{"id":12442,"date":"2025-04-23T05:10:38","date_gmt":"2025-04-23T09:10:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cila.co\/?p=12442"},"modified":"2025-04-23T05:13:14","modified_gmt":"2025-04-23T09:13:14","slug":"from-opportunity-to-problem-how-immigration-became-election-2025s-blindspot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cila.co\/fr\/from-opportunity-to-problem-how-immigration-became-election-2025s-blindspot\/","title":{"rendered":"From Opportunity to Problem: How Immigration Became Election 2025\u2019s Blindspot"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Siavash Shekarian, CEO of SHEKARIAN LAW PC, Chair of CILA\u2019s Business Immigration Committee, and Public Affairs Liaison of the Citizenship & Immigration Section of the Ontario Bar Association<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Introduction: Canada, the Undefined Immigration Nation<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cCanada is an immigration nation.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

A statement so universally accepted that no political party\u2014or leader\u2014dares to disagree. Yet, it remains a phrase void of substance. Because while everyone repeats it, no one can define it.<\/p>\n

The problem isn\u2019t just about immigration policy\u2014it\u2019s about Canada\u2019s identity struggle. What does it truly mean to be an “immigration nation”? Is it about numbers? Humanitarian gestures? Economic growth? Demographics? Votes?<\/p>\n

In 2025, as political parties race for the right to govern, this fundamental question is left unanswered. Instead, immigration is reduced to a talking point\u2014weaponized when convenient, ignored when complicated, and almost always framed as a problem to manage, rather than an opportunity to seize.<\/p>\n

This article critically examines how Canada\u2019s major political parties approach immigration\u2014not through their lofty slogans, but through what they\u2019ve said in the Leaders\u2019 debates and written in their platforms. The French debate\u2014where immigration was begrudgingly given airtime\u2014offered a revealing glimpse into the political mindset. The English debate? Immigration was axed entirely, a silent admission of how uncomfortable the topic has become.<\/p>\n

With the Conservatives releasing their platform on April 22, 2025, we now have a full view of where each party stands\u2014or stumbles\u2014on immigration.<\/p>\n

But first, let\u2019s start where they did: On a debate stage, where Canada\u2019s lifeline\u2014immigration\u2014was treated as little more than a crisis management exercise.<\/p>\n

The Debate<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

If you want to understand how Canadian politics views immigration in 2025, look no further than the Leaders\u2019 French debate. Immigration wasn\u2019t framed as a nation-building tool or a strategic advantage\u2014it was framed, unequivocally, as a problem.<\/p>\n

The opening question said it all. Moderator Patrice Roy set the tone by asking if Canada would accept the 500,000 Haitians at risk of deportation from the U.S. A fair question in today\u2019s Trump-influenced geopolitics\u2014but one that instantly reduced immigration to crisis management, and also gift-wrapped bargaining chip for Trump in trade negotiations\u2014as if the next Prime Minister\u2019s role was to brace for Trump\u2019s demands rather than lead with Canada\u2019s own vision.<\/p>\n

Unsurprisingly, every party leader\u2014regardless of political stripe\u2014gave the same answer: No. Dressed in varying degrees of humanitarian language (courtesy of the Liberals and NDP), but a rejection nonetheless, citing the Safe Third Country Agreement. So much for Canada\u2019s self-proclaimed generosity.<\/p>\n

The second major immigration question wasn\u2019t about opportunity or strategy either\u2014it was about Quebec demanding $500 million to handle refugees. Pierre Poilievre took this as an opportunity to reject the Century Initiative\u2019s population growth targets and pivoted to his signature soundbite: immigration must not outpace housing, jobs, or healthcare.<\/p>\n

On the surface, it sounded responsible\u2014tying immigration levels to measurable capacities. But scratch the surface, and it collapses into political convenience:<\/p>\n