…The report, supported by the Future Skills Centre through the Government of Canada’s Future Skills program, identifies three areas for improving immigration’s economic outcomes and making better use of immigrant talent:
First, the Express Entry program could raise its minimum language threshold and place greater emphasis on advanced proficiency in Canada’s official languages, with ongoing evaluation of longer-term outcomes.
Second, faster, more consistent credential recognition and better employer recognition of foreign qualifications could help address persistent earnings and occupational gaps.
Third, employment-focused language training after arrival should be rigorously evaluated to ensure programs effectively support immigrants’ labour-market integration.
“Immigration is central to Canada’s workforce and economic growth, but attracting educated newcomers is only part of the equation,” says Mahboubi. “Helping immigrants put their skills and qualifications to work is an important opportunity to strengthen productivity and improve economic outcomes for newcomers and Canada alike.”
Thoughtful analysis on the linkages between immigration, absorptive capacity and other policy areas, a major gap in the past. Will see the extent to which the forthcoming levels plan addressing these interlinked issues:
….Rebuilding trust requires integration across domains that policy often separates. Demographic need must be connected to economic strategy; economic selection to credential recognition and productivity; immigration levels to housing and service capacity; national ambition to regional delivery; and administrative data to lived experience. The measure of success is not simply how many people Canada admits, but whether newcomers and existing residents can build secure, productive lives in communities that remain functional and welcoming.
The proposed approach is disciplined but not technocratic. Family reunification, refugee protection, compassion and equal dignity are not residual categories to be considered after labour-market optimization. They are part of the legitimacy of the system and of Canada’s identity. History warns what can happen when anxiety overwhelms evidence and humanity. Recent experience warns what happens when aspiration is not matched by execution.
Canada’s choice is therefore not between open borders and closed doors, or between economic interest and moral obligation. It is between a fragmented system that asks the public to trust promises and an integrated system that earns trust through evidence, transparency, adaptability and fair treatment. Immigration will remain central to Canada’s future. The task is to build institutions capable of aligning that future with the country’s capacity, ambitions and values.
Public opposition to immigration has shifted, with the proportion of Canadians who think too many people are moving here declining by 10 percentage points since 2024, a new poll by the Environics Institute has found.
The findings come as Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab prepares to announce in the coming weeks the government’s immigration targets for the next three years, both for permanent and temporary residents, including international students.
The government is facing calls to increase the numbers of immigrants it will admit to meet skills gaps to supply the work force needed for Prime Minister Mark Carney’s ambitious list of major projects, including a new oil pipeline to the West Coast….
Public support for immigration has plummeted in recent years, after a rapid increase in new arrivals to the country. The number of newcomers doubled from 1.2 million in 2021 to 2.4 million in 2023.
Between 2022 and 2024, the proportion of Canadians who thought there was too much immigration doubled from 27 per cent to 58 per cent, the Environics Institute’s surveys showed.
In response to plummeting public support, starting in 2024, the federal government reduced the number of permanent residents it would accept each year, and capped the number of international student visas it issued. This led to a small drop in Canada’s population in 2025….
Public discussion and public policy relating to immigration in Canada have evolved significantly over the past five years. As the pandemic receded, the intake of new arrivals – both permanent and temporary –rapidly increased, sparking criticisms about the selection criteria and the country’s capacity to build the necessary infrastructure – particularly housing. These criticisms were accompanied by a stark shift in public opinion: between 2022 and 2024, the Environics Institute’s Focus Canada surveys tracked a doubling in the proportion of Canadians who agree that there is too much immigration (from 27% to 58%). Beginning in 2024, the federal government made a number of policy changes, including significant reductions to the numbers of new immigrants across all categories that the country would welcome each year.
In the wake of these developments, the latest Focus Canada survey conducted this past September finds that – after a year of little change in 2025 – public opinion has begun to swing back toward more openness on immigration. While the extent of the opinion shift varies from question to question, the direction of the trend across all questions is consistent: the public is somewhat less concerned this year about the overall level of immigration, and the possible negative impact of immigration on the economy and jobs. Despite these changes, opinions on the whole remain more negative than they were prior to the shift that began in 2023….
