Vital Role of Immigrants

Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak to Senator Loffreda’s inquiry into the vital role that immigrants have played — and continue to play — in shaping Canada’s economic growth, cultural richness and social fabric.

I grew up in a Canada that, on the whole, was proud of its history of multiculturalism that included Ukrainians settling in the West, Vietnamese people fleeing the war and, more recently, Syrians arriving in the country. We often cite these examples as proof of Canada’s empathetic nature. In a world that is shrinking before our very eyes, we used to tell ourselves that Canada was a model of internationalism and a refuge for those seeking to escape tyranny and oppression.

Since Canada adopted its official multiculturalism policy in the early 1970s, the policy has been hailed by many as a response to the American tradition of cultural assimilation, which came to be known as the melting pot.

Here in Canada, we prided ourselves on our more humane approach. We used the term “cultural mosaic” to describe our more progressive approach to integrating newcomers and respecting their diverse cultures and traditions.

Of course, the reality on the ground has often been quite different. We have often failed to live up to these noble ideals. For example, our country used to have a formal policy explicitly aimed at restricting Black immigration. During the Second World War, we sadly detained and interned Japanese Canadians. And in the 1930s and 1940s, Canada had one of the worst records in the world when it came to accepting Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

When times are good and resources aren’t stretched, it’s easy to support the idea of immigration. However, as history has shown us, when times are tough, people feel threatened and look for someone to blame for their problems.

I’m sure we’ve all heard this type of irrational and often hateful speech that is done to create scapegoats.

When the economy experiences a downturn or access to resources and services, like housing and health care, becomes difficult, there are always people who will blame immigrants for job losses, high costs or long wait times.

Even when the evidence suggests otherwise, they stick to this easy but utterly false explanation.

Lately, it seems like the scapegoating has gotten worse. It makes me wonder what happened to the national consensus we thought we’d reached on immigration.

To be sure, there are deep-rooted human explanations for this. To some extent, we are all fearful and wary of “The Other,” with a capital T and capital O. Even at the best of times, we shy away from things and people we don’t understand. At the worst of times, though, our reactions to “otherness” can turn toxic.

But for a country like ours, with decades of experience in attracting and welcoming newcomers, there must be more to it than just these basic and ugly human impulses. I firmly believe that there are also institutional reasons for this shift in the attitudes of Canadians. It begins, I think, with the unintentional mismanagement of the immigration system in recent years.

The history of immigration policy in this country is complicated. We tend to believe that an equity- or rights-based approach to immigration has been the driving force of our policy forever. But, in truth, until the late 1970s and 1980s, Canada’s doors were mostly closed to non-European newcomers. That changed officially in 1976, and a few years later, the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms further informed our approach and attitudes to immigration. In the decades since, we’ve had many debates over issues like accommodation, Canadian identity and equity.

In recent years, this conversation has become more heated and divisive. Many factors are at play here. For example, a sustained push by private industry for inexpensive labour led to a massive increase in temporary foreign workers. Around the same time, post-secondary institutions sought to make up for declining enrolment and lost revenue through a sharp increase in international students.

These weren’t the only stresses on the system, but policy-makers of all political stripes — with good intentions, I believe — responded to these demands from business and turned a blind eye to what was happening at colleges and universities.

The real mistake, though, was not pausing long enough to think about how our economy and public services could absorb such a large and rapid influx. A recent study showed that the rate at which Canada welcomed newcomers in 2023 was unsustainable. This was the peak of our response to the labour and student enrolment issues I just mentioned.

If left unchecked, this opening of the floodgates would have resulted in Canada’s population reaching 452 million people by the end of this century. On the other hand, if Canada moved to the other extreme and stopped accepting immigrants altogether, our population would fall to just over 12 million by 2100, less than a third of our current size.

In an opinion piece in The Globe and Mail from March, Campbell Clark put it this way:

. . . the lesson of the recent past is not that immigration is bad. It is that wild swings in immigration policy are bad. . . .

I think there’s a deep truth here. Our immigration policy has become too reactive and too disjointed. It lacks vision and focus and suffers from poor long-term planning.

Canada needs immigrants: it’s a reality that can’t be denied. When immigration is managed properly, everyone wins — both existing Canadians and the newcomers we take in.

Canada should take advantage of this time of uncertainty to thoroughly analyze its policy and the underlying mechanisms. The government should also seriously reflect on the negative impact that the recent political flip-flopping has had on how Canadians view immigration. The government should make every effort to restore their trust.

Before I wrap up, I’d like to add one final thought. I come from Atlantic Canada, where things are often experienced differently than in other parts of the country, especially compared to some of Canada’s larger urban centres. In a vast country with countless internal differences, Canada should never take a one‑size-fits-all approach to policies.

As the federal government reconsiders its approach to immigration, I would like it to remember that the needs of a province like New Brunswick might be very different from the needs of larger provinces. For example, the seasonal nature of some of New Brunswick’s industries means that our labour needs often differ from those of other regions of Canada. The same applies to our ability to properly house and support newcomers. However, what sets us apart the most may be our linguistic make-up.

According to Statistics Canada, the proportion of francophones and French speakers in New Brunswick has been declining in recent years. A more tailored approach to immigration would enable us to address these specific needs. By adopting a mosaic approach to multiculturalism, as opposed to the famous melting pot, Canada has chosen to celebrate the distinct cultures and differences of newcomers.

We should adopt this same philosophy in our approach to immigration reform, respecting the unique needs and capacities of each region of Canada.

Thank you. Meegwetch.