2016-17 Annual Tracking Study / Qualitative Research

Final report

Prepared for: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Prepared by:
Will Daley
Vice President
EKOS Research Associates, Inc.
(613) 235-7215
wdaley@ekos.com

Contract Number: B8815-170622/001/CY
POR Registration Number: #125-16
Contract Award Date: 2017-3-29
Delivery Date: March 29, 2018
Contract Value (including HST): $209,095.20

For more information on this report, please email: IRCC.COMMPOR-ROPCOMM.IRCC@cic.gc.ca

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Statement of political neutrality

I hereby certify as Senior Officer of EKOS Research Associates, Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research.

Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Signed:

Will Daley
Vice President
EKOS Research Associates, Inc.

1. Executive summary

1.1. Introduction

Background and objectives

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) conducts an ongoing research program to help the Department develop a better understanding of Canadian attitudes toward the issues surrounding citizenship and immigration. In light of this, IRCC commissioned EKOS Research to conduct a combined quantitative and qualitative research project to investigate the following issues:

• Perceptions of the numbers of immigrants coming to Canada;
• The impact of immigration on Canada;
• Canada’s immigration system and priorities;
• The settlement and integration of immigrants; and
• Potential messages from the Government of Canada about immigration

The following report provides the detailed findings of the research. The information gained through this public opinion research will be shared throughout the Department to assist it when establishing priorities, developing policies and communications products and strategies, and planning programs and services.

Methodology overview

The research project included 2 phases: a quantitative telephone survey and a series of qualitative in-person focus groups.

Quantitative

To meet the research objectives, EKOS conducted telephone survey research between July 31, 2017 and August 30, 2017 among a sample of n=2,503 Canadian adults obtaining an overall margin of error of +/-2.0 percentage points (calculated at a 95% confidence interval). Each survey took, on average, 21.5 minutes to complete. Respondents were offered the survey in the official language of their choice.

A full quantitative methodology report, including all information about the execution of the fieldwork that is needed to replicate the research initiative, may be found in Appendix A. The quantitative survey research instruments in English and French may be found in Appendix B.

Qualitative

Fourteen in-person focus groups were conducted nationwide between January 22 and January 31, 2018. Each group was 1.5 to 2 hours in length. Two groups were conducted in each of the following locations:

• North York, Ontario
• Winnipeg, Manitoba
• Moosejaw, Saskatchewan
• Surrey, British Columbia
• Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
• Montreal, Quebec (conducted in French)
• Fredericton, New Brunswick

The proposed approach involved segmenting the groups by income level, with a high-income group and a low-income group in each location. This approach was revisited following the quantitative survey. In consultation with IRCC, the screening instrument was designed to segment the groups on the basis of views towards the Government of Canada’s management of the immigration system.

Given the interest in testing communications messages, the segmentation was designed to eliminate individuals with firmly held views unlikely to change as the result of a communications campaign. To this end, the screening criteria defined participants as either “moderately satisfied” or “moderately dissatisfied” as follows:

• Moderately satisfied
  • Rating satisfaction with the Government of Canada’s management of the immigration system as a 6, 7 or 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied; and,
  • Less likely to agree with the statement that, “Immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in Canada, for example on health care, housing or social services,” rating their view as a 5 or lower on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means strongly disagree and 10 means strongly agree.
• Moderately dissatisfied
  • “Less satisfied” – Rating satisfaction with the Government of Canada’s management of the immigration system as a 3, 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied; and,
  • More likely to agree with the statement that, “Immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in Canada, for example on health care, housing or social services,” rating their view as a 6 or higher on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means strongly disagree and 10 means strongly agree.

Participants were contacted by telephone with random digit dialling as the method of selection. Between 5 and 10 participants took part in each discussion. Participants were provided an incentive of $75 for their participation.

A full qualitative methodology report, including all information about the execution of the fieldwork that is needed to replicate the research initiative, may be found in Appendix C. The qualitative research instruments in English and French may be found in Appendix D.

Qualitative research is designed to reveal a rich range of opinions and interpretations rather than to measure what percentage of the target population holds a given opinion. These results must not be used to estimate the numeric proportion or number of individuals in the population who hold a particular opinion because they are not statistically projectable to the general population.

Contract value

The final value of this contract, including HST, is $209,095.20.

1.2. Key findings

Quantitative survey topline analysis

Immigration levels

• The majority of Canadians continue to feel that immigration levels are about right (52%). About one quarter (27%) feel that there are too many immigrants.
• While the proportion of Canadians who feel that there are about the right number of immigrants coming to Canada has remained stable (52% unchanged from August 2016) there has been a small increase among those who feel that Canada has too many immigrants coming to Canada (27%, up from 23% in August 2016).

