From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Travis D. Smith

Travis Smith reviews I… Do? by Andrea Mrozek and Peter Jon Mitchell, showing that marriage is a public good, not just private choice, arguing culture, not politics, must lead any revival of this vital institution.

Andrea Mrozek and Peter Jon Mitchell, in I… Do?, write that the fading value of marriage is a threat to social stability

I… Do? by Andrea Mrozek and Peter Jon Mitchell manages to say something both obvious and radical: marriage matters. And not just for sentimental reasons. Marriage is a public good, the authors attest.

The book is a modestly sized but extensively researched work that compiles decades of social science data to make one central point: stable marriages improve individual and societal well-being. Married people are generally healthier, wealthier and more resilient. Children from married-parent homes do better across almost every major indicator: academic success, mental health, future earnings and reduced contact with the justice system.

The authors refer to this consistent pattern as the “marriage advantage.” It’s not simply about income. Even in low-income households, children raised by married parents tend to outperform their peers from single-parent families. Mrozek and Mitchell make the case that marriage functions as a stabilizing institution, producing better outcomes not just for couples and kids but for communities and, by extension, the country.

While the book compiles an impressive array of empirical findings, it is clear the authors know that data alone can’t fix what’s broken. There’s a quiet but important concession in these pages: if statistics alone could persuade people to value marriage, we would already be seeing a turnaround.

Marriage in Canada is in sharp decline. Fewer people are getting married, the average age of first marriage continues to climb, and fertility rates are hitting historic lows. The cultural narrative has shifted. Marriage is seen less as a cornerstone of adult life and more as a personal lifestyle choice, often put off indefinitely while people wait to feel ready, build their careers or find emotional stability.

The real value of I… Do? lies in its recognition that the solutions are not primarily political. Policy changes might help stop making things worse, but politicians are not going to rescue marriage. In fact, asking them to may be counterproductive. Looking to politicians to save marriage would involve misunderstanding both marriage and politics. Mrozek and Mitchell suggest the best the state can do is remove disincentives, such as tax policies and benefit structures that inadvertently penalize marriage, and otherwise get out of the way.

The liberal tradition once understood that family should be considered prior to politics for good reason. Love is higher than justice, and the relationships based in it should be kept safely outside the grasp of bureaucrats, ideologues, and power-seekers. The more marriage has been politicized over recent decades, the more it has been reshaped in ways that promote dependency on the impersonal and depersonalizing benefactions of the state.

The book takes a brief detour into the politics of same-sex marriage. Mrozek laments that the topic has become politically untouchable. I would argue that revisiting that battle is neither advisable nor desirable. By now, most Canadians likely know same-sex couples whose marriages demonstrate the same qualities and advantages the authors otherwise praise.

Where I… Do? really shines is in its final section. After pages of statistics, the authors turn to something far more powerful: culture. They explore how civil society—including faith communities, neighbourhoods, voluntary associations and the arts can help revive a vision of marriage that is compelling, accessible and rooted in human experience. They point to storytelling, mentorship and personal witness as ways to rebuild a marriage culture from the ground up.

It’s here that the book moves from description to inspiration. Mrozek and Mitchell acknowledge the limits of top-down efforts and instead offer the beginnings of a grassroots roadmap. Their suggestions are tentative but important: showcase healthy marriages, celebrate commitment and encourage institutions to support rather than undermine families.

This is not a utopian manifesto. It’s a realistic, often sobering look at how far marriage has fallen off the public radar and what it might take to put it back. In a political climate where even mentioning marriage as a public good can raise eyebrows, I… Do? attempts to reframe the conversation.

To be clear, this is not a book for policy wonks or ideologues. It’s for parents, educators, community leaders and anyone concerned about social cohesion. It’s for Gen Xers wondering if their children will ever give them grandchildren. It’s for Gen Zers wondering if marriage is still worth it. And it’s for those in between, hoping to build something lasting in a culture that too often encourages the opposite.

If your experiences already tell you that strong, healthy marriages are among the greatest of human goods, I… Do? will affirm what you know. If you’re skeptical, it won’t convert you overnight, but it might spark a much-needed conversation.

Travis D. Smith is an associate professor of political science at Concordia University in Montreal. This book review was submitted by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson and Steven Globerman

From 2000 to 2015, annual immigration averaged 617,800 immigrants, compared to a more than doubling to 1.4 million annually from 2016 to
2024 (excluding 2020), according to a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent non-partisan Canadian think-tank.

“Over the past decade, Canada’s immigration numbers have skyrocketed, most starkly since 2021,” said Jock Finlayson, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Canada’s Changing Immigration Patterns, 2000–2024.

The study finds from 2000 to 2015, immigration (including temporary foreign workers and international students) grew on average by 3.5 per cent per year. However, from 2016 to 2024 (excluding 2020) immigration grew annually at 21.3 per cent—more than six times the 2000-2015 pace.

The sharp rise in recent years reflects both planned increases in permanent immigrant inflows as well as unprecedented and largely unplanned growth in the numbers of temporary foreign workers, international students, and asylum seekers. For example, in 2024 alone, 485,600 permanent immigrants entered Canada, along with 518,200 international students and nearly one million (912,900) temporary foreign workers.

However, due to concerns about the impact of unprecedented in-migration on housing affordability, employment opportunities (or lack thereof), access to health care and other issues, late last year the federal government unveiled plans to substantially reduce immigration levels over the 2025-27 period, affecting permanent immigrants, international students, and other temporary visa holders.

The composition of immigration also changed dramatically during this period. From 2000 to 2015, the average share of total immigrants in the permanent category was 42.1 per cent while the non-permanent share (mainly international students and temporary workers) was 57.9 per cent. From 2016 to 2024 (excluding Covid 2020), permanent immigrants averaged 27.7 per cent of total in-migration versus 72.3 per cent for non-permanent.

“We’re in the midst of a housing crisis in Canada, and the unfortunate truth is we lack the necessary infrastructure to accommodate immigration at the 2022-24 rate,” said Steven Globerman, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and study co-author.

“While the reductions announced late last year have been confirmed by the new government, the levels of immigration over the next two year will still be well above historic benchmarks.”

This study is the first in a series of papers from the authors on immigration.

Canada’s Changing Immigration Patterns, 2000—2024

• Immigration, after 2000 and especially after 2015, is characterized by substantial increases in the absolute number of immigrants admitted, as well the share admitted as temporary foreign workers and international students.
• For example, from 2000 to 2015, the total number of immigrants increased at a simple average annual rate of 4% compared to 15% from 2016 to 2024. As well, permanent admissions as a share of total admissions declined by .83 percentage points per year from 2000 to 2015 and by 1.1 percentage points per year from 2016 to 2024.
• These recent developments reflect changes in government policy. In particular, the International Mobility Program (IMP) of 2014 enabled Canadian employers to bring in greater numbers of temporary workers from abroad to fill lower-paying jobs.
• The Advisory Council on Economic Growth appointed by the Trudeau government in early 2016 recommended substantial increases in permanent immigration, as well as in the number of international students who would become eligible for permanent status after acquiring Canadian educational credentials. The Trudeau government enthusiastically embraced the recommendation.
• Recent immigrants to Canada seem better equipped to participate in the labour market than earlier cohorts. For example, over the period from 2011 to 2021, the percentage of established immigrants with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased, and the vast majority of admitted immigrants speak at least one of the official languages. Moreover, recent immigrants enjoy higher employment rates than did earlier cohorts.
• Nevertheless, public concern about the impact of increased immigration—primarily on the affordability of housing—has led the federal government to reduce planned levels of future immigration substantially.

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute