Most Canadians still think Canada is accepting too many immigrants, and many don't trust newcomers: poll
'That polarization is not based on whether you are yourself an immigrant or you are a minority, it's not. It's transcending that,' said Jedwab. 'So the trust issue is a critical factor. It's just not defined by, as I said, your status as an immigrant or non-immigrant or as a minority. Those groups of people are making observations to the same extent across those markers of identity.'
Article content
Refugees are more likely to be trusted by non-immigrants (38 per cent) than immigrants (33 per cent). White people are also more likely to trust refugees (37 per cent) than non-white people (33 per cent). They are most likely to not be trusted by non-white people (28 per cent) compared to 22 per cent of white people, 22 per cent of immigrants and 23 per cent of non-immigrants. Immigrants, however, are more likely to be trusted by other immigrants and non-white people (both at 53 per cent) than by non-immigrants and white people (40 per cent for each).
Article content
'The actual trust issues seem to be really one that transcends those categories. It's not polarized in the way some people envision it to be polarized. It's a lot more complex than that,' said Jedwab.
Article content
'We're seeing the degree of trust expressed in refugees as especially low. And particularly amongst those people who think there are too many immigrants, the trust of refugees is low, lower than it is normally.'
Article content
The view that there are too many immigrants entering Canada has been constantly held by at least half of Canadians since February 2024, when 50 per cent of those polled expressed that view. Even then, that was an unusually high figure. In March 2019, just 35 per cent of those polled said there were too many immigrants coming to Canada.
Article content
'Whether you're born in Canada or not born in Canada, or whether you're a minority or not, this issue around trust, and the perceptions around the global instability, is affecting our perspectives around migration.' said Jedwab.
Article content
Across all age groups, the majority of people feel that there are too many immigrants coming into the country, but young people are less likely to feel that way. More than half (55 per cent) of those aged 18 to 34 think there are too many immigrants, compared to 65 per cent of 35 to 54 year olds and 63 per cent of those aged 55 and older.
Article content
In Atlantic Canada, 71 per cent of respondents agreed that there were too many newcomers. In Quebec and Ontario, 63 per cent agreed, while in Alberta 65 per cent said they feel that way. Fifty-four per cent of respondents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan agreed. In British Columbia, 52 per cent of respondents said there are too many immigrants.
Article content
'It is important that we properly understand what the factors are underlying the reticence about immigration. So that's where the importance … is in trying to establish what the concerns are, how significant those concerns are, where those concerns are coming from. And then, on that basis, to determine how best to address them rather than dismissing them,' said Jedwab.
Article content
The online survey of 1,580 Canadian adults was conducted by Leger for the Association for Canadian Studies between June 20 and 22. A margin of error cannot be associated with a non-probability sample in a panel survey for comparison purposes. A probability sample of 1,580 respondents would have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
37 minutes ago
- CTV News
Auditor general to study hiring, promotion of public servants with disabilities
OTTAWA — The federal auditor general is planning to study the recruitment, retention and promotion of people with disabilities in the federal public service. Documents obtained by The Canadian Press through Access to Information indicate that the audit is expected to be tabled in the spring. Claire Baudry, a spokesperson for the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, said in an email that while auditor general Karen Hogan expects to table the report in Parliament in 2026, the audit is in the planning phase and any comment on its scope or timelines now would be 'premature.' Hogan's office sent a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Board Bill Matthews on March 7 notifying him of the upcoming study. The most recent employment equity report for the public service says that since March 2020, the number of people with disabilities has increased steadily in the core public service — the federal government departments and agencies that fall under Treasury Board. But that number remains below the rate of 'workforce availability' — the metric used by the government to measure the share of the national workforce that is eligible for federal public service work. As of 2024, 21,089 people with disabilities were working in the federal public service, up from 17,410 in 2023, 14,573 in 2022 and 12,893 in 2021. The report also found that representation of people with disabilities among government executives was above the rate of workforce availability. As of March 2024, 9.7 per cent of federal executives were people with disabilities, up from 4.6 per cent in March 2019. The employment equity report also looked at promotions in the core public service. It found that 2,517 federal public servants with disabilities were promoted in 2024. The report also tracked 1,642 promotions of Indigenous public servants, 1,788 promotions of Black employees, 8,115 promotions of members of visible minorities and 19,578 promotions of women in the core public service. Nathan Prier, president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, said he hopes the report will take into account the impact of the government's return-to-office mandate on people with disabilities. The government has gradually increased the number of days public servants must be in the office since the end of the pandemic. As of last fall, most public servants are expected to work in-office at least three days per week, while executives are required to be there at least four days per week. 