A Decade of Record Inflows and Rising Tensions
Over the decade from 2015 to 2025, Canada’s federal government pursued an unprecedented expansion of immigration, touting it as an engine for economic growth and a testament to Canadian openness. Annual permanent resident admissions climbed from roughly 271,000 in 2015 to 437,000 in 2022, with an ambitious goal of 500,000 per year by 2025[1]. This surge was accompanied by a ballooning population of temporary migrants – international students and temporary foreign workers – that by the mid-2020s far outnumbered new permanent immigrants each year[2]. Politically, the Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau framed high immigration targets as both compassionate and economically savvy. Critics, however, argue that these policies were driven more by short-term political optics and incentives than by careful planning for Canada’s long-term public interest. Key metrics on housing, wages, and infrastructure bear out their concerns, as Canada’s housing affordability crisis worsened, wage growth lagged, and public services strained amid the population boom.
In this investigative overview, we examine how immigration policy in 2015–2025 was shaped by immediate political gains – “big number” targets and virtuous headlines – often at the expense of foresight. We draw on data and expert analyses of housing supply, labour markets, and demographics to illustrate the consequences. Finally, we outline constructive ways Canada could redesign its immigration approach to better serve long-term national interests, ensuring newcomers are welcomed into a society ready to help them succeed.
A Surge in Immigration Without Parallel Planning
Immigration Levels Reach Historic Highs: Canada has long prided itself on being a nation of immigrants, but the past decade saw intake reach historic levels. After winning power in late 2015, Trudeau’s government steadily raised the annual permanent resident target from ~300,000 to over 400,000 by 2021–2022, an increase partly influenced by economic advisors’ calls for population growth[3][4]. By 2023, foreign-born people made up almost one-quarter of Canada’s population – the highest share in over 150 years[5][6]. The government cast this as a solution for Canada’s aging demographics and labour shortages, emphasizing that newcomers were essential to fill jobs and sustain economic growth. Indeed, immigrants accounted for nearly 29% of Canada’s labour force by 2023, and virtually all net population growth given low birth rates[7].
Express Entry and Policy Reforms: A major structural change in this period was the 2015 launch of the Express Entry system, which ranks skilled worker applicants on a points system and invites the top candidates to apply for permanent residency[8]. Express Entry prioritized human capital (education, language, experience) along with demand-driven factors like Canadian job offers or provincial nominations[9][8]. In theory, this reform – alongside an expanded Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) – was meant to better align immigration with labour market needs. The government also made waves by welcoming 40,000+ Syrian refugees in 2015–2016 (fulfilling a campaign promise) and later by creating new pathways, such as the Atlantic Immigration Program, to distribute newcomers to regions with workforce needs. On the temporary side, international student visas and work permits surged, as Canada promoted education as a route to immigration. By the early 2020s, over 800,000 international students were studying in Canada, and many transitioned to work permits and eventually permanent residency[10][2].
Rapid Growth Outpaces Capacity: The trouble was that these inflows grew far faster than housing construction and infrastructure investment. Canada’s population jumped 3.2% in 2023 alone (adding ~1.27 million people) – roughly the size of Calgary – largely due to immigration[11]. Such explosive growth had no equivalent surge in new homes, transit lines, or hospital beds to match. As a result, planning gaps quickly became apparent: cities like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal saw rental vacancy rates plunge to record lows and home prices soar out of reach for many locals. Canada’s nationwide housing vacancy rate fell steadily after 2015, then plummeted “off a cliff” in 2022–2023 as immigration hit record levels[12][13]. Construction simply couldn’t keep pace with population growth due to constraints like zoning red tape and labor shortages in the building trades[12][14]. By late 2023, the rental market was historically tight – the Bank of Canada noted the vacancy rate had hit an all-time low, driving rent inflation to 8.2%, a 40-year high[15]. Most newcomers rent upon arrival, so their sheer numbers pushed up demand for apartments, directly contributing to rapid rent hikes in the short term[16]. In a well-supplied housing market such demand could be absorbed, but “Canada’s housing market is not well supplied”, the Bank observed dryly[17].
Housing Affordability and Shortfalls: Throughout the late 2010s and early 2020s, housing affordability in Canada deteriorated by every measure. Home prices rose far faster than incomes – in some major cities, prices doubled or even tripled in a decade, leaving first-time buyers scrambling. An analysis by RBC Economics found that between 2015 and 2023, Canada’s housing stock grew much more slowly than the number of households, resulting in a cumulative shortfall of roughly 545,000 homes[18]. In other words, the country would need over half a million additional housing units today just to catch up with demographic demand created in that period. This housing gap is directly linked to surging population growth without commensurate construction. By 2024, even as interest rate hikes temporarily cooled home prices, the share of income needed to afford housing remained near record highs, and homelessness and core housing need were rising in many communities. The government belatedly acknowledged this problem: “Canada is experiencing unprecedented housing pressures,” noted an internal briefing, “which requires collaboration between all levels of government”[19]. Yet during the boom years, immigration targets were set with insufficient regard to these on-the-ground realities.
