Fixing Canada’s broken immigration system – Presenting more data to Parliament: Michael Barutciski

First in a series of opinion pieces by MLI. In reading Barutciski’s recommendations for more data, he presents the case as if no data available when in fact in most areas he mentions, open data has rich data sets, albeit historic but regularly updated. Valid to argue more breakdowns in terms of future permanent and temporary residents and the like in the annual levels plan. Certainly, he flags some areas where data is lacking, particularly exit data undocumented, removals and deportations.

On country of origin, he argues that “Identifying source countries can also help to clarify whether immigrants are coming from jurisdictions with inferior educational standards and from cultures that are not necessarily going to make it easy for them to succeed in Canada.” I would argue better to focus on the skill, education level etc rather than country of origin, as there is a mix of skill levels in all countries, and selection should focus on the higher skilled within each country (dilution of the CRS used in Express Entry is of concern in that regard). His arguments tend towards generalizations with some reasonable examples, but no government is likely to return essentially back to race or country criteria.

One particularly notable gap is relative silence on the impact of immigration on housing, healthcare, infrastructure etc, which has largely contributed to the shift to lower support for immigration. This needs to be part of the levels plan, along with a number of his suggestions, some of which are being implemented (e.g., temporary residents), albeit imperfectly.

Recommendations as follows:

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended to oblige the immigration minister to provide Parliament with data on countries of origin for all migrant categories.

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended to also include detailed information on temporary residents.

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended to oblige the immigration minister to provide data on work permits issued to temporary residents.

Recommendation: International students should be required to show to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) upon arrival that they have pre-paid full tuition.

Recommendation: To encourage scrutiny of any discrepancies between issued visas and actual enrolment, the immigration minister should be obliged under section 94 of the IRPA to report on immigration compliance data from educational institutions.

Recommendation: The federal government should clarify the objectives of the IMP and provide data on who is being admitted under this stream, along with future planning.

Recommendation: The federal government should explore the feasibility of authorizing all provinces to select their own candidates for the IMP.

Recommendation: In accordance with the Statistics Act, the Chief Statistician should be directed to revise the assumption that non-permanent residents leave the country 120 days after visa expiry. The Chief Statistician should correspondingly adjust the way general statistics relating to immigration and emigration under s. 22 of the Act are collected and analyzed.

Recommendation: CBSA should be directed by the minister of public safety to provide Statistics Canada with its exit data. Data related to the relationship between expired visas and actual departures at the border should be presented in the report produced by the minister of immigration under section 94 of the IRPA.

Recommendation: The Canada Revenue Agency Act should be amended to oblige the CRA to provide Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada with any data it holds regarding migrants unlawfully present in the country. These data should be presented in the report produced by the minister of immigration under section 94 of the IRPA.

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended to oblige the minister of immigration to provide information about the country of origin of asylum seekers, the location where they presented their claim, along with their immigration status prior to the claim.

Recommendation: The immigration minister’s annual report under s. 94 of IRPA should specify the following information regarding asylum claims: it should include how many migrants claim asylum each year, how many proceed to a hearing before the IRB, how many are recognized as needing protection, how many remain in Canada despite not being granted formal protection, how many benefit from a deferral or moratorium regarding removal, as well as how many disappear altogether from the system. For a truly constructive debate, the immigration minister should be encouraged to present comparable data regarding our peers: the US, the UK, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, along with other EU member states such as Sweden and Denmark.

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended so that the minister of immigration is required to provide data on removals and deportations.

Source: Fixing Canada’s broken immigration system – Presenting more data to Parliament: Michael Barutciski

Nicolas | Maintenant… l’avenir du Québec

Lot’s of various commentary, with this one focussing on the polarization on identity issues Legault engendered:

…“Des ministres comme Jean-François Roberge, Simon-Jolin Barrette et Bernard Drainville semblent particulièrement à l’aise avec l’aspect plus « identitaire » de la coalition. Je soupçonne fortement des ministres comme Mathieu Lacombe, Eric Girard ou Sonia LeBel de nourrir ailleurs leur passion pour la chose publique. Je ne sais pas si Kateri Champagne Jourdain est particulièrement à l’aise avec le traitement réservé aux Premiers Peuples dans le projet de Constitution québécoise. Je mettrais ma main au feu que le discours de certains collègues sur l’immigration ou sur le filet social a travaillé la solidarité ministérielle d’un Lionel Carmant, bien avant que le débat sur la rémunération des médecins ne soit lancé.

