Personal reflections on the immigration levels plan

Reviewing the plan and the coverage to date, my initial reflections are as follows:

The approach of stabilizing levels at 500,000 in 2025 resulted in the headlines the government likely wanted, with words like “plafonnent,” “hold back,” “capping,” “level out” and”stabilize.”

However, given that means an increase from 2023 levels of 465,000 to 500,000 in 2025, this “stabilizing” is more virtue signalling that they are listening to public concerns than actually taking action. The fact that any further adjustment would happen after the 2025 election makes is likely meaningless for the current government.

Moreover, given timelines to increase housing and healthcare capacity, continued increases in immigration levels will simply exacerbate the gap between levels and absorptive capacity. Hard to see this as a winning strategy…

However, should, as appears likely, the Conservatives form the next government, they would be faced with a high baseline level that may or may not be politically difficult to undo. And of course, the Liberals may have thoughts of this being a potential wedge issue for immigrant origin voters, a dubious strategy given that immigrant voters are more concerned about high immigration levels than Canadian-born (Environics Focus Canada 2023).

The plan, as is common in government documents, fails to acknowledge the negative impacts of some policy changes:

• No walking back the ill-advised removal of visitor visa requirements to provide proof of “sufficient funds to stay in Canada or demonstrate they will leave the country” that resulted in increased number of asylum claimants;
• No reversal of the removal of the 20 hour cap on work for international students, essentially transforming the international student programs, particularly with respect to private colleges, as low cost service worker stream;
• No change to longer work permits for temporary workers that make it easier for employers but reduce incentives to improve productivity.

On the positive side, the government belatedly notes the impact of high levels of immigration on housing, healthcare and infrastructure and notes the need for a “whole of government” approach to improve the absorptive capacity:

While immigration contributes to the supply of labour, alleviates demographic pressures, and provides social and cultural benefits, it also creates demand for infrastructure and services. With significant and sustained growth in planned notional immigration levels, success for newcomers and all Canadians means working collaboratively with other federal departments, provinces and territories, communities and municipalities, Indigenous communities, the private sector, and stakeholders.

While there is more discussion on the role and importance of temporary foreign workers but no details on possible actions resulting from his media comment that “Canada has become “addicted” to temporary foreign workers, which has created what he called “perverse incentives” and, in some cases, led to abuse of the workers.” Minister Miller has started to address the abuse of the international student program but still too early to tell how effective these changes will be given implementation issues.