. As for the first question, the best way to be an asshole is to give your colleagues tips on how they did their job, because it's not productive. And 2020 hindsight is rampant in politics. I have a very close friendship with Marco Menichino, and in fact, in cabinet with Sean. And Ahmed and I are friends too. I was an MP when Ahmed was a minister and I had Adam on. The issues that were plaguing my writing and my constituency, which is the busiest one when it comes to immigration

in downtown Montreal, 80% of my staff works on immigration issues. I've seen the headaches they go through. So I know how and what they've been struggling with. So hopefully you can build on that. And that's something that I, that I hope to do. Sean's been unfairly criticized on the international student file. In fact, he was, I would say one of the biggest advocates for me to put a cap on things.

And he had certainly been warning provinces before that. There's a comfortable narrative sometimes that a new minister comes in and takes some radically different positions. Often you see that's work that's been in the makings. And certainly there's a lot of stuff that I put on the table for Gary and Nanda Sangri to thrive on and he's working on. So I really enjoy their friendship and their advice when it comes to the work I'm doing, because there's frankly very few people that I can rely on that have been in

the same position as me. And they often have tips that are helpful and pitfalls to avoid, particularly with an administration, a public service that is a big machine and has a certain way of behaving. And that can vary from department to department. Well, certainly the best way to approach a lot of these problems is to talk about them openly.

And you've been really generous about doing that with us this week. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me. Thanks, Paul. Really appreciate being on your show. Thanks for listening to The Paul Wells Show. The Paul Wells Show is produced by Antica in partnership with the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. Our producer is Kevin Sexton.

Our executive producers are Laura Reguerre and Stuart Cox. Our opening theme music is by Kevin Bright and our closing theme music is by Andy Milne. Go to paulwells.substack.com to subscribe to my newsletter. You'll also get a premium version of this show with bonus content. We'll be back next Wednesday. Thank you.