Impact of information

• Informing Canadians of exact immigration levels (300,000) appears to negatively affect perceptions of immigration levels, as the percentage of Canadians who feel there are too many immigrants coming to Canada increases to 30%.
• However, if immigration levels are described as a percentage (less than 1%) of the Canadian population, the percentage of Canadians who feel there are too many immigrants coming to Canada decreases to 18%.

Immigration categories

• Should immigration levels increase, Canadians are split on whether the increase should come from the economic class or the family class.
• Describing (or not describing) the impact of an increase from each class has a difference on opinion.
  • If economic immigrants are described as filling labour market gaps, 69% of Canadians support an increase from this class (while 61% of Canadians support an increase from the family class).
  • If a description is not provided, 65% of Canadians support an increase from the family class while 59% support an increase from the economic class.
  • Within another question variation on immigration categories, slightly more Canadians feel that an increase in immigration should come from family members of people already in Canada (36%, up from 30% in August 2016), followed by economic immigrants (33%, down from 37% in August 2016) and refugees (25%, down from 29% in August 2016).

Impact of immigration

• Overall, Canadians feel the impact of immigration is less positive as it moves closer in proximity to them, their neighbourhood or their city:
  • Canada (70% positive) followed by their province (64%), their city (60%), Canadians personally (56%) and their neighbourhood (51%).
  • Since August 2016, there has been a decrease in the proportion of Canadians saying that immigration has a positive impact on Canada, their province, Canadians personally and their neighbourhood.

Satisfaction with Government’s management of immigration

• Satisfaction with the federal government’s management of immigration leans positive, with 41% saying they are satisfied compared to 31% saying they are not (25% are neutral).
• Overall, satisfaction or dissatisfaction is linked to perceptions of how well the government is managing the immigration file:
  • Those who tend to be satisfied tend to agree with the need for economic immigration or express approval for Canada’s reputation as an open and welcoming place to come.
  • Alternatively, those who are dissatisfied with the government’s’ management of immigration tend to be concerned about security, illegal immigration and the degree to which immigrants integrate or receive support from the government.

Rationale for immigration

• Overall, a majority of Canadians agree immigration is needed in Canada:
  • Two in three Canadians agree immigration is needed if Canada is to sustain economic growth in the face of an aging population (68%, up from 64% in August 2016).
  • Slightly fewer, but still the majority, Canadians agree that immigrants bring in vital skills and resources that will help Canada be a more competitive economy over the next decade (63%).
  • Similarly, about the same proportion of Canadians agree (62%) that Canada’s competitiveness depends on our ability to recruit immigrants who meet our country’s evolving labour needs.

Attitudes towards societal impacts of immigration

• Close to 4 in 5 (77%) say that they are proud of Canada’s reputation as an open and welcoming society.
• Two-thirds of Canadians (66%) agree that accepting immigrants from other cultures makes Canadian culture stronger.
• About one-quarter (24%) agree that immigration is causing Canada to change in ways that they don’t like.

Canada first

• While a majority of Canadians (62%) agree that as other countries close their borders, there is an opportunity for Canada to attract the best and brightest immigrants to Canada, about one-half (47%) of Canadians agree that Canada should focus on unemployed Canadians rather than looking for skilled immigrants.
• Close to 2 in 5 (37%) agree that immigration has put too much pressure on public services in Canada.

Integration and settlement

• Integration is seen as a shared responsibility.
  • 84% of Canadians agree that newcomers should be expected to learn about Canada’s history, institutions, and traditions.
  • 73% of Canadians agree that the Government of Canada has a responsibility to help immigrants integrate into Canadian society.
  • 70% agree that Canadians have a responsibility to help immigrants integrate into Canadian society.
  • 62% agree that immigrants need to do more to integrate into Canadian society.
• Three in four Canadians continue to feel that accepting refugees is part of Canada’s humanitarian tradition (75%) and that Canada has a responsibility to do its part in accepting refugees (70%).
• About one-half of Canadians (51%) agree that the country is not doing enough to encourage new immigrants to settle in areas outside of Canada’s largest municipalities, including Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

The contributions of immigrants

• While the majority of Canadians (70%) agree that most immigrants who come here want to contribute to society, some Canadians (67%) agree that immigrants have more difficulty than Canadians finding employment in their field of expertise.

Refugees

• A plurality of Canadians continue to feel the level of refugees welcomed each year is about right (43%) with about one-third feeling that the level is too high (32%).
• Three-quarters of Canadians (75%, up from 72% in August 2016) agree that accepting refugees is part of Canada's humanitarian tradition.
• Seven in ten Canadians (70%, up from 68% in August 2016) agree that Canada has a responsibility to do its part in accepting refugees.