Political Optics and Incentives Behind High Targets
Why did Canada’s leaders push immigration numbers so high, so fast? Interviews with policymakers and analysts suggest short-term political incentives were a major factor:
- Burnishing a Progressive Image: The Trudeau government, elected in 2015 on a pro-diversity platform, eagerly differentiated itself from more restrictionist trends elsewhere. Welcoming refugees and newcomers in large numbers was a way to project moral leadership on the world stage. Domestically, the Liberals appealed to immigrant communities (an important voter base) by expanding family reunification and generally embracing immigration as a “part of the national narrative”[20]. High intake targets generated positive headlines about Canada’s openness and multicultural ideals, which was politically advantageous in the short run.
- Economic Growth Optics: High immigration also offered a quick way to boost headline economic growth. More people contribute to higher aggregate GDP, and newcomers fill jobs and pay taxes. Indeed, government advisors like Dominic Barton’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth explicitly argued in 2016 that Canada’s “slow-growth rut” could be escaped by aggressively increasing immigration[21][22]. The council recommended a 50% hike in annual immigrants (to 450,000 by 2021) to kick-start growth[3]. This push aligned with business interests (e.g. sectors hungry for skilled labor or consumers) and gave the government a story of economic optimism to sell – even if per-capita economic performance was less rosy (more on that below). In effect, Ottawa opted to “goose” population growth to offset aging, as Barton put it[23], without equally vigorous action on productivity or infrastructure. In the short term, high immigration made GDP figures and labor force stats look better[24][25], a clear political win.
- Pressures from Interest Groups: Several powerful constituencies benefited from rapid immigrant inflows. The construction and real estate industry enjoyed booming demand for housing; universities and colleges gained a windfall from international student tuition (five times domestic rates)[26]; and employers obtained a larger pool of both high-skilled and low-wage workers, which helped temper wage pressures. These groups had the ear of government. For instance, Canada’s post-secondary institutions expanded partnerships overseas and relied on foreign students’ tuition as funding rose[26]. Immigration policy became entwined with education and economic policy, sometimes to the detriment of planning – a dynamic one settlement expert described as treating newcomers as “economic units, as tools, as a means to an end” for growth[27][28].
- The All-Party Consensus (and Complacency): Unlike in many countries, immigration in Canada has traditionally been a cross-party consensus issue, with all major parties officially supporting robust newcomer intake. This consensus kept rigorous debate subdued. In the 2010s, politicians rarely faced hard questions about absorptive capacity; it was easier to highlight the virtues of immigration than to discuss the unglamorous nuts and bolts of housing permits or credential recognition. Some analysts suggest this bred complacency. “Canada doesn’t have an immigration problem; it has a planning problem,” says a 2024 brief by the AMSSA immigrant settlement organization[29]. Politicians found it easier to announce higher targets than to ensure the country was prepared to integrate those people. Over time, the gap between policy and planning widened dangerously.
Short-Termism in Decision-Making: Several case studies illustrate how short-term optics took priority:
- In 2017–2018, as the government set about increasing annual immigrant admissions, little coordinated effort was made to tie these targets to tangible metrics like housing starts or hospital capacity. Internal forecasts warned of housing shortages, but targets were announced with rhetoric about “the economy of the future” rather than concrete mitigation plans. The political reward of appearing ambitious on immigration seemingly outweighed the risk of future strain.
- In 2021, amid COVID-19 disruptions, the government faced a shortfall in immigrant admissions (due to border closures) and a labor market desperate for workers. To meet its pre-set target of ~401,000 newcomers and showcase a “record intake” despite the pandemic, the government launched an extraordinary one-time program granting permanent residency to over 90,000 temporary residents already in Canada. The target was indeed met – a PR victory – but this move also sidestepped the usual planning: thousands of additional families suddenly became eligible to sponsor dependents and settle permanently, adding to housing demand and service needs without commensurate preparation at provincial/local levels. It was a rapid fix to hit a number, not a long-term strategy.
- The international student boom exemplified policy driven by short-term economic gains with insufficient oversight. The government and educational institutions actively courted overseas students (from ~352,000 study permit holders in 2015 to over 800,000 by 2023) as a source of revenue and future skilled immigrants[26][10]. However, they did not require institutions to ensure housing or support for this influx. Private career colleges sprang up to capture tuition dollars, sometimes with dubious quality, and popular immigrant destinations like Brampton, ON, saw housing conditions for students deteriorate (crowded basements, exploitative rentals). It wasn’t until public backlash in 2023–24 – when locals decried soaring rents and strains on city services – that the government moved to cap student visas and reimpose work-hour limits[30][31]. The initial expansion was politically and economically expedient, while the reckoning came later.