Le premier ministre a démissionné en reconnaissant que les Québécois veulent du changement. Sa succession doit être libre de prendre ses distances par rapport à certaines de ses idées, méthodes, discours ou approches. La course au leadership qui s’organise devra certainement être libre d’en débattre.

“Si la CAQ veut se donner une chance de se renouveler, la première étape, c’est de ne pas lier les mains de sa succession à un agenda législatif qui non seulement polarise inutilement et crée de potentiels dommages à notre état de droit, mais n’aura pas réussi à faire ce pour quoi il a été pensé : sauver François Legault et son parti. Il faut proroger le Parlement durant la course, se donner au moins l’option de repartir sur du neuf.”

Source: Chronique | Maintenant… l’avenir du Québec

“Ministers like Jean-François Roberge, Simon-Jolin Barrette and Bernard Drainville seem particularly comfortable with the more “identity” aspect of the coalition. I strongly suspect ministers like Mathieu Lacombe, Eric Girard or Sonia LeBel of nurturing their passion for public affairs elsewhere. I don’t know if Kateri Champagne Jourdain is particularly comfortable with the treatment reserved for the First Peoples in the Quebec Constitution project. I would put my hand on the fire that the speech of some colleagues on immigration or the social net worked the ministerial solidarity of a Lionel Carmant, long before the debate on the remuneration of doctors was launched.

The Prime Minister resigned, acknowledging that Quebecers want change. His succession must be free to distance himself from some of his ideas, methods, speeches or approaches. The leadership race that is being organized will certainly have to be free to debate it.

“If the CAQ wants to give itself a chance to renew itself, the first step is not to bind the hands of its succession to a legislative agenda that not only polarizes unnecessarily and creates potential damage to our rule of law, but will not have succeeded in doing what it was designed for: saving François Legault and his party. We must extend the Parliament during the race, at least give ourselves the option to start again.”

MPI: Unleashing Power in New Ways: Immigration in the First Year of Trump 2.0

Usual good and comprehensive analysis by MPI:

Having campaigned on and won re-election with immigration as a top issue, President Donald Trump has kept it at center stage in the first year of his second term. Immediately upon returning to office, the administration advanced sweeping changes to immigration policy, unprecedented in their breadth and reach. These changes have made the United States more hostile to unauthorized immigrants while also altering how the government treats immigration and immigrants of all legal statuses and the communities in which they live. The impacts on individuals, families, workplaces, and the nation’s overall economic outlook and global standing will be felt for years ahead.

While some efforts have stalled or not yet met the White House’s lofty goals, the administration has dramatically reshaped the machinery of government to target unauthorized immigrants in the country, deter unauthorized border arrivals, make the status of many legally resident immigrants more tenuous, and impose obstacles for lawful entry of large swaths of international travelers and would-be immigrants. These changes could set the course for reduced family, humanitarian, and employment-based immigration in the future, while also driving key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

In This Article

To accomplish the administration’s mass deportation goal, Trump advisor Stephen Miller and other aides dismantled longstanding norms. The White House invoked archaic statutes, enlisted support from state and local law enforcement as well as federal agencies that historically had no immigration enforcement role, and pressured foreign governments to receive deportees. Perhaps most visibly, it militarized immigration enforcement: Scenes of troops and masked federal agents roaming U.S. streets, lobbing tear gas and in some cases violently—and even fatally—subduing individuals, have garnered global attention and profoundly changed how many residents go about their daily lives. Among other changes, some U.S. citizens now feel compelled to carry identification with them at all times.

The administration has leaned heavily on executive action rather than seeking legislative change in Congress. As of January 7, Trump had signed 38 executive orders related to immigration, accounting for nearly 17 percent of the 225 total orders signed so far during his first year, which is more than the 220 executive orders signed during his entire first term. The administration also ushered in hundreds of other actions via presidential proclamations and policy guidance that have had profound impacts on immigration policy. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that the Trump administration in the first year of its second term took more than 500 actions on immigration, surpassing the 472 actions over all four years of Trump’s first term.