International students

• Two-thirds of Canadians feel that Canada has about the right number of international students in Canada.
• About three quarters of Canadians (76%, each) agree that:
  • International students who graduate from Canadian colleges and universities are a valuable resource for Canadian employers and the Canadian labour force.
  • Canada should focus on retaining as permanent residents the best and the brightest international graduates of Canadian university and colleges.
• Fewer Canadians agree that:
  • Canadian students applying for post-secondary education in Canada should not be displaced by international students (68%).
  • Higher tuition fees paid by international students are an important source of revenue for Canada’s post-secondary institutions and allow them to offer high-quality programs to all students (66%).

Sense of economic well-being

• A plurality of Canadians (46%) say that they expect that their personal financial situation will be about the same over the next 5 years or so.
• Over one-third (36%) feel that they will be better off.
• Only 16% feel that they will be worse off.

Quantitative survey advanced analysis

The following draws on the findings of the advanced analytics which summarize the major themes and dynamics of public opinion within the data set.

Two stages of advanced analysis were used to explain IRCC’s key research question.

IRCC key research issue:

What influences support for immigration/immigration levels?

While the overall outlook on immigration and the Government’s performance is favourable, there remain areas of concern.

In order to identify the critical themes and dynamics of opinion towards immigration, we conducted a series of advanced analysis on the data. The advanced analytics were conducted to help answer 3 basic questions:

• What is the underlying structure of attitudes to immigration?
• How are Canadians distributed into different segments or “ideal types” in terms of their orientations on immigration?
• Can we disentangle the relative importance of various attitudes on receptivity to immigration, refugees and government performance?

Research methods and rationale:

• Factor analysis: Used to identify the major themes operating within the data.
• Regression analysis: Used to identify which items contribute to the formation of opinions of our key questions.

Factor analysis

The results of this analysis identify 5 major factors within the data that provide a reliable distillation of most of the questions that were asked. These 5 factors include:

1. Immigration benefits
   • In my view, immigrants bring vital skills and resources that will help Canada be a more competitive economy over the next decade.
   • Canada’s competitiveness depends on our ability to recruit immigrants who meet our country’s evolving labour needs.
   • Immigration is necessary if Canada is to sustain its economic growth in the face of an aging population.
   • As other countries close their borders, there is an opportunity for Canada to attract the best and brightest immigrants to Canada.
   • Accepting immigrants from many different cultures makes Canadian culture stronger.
2. Comfort with diversity
   • Cultures
   • Races
   • Religions
3. Duty to help
   • The Government of Canada has a responsibility to help immigrants integrate into Canadian society.
   • Canadians have a responsibility to help immigrants integrate into Canadian society.
   • Accepting refugees is part of Canada's humanitarian tradition.
   • Canada has a responsibility to do its part in accepting refugees.
   • The government has an important role to play in promoting tolerance and acceptance.
4. Immigration concern
   • Immigrants need to do more to integrate into Canadian society.
   • Newcomers should be expected to learn about Canada’s history, institutions, and traditions.
   • Canada should focus on helping unemployed Canadians rather than looking for skilled immigrants for our workforce.
   • Immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in Canada.
   • Canadian students applying for post-secondary education in Canada should not be displaced by international students.
   • Immigration is causing Canada to change in ways that I don’t like.
5. Desirability of international students
   • International students who graduate from Canadian colleges and universities are a valuable resource for Canadian employers and the Canadian labour force.
   • Higher tuition fees paid by international students are an important source of revenue for Canada's post-secondary institutions and allow them to offer high-quality programs to all students.
   • Canada should focus on retaining as permanent residents the best and the brightest international graduates of Canadian university and colleges.

Regression Analysis

Amongst these five factors, the first two, immigration concern and immigration benefits are the most powerful in terms of predicting support or opposition to immigration. In particular, immigration concern has the largest impact on perceptions of immigration and refugee levels. Movement along this factor, either up or down, will have the greatest impact on whether Canadians feel that the levels of immigrants and refugees is appropriate. While the immigration benefits factor has a modest impact on immigration and refugee levels, this factor has the greatest impact on perceptions of the Government’s management of the immigration system. Increasing the level of agreement with the benefits of immigration will have the greatest impact on improving perceptions of the Government’s management of the immigration system.

Amongst the other factors, the duty to help is a less influential factor overall, but is strongly linked to the view that Canada is admitting an appropriate number of refugees, or that it should admit more refugees. Comfort with diversity is a less influential factor in determining support.

Other attitudinal questions, or demographic questions like age, gender and education, generally have a minimal impact on support.

Qualitative focus groups

Top of mind

Refugees (particularly Syrian refugees) and asylum seekers (arriving on foot at the U.S. border) were the most common top-of-mind response among both moderately satisfied and moderately dissatisfied participants when they were asked what they have heard, seen or read lately about immigration. Other immigration streams were less often mentioned as the initial, top-of-mind association with immigration.

