Canada’s Migration Paradigm: Balancing Numbers and Narratives
When Canadians headed to the polls last month, immigration became a point of contention, albeit not the defining issue. The centre-left government, led by Mark Carney, expressed concerns about rapid immigration rates, suggesting they had grown at a “rapid and unsustainable pace.” Critics pointed to challenges such as housing shortages and strained social infrastructure, arguing that the country was facing an influx that it could not adequately accommodate.
However, Carney’s platform painted a different picture. While he acknowledged the need to reduce immigration levels, he underscored the positive contributions of diverse communities. He emphasized how immigrants bring “new businesses, innovations, cultures, religious plurality, and a strong, well-educated labour force.” This nuanced approach highlighted a recognition of the economic and cultural advantages brought by immigration while also addressing logistical concerns.
A Shift in Voter Concerns
Interestingly, immigration was not a significant concern for most voters. A mere 5% indicated it was a major issue influencing their decision at the polls. This indicates a broader trend within Canadian society: even amid increased immigration levels following the pandemic, many citizens don’t view immigration negatively. As Rob Ford, a political science professor, noted, “Attitudes towards immigration have moved in a liberal direction in most western countries with large migration flows.” More individuals now recognize the economic and cultural benefits that immigration can offer.
Understanding Public Sentiment
Recent studies, such as one surveying 20,000 people across Austria, the UK, Italy, Poland, and Sweden, show a growing public acceptance of offering undocumented migrants a pathway to legal status. Even in nations where populist sentiments are strong, there’s a noticeable appetite for more liberal immigration policies. This indicates a shift in public perception, allowing politicians to advocate for humanitarian immigration approaches without fear of alienating voters.
Martin Ruhs, a professor of migration studies, emphasizes that the general public understands the need for migrant labor and appreciates the protection of refugees. Yet, he insists that these processes must operate within a controlled system, balancing humanitarian needs with economic realities.
Comparisons Across Europe
Contrasting the Canadian experience with Europe reveals a complex landscape for political parties grappling with immigration narratives. Centre-left and centre-right parties in various countries have often struggled to convincingly argue for immigration. For instance, in the Netherlands, the VVD’s rightward shift did not prevent populist leader Geert Wilders from securing significant electoral gains. Similarly, Emmanuel Macron’s regression from pro-refugee policies did little to preserve his popularity against Marine Le Pen’s growing influence.
Denmark presents itself as an exception, where the Social Democrats, led by Mette Frederiksen, moved to the political right on immigration to counter the Danish People’s Party. While this approach mitigated immediate threats from radical right factions, it garnered criticism from the progressive left, demonstrating that navigating immigration policy can be inherently damaging politically.
Lessons from History
Historically, the UK’s political parties, particularly the Labour Party, have oscillated on immigration stances. Past actions, like the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act and legislative moves to curb benefit access for migrants, reveal a pattern: when parties stiffen their stance against immigration, they often face electoral backlash. In both instances, Labour lost the subsequent election, suggesting that turning hard against immigration may not yield the desired political returns.
The Canadian Model: A Planned Approach
The Canadian government’s Immigration Levels Plan for 2025 illustrates a remarkably ambitious strategy. It aims to welcome 395,000 new permanent residents while issuing 670,000 permits for temporary workers and international students—a total of over a million new arrivals in a country with around 40 million people. This plan dwarfs the UK’s post-Brexit immigration proposals despite Canada’s smaller population.
What sets Canada apart is not merely the numbers but the perception of its migration policy as carefully planned and ethical. Canadians generally trust their government’s approach, a stark contrast to the skepticism aimed at the UK’s immigration framework. In Canada, there’s a willingness to articulate both the economic and moral imperatives behind migration, making a strong case for its value.
Looking North for Inspiration
As political parties in the UK seek to navigate the choppy waters of immigration policy, they may benefit from examining Canada’s model. While the landscape does not mirror the UK directly, there are valuable lessons in articulating policies that are not only strategic but also resonate emotionally with the electorate. Adopting a stance centered on controlled, humanitarian immigration could pave the way for a more supportive public response, illustrating that migration issues can be approached with both compassion and pragmatism.
By recognizing the multifaceted benefits of immigration while addressing legitimate concerns, policymakers might find a rich vein of public support—one that has already proven fruitful in other political realms, particularly in Canada.