While some elements of the administration’s approach mirror policies of the prior term, albeit at far greater scale and scope, the changes of the last year have been arguably more impactful than any during the first term. Administration officials appear to have learned from their first-term experience and have also benefited from a much more sympathetic Congress and Supreme Court. Indeed, Congress in July provided the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a staggering $170 billion to upscale over Trump’s second term what was already the world’s largest detention and deportation machinery. And the Supreme Court has greenlit several high-profile actions, including revoking Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from about 600,000 Venezuelans, although it blocked the administration from deporting noncitizens without due process and did not allow deployment of the National Guard for immigration enforcement. Key questions on birthright citizenship and other immigration policies are yet to be resolved.

The net change has been dizzying in its scope and speed. After the administration further shut down access to asylum, unauthorized arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border plummeted to the lowest levels since the 1970s. This development has allowed the administration to shift its focus largely to unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, whom MPI estimates numbered 13.7 million as of mid-2023. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests have more than quadrupled since Trump took office, while average daily detention has doubled. On December 19, DHS said that 622,000 noncitizens had been deported since Trump took office, a high—but not historic—number. It is below the 778,000 repatriations carried out in the final full fiscal year of the Biden administration, and well short of the Trump team’s pledge of 1 million deportations per year. The administration’s deportation number likely includes noncitizens turned away at U.S. borders and at airports; limited release of immigration enforcement data means it is unclear who is being counted and how. While the administration claims 1.9 million people have “self-deported” during that same period, it has not provided any data, including on use of the CBP Home app, through which immigrants are offered a free flight and $1,000 payment if they return to their origin country.

The hardline approach has extended to many lawfully present immigrants and those aspiring to come legally. The administration has stripped temporary legal protections from more than 1.5 million humanitarian parolees, nearly completely halted refugee resettlement, and severely restricted access to asylum. It has also erected obstacles and therefore slowed the granting of lawful permanent residence, temporary visas, and U.S. citizenship. International students and scholars have been targeted for expressing their political opinions, many newcomers face extensive vetting of their social media activity and medical history, and hefty new fees and visa bonds have caused some would-be immigrants and visitors to rethink plans to come to the United States. Slower legal immigration will likely affect labor markets, local economies, and the broader economic outlook for years to come, with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Congressional Budget Office already reporting negative effects and potential future implications.

This article reviews the changes to U.S. immigration policy during the first year of the second Trump term….

Source: Unleashing Power in New Ways: Immigration in the First Year of Trump 2.0

Ottawa’s shutting-out of startup founders is shutting down Canada’s future

Hard to square “rigorous integrity checks” with speed in decision making. Government generally has a poor record in assessing business immigration programs:

…We are not the only country wrestling with the politics of immigration. Even as the United States turns inward and raises barriers for skilled workers and entrepreneurs, its technology dominance still rests disproportionately on immigrant founders and their teams. 

This should be Canada’s moment: to position ourselves as the destination of choice for the world’s builders, especially in the sectors that will determine our economic sovereignty – artificial intelligence, quantum computing, defence and dual‑use technologies, life sciences, energy transition and advanced manufacturing.

It is not too late to correct course. Ottawa must treat the shutdown of the Start‑up Visa Program not as a restart but a fast pivot. That pivot must include a fast‑track, by‑invitation pathway for founders with credible backing to build from Canada, with rigorous integrity checks rather than paralyzing backlogs. Anything less will send the most ambitious entrepreneurs elsewhere.

Yung Wu is a serial entrepreneur and the former chief executive of MaRS Discovery District.

Source: Ottawa’s shutting-out of startup founders is shutting down Canada’s future

ICYMI – Revealed: How international student spots are being distributed — unevenly — across Ontario

Good and useful data:

Previous efforts to understand how PALs were distributed across the province were hindered by confidentiality claims and concerns about the impact on competitive advantage, but data obtained through an FOI request provides a detailed breakdown of 2024 allocations and usage, as well as this year’s allocations. Usage data for 2025 is not yet available.

In 2024, Ontario was allocated a total of 235,000 PALs, with a target of 141,000 permits.

Ontario’s public colleges were given 189,416 PALs but used only 55 per cent of them. Public universities, by contrast, used 82 per cent of their 35,460 allocation.

Ontario determined its first year of PAL allocations based on 2023 study permit levels, with exceptions for Algoma University and 13 colleges, including Conestoga, which received fewer permits.

Within the college sector, usage varied widely, with Humber distributing nearly all of its PALs, while Northern College used just 28 per cent. Northern, which had to shutter a private partnership as part of the federal policy changes, has since experienced layoffs, but the loss of international student has been broadly felt across Ontario’s college communities, with more than 10,000 faculty and staff let go and more than 600 college programs suspended or cancelled.

