These immigrants say Canada failed to plan for a population explosion. Now it's their top election issue
"I came here in 2012 on a francophone initiative program, an immigration program, and I was welcome, but I was also provided what I needed to succeed here," she said.
She believes that's no longer the case for newcomers to the country.
CBC has been asking people across the country about the issues that matter most to them in the April 28, 2025, federal election.
What issue matters the most to you this federal election, and why? Share your personal stories with us at ask@cbc.ca.
While immigration has taken a backseat to concerns like national unity and tariffs Valamootoo said it's top of mind for her. She wants to hear leaders talk about how they will integrate newcomers into the country.
"I think the past three years there has been a lot of mistakes by the federal government with regard to how many people they were letting in."
She feels that's led to a rise in racism and a backlash against immigrants and international students, who've been blamed for crises in housing and education.
"I think we need a leader that can bring people together, instead of creating division," she said.
As Canada's population has pushed past 41 million people, Canadians and immigrants alike have expressed concern about whether the country has planned enough to incorporate new immigrants into workspaces, schools and homes. The Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association recently commissioned a poll, which found 68 per cent of Saskatchewan people surveyed online supported reducing immigration.
Parties lack vision to plan, says Calgary voter
Sanjeev Kumar came to Canada on a work permit in 2008 to work in Alberta's restaurant industry and recently opened his own restaurant in northeast Calgary.
He's also seen a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which he believes is intensified by immigrants being willing to work in minimum wage jobs and creating intense competition for work.
"Nobody has a job right now. People are struggling. Everyone is struggling. Groceries are so expensive," he said.
Kumar said the problem hits international students and other newcomers particularly badly. He has students coming to him, asking for work.
"They are in college, about to finish, but they don't have money … they don't have food to eat."
Compare all the parties' platforms on immigration using CBC's tracker on election promises.
Kumar said these students and people on work permits also don't have the same clear path to residency that he did when he came to Canada. Kumar got his permanent residency in three years.
"That time actually, when Harper government was there, I think everything is controlled," he said, adding there needs to be a balance between immigration and integration.
"Right now there's no balance there. They don't know what they are doing."
Since getting his citizenship, Kumar has voted Conservative, but said he's not convinced either of the two main parties have a bold plan to bolster the economy and ensure there's a stronger job market for newcomers and Canadians alike.
"They are just thinking, small thinking [like] we just take out carbon tax," he said. "They don't have a clear vision for Canada."
Settlement services face cuts
Ali Abukar, CEO for the Saskatoon Open Door Society, said settlement services like his are among those that help newcomers integrate to Canada with things like employment training and language education. He said the federal government has scaled back money for these organizations as it reduces immigration targets, leading to program cuts at both the Saskatoon and Regina Open Door societies.
Reducing immigrant and international student populations can't be done hastily, Abukar said.
"A lot of the international students have been contributing a lot of money not only to schools and educational institutions, but also businesses and housing," he said. He said immigrants will still be needed to help Canada resolve issues like the labour that's needed to build houses.
It speaks to the pressing need for the next elected government to take a phased approach to integrating newcomers into Canada, Abukar said.
"Our [immigration] numbers didn't become where they are at in just the switch of a light. And we can't reverse them the same way," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada Standard
5 hours ago
- Canada Standard
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. Read more: The complicated history of building pipelines in Canada The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
CBC
6 hours ago
- CBC
News anchor Travis Dhanraj says he was pushed out of CBC for highlighting systemic issues, editorial imbalance
Former CBC News reporter and anchor Travis Dhanraj said he had no choice but to resign from the broadcaster after he says he raised systemic issues in its newsroom related to lack of diversity of opinion and editorial independence and was stonewalled by his employer. His lawyer says he intends to sue the public broadcaster. In an internal note to fellow CBC staff sent out Monday morning, Dhanraj said he felt he had no choice but to leave the broadcaster after his questioning of some of the CBC's editorial decisions and the "gap between CBC's stated values and its internal reality" was met with resistance. "When I pushed for honest conversations about systemic issues and editorial imbalance, I was shut out. Sidelined. Silenced. And ultimately, erased," Dhanraj wrote in the email sent to various CBC group email addresses from his CBC account. He accused his employer of "tokenism masquerading as diversity, problematic political coverage protocols, and the erosion of editorial independence," and said he had to "navigate a workplace culture defined by retaliation, exclusion, and psychological harm." CBC 'categorically rejects' allegations In an emailed statement, CBC spokesperson Kerry Kelly said the Crown corporation "categorically rejects" Dhanraj's allegations about what led to his departure, including his claim that his decision to leave was not voluntary and that he was "forced to resign." Kelly did not elaborate on Dhanraj's resignation or the reason he went on leave earlier this year; nor did she comment on his specific claims about editorial independence and newsroom culture at CBC. "We are saddened to see this public attack on the integrity of CBC News," she said. Dhanraj also posted a Google form on the social media site X earlier Monday in which he asked people to leave their contact information so he could keep them informed about the case. "When the time is right, I'll pull the curtain back," he wrote. "I'll share everything…I'll tell you what is really happening inside the walls of your CBC." The post was later removed. When CBC News reached out to Dhanraj's Toronto-based lawyer, Kathryn Marshall, to ask if he intends to sue the broadcaster, she responded with a one-word answer: "Yes." She also told the Toronto Star that Dhanraj plans to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Previously worked at CP24, CTV, Global Born in Alberta, Dhanraj was a general assignment reporter for CBC Edmonton and CBC Toronto before leaving for positions at CP24, Global News and CTV News. He returned to CBC in 2021 as a senior parliamentary reporter and later hosted Marketplace and Canada Tonight. Speculation began swirling in February when Dhanraj was abruptly no longer appearing on air, and Canada Tonight was replaced by Ian Hanomansing's Hanomansing Tonight. CBC confirmed at the time that Dhanraj was on leave but did not provide additional details. Dhanraj's lawyer said the leave was due to "ongoing systemic issues" at the broadcaster. The first public sign of tension surfaced a few months earlier when Dhanraj posted on X in April 2024 that he had requested an interview with then CBC president Catherine Tait when new funding for the public broadcaster was announced in the federal budget. According to a copy of his resignation letter published by the Toronto Sun, Dhanraj said CBC launched an investigation over that post and asked him to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which he said he refused to do.
Canada News.Net
6 hours ago
- Canada News.Net
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