The conversation about refugees and asylum seekers was varied somewhat between the moderately satisfied and moderately dissatisfied groups. Some of the moderately satisfied participants tended to point to Canada’s acceptance of refugees as the fruition of deeply felt national values of compassion and tolerance. With respect to asylum seekers, moderately satisfied participants expressed concerns about the situation, but were largely sympathetic and confident that they would be treated fairly in Canada.

Some of the moderately dissatisfied participants, on the other hand, tended to view Canada’s approach towards refugees as very generous and expressed concerns about the impact refugees would have on public security, the provision of government services and the expense to tax payers. Moreover, it seemed to some of these participants that Canada’s generosity to refugees could be unfair to immigrants who applied to come to Canada in other ways and also to Canadians in need of government service and support. Apart from questions about whether accepting a large number refugees is right or wrong, many moderately dissatisfied participants questioned if Canada could accommodate a large influx of people in need of assistance.

Myths and misperceptions

During the opening conversation, participants were also asked to describe “myths and misperceptions” about immigration that they may have encountered in the media or in conversations about the issue. Examples of myths and misconceptions commonly offered included:

• The concern that immigrants would take jobs away from Canadians;
• The fear that some immigrants would impose their own cultural values and norms on Canadian society;
• The concern that some immigrants (particularly refugees) receive exorbitant sums of money from the government, resulting in fewer resources for Canadians in need of assistance;
• The notion that some immigrants, particularly the young, may gravitate towards radicalism and/or terrorism.

The discussions shed light on how “myths and misperceptions” can take root among those who are untrusting of immigrants or refugees. In several cases, moderately dissatisfied participants presented their own anecdotal experiences and observations, or information seen on social media or in news stories, as corroborating evidence of their broader fears and concerns about immigrants.

Message testing

The focal point of the groups was an exercise in which participants were asked to review several pages of information containing 7 key messages about immigration that they might hear, see or read in the media. The messages tested may be found in Appendix D.

The results of this exercise found that both moderately satisfied and moderately dissatisfied participants were closely aligned with respect to their preferred messages. Both groups most often identified “Built on Immigration” (a message about Canada’s long history of immigration) as their top ranked message. Other messages that performed well included “Economic Immigration” (about the economic need for immigration) and “Compassion, Opportunity, Protection” (a statement of Canada’s approach towards immigration).

In terms of the method of delivering a communications campaign, participants offered a wide variety of specific ideas, including a range of traditional, social and other online media. Among the suggestions for how to reach them, many emphasized a preference for in-person opportunities to hear from government, such as through a town hall-style meeting. In-person events were seen as a way that government could inform them and provide a means for the public to air their concerns while also making their case for immigration. For moderately dissatisfied participants who often felt their concerns were ignored, in-person communication with government seemed to offer a means of holding officials accountable for decisions made in Ottawa.

Communicating about immigration

For many participants, their perceptions of immigration which may or may not be based on facts or personal experiences underlines a particular challenge in communicating about the benefits of immigration solely from the perspective of aggregate data points. It is important to remember that the perceptions of participants may be based on misperceptions which may be fed by misinformation on immigration and Canada. As well, their concerns about refugees, asylum seekers and “Canada first” perspective may obscure their receptivity to campaign messaging.

When asked what sort of campaign the Government should run, participants often suggested the following ideas:

• The campaign should be recognizably “Canadian” and should reflect the approach taken by other milestone public information campaigns, like the “Heritage Minutes” series. This approach would position modern immigration along the same continuum of immigration that brought most Canadian families here in previous generations.
• The campaign should be “Honest and Balanced,” providing clear, credible information about the positive impacts immigration is having on the economy and society, but also acknowledging that challenges and risks exist and describing how these are being addressed.
• The campaign should be “Pragmatic” and make the case for immigration as an economic necessity in a clear and compelling way that shows how communities are likely to benefit from immigration.
• The campaign should reflect a “Planned Approach” that addresses the need for immigration, but also points to the government’s efforts to address security concerns while continuing to support the needs of economically and socially marginalized Canadians as well as those who are seen as deserving of more support from government.

1.3. Conclusions

Our analysis provides an essential anatomy of support and opposition to immigration both in terms of the themes that shape the dynamic of opinion as well as the critical population segments oriented in both support and opposition to immigration.

Ultimately, the quantitative data suggest that the public are positively disposed towards immigration with the gravity of opinion disposed to recognize the benefits of immigration.

Despite this, the quantitative data identifies concern amongst those who are uneasy with immigration. Moreover, the percentage of Canadians who feel there are too many immigrants being welcomed to Canada has increased slightly in the last year.

