OP-ED: Canada must vet new immigrants for cultural compatibility
Dotan Rousso writes, "Canada’s political leaders have spent decades insisting that culture is largely irrelevant to immigration."
By: Dotan Rousso
Canada has finally begun to acknowledge what millions of Canadians have known for years: immigration levels matter. After bringing in approximately 485,000 permanent residents in 2024, the federal government reduced its targets to 395,000 in 2025 and 380,000 in 2026. Temporary resident numbers have also been cut significantly.
Yet while politicians have become willing to discuss how many immigrants Canada can absorb, they remain remarkably reluctant to discuss a far more important question: who are we admitting, and should cultural compatibility play any role in the answer?
The official position has long been that it should not. Canada’s immigration philosophy is built upon the principle that individuals should be judged as individuals. Yes, individuals are individuals. However, individuals do not emerge from a vacuum. They are shaped by families, schools, communities, religious traditions, political systems, and social norms. They arrive carrying assumptions about authority, freedom, religion, women, democracy, and the relationship between the individual and the state. To acknowledge this reality is not prejudice. It is simply an acceptance of how human beings are formed.
In fact, Canada’s immigration system already operates on this exact logic. We select for language proficiency because language matters. We select for education because education matters. We select for work experience because experience matters. We screen for criminal history because past behaviour matters. We routinely use statistical predictors to estimate how likely someone is to integrate and contribute successfully.
Yet when the discussion turns to culture, many politicians suddenly pretend that all cultures are equally compatible with the institutions and values that define Canada.
They are not.
Canada rests upon a set of assumptions that many Canadians barely notice because they are so deeply embedded in our society. Freedom of speech, equality before the law, religious liberty, democratic governance, tolerance of dissent, and the separation of political authority from religious authority are not universal values. They are the product of a particular historical and cultural development.
Some societies embrace these values more strongly than others. Some reject them outright.
The domestic fallout following October 7 should have forced Canadians to confront this issue honestly. Across the country, we witnessed demonstrations in which participants celebrated Hamas, justified terrorism, and openly promoted ideologies fundamentally hostile to liberal democracy. Hamas is a terrorist organization built upon religious extremism, political violence, and antisemitism. How is it possible that such ideas attract meaningful support on Canadian streets today?
The most common objection to using culture as a selection criterion is that cultural compatibility cannot be measured. That is simply not true. Democracies already test for civic knowledge, constitutional understanding, and commitment to democratic institutions. Canada could place greater emphasis on civic integration requirements, stronger citizenship standards, constitutional literacy, and screening for support of extremist organizations and ideologies. It could also examine integration outcomes more carefully when determining immigration levels from particular regions.
A successful immigration policy does not merely ask whether an applicant can fill a job vacancy. It asks whether newcomers and the host society can realistically build a common future together.
Canada’s political leaders have spent decades insisting that culture is largely irrelevant to immigration. The evidence increasingly suggests otherwise. The real question is no longer whether culture matters. The real question is whether our leaders have the courage to admit it.