Among public universities, the University of Toronto handed out the largest number of PALs (6,165) in 2024, while the likes of Trent, Guelph, Ottawa and Waterloo universities used nearly all of their allocation. An outlier was Nipissing University, which used only 11 per cent of its PALs.

… What about this year?

In 2025, Ontario’s PAL allocation took a deep cut, falling to 181,590, which had to include, for the first time, graduate students.

Reflecting that, as well as the overall decrease, the province’s public colleges received 113,793 PALs while 57,685 went to universities.

The inclusion of PhD and master’s applicants meant, in some cases, individual numbers rose: U of T, which had 6,395 PALs the year before, received 12,338 this year.

Going into 2026, graduate students attending public institutions will be exempt from the PAL requirement but will be included in the overall cap allocation. So once again, the numbers for individual schools in 2026 will look different….

Source: Revealed: How international student spots are being distributed — unevenly — across Ontario

ICYMI: Newcomers seeking permanent residency face uncertainty, frustration over Ontario immigration changes

Fixing problems after the fact rather than more due diligence in program planning or earlier corrective measures should be the goal:

…Lou Janssen Dangzalan, an immigration lawyer in Toronto, said misrepresentation and fraud has plagued OINP with “unsavory agents or ghost consultants and sometimes even licensed representatives” padding applications with problematic documentation. 

But Dangzalan said it is still a “disruptive and drastic” move to the applicants and the businesses to cancel the trades stream entirely.

“This is purely a political policy choice,” he said.

“I do applaud the Ontario government for acknowledging that there’s a problem, but I’m not sure if basically using a hammer to kill a fly would be a good idea in a house of glass.”

Dangzalan said realistically, applicants should start planning for a possible future where they may need to leave Canada.

“But that doesn’t mean that their PR journey is necessarily over right there. Leaving Canada doesn’t mean that you’re already automatically excluded from the Canadian experience class.”

He said if people have to leave and wait in their home countries for PR, they can work toward gaining skilled work experience there, which can bump their scores, and boost language scores, including by learning French. 

“So, 2026 is going to be tough for a lot of people… 2026 is going to be a year of enforcement… IRCC’s going to scrutinize every single application with more diligence than they ever did before.”

“From a large policy perspective, this is a crisis… There’s still an immigration arms race. A lot of candidates are available who are very fantastic candidates and Canada is going to need this, especially at a time where Canada is trying to wean itself away from its dependence from the United States.”

Source: Newcomers seeking permanent residency face uncertainty, frustration over Ontario immigration changes

Canada’s immigration system is favouring these kinds of applicants — even over others who score higher

More of the preference for French-speaking immigrants in express entry, diluting the CRS:

French-speaking candidates made up 42 per cent of the people invited for permanent residence last year via Canada’s flagship skilled immigrationselection system, which favours applicants fluent in French and is upsetting those who aren’t.

In total, 48,000 of the 113,998 applicants picked under the Express Entry system were chosen for their ability in French. They were selected in periodic draws from the talent pool where candidates post their profiles, and are awarded points out of a 1,200 maximum and ranked based on age, education, work experience and other attributes.

The prioritization of francophone immigration outside Quebec has frustrated non-French-speaking candidates and critics, especially now that Ottawa has slashed the overall intakes of permanent residents in coming years. Many question if this makes sense when candidates without French are passed over despite higher ranking scores.

The deliberate effort is in part to redress the decline in the demographic weight of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec — down from 6.1 per cent in 1971 to about four per cent today — and ensure the long-term vitality of these minority communities that are key to “Canada’s bilingual and multicultural character.”

“Human capital really isn’t a concern for the francophone draws,” said Calgary-based immigration consultant Mandeep Lidher. “With a score in the high 300s, you’re definitely less educated and you could say less likely to succeed in the Canadian labour market or economically establish yourself.”

In response to the criticism, the Immigration Department pointed out that only top-ranking eligible candidates are selected through the francophone draws. Since selected candidates must meet general eligibility criteria, it said “they demonstrate the ability to economically establish and succeed in the Canadian labour market.”

Ottawa has reduced its permanent resident intakes from 485,000 in 2024 to 380,000 in 2026, while raising the portion of the French-speaking newcomers outside Quebec in the mix from six per cent to nine per cent, and to 12 per cent in 2029….