It is, in short, an environment in which more communication and more information about the benefits of immigration can help to allay concerns among those who may be inclined to support immigration, but whose opinions are neither firm nor fixed.

The quantitative data show that support is fairly high for Canada’s approach to welcoming refugees. The qualitative focus groups highlight the interchangeable way in which asylum seekers and refugees and, at times, immigrants are described represents a challenge to efforts to communicate the rationale for mainstream, merit-based economic immigration as a distinct phenomenon from refugee resettlement.

Focus group participants said the government should convey both the personal, human side of immigration while also providing credible indicators about the success or failure of the system in meeting its goals. Participants’ broad notions of how a communications campaign should work reflect 2 very different desires: to be provided with facts and information about the impact of immigration on one hand, while localizing and personalizing the impact of immigration on the other. Although participants often said they wanted factual information, few demonstrated any clarity or command of factual information about immigration. Rather perspectives on immigration were usually explained through a combination of things they had heard, on social media or news media, but could not clearly recall. While the use of data points and other hard facts can serve the goal of communicating the need for immigration, and to balance opinions formed through personal encounters, anecdotes, misinformation (via social media or blogs, etc.) or a lack of information, these indicators need to be presented sparingly and in terms that are very direct and straightforward, from well-known, domestic sources (that is, Statistics Canada). Overall, communications on immigration that bring national trends and policy objectives down to a local and personal level and include observational evidence seem appropriate.

Above all, participants expect communications from the government to be credible and delivered in a way that identifies the needs, highlights the positives, but also acknowledges areas where challenges exist accompanied by plans to address those challenges. In short, participants are looking for government to describe immigration as a planned effort to achieve objectives and outcomes and to communicate what the outcomes are.

2. Quantitative detailed findings

2.1. Immigration levels

Uninformed views on immigration levels

Respondents were asked whether they feel that too many, too few, or about the right number of immigrants are coming to Canada. Half of Canadians feel that immigration targets are spot-on, with 52% saying that the number of immigrants coming to Canada is ‘about right’. Among those who feel that immigration targets are off, there is a small but clear lean to the perception that too many immigrants are entering Canada; one-quarter (27%) say there are too many, while 1 in 6 (16%) say there are too few.

Views on immigrants

Q. In your opinion, do you feel there are too many, too few, or about the right number of immigrants coming to Canada? (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Attachment to the belief that there are too many immigrants rises progressively with age (from 16% among those under the age of 25 to 31% among those ages 65 and over).
• Regionally, residents of Alberta are the most likely to say that immigrant levels are too high (35%), while residents of Atlantic Canada and British Columbia are the least likely to espouse this view (18% and 19%, respectively).
• Rural areas are more likely to say that too many immigrants are coming to this country (36%, compared to 25% of urban denizens). By corollary, urban Canadians are more likely to say that there are too few (17%, compared to 9% of rural Canadians).
• Those born in Canada are comparatively more likely to say that the number of immigrants coming to Canada is too high (29%, compared to 19% of those born outside Canada).
• Compared to other educational cohorts, university graduates are more likely to say that the number of immigrants entering Canada is too low (20%) or about right (57%).

Informed views on immigration levels

Next, respondents were divided into 2 groups, each of which were given information as to the scale of Canada’s immigration program. One group was provided with the number of immigrants who enter Canada each year (that is, 300,000), while the other was given this information in the form of a proportion of Canada’s total population (that is, under one percent per year). Informing Canadians of the number of immigrants entering Canada on an annual basis had no discernable impact on responses. Unchanged from the previous question, 53% of Canadians say the number of immigrants is about right, 30% say too many, and 13% say too few.

Expressing this number as a proportion of Canada’s total population, however, had a small but discernable tempering effect on opposition to immigration. The proportion of Canadians who say too many immigrants are coming to Canada dropped to 18%, while the proportion of Canadians who say too few correspondingly rose to 29%. The proportion who say the number is about right remained relatively unchanged at 50%.

Informed views on immigrants - 300,000 immigrants admitted annually

Q. Currently, Canada admits 300,000 immigrants each year. Knowing this, do you feel there are too many, too few, or about the right number of immigrants coming to Canada? (BASE: Canadians [split sample]; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=1,253)

Informed views on immigrants – less than 1 percent of the population admitted annually

Q. Currently, Canada admits immigrants totalling less than 1% of the Canadian population each year. Knowing this, do you feel there are too many, too few, or about the right number of immigrants coming to Canada? (BASE: Canadians [split sample]; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=1,250)

2.2. Immigration categories

Preferred focus of immigration expansion

The results suggest that Canadians are divided on which of the 3 main immigration classes should be the primary focus of any expansion to Canada’s immigration targets. One-third of respondents (36%) believe that family members of people already in Canada should be at the top of the list, while a similar proportion (33%) believe that economic immigrants should take precedence. One-quarter (25%) believe that refugees should rank as the government’s leading priority.