In 2026, Canadians are evenly split on the question of whether, overall, there is too much immigration to Canada: 48 percent agree and 48 percent disagree. This represents a significant shift compared to last year toward more openness on immigration.
A large majority of Canadians continue to agree that immigration has a positive impact on the economy. Most Canadians also reject the proposition that immigrants take away jobs from other Canadians.
The proportion agreeing that too many immigrants are not adopting Canadian values, and that Canada accepts too many immigrants from racial minority groups, have both seen modest declines since last year.
In the case of these two questions – on immigrants adopting Canadian values, and on racial minority immigrants – the opinions of immigrants and non-immigrants, and of white and racialized Canadians, are very similar.
There has been no significant change since last year in the proportion agreeing that many refugees are not legitimate (a decline of only 2 points), although the direction of change is consistent with that for the other questions in this year’s survey.
A significant difference of opinion between supporters of the Conservative Party, onthe one hand, and supporters of the Liberal Party and the NDP, on the other, is evident on most of these questions. For instance, Conservative Party supporters are currently twice as likely as Liberal Party supporters and four times as likely as NDP supporters to agree that there is too much immigration. And, while large majorities of Liberal Party and NDP supporters agree that the economic impact of immigration is positive, Conservative Party supporters are divided.
In 2026, more than twice as many Canadians say that immigrants settling in their local community makes it a better place, rather than a worse place.
Among those who believe that immigration makes their communities a better place, the top reason given is that they value what immigrants bring in terms of multiculturalism and diversity.
The top reason given by those who say that immigrants make their communities a worse place pertains to concerns about weakening local culture or identity. A much smaller, and declining, proportion mention the impact of immigration in their community on housing affordability and availability. This proportion has fallen by seven percentage points since 2025.
….But never mind. Isn’t Alberta being overrun by immigrants? Hasn’t there been a sudden and extraordinary surge in immigration to Alberta, particularly temporary immigration, that has forced the Premier to take bold, decisive action, or at least ask the public for permission to do so?
No, actually. Leave aside that Ms. Smith was begging for immigration to Alberta to be accelerated not so long ago: a doubling of the province’s allocation under federal immigration quotas, in addition to another 10,000 Ukrainian refugees. The immigrant share of Alberta’s population, while it has been growing faster than in most other provinces – no kidding: you say that immigrants want to live in the richest province in the country? – remains below the national average.
As for the dreaded “non-permanent residents” (including refugees, foreign students, temporary foreign workers and their families): not only are their numbers, at 5.5 per cent of the province’s population, well below the national average (6.7 per cent), they’re lower than they are in Quebec (5.9 per cent)….In any event we are no longer admitting high numbers of immigrants, permanent or non-permanent, and haven’t been for some time. It’s striking, indeed, how the focus of the debate has changed. It used to be the issue was “illegal” immigration: asylum-seekers crossing the border (it is not illegal to claim asylum) thereby “jumping the queue” (there is no such queue). Then it was “out of control” immigration. Then it was “high” immigration. Increasingly, the target now is just “immigration.”
Interesting commentary and yes, control doesn’t necessarily correlate with outcomes:
…Lisa Lalande, chief executive officer of the Century Initiative, a non-profit think tank that wants to see Canada’s population grow to 100 million by 2100, warned that “greater control over selection doesn’t automatically mean better outcomes.”
While Albertans’ demands deserve to be taken seriously, she said, “the real test is whether the system meets local needs, helps newcomers settle in and gives them reasons to stay. Ottawa sets the overall numbers, but provinces and communities know where the jobs are, so they need to plan together.”
Mikal Skuterud, an economics professor at the University of Waterloo, cautioned against handing more control over immigration to provinces. There has been “an ongoing devolution of power away from the federal government towards the provinces, and that’s had a very high cost,” he said.
