While I was away: Immigration articles of interest

NYT: Our Interview With Mark Carney [Immigration]

Commentary by the Conservatives and right leaning media has overdramatized the possible shift. Proof will of course be in the forthcoming levels plan:

…What we’ve basically been doing is first getting the system under control. So if we want to let in 500,000 people through formal immigration and some temporary workers and students, we cap things and we let in 500,000 people. There were years where the expectation would have been for example, 700,000 and it ended up 2 million. The overshoots were, and you know it’s a country of 40 million people.

These are big, big overshoots, and it’s not that easy to get to Canada, right? It is from the U.S. but otherwise you’re flying in or taking boats. So we’ve taken measures to get that under control and we have it under control. So students down by 60 percent, temporary foreign workers down by 50 percent. It happens to be the case. Part of this is tightening, but asylum seekers are down by one-third on a flow basis, and now the question starts to become: When do we resume some controlled increase in the population, which is the nature of Canada. So that will happen, and we just want to make sure that we’ve got it under control….

Rob Breakenridge: The Carney honeymoon would end if he opens up immigration again

Depends on what the forthcoming levels plan contains for both permanent and particularly temporary resident numbers:

…Carney’s musings on immigration have also been noticed on the campaign trail in Quebec, where the Parti Québécois (PQ) pushed for limits on immigration in what became a successful campaign.

And even though the PQ has promised to shelve an independence referendum until after Donald Trump leaves office, new premier Paul St-Pierre Plamondon has threatened to hold a referendum on immigration, not dissimilar to what’s on the ballot in Alberta.

It’s hard to imagine that voters in either province won’t or wouldn’t side heavily with their respective premiers on this issue. As such, it’s easy to envision a backlash against Carney’s planned increases.

It may well be that the government is tempted by the GDP boost that high immigration helps to generate, even if it papers over other weaknesses in the economy. Again, Carney himself has noted this phenomenon, calling it a “basic fact,” and that “you can do the math” in terms of how declining population can affect economic growth.

Carney’s political honeymoon is not a political blank cheque and nor should he be so overconfident as to feel as though he’s immune from a similar backlash to his predecessor. This issue has become divisive enough already and it’s playing with fire to thrust this issue back on a fatigued and frustrated Canadian public.

We’ll eventually need a return to responsible immigration growth, but the government has more work to do before that’s feasible and saleable.

Keller: The Canadian population decline that never happened, and what it means for immigration policy

Keller’s latest two part series on immigration following the Carney NYT intv:

… On the same day as Statscan dropped that news, Prime Minister Mark Carney was in New York, sitting for an interview with The New York Times. Among other things, he was asked about Canada’s “population decline,” and when he would begin “reversing” it through higher immigration.

The PM didn’t challenge the mistaken premise that Canada’s population is declining; he was presumably unaware of the new figures. But he gave a long and detailed answer about the immigration system’s recent history, which shows that he has a grasp on how things went off the rails under his predecessor.

I wrote a book last year on what Canada used to get right about immigration, and how after 2015 it got things so badly wrong. Most of what Mr. Carney had to say was on point.

He concluded with this: “Now the question starts to become: When do we resume some controlled increase in the population?”…

Keller: Mark Carney has started fixing immigration. He needs to keep at it 

His concrete recommendations:

…Continue reducing temporary immigration: The temporary-immigration streams used to be small, but they exploded under the Trudeau government. They came to be seen as backdoors to permanent immigration, for those who would not otherwise have scored high enough to secure permission to permanently immigrate.

These pathways need to be wound back, and some need to be wound down. The Carney government has promised to bring temporary-resident numbers down to 5 per cent of the national population by next year, but it’s well behind schedule. In any case, the target is too high.

The C.D. Howe Institute’s expert group on immigration suggests aiming for 3 per cent. I agree. What’s more, the vast majority of future temporary residents should be high-quality visa students or former students on postgraduate work permits.

End the low-wage temporary foreign worker program: It makes sense to give Canadian businesses the flexibility to temporarily hire an aeronautical engineer from overseas. It makes no sense to hand out temporary visas for low-wage work. Canada has a shortage of educated and skilled people in some high-paying fields, but there is no generalized shortage of workers, nor is there a lack of unskilled workers.