Immigration classes

Q. If the government decides to bring in more immigrants, which of the three main immigration classes should grow? (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

When asked why a particular immigration class was chosen, Canadians provided unique responses for each of the classes. For those who chose the economic class, the majority (71%) feel that skilled labour would be good for Canada’s economy while a few appreciate that they’re likely to be financially sufficient (8%) or not a strain on resources (5%). Those who chose the family class were more split, with almost 2 in 5 (37%) doing so to bring families back together while one-quarter (24%) like that there will already be family here to help them. The main reasons respondents chose the refugee category is for their safety (62%) or a general humanitarian duty (19%).

Reasons for selecting an immigration class

Q. Why do you say that? [If the government decides to bring in more immigrants, which of the three main immigration classes should grow?] (top mentions of 5% or greater presented)

Views on expanding immigration

Results reveal broad support for expanding immigration targets among all 3 immigration classes. Three in five Canadians (59%) express support (that is, 7 to 10 on a 10-point scale) for increasing the number of economic immigrants, compared to just 1 in 6 (16%) who oppose such a measure. A similar proportion, meanwhile, support increasing the admittance of family members of people already in Canada (65%), while 1 in 7 (14%) stand in opposition. A slightly smaller proportion (52%) support increasing the number of refugees who come to Canada, while 1 in 5 (23%) oppose the idea.

Views on expanding immigration

Q. Thinking ahead over the next five years, the government may wish to increase the number of immigrants coming to Canada. To what extent would you support or oppose increasing the number of immigrants who come to Canada from the following groups? (BASE: Canadians [split sample]; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=1,245; n=1,258)

About half of respondents were prompted with additional information regarding the benefits of admitting more immigrants from each of 3 aforementioned classes. These ‘informed’ respondents expressed somewhat different opinions that those who were not give the additional information. In particular, respondents were 10 points more likely to express support (69%) expanding economic immigration when they were informed that economic immigrants would help fill labour market gaps. Similarly, respondents were 5 points more likely to support admitting more refugees (57%) when informed doing so would help fulfill Canada’s humanitarian obligations. Interestingly, respondents were 4 points less likely to support (61%) increasing the number of family members allowed into Canada when they were informed that such action would help reduce the current backlog of applications.

Views on expanding immigration continued

Q. Thinking ahead over the next five years, the government may wish to increase the number of immigrants coming to Canada. To what extent would you support or oppose increasing the number of immigrants who come to Canada from the following groups? (BASE: Canadians [split sample]; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=1,245; n=1,258)

2.3. Satisfaction with Government’s management of immigration

Canadians tend to express satisfaction with the performance of the federal government in managing the immigration system. Four in ten respondents (41%) indicate that they are satisfied with how the Government of Canada manages the system, while 3 in 10 (31%) express disapproval. One-quarter (25%) are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with how the government conducts its immigration affairs.

Satisfaction with Government's immigration management

Q. To what extent are you satisfied with the Government of Canada’s management of our immigration system? (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Satisfaction is notably higher among those who live in urban areas (43%) than among rural Canadians (29%).
• Those born outside Canada are comparatively more satisfied with the immigration system than those born in Canada (53% versus 38%).
• Compared to other education cohorts, university graduates express higher levels of satisfaction (50%).

Reasons for providing positive ratings of the Government’s management of the immigration system include generally well managed (24%) and that Canada is a welcoming, good place to immigrate to (14%), alongside general mentions that the system could improve (10%) or that it is bureaucratic (9%). Reasons for providing a neutral rating are mixed, with mentions of a bureaucratic system (12%) or that it could generally be improved (10%). Reasons for providing a negative rating include security concerns (17%), that it is generally not well managed (14%), that Canadians should be looked after first (11%) or concerns about illegal immigration (10%).

Reasons for rating of Government’s management of the immigration system

Q. Why do you say that? [To what extent are you satisfied with the Government of Canada's management of our immigration system?] (top mentions of 5% or greater presented)

2.4. Impact of immigration

Perceived impact of immigration by proximity

Respondents were asked to rate the impacts of immigration in 5 domains, ranging from the country as a whole down to the individual level. Seven in ten Canadians (70%) believe that immigration has had a positive impact on their country. This figure drops slightly to 64% at the provincial level and 60% at the municipal level. Over half (56%) believe they have personally benefited from immigration and half (51%) believe that immigration has had a positive influence on their neighbourhood.