Source: Canada’s immigration system is favouring these kinds of applicants — even over others who score higher

Jamie Sarkonak: The federal judge determined to dismantle Canada’s immigration safeguards

Judicial appointments matter and have impact. Column would have been more balanced if it had more examples of rejections:

In 2013, Toronto lawyer Avvy Yao-Yao Go described herself as a “loudmouth activist for politicians to contend with.” She was an advocate of chain migration, a former member of the Ontario law society’s equity committee, a vocal critic of journalists and politicians, and once, she even tried to force the government to pay reparations to descendants of Chinese-Canadians impacted by the head tax (after losing one appeal in this process, her organization accused an appeal judge of racism; the complaint was tossed out).

Ideally, she wouldn’t be in charge of waving migrants into the country from a judicial seat. Nevertheless, Go was made a Federal Court judge in 2021 and much of her job is playing immigration gatekeeper. The results are what you’d expect, and they’re not favourable to Canadians….

Go doesn’t wave every single asylum seeker through; her record includes rejections, too. But her decisions in the last year alone show a pattern of leniency for rule-breakers, country-shoppers and, for lack of a better term, bulls–tters. Each instance takes state capacity away from cases that truly matter. It might be that Go feels the need to hold the door open for others, but it’s the rest of us who have to pay for the riff-raff who accept the invitation.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: The federal judge determined to dismantle Canada’s immigration safeguards

Bouchard | Des vœux pour le Québec de 2026 [immigration]

A noter:

…Il y aurait beaucoup à faire sur le front de l’immigration. Il faudrait d’abord restaurer les programmes d’aide à l’intégration que le gouvernement vient d’abolir. Il faudrait gérer plus efficacement les effectifs à recevoir. Le Québec est ici victime, dit-on, de normes fédérales. Pourquoi ne pas les ignorer ? La crise qui s’ensuivrait sans doute serait bienvenue. Elle montrerait que le Québec peut se redresser et rejeter le rôle du quémandeur sans cesse éconduit.

Plus fondamentalement, le gouvernement Legault manifeste des attitudes et tient parfois un discours malveillant à l’égard des immigrants, dont il fait un bouc émissaire commode pour cacher ses fautes. Ici également, il y aurait un important travail à faire. Il n’est plus possible de légiférer comme si le Québec n’était composé que d’une majorité francophone….

Source: Idées | Des vœux pour le Québec de 2026

… There would be a lot to do on the immigration front. First, the integration support programs that the government has just abolished should be restored. The number of staff to be received should be managed more effectively. Quebec is here a victim, it is said, of federal standards. Why not ignore them? The crisis that would follow would probably be welcome. It would show that Quebec can recover and reject the role of the constantly rejected beggar.

More fundamentally, the Legault government shows attitudes and sometimes makes a malicious speech towards immigrants, of whom it makes a convenient scapegoat to hide its faults. Here too, there would be a lot of work to do. It is no longer possible to legislate as if Quebec were only composed of a Francophone majority….

Temporary foreign workers switch jobs and earn more after becoming permanent residents, study finds

Of note, not terribly surprising but good to see the data behind it:

…The research, which was conducted by economists at universities in Toronto and Chicago, found several benefits for workers who transitioned to permanent residency status.

Temporary foreign workers who were granted permanent residency in Canada between 2004 and 2014 – and thus were no longer on closed work permits which tied them to a single employer – saw an earnings increase of 5.7 per cent three years after they obtained PR status. 

The workers directly benefited from being able to switch positions, the researchers found. There was a “sharp” and “immediate” increase in the probability of a job-to-job transition of 21.7 percentage points over the three years, the paper estimates. And many of those workers switched into better-paying industries. 

“Our main question of interest when we began this research was: what is the effect of being on a closed permit relative to an open permit?” said Kory Kroft, a professor of economics at University of Toronto, and one of the paper’s authors. 

“The main takeaway is once you relax the restrictions, you see a big increase in job mobility. You find that immigrants who were clustered at low-wage jobs quickly sorted themselves into higher-wage jobs.” 

The TFW program is a key immigration stream in Canada that allows employers to hire mostly low-wage foreign workers on a temporary basis in sectors where the government determines there is a shortage of domestic labour, such as agriculture….

Source: Temporary foreign workers switch jobs and earn more after becoming permanent residents, study finds