Canada’s Immigration Policy in a Scarce Housing Market

North America has long welcomed immigrants and takes pride in its multiculturalism. While many Western countries face criticism for their migration policies, Canada has a reputation as a hospitable and immigrant-friendly nation. Since Justin Trudeau became prime minister in 2015, Canada’s annual immigrant intake has risen from around 300,000 to 400,000 persons. In 2022, the government set an ambitious goal of accepting 500,000 annually by 2025. Despite the record numbers of immigrants since 2019, Canadians continued to hold favorable views of newcomers, according to an Environics poll in 2022. However, in recent years, this goodwill is fading.
In June 2023, Canada’s population reached 40 million, significantly increasing from the previous year. The population grew by over 1 million in a year, with 96% of this increase attributable to immigrants. Although 51% of Canadians still reject the proposition that immigration levels are too high, there has been a noticeable shift. The gap between those who oppose and those who agree has narrowed from 42% to 7% over the past year, marking the most significant change since the Environics Institute began its survey in 1977.
International students and temporary workers have played a significant role in Canada’s recent population growth, contributing to nearly 3 million citizens with temporary residence permits. This immigration-driven growth could more than double the country’s population over the next 50 years. Statistics Canada estimates the population will reach 62.8 million by 2074, up from 40.1 million in 2023.
The growing public discontent toward immigration largely stems from Canada’s housing crisis. The OECD reported in 2022 that Canada had the most expensive housing market among G7 nations. Housing prices soared 90% between 2010 and 2022, making it one of the least affordable markets in the world.
Many Canadians tend to scapegoat immigrants despite the crisis being driven by long-standing government policies. Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies, emphasized that the housing crisis and economic concerns are fueling a shift in attitudes toward immigration.
Even the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) acknowledged that public servants warned two years ago that housing construction was not keeping up with population growth. The government knew the increasing number of immigrants would strain the healthcare system and make housing less affordable.
As a result, the rental housing crisis has become a major political issue. Under pressure from opposition parties, the government has taken drastic measures to limit the number of international students and temporary immigrants.
Immigration Minister Mark Miller announced that the federal government would reduce the number of temporary residents in Canada. While immigration has boosted population growth in recent years, it has also contributed to housing shortages, rising rents, strain on healthcare and stagnating economy. These issues have forced the Trudeau government to cut the share of temporary residents from 6.2% in 2023 to 5% by 2027, a reduction of nearly 20%. Canada will also reduce the number of student visas by 35% in 2024, disappointing international applicants.
Adjusting immigration levels to suit current economic conditions is a legitimate move for the Trudeau government, given how crucial immigrants are to Canada’s prosperity. However, some politicians and public figures hesitate to discuss immigration restrictions due to concerns about appearing xenophobic.
Canada has a history of controversial immigration policies. In 1885, the government introduced the infamous Chinese Head Tax, which initially charged Chinese immigrants $50 to enter Canada. This fee later increased to $500. The Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, nearly barred Chinese immigrants from entering Canada until it was repealed in May 1947. This law, the first to exclude people based on ethnicity, remained in place until 1947. The federal government did not officially apologize for the Chinese Exclusion Act until 2006.
Today, many Canadians are concerned about Quebec’s controversial Law 21, passed in 2019. The law forbids public employees in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols. In 2021, an elementary school teacher in Chelsea, Quebec, was fired for refusing to remove her traditional Muslim headscarf. The case sparked public outrage, but the Superior Court of Quebec upheld the law despite acknowledging that it violates religious minorities’ freedom of expression and religion.
If former US President Donald Trump wins a second term, Canada may face an immigration surge. During his 2016 campaign, Trump promised to deport illegal immigrants from the US. Although legal and bureaucratic obstacles prevented him from fulfilling this plan, many believe he would pursue it more aggressively in a second term, potentially deporting up to 11 million people. Former US Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman said these individuals would likely flee north to Canada.
Trump’s immigration plans remain popular among Americans. A recent CBS poll showed that 62% of voters support a national program to deport all illegal immigrants. Even if legal hurdles prevent mass deportations, fear and uncertainty among immigrants could drive many to seek refuge in Canada.
In 2022 alone, more than 39,000 illegal migrants entered Canada from the US via Roxham Road, the longest undefended land border in the world. In 2023, Canada reached a long-discussed agreement with the US to regulate this influx by applying changes to the Safe Third Country Agreement across the entire Canada–US border. These changes allow both countries to turn away asylum seekers at unofficial border crossings.
The number of asylum seekers has continued to rise. If Trump is re-elected, Roxham Road could become a political flashpoint for Canada. However, considering it took 20 years to amend the Safe Third Country Agreement, a solution may be far off.
[Liam Roman edited this piece]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.