Impact of immigration

Q. In general, what effect does immigration to this country have on…? (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Residents of Atlantic Canada are more likely to say that their province has been positively impacted by immigration (76%, compared to 64% nationally).
• Those who reside in urban areas, immigrants, and university graduates are all consistently more likely to say that the effects of immigration have been positive. For instance, 63% of immigrants (compared to 47% of those born in Canada), 58% of university educated, and 54% of urban denizens (compared to 33% of rural Canadians) say that immigration has had a positive impact on their neighbourhood.

Attitudes towards the economic impact of immigration

Respondents were presented with 3 statements regarding the economic impacts of immigration and asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each one. Overall, results suggest a positive assessment of how immigration affects Canada’s economy. Two-thirds of respondents (68%) agree that immigration is necessary for long-term economic growth. Six in ten, meanwhile, agree that immigrants bring in vital skills and resources (63%) and that Canada’s competitiveness depends on its ability to recruit skilled immigrants (62%). Less than 1 in 6 disagreed with any of these statements.

Economic impacts of immigration

Q. Next, thinking about economic reasons why Canada brings newcomers to Canada… Please tell me to what extent you either agree or disagree with each of the following statements: (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Urban Canadians, immigrants, and university graduates are all consistently more likely to agree that immigration yields economic benefits.

Attitudes towards societal impacts of immigration

Respondents were presented with a list of 6 statements regarding immigration and asked to rate the extent they agree or disagree with each one. Those statements that portray immigration in a positive light elicited high levels of agreement. Indeed, three-quarters (77%) say they are proud of Canada’s reputation as an open and welcoming society. Two-thirds (66%), meanwhile, agree that accepting immigrants from many different cultures strengthens Canadian culture, while slightly fewer (62%) agree that Canada has an opportunity to attract the best and brightest immigrants as other countries close their borders.

Statements that highlight the potential downsides to immigration, meanwhile, produced more mixed results, suggesting that attitudes to immigration may be more complex that the enthusiastic and optimistic snapshot portrayed above. One in two Canadians (47%) agree that Canada should focus on helping unemployed Canadians rather than looking elsewhere for skilled immigrants, while about half this many (23%) disagree. Approximately 4 in 10 (37%) say that immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in Canada, while roughly the same proportion (34%) disagree. One-quarter (24%) feel that immigration is causing Canada to change in a disagreeable manner, although more than twice this many (56%) reject this assessment.

Social impacts of immigration

Q. Now, thinking about Canada and immigration... Please tell me to what extent you either agree or disagree with each of the following statements: (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Once again, urban Canadians, immigrants, and university graduates are all consistently more likely to endorse the idea that Canada benefits from immigration. In contrast, rural Canadians and those with a level of educational attainment below the university level are more likely to agree with statements that stress the negative aspects of immigration.
• Agreement with the notion that immigration strengthens Canadian culture declines with age (from 76% among those under the age of 25 to 57% among those 65 and over).
• Perhaps not surprisingly, agreement with the idea that Canada should focus on helping unemployed Canadians declines with household income (from 62% among those with an annual household income of less than $20,000 to 38% among those earning $150,000 or more).

2.5. Views on integration

Attitudes towards how newcomers settle in Canada

Respondents were presented with 3 statements regarding how newcomers settle in Canada and asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each one. Fully 7 in 10 (70%) endorse the view that immigrants coming to Canada want to contribute to society, while a similar proportion (67%) believe that immigrants have more difficulty than Canadians finding employment in their field of expertise. Half (51%) say that the country is not doing enough to encourage new immigrants to settle outside of Canada’s largest municipalities.

Settling newcomers in Canada

Q. Now thinking about how newcomers settle in Canada… Please tell me to what extent you either agree or disagree with each of the following statements: (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Regionally, residents of Quebec are more likely to hold the view that immigrants have greater difficulty finding employment in their field of expertise (75%).
• Urban Canadians are more likely to agree that most immigrants want to contribute to society (72% versus 61%).
• Agreement with the statement that immigrants want to contribute to society rises progressively with household income (from 63% among those earning less than $20,000 per year to 79% among those earning $150,000 or more).
• University graduates are more likely to say that immigrants want to contribute to society (79%) and that immigrants have greater difficulty finding employment relevant to their qualifications (76%).

Attitudes towards how newcomers integrate

Respondents were presented with 4 statements regarding responsibility for immigrants to integrate into Canadian society and asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each one. More than 8 in 10 (84%) feel that newcomers should be expected to learn about Canada’s history, institutions, and traditions. Seven in ten, meanwhile, say that both the Government of Canada (73%) and individual Canadians (70%) have a responsibility to help immigrants integrate into Canadian society. Six in ten (62%) believe that immigrants need to do more to integrate into Canadian society.

