Canadians have yet to engage in a thorough debate on the fundamental purpose of immigration. Does it solely serve short-term economic needs, or does it shape the nation's future prosperity and identity? The existing discourse reveals both regional divides and ideological tensions.
The Demographic Challenge
Looming demographic collapse is largely off the radar. With a birthrate of 1.3 in 2024, Canada's population could halve by 2100 without newcomers. This raises the question of growth versus stagnation, which elicits different responses across the country.
Regional Perspectives
Quebec appears to prioritize cultural preservation over growth, accepting a declining population and reduced economic and political influence. In contrast, English Canada largely embraces growth to sustain social programs. The Conference Board of Canada highlights immigration as a means to bolster social programs by increasing the ratio of workers to retirees. The Century Initiative aims for 100 million Canadians by 2100, but the ultimate goal remains unclear.
Global Demand for Canada
There is no shortage of potential immigrants. In 2024, Gallup reported that 37% of sub-Saharan Africans, 28% of Latin Americans, and 26% of Middle Easterners wish to migrate. The United States is the top desired destination, with Canada ranking second. At least 80 million people currently aspire to become Canadians.
This underscores the need for careful selection. Conservatives advocate tying admissions to economic indicators and limiting benefits for newcomers, while the Liberal approach remains largely unchanged. Some Liberal MPs criticize questioning asylum-seeker costs as 'punching down' on the vulnerable. The belief that even terrorists have a right to citizenship reveals fundamental ideological divides.
The Case for Selectivity
European research links immigrant economic success and integration to education and skill levels. U.S. economist Garett Jones shows that immigrant outcomes vary by source country, with habits and values persisting across generations. Canada's history supports a selective approach, but the country faces a selection trap: admitting those who do not maintain Canada's attractive attributes may reduce future desirability.
Political Challenges
Many on the left view the very act of selection as a moral failure. Adnan Khan wrote in Maclean's that wealthy nations 'filter out the most useful people while condemning the rest to destitution.' This thinking extends to Liberal government benches, making profound reforms difficult.
My family's experience as refugees taught me that it is better to be a refugee than dead, and vastly better to be in Canada. But we gained entry through Canada's choice, based on its needs—not our hopes. That approach worked then and works now.
John Weissenberger is a Calgary geologist and former executive. He served as Chief of Staff in the federal Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration from 2007 to 2008. An extended version of this column appeared in C2C Journal.