'We hope to see from the report a snapshot before and after the forced return to office took place to see how many workers with disabilities are leaving the federal public sector and taking their expertise with them, while other workers struggle with increasing workload and now cuts — all when we had an easy and workable solution in front of us this whole time,' Prier said. 'During the pandemic we saw on a large scale how telework worked well for so many workers with disabilities, and we've been disappointed to see that, since the forced and mismanaged return to office, those same people have not been getting accommodations or have been made to jump through hoops in a long, drawn-out process,' he said. Rola Salem, a spokesperson for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, said in an email that the Government of Canada has committed to building an accessible and inclusive public service and, in 2024, exceeded its goal of hiring 5,000 people with disabilities. Salem said the secretariat welcomes the opportunity to work with the Office of the Auditor General on the planned audit. The Employment Equity Act defines 'persons with disabilities' as people who have a long-term or recurring physical, mental, sensory, psychiatric or learning impairment and who consider themselves to be disadvantaged in employment or believe that an employer is likely to consider them disadvantaged. The definition also includes people whose limitations have been accommodated in the workplace. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 26, 2025. Catherine Morrison, The Canadian Press
CTV News
37 minutes ago
- CTV News
Most Canadians think the country is making progress on reconciliation: poll
A dancer wears beaded regalia as they prepare to compete in the Summer Solstice Indigenous Festival's 2024 Competition Pow Wow at Madahoki Farm in Ottawa on Sunday, June 23, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang OTTAWA — Most Canadians believe the country is making good progress on reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, a new poll from Leger suggests. 'The extent to which people feel progress on reconciliation is being made or not has an important bearing on how they feel about the country,' said Jack Jedwab, president and CEO of the Association for Canadian Studies, which commissioned the poll. The survey of 1,580 respondents was conducted between June 20 and 22. A margin of error cannot be associated to the survey because online polls are not considered to be truly random samples. Forty-seven of the respondents self-identified as Indigenous. Jedwab said that small number and the lack of regional breakdowns of the numbers means the poll should be interpreted with caution. But the poll still shows where Canadians are 10 years after the final report from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was released, he said. 'There's several attempts to measure progress on reconciliation by virtue of the extent to which we, collectively, have met the conditions of the various calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation (Commission's) report,' Jedwab said. 'But we're not really taking, up to now, the pulse of Canadians in terms of whether or not they feel progress is being made. 'It's sort of a proxy for helping us understand how Canadians feel about their relationships.' Fifty-five per cent of poll respondents said they believe Canada is making good progress on reconciliation, but their answers vary widely between age groups — 40 per cent of respondents aged 18 to 24 said Canada was making progress, while 67 per cent of respondents 65 and older said the same. Jedwab said he was surprised to see such a large number of respondents reporting progress, given the many issues in the Crown-Indigenous relationship still unresolved. 'The survey suggests there's something to build on with respect to the relationship, with respect to reconciliation and with respect to how people feel about the country,' he said. The survey also asked whether Canadians trust other Canadians — the vast majority of respondents said they do. But respondents aged 18 to 24 reported being the most trusting of others, at 77 per cent, while those aged 35 to 44 were the least trusting at 52 per cent. Roughly six in ten non-Indigenous respondents said they trusted Indigenous people. Reported trust in Indigenous people is highest in Nova Scotia (71 per cent) and Ontario (64.3 per cent) and lowest in Saskatchewan (38.3 per cent), P.E.I. (43.8 per cent) and Manitoba (44.8 per cent). The survey also suggests respondents who said they are proud of Canada's history are more likely to report Canada is making good progress on reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, at 68 per cent. Of those who reported they're not proud of Canada's history, just 39.3 per cent said they believe Canada is making good progress. Pride in Canada's history seems to be strongly correlated with the age of respondents. Just 36 per cent of respondents aged 18 to 24 reported feeling proud of that history, while 78 per cent of those 65 and older said the same. Francophone youth reported being more proud of Canada's history (59 per cent) than anglophones (35 per cent) — a finding Jedwab said he was surprised by, given the persistence of the province's separatist movement. Jedwab said while the poll found most Indigenous respondents reported feeling pride in Canadian history, it can't be taken at face value because the sample size was so small. 