A once robust federal points-based system for choosing who settles here has over decades unravelled, Prof. Skuterud said. “What we have now looks like a lottery. It’s a patchwork system that you cannot navigate by yourself because it’s so complicated.”
Newcomers granted permanent residence in one province have a right to move somewhere else in Canada to work.
“We live in a federation with a constitution that guarantees people freedom of mobility,” Prof. Skuterud said, adding “there’s no way to ensure that they don’t leave. And so the whole system is flawed.”…
Given the corrections from previously excessive levels of temporary residents, I though it would be interesting to obtain data breaking down permits and permit extensions for temporary workers (IMP and TFWP) and international students, 2016-25.
The following tables highlight the impact of the pandemic in increasing the percentage of extensions compared to new permits, which is also the case following the reductions in 2024 and 2025.
Not too much surprising but does highlight the considerable “overhang” from previous excess numbers.
Expect trend will also show in forthcoming Focus Canada survey:
Canadians in the Atlantic region and on the Prairies are most likely to think there are too many immigrants coming to this country while British Columbians and Quebecers are least likely to see it that way, according to a new poll.
When you look at all 10 provinces, 45 per cent of Canadians polled said we have too many immigrants, 31 per cent indicated we have about the right number, and 13 per cent said we don’t have enough, according to the poll conducted earlier this month by EKOS for the Association for Canadian Studies.
“We’re still seeing the large plurality of Canadians saying there are too many immigrants,” said Jack Jedwab, the association’s president.
“But clearly relative to the previous three years, we are seeing some change in feeling around that and some loosening of concern on the part of Canadians.”
Manitoba and Saskatchewan respondents were most likely to say Canada has too many immigrants (52 per cent), followed by Atlantic Canada (50 per cent), then Alberta and Ontario (both at 46 per cent).
British Columbians were least likely to say Canada has too many immigrants (39 per cent), followed closely by Quebecers (40 per cent).
“The poll comes ahead of Mark Carney’s Liberal government announcing immigration levels for the next three years in the coming weeks before presenting a budget on Nov. 5.
British Columbians topped the list of those who said Canada has about the right number of immigrants (34 per cent), followed by Alberta and Quebec (both at 32 per cent). Those polled in Manitoba and Saskatchewan were least likely to say Canada has the right number of immigrants (26 per cent).
British Columbians were also the most likely to say Canada doesn’t have enough immigrants (18 per cent), followed by Quebec (16 per cent), Atlantic Canada (13 per cent), and Ontario (12 per cent).
Immigration concerns have declined across the board, but they’re still high in Atlantic Canada and lowest in B.C. and Quebec, according to the poll.
Quebecers were most likely to strongly agree with the need for a common set of values (42 per cent strongly agreed with that, and another 42 per cent somewhat agree).
Only 31 per cent of respondents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan strongly agreed with the need for a common set of values, while 42 per cent somewhat agreed.
“But a near equal share believes cohesion requires people accepting others with different values, according to the poll.
In all 10 provinces, 40 per cent of respondents strongly agreed with that statement, while another 39 per cent somewhat agreed.
Those who indicated Canada has too many immigrants was down 13 percentage points from a separate Leger poll conducted in March 2025. Those who say we don’t have enough was up 10 percentage points over that same period…..
Pre-levels plan political positioning, principles with few details, no numbers and lots on the failures of the Trudeau government.
Closing line of interest sounds more NDP than CPC: “It’s time for Mark Carney to deliver an immigration levels plan that works for people, not just for corporations:”
…First, bring the numbers down.
Bring them down so unemployed and underemployed Canadians get first crack at Canadian jobs. The Liberals love to talk about buying Canadian. It’s time they started talking about hiring Canadian and training Canadians.
Bring down levels so housing starts can catch up and rents can come down.
Bring down levels so our hospitals and family doctors aren’t asked to do the impossible.
And bring down levels so immigration policy goes back to what it should be: helping newcomers succeed and integrate, not handing corporations a tool to drive down wages.