Temporary work visas should no longer be available for jobs paying less than $100,000 a year, with the singular exception of the long-standing seasonal agricultural worker program. A reduction in the pool of people available for entry-level jobs should cause wages at the bottom of the income scale to feel some upward pressure. That would be a good thing.

Focus student visas on the best: The limited number of student visas should go to the highest-quality institutions and programs, admitting the most-qualified students, and charging the highest international tuition.

What happened during the Trudeau era was the opposite, as provinces – led by Ontario – took advantage of the unlimited number of student visas to encourage the weakest and lowest-tuition institutions, mostly public and private colleges, to go on a cash grab. What was being sold was entry into Canada, not education.

Our leading public universities, which charge international undergraduate tuition of $50,000 and up, and even more for some master’s programs, should get nearly all of the visas. Private colleges should get none. Public colleges should get few.

Stable permanent immigration: From the early 1990s until the Trudeau government, Canada’s immigration rate was relatively stable, through Liberal and Conservative administrations. It helped to make immigration as boring and unnoticed as functioning plumbing.

Let’s set our immigration rate at 0.7 per cent of the population – that’s about 300,000 new immigrants. Keep the rate there year after year, indefinitely.

An immigration rate of 0.7 per cent would be on par with where things were for the quarter century before the Trudeau government. It would be well below the level Canada hit from 2022 to 2024, and somewhat lower than the figure the Carney government has targeted. But by international standards, it would still be above average.

As I detail in my book on immigration, the U.S. legal-immigration level in the decades before the first election of President Donald Trump was around 0.3 per cent.

As on other key files, the Carney government has started to turn the ship on immigration. As with those other issues, more turning is still needed.

Olive: How Justin Trudeau’s immigration ambitions unravelled

Meanwhile in the Star, Olive seems oblivious to the failings of the philosophy and approach, not just miscalculation:

…Trudeau brought a record number of newcomers to Canada, and that proved to be a test of his governing philosophy. The labour shortages of the post-pandemic gave him the chance to better align economic need with more newcomers. It was a test he failed through miscalculation, but the philosophy was sound.

The weakest links in Carney’s cabinet are still there

The latest in the case for a change in immigration minister with speculation why still in place:

Most Canadians don’t know much about the Singh decision. But if you’re the country’s Immigration Minister, you must.

So it was alarming that Lena Metlege Diab seemed confused when she was asked about the seminal 1985 Supreme Court decision in an interview for a Radio-Canada podcast.

It was the ruling that set the foundations of Canada’s asylum system, and is central to immigration policy. It established that asylum-seekers have Charter rights and a right to an oral hearing, led to the creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board, and is still an issue in reform efforts today.

But it didn’t ring bells for the minister.

Kevin Paquette: The Parti Québécois forced a necessary immigration debate

The more positive approach to integration. Will see what the incoming government changes its electoral approach to a more inclusive governing approach: 

But integration is a concept that goes beyond language. It is also about sharing some basic values, understanding the institutions of the society you are joining and, over time, developing a sense that you belong to something larger than yourself. A society needs that sense of common civic and civilizational belonging if it is to remain cohesive over time.

All of these elements show why the debate over integration capacity deserves better than the familiar accusations and assumptions we have now become accustomed.

Raising questions about our capacity to welcome newcomers does not mean shifting the burden of our collective choices onto immigrants who choose Quebec. On the contrary, it means taking seriously the responsibility we have toward them.

When someone chooses Quebec, we should want them to be able to find their place here, learn French, build a life, and develop a genuine sense of belonging. When our capacity to integrate newcomers is overwhelmed, they pay a price as well.

That is ultimately what the immigration debate should be about: not searching for someone to blame, but making sure that those who choose Quebec have a real chance to succeed here and, over time, to feel fully at home.

Kevin Paquette is a consultant at Crestview Strategy. He was a political advisor to Quebec’s Minister of Public Security and president of the Coalition Avenir Québec’s youth wing. 

Express Entry and Labour Market Outcomes of Economic Immigrants

Unclear whether this will still apply and the CRS gets undermined by increased specialty streams as preliminary evidence suggests it is not:

Four recent studies examine the labour market outcomes of immigrants selected through Express Entry (EE) and assess how well the system’s Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) identifies applicants with strong economic potential. Using data from the Longitudinal Immigration Database and the linked IMDB–2021 Census, the research examines employment, earnings, wages and occupational mobility among EE immigrants, comparing their outcomes with those of other economic immigrants.

