Canada's population decline: Fact or fiction?
The Carney government has set its sights on a crucial immigration goal: reversing the surge in temporary residents. But here's where it gets controversial: while the government seems to be reducing immigration numbers, the quality of immigrants is a different story.
Ottawa must ensure that the reported population drop is not just a statistical illusion. Let's delve into the quality aspect first: who gets to immigrate and how are they chosen?
Since the 1960s, Canada has relied on a points system to assess economic immigrants applying for permanent residency. With more applicants than spots, the system became increasingly selective over time. Think of it like a selective university's admission process.
Economic immigrants, comprising nearly two-thirds of those granted permanent residency annually, were chosen based on a competitive system. Those with the highest scores got the first offers, and the selection process continued down the list.
However, in recent years, Canada's approach shifted. It wasn't just about the temporary immigration stream becoming larger than the permanent one; it was also about prioritizing temporary immigrants in low-skill, low-wage jobs. And here's the part most people miss: the aspirations of the permanent immigration stream were undermined.
Ottawa started choosing many immigrants not through the objective points system but through "category-based selection." This means the government disregarded the points system and decided to prioritize certain attributes or occupations, often low-skill and low-scoring.
Five academic economists recently described it as an "opaque system exposed to political lobbying, resembling a lottery for prospective migrants, and squeezing out highly skilled candidates."
They also highlighted the increasing role of provincial nominee programs, which allow provinces to prioritize groups unable to meet the points system's standards, accounting for a growing share of immigrant admissions.
The Carney government aims to lower immigration numbers, but it's not increasing selectivity. This raises questions: why is the government not prioritizing quality over quantity?
Now, let's talk about immigration quantity. The data released by Statistics Canada, showing a declining national population due to the departure of hundreds of thousands of temporary residents, is at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate.
Initially, I wasn't as critical as I should have been. But here's the catch: the statistics agency assumes that temporary residents leave the country when their permits expire if no extension is granted. However, former federal economist Henry Lotin and CIBC economist Benjamin Tal estimate that the true number of visa overstayers is likely much higher.
Two years ago, they estimated that perhaps one million people were in Canada without permission, based on an estimate that 30% of expired visa holders remained. If we apply this to the most recent Statscan data, Canada's reported population decline of 76,000 in the third quarter never happened; in fact, the national population increased by 26,000.
So, what's the real figure? Nobody knows.
The government meticulously counts who enters Canada but remains blind to who exits. Ottawa could easily track departures but chooses not to. As a result, Statscan's estimates of the non-permanent population may be significantly off, subject to future revisions.
In 2019, Statscan concluded that the 2011 census undercounted the temporary resident population by 43%. Earlier this year, the agency revised its estimates of the temporary resident population for previous quarters significantly upward.
The plan, initiated by the Trudeau government and continued by the Carney government, aims to lower the temporary resident population to less than 5% of the national population by 2027. This plan includes many temporary residents gaining permanent residency but also several years of negative net immigration.
Unless Ottawa starts counting departures, how can we assess the plan's success? We can't.
So, is Canada's population decline real, or is it a statistical mirage? The answer remains unclear, and the controversy continues. What are your thoughts on this matter? Feel free to share your opinions and engage in the discussion below!