Second, restore integrity to the system.
That means swiftly removing the large number of people who are in Canada with no legal right to be here. It means making sure social benefits go to people who genuinely need protection, not to those filing bogus asylum claims. It means stronger security, criminal and identity checks on every applicant. And it means ending lenient sentences handed to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes so they can avoid deportation.
It also means cracking down on fraud, from fake documents to study permit scams to the buying and selling of job offers. My colleague Brad Redekopp will describe one recent program change that is an example of a step in the wrong direction….
It’s time for Mark Carney to deliver an immigration levels plan that works for people, not just for corporations.
….Express Entry works by allocating each candidate a certain number of points for factors such as age, proficiency in official languages and work experience. But in recent years, Ottawa stopped doing general rounds of invitations to pick candidates with the highest scores. Instead the immigration minister does a “category-based selection” to meet an identified economic goal, selecting the top candidates within these smaller pools.
While there are some narrow cases when niche rounds makes sense – a recentone selected physicians with Canadian work experience, for example – most are questionable. Express Entry is supposed to focus on the country’s economic goals, but one of the highest priority groups now is French-speakers outside of Quebec. This group has cut-off scores significantly lower than most other groups, meaning they are more likely to struggle economically and make less money.
Of course, the overall Express Entry system should continue to value proficiency in French (and English) as part of an applicant’s overall score. Highly skilled Francophone candidates are needed by Quebec and other parts of Canada.
Other category-specific rounds, such as those for certain trades occupations, require the government to micromanage the job market, something it rarely does well. Category draws for people with Canadian experience help absorb some of the still enormous population of temporary workers, but displaces applicants outside Canada who are stronger candidates.
Ottawa hasn’t done a general round since April, 2024. It should bring general rounds back as the main way of selecting economic immigrants, with narrow exceptions….
Reasonable assessments. And Sharma correct on tendencious nature of question wording:
…Is this a victory or a defeat for immigrants?
These margins were lower than what had been projected in earlier public polls, especially given Premier Danielle Smith’s campaign to rally for the mandate for change, said Avnish Nanda, a co-founder of Our Alberta Advantage. The group opposes the Alberta government’s immigration-related referendum questions and policies.
Albertans have voted to remain part of Canada in the province’s first-ever referendum on separation. Wondering what the result says about the other nine questions? Curious how the separatist movement will continue? Want to know what it means for the provincial government’s relationship with the rest of the country?
“She sent every Albertan home like a large pamphlet that contained (what) I think were false statements but made the case about why they should vote yes,” said Nanda, who is also an immigration lawyer in Edmonton.
“She won by (a handful of points) on these questions. She should be winning by 25, 30 points. She barely won this. A large portion of Albertans rejected it.”
Raj Sharma, a Calgary-based immigration lawyer, also sees the result as a “victory” because he said the way the immigration questions were structured and written would lead many respondents to say yes.
“These were slam-dunk-level questions,” he said. “They didn’t get that. It gives me great joy, great optimism that Alberta has been very decisive. At the end of the day, it looks like Albertans are quite reasonable, committed to the Canadian fabric, committed to working with their neighbours, whether newcomers or old, to a future together.”
Can Alberta actually curtail its immigration?
The referendum asked for more control over immigration but Sharma said the question was “disingenuous,” because immigration is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Not too long ago, the premier was asking to double the targets of Alberta’s provincial immigration nomination program and was warm to the idea of increased pathways for Ukrainians, he added.
While Smith may hope to wrest as much control over how many people, and who, are let into Alberta as Quebec does in setting its intakes, Sharma said the conditions and circumstances are so different between the two provinces.
“I’ll call it a febrile fever dream that Alberta can get the same position within the constitutional framework as Quebec,” he said. “If you want sovereignty, you need to define and have a culture … oil and gas is not enough for a culture. The starting point for sovereignty would be to define the culture. Alberta is not the same as Quebec. We don’t have this separate language.”