'There's a need to actually pursue further research in this area to get a better idea of how Indigenous Peoples feel,' he said. 'We need to be more attentive to that diversity in terms of drawing conclusions about the views of Indigenous Peoples … We do need to better understand what the nature of the relationship is right now, how people feel about whether progress is being achieved or not and how we go forward together.' The polling industry's professional body, the Canadian Research Insights Council, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 26, 2025. Alessia Passafiume, The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Sorry, speed cameras aren't the problem
A spectre is haunting Canadian roads: the real prospect of actually having to pay a fine for not respecting the speed limit. As speed cameras proliferate, particularly in Ontario, some drivers are showing their displeasure. Many of the cameras have been vandalized and one in Toronto cut down six times. It's time for a deep breath. Speed cameras shouldn't disappear, they should multiply. The cameras are effective and, because their penalty is so easily avoided, they are fair. In fact, a recent poll for CAA showed majority support among Ontarians for the cameras. Politicians who pander to the minority of drivers who hate them are gambling with public safety. Those politicians span the ideological spectrum, from Ontario's Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford to former Ontario Liberal leader Steven Del Duca, now mayor of suburban Vaughan, and left-leaning Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow. So busy trying to placate drivers, these politicians ignore that speed cameras work. The hit in the wallet is sufficiently unpleasant that it convinces people to slow down. For evidence, consider that the number of tickets issued by any given camera typically goes down over time. That effect has been further demonstrated by research from a hospital and university in Toronto. According to their findings, referenced in a recent city staff report, the proportion of vehicles speeding went down 45 per cent after cameras were installed near schools and in high-collision areas. The cameras actually generate relatively little revenue, after administrative costs are deducted. Their effect on behaviour is more important than the money. Fines lead to slower driving, and less speeding equals fewer injured or dead people. That's because speed is dangerous. The brain has limits on how fast it can process information taken in from peripheral vision. So a driver going more quickly experiences a literal narrowing of their vision, making it harder to spot possible risks in time. And the distance needed to brake goes up dramatically with speed, doubling between 30 and 50 kilometres an hour. Both of those factors make a collision more likely. And if one does occur, speed will make it worse. A person hit by a vehicle travelling at 30 kilometres an hour has a 90-per-cent chance of surviving. Increase the speed to 40 kilometres an hour, though, and the survival rate drops to 60 per cent. A person hit at 50 kilometres an hour has only a 20-per-cent chance of living. Mr. Ford may commiserate with drivers 'getting dinged' for going '10 kilometres over,' but small increases in speed matter. So keep the cameras, even though there are aspects of the policy over which reasonable people can disagree. Cities tend to be cagey about how much over the limit a driver has to be going to be issued a ticket. There will be absolutists on either side – claiming that any violation is worth ticketing, or that everyone speeds and thus a big buffer is warranted – but the best solution is location-specific. Speed increases make a much bigger difference on a quiet residential street than on a highway. Another contentious point is the extent to which drivers should be warned about speed cameras. Ms. Chow called earlier this year for bigger and more visible warning signs, in order to be 'fairer' to drivers. On the face, this is a farcical idea. The speed limit sign is surely warning enough. Why add a sign that effectively says, 'We really mean it'? Still, if signs flagging the presence of speed cameras are the price that must be paid for their political acceptability, so be it. Because, in the end, it may not make any difference to the effectiveness of the cameras. Cities are typically littered with so many signs that they become background clutter for drivers. These will similarly fade from notice. People who rail against speed cameras because thousands or tens of thousands of tickets have been issued – framing this as unjust or evidence of government overreach – miss the point. The volume of infractions speaks to how common speeding has become. Police rarely take traffic laws seriously, so the chances of being caught by them are slim. Cameras are reviled because they change the risk calculus. Unhappy drivers should remember that choosing to exceed the speed limit is, in fact, illegal, and that there's an easy hack to avoid getting a ticket: lighten up on that right foot.
