Canada Needs Maxime Bernier, Salim Mansur and the PPC

The ongoing roll-out of the People's Party of Canada (PPC)'s immigration platform is no doubt being well received by a sizeable cross-section of the Canadian public. According to public surveys, the PPC has tougher, more selective immigration policies, something long feared and attacked by special interests, which the long suffering public a large wants. For the Canadian voter, this makes the PPC a genuine, clear alternative to the other one-step-forward-two-steps-back, old parties. Take the Conservatives. One recent poll showed that 81 percent of their supporters are not happy with the rate of integration in Canada and want Ottawa to prioritize putting limits on immigration as a result. When party leader Andrew Scheer introduced his immigration platform last month, however, he refused to even tell the public what he thought Canada's annual immigration rate should be. Most took this to mean one thing: no big changes from the Trudeau status quo.

Even the Greens want a change. In the same poll, 57 percent of their supporters said they wanted to prioritize limits. Their leaders, however, are pushing for greater increases, and even propose creating a whole new immigration category for "environmental refugees." Similar recent negative polls among the broad public can be found here and here. Given the state of issues like integration, wages and housing in this country, PPC leader Max Bernier, along with London-North Centre candidate, Salim Mansur, stated at the new platform's unveiling that an annual migration rate above 150,000 simply cannot be justified. This is indeed a considerable change. Since the Liberals took power, the rate's steadily increased to around 350,000; the highest it's been since 1913. But as Bernier has questioned before, can an early 19^th century system work in 21^st century Canada? Consider our economy. Under the Liberals, skilled immigrants (minus their dependents) make up a mere 25 percent of the annual total. Except for the United States, such numbers can't be found anywhere in the developed world. This is because developed nations have knowledge-based economies; ones which are threatened with the impending mass automation of many unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. In 1913, many nations were certainly right to import large amounts of unskilled labour, but it's difficult to argue for such rates now. The PPC wants to increase educated migrants to 80 percent of the annual share; a proposal which seems to move with these current labour trends, not against them.

---

Being more selective with immigration when the time demands it, actually closely aligns with Canada's past. In the mid-1910s, men like NDP-founder J.S. Woodsworth successfully pushed for a more restrictive immigration system for the sake of maintaining strong unions and livable wages. As a result, up until the 1960s, immigration rates averaged in the mere tens of thousands. Few would disagree this 40- to-50-year period wasn't a hugely successful one for Canada. During this time, immigrants successfully integrated, the nation weathered the Great Depression and won two world wars, and Canada managed to create a strong middle class; one of the first nations to do so. As for more recent history, between 1974 to 1978, Pierre Trudeau pushed down rates by 60 percent (from 201,000 to 86,000) in order to boost working-class wages. Rates rose up again when the Conservatives came to power, but then declined again in 1985 to 84,000—the lowest level since 1962. By being more selective, more immigrants on average will be able to better contribute. The big business associations apparently disagree, having recently sent out an open letter to political leaders pleading that they "resist making this election about immigration." Certainly, plenty of businesses in Canada depend on less expensive, unskilled labor from abroad. But among those less skilled newcomers who draw more from social services than they put in, or who can't successfully integrate, it is the Canadian public, not employers, who have to pay those costs. The most serious cost perhaps is the jobs competition created against Canada's most vulnerable, including native Canadians, single moms, students, the disabled, and the uneducated. Countries around the world, including ours, put tariffs in place to protect their working people; Canada can and should put in place immigration-based protections as well. That's what Max, Salim, and the PPC is proposing to do. They aim to protect those Canadians in an increasingly precarious economic situation, and to realign the nation's immigration system with 21^st century reality.