Overall, EE immigrants demonstrate stronger labour market outcomes than non-EE economic immigrants. They are more likely to be employed, earn higher employment income and weekly wages, and remain in their intended occupations. These differences are observed across a range of admission cohorts and demographic and labour market characteristics.

The research also finds that several core CRS selection factors are consistently associated with stronger outcomes. In particular, higher official language proficiency, educational attainment, Canadian work experience and higher pre-admission employment earnings are associated with better post-admission employment and earnings outcomes. Pre-admission employment earnings are among the strongest predictors, suggesting that the quality of applicants’ previous labour market experience may be more informative than simply having Canadian work experience.

Occupation characteristics also matter. Applicants in higher-skilled occupations generally have stronger employment, earnings and occupational retention outcomes, while remaining in an intended occupation is associated with substantially higher earnings. Job offers are associated with somewhat higher post-admission earnings, although their predictive value varies across outcomes and occupational categories.

By contrast, several CRS bonus factors – including Canadian education, French-language bonuses, siblings in Canada and spouse-related characteristics – show limited associations with short- and medium-term labour market outcomes after accounting for other applicant characteristics.

Together, the findings provide evidence on the factors associated with labour market success among EE immigrants and can inform ongoing consideration of the design and selection criteria of economic immigration programs. Because Express Entry was introduced in 2015, additional follow-up will be needed to assess whether these relationships persist over time.

Read the research: Express Entry and Labour Market Outcomes of Economic Immigrants

Canada’s refugee shelters are getting ready for the next surge. Here’s how cities are building a system that works

The key factor is, of course, the reduced number of refugees…:

… The tide, however, has begun to turn. Federal policy shifts aimed at curbing irregular migrants and restricting access to asylum have led to a significant decline in new asylum claimants in the past year — and governments have used the opportunity to build a more sustainable refugee shelter system that would be ready for the next surge. 

Municipalities reporting fewer refugees in shelters 

New refugee claimants dropped from 105,940 in the first seven months of 2024 to 69,410 in the same period in 2025 — and to just 33,415 this year.

Officials attributed the decline to the new visa requirement for Mexican travellers, tightened border enforcement and heightened scrutiny of visa applications. Ontario currently receives about 45 per cent of all claims, followed by Quebec at 38 per cent.

The federal Immigration Department said it closed all the refugee hotels that it directly funded and ran as of October 2025.

In Toronto, the number of claimants in regular shelters fell from 6,490 people in August 2024 to 1,691 this September. As demand declines, the city is closing two of its refugee shelter hotels this fall and the remaining one in 2027.

Calls specific to refugee claimants have dropped from more than 100 a day at times in 2023 to 10 to 20 a week now. During the first six months of 2026, fewer than 500 claimants were admitted into Toronto’s shelter system, while on average 165 have left each month since January. 

“We are generally able to meet demand from refugee claimants,” said Vera Dodic, the city’s director of refugee response. “We are no longer regularly seeing refugee claimants call Central Intake to report no available space.”…

Immigration Department looking into termination of refugee sponsor policy: Diab

Hopefully, with public reporting:

The Immigration Department will monitor for any negative effects from a recent decision not to extend a policy that gave permanent residency sponsorship exemptions to some refugees, Immigration Minister Lena Diab said Wednesday.

The policy was introduced in 2019 to allow some refugees to sponsor some undeclared family members for permanent residency but it expired earlier this month and was not renewed.

Kazemzadeh: Canada’s settlement services are going digital. AI should support workers, not replace them

Overall, balanced but one should expect some staff efficiencies and reductions but hopefully with better outcome reporting (even outputs are updated on opendata and have to be requested):

… Canada should not reject AI in settlement services. The technology has real potential. But governments and settlement agencies should avoid building a digital-only system.

The better model is hybrid: AI for routine information, translation support, navigation and basic triage; humans for complex cases, legal referrals, trauma-informed care, accessibility needs and emotional support.

The future of settlement services will likely be more digital. But success should not be measured by how many workers are replaced. It should be measured by whether newcomers receive faster, safer and more inclusive support.

AI can open the door. Human expertise must remain inside.