Newcomer integration

Q. Next, thinking about how newcomers settle in Canada… Please tell me to what extent you either agree or disagree with each of the following statements: (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Regionally, residents of Quebec are more likely to hold the view that the Government of Canada has a responsibility to help immigrants integrate (81%) and that immigrants need to do more on their end to integrate (73%).
• Urban Canadians are more likely to agree that the Government of Canada holds a responsibility to help immigrants integrate (75% versus 62% among rural immigrants).
• Compared to other educational cohorts, university graduates are more likely to say that both the Government of Canada and individual Canadians have a responsibility to help immigrants integrate (78% and 77%, respectively), while they are less likely to believe that immigrants themselves need to do more to integrate (56%).

2.6. Attitudes towards tolerance and acceptance

Respondents were asked about their perceptions of the extent of racism in Canada and the role that the government should play in combating it. Just under half (45%) agree that racism constitutes a major problem in this country, although one-quarter (25%) express doubt that it is much of an issue at all. Regardless of the scale of the problem, the vast majority of Canadians (79%) say that the federal government has an important role to play in promoting tolerance and acceptance.

Tolerance and acceptance

Q. Please tell me to what extent you either agree or disagree with each of the following statements: (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Residents of Atlantic Canada (89%), university graduates (84%), and urban Canadians (81% versus 71% of rural Canadians) are all more likely to agree that the Government of Canada has an important role to play in combating racism (79%).

Comfort with people from other backgrounds

The results suggest that Canadians are widely comfortable with individuals who hail from different backgrounds. Nine in ten (89%) say they are comfortable interacting with individuals of different races, while a similar proportion (87%) are comfortable in social situations with people from different cultures. Eight in ten (82%) feel at ease dealing with those of different religions.

Comfort with people from other backgrounds

Q. Please tell me to what extent you either agree or disagree with each of the following statements: I feel comfortable in social situations with people from different: (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Urban Canadians are consistently more likely to express comfort in these social situations.
• Comfort with these types of social situations consistently rises with household income.
• University graduates are consistently more likely to say they would be comfortable interacting with people from different backgrounds, regardless of race, culture or religion.

2.7. Views on refugees

Views on the refugee levels

The majority of Canadians continue to feel that the country is admitting about the right number of refugees (43%) or that too few are being admitted (16%). About 1 in 3 (32%) say that Canada is admitting too many refugees.

Refugee levels

Q. Refugees can come to Canada in different ways. Some of them come from overseas and are selected by the Canadian government to come to Canada. Other people come to Canada as visitors and, after arriving, claim that they are refugees, saying that they cannot go home because they face danger or persecution. In your opinion, do you feel that there are too many, too few, or about the right number of refugees coming to Canada? (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• The likelihood of saying that Canada admits too many refugees rises with age (from 24% among those under the age of 25 to 39% of those ages 65 and over).
• Regionally, residents of Alberta are more likely to say that Canada is admitting too many refugees (46%).
• Those who reside in rural areas are more likely to say that too many refugees are coming to Canada (40%, compared to 30% of urban Canadians).
• The likelihood of saying that too many refugees are entering the country seems to decline with educational attainment (from 42% among high school educated to 25% among university educated).

Attitudes towards accepting refugees

While Canadians may be divided over how many refugees should be admitted to Canada, results reveal relatively little dispute over the importance of accepting refugees in general. Three-quarters of respondents (75%) say that accepting refugees is an integral part of Canada’s humanitarian tradition, while 7 in 10 (70%) say that Canada has a responsibility to do its part in accepting refugees. Just 1 in 10 disagree with either of these statements.

Accepting refugees as part a humanitarian tradition

Q. Please tell me to what extent you either agree or disagree with each of the following statements: Accepting refugees is part of Canada’s humanitarian tradition. (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

Canada has a responsibility to accept refugees

Q. Please tell me to what extent you either agree or disagree with each of the following statements: Canada has a responsibility to do its part in accepting refugees. (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)

• Compared to rural Canadians, urban residents are more likely to agree that accepting refugees is part of Canada’s humanitarian tradition (77% versus 64%) and that Canada has a responsibility to accept refugees (72% versus 60%).
• Compared to other educational cohorts, university graduates are more likely to view accepting refugees as both part of Canada’s humanitarian tradition (82%) and as part of Canada’s responsibility (79%).

2.8. Views on international students

View on international student levels

The majority of Canadians feel that the country is admitting about the right number of international students (65%) or that too few are being admitted (16%). About 1 in 7 (15%) say that Canada is admitting too many international students.

International students

Q. In 2016, Canada had about 312,000 international university or college students studying in Canada. These students represent between 10 and 15 percent of the total Canadians university and college student enrolment. In your opinion, do you feel there are too many, too few or about the right number of international students in Canada? (BASE: Canadians; July 31 to August 30, 2017, n=2,503)