Consequences: Housing Crunch, Stagnant Wages, and Infrastructure Strain
Housing Affordability Erodes: By 2025, Canada’s housing crisis had become front-page news and a top concern of citizens. Housing prices and rents outpaced wage growth by a wide margin over the decade, fueled in part by population growth. Even the government’s own statistics agency noted diplomatically that population increases “fueled by immigration” have put the spotlight on GDP per capita, which declined in five of six recent quarters and remains below 2019 levels – implying living standards for the average Canadian are not improving despite a larger economy[32][11]. In plainer terms, many Canadians feel worse off: costs (especially housing) have risen faster than incomes, squeezing household finances[33][34]. The dream of homeownership has slipped away for many young people, and even securing an affordable rental is a challenge in big cities. Not all of this is attributable to immigration – zoning laws, low interest rates in the 2010s, and investors played a role – but the rapid addition of over a million people every two years unquestionably intensified demand on a constrained housing supply. A 2024 poll found nearly 60% of Canadians believed immigration levels were too high, citing housing and cost-of-living pressures, “the first time since 2000 that a majority held this view”[35]. Public sentiment, long positive on immigration, turned more anxious as people connected newcomers to competition for homes and services.
Even policymakers conceded the link. A Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) report in late 2024 calculated that the previously planned immigration growth would have left Canada facing a housing shortage of over 1.2 million units by 2030, worsening affordability[36]. In response, the government dramatically scaled back its targets (more on that U-turn below). The PBO estimated that the new, lower targets for 2025–2027 would shrink the projected housing shortfall by about 45% – effectively acknowledging that the earlier plan was unsustainable without a construction miracle[36]. RBC Economics similarly noted that “growth in housing stock fell short of new households by 545,000 between 2015 and 2023”, and welcomed the target cuts as giving Canada a “golden opportunity” to catch up on home building[18][37]. In sum, by 2025 it had become painfully clear that immigration expansion had run far ahead of housing and infrastructure, bringing short-term gains (a booming population, GDP growth) but at the cost of severe growing pains. Politicians’ reluctance to link immigration levels to housing supply – perhaps fearing it would justify anti-immigrant sentiment – ended up hurting both newcomers and existing citizens, as both groups now struggle in an affordability crisis.
Labour Market Dynamics and Wage Growth: One political selling point for high immigration was to fill job vacancies and “grow the pie” for everyone. Indeed, newcomers have helped alleviate some labour shortages – for example, newcomer workers led job growth in sectors like finance and tech, contributing to a decline in job vacancy rates there[38][39]. Canada’s unemployment rate hovered near historic lows (around 5-6%) in the late 2010s and again by 2023[40], partly thanks to the influx of working-age immigrants during an economic recovery. However, the quality of labour market outcomes tells a more complex story. Wage growth for the average Canadian worker remained relatively sluggish through much of this period. By mid-2025, average hourly wages were up about 3.4% year-over-year[41] – roughly on par with inflation, meaning real wages were flat. For lower-income households, earnings badly trailed the rising cost of living, worsening inequality[33][34]. Employers had a larger labor pool to choose from, which eased pressure to bid up pay in many fields. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada projected that as immigration slows in the wake of new policies, competition for workers will intensify and employers will likely have to raise wages more aggressively – a shift of bargaining power toward workers[42][43]. This implies that the rapid population growth of 2015–2023 may have dampened wage growth by continually boosting labor supply. While good for businesses and containing inflation, it meant Canadians’ paycheques did not keep pace with housing and other costs, contributing to frustration.
Moreover, many immigrants themselves struggled to fully utilize their skills, which is a loss for the economy and the individuals alike. Research shows a persistent “disconnect between immigration selection criteria and actual labor-market needs,” leaving many highly qualified newcomers in jobs far below their skill level[44]. In 2016, about 40% of immigrants with university degrees were working in occupations that didn’t require such education, a phenomenon of “brain waste.” By 2021 the situation improved somewhat (the overqualification rate for recent immigrants fell to ~27%), but recent immigrants remained far more likely to be in low-skill jobs than Canadian-born workers[45][46]. Causes include slow credential recognition, employer biases, and lack of Canadian experience requirements[47]. The Express Entry system reforms of 2015 did try to tackle this by awarding more points to applicants with Canadian education or work experience and strong language skills[48]. This two-step migration approach (temporary to permanent) has modestly improved employment outcomes for newcomers in recent years[48][40]. Yet, the overall picture remains that Canada imported a lot of talent without adequately clearing the structural barriers for that talent to thrive. The short-term metric of “number of newcomers admitted” was achieved; the longer-term goal of “newcomers contributing at their full potential” is lagging behind. If immigration is to benefit Canadians broadly, it must also benefit the immigrants – meaning better job matches and earning trajectories – something that requires investment in bridging programs, licensing reform, and employer education, which were slower to materialize.
Strains on Services and Infrastructure: Housing and wages are the most quantifiable stress points, but the strain on public services is another area where short-term thinking has exacted a toll. Canada’s healthcare system, for example, has been under severe pressure in recent years – ER wait times, shortages of family doctors, and surgical backlogs have made headlines. While multiple factors are at play (including pandemic disruptions and provincial policy choices), demographics are central. Bringing in hundreds of thousands of new residents each year without proportionally expanding healthcare capacity inevitably causes crunches. Provinces, which administer healthcare, have complained that federal immigration targets are set without enough consultation on local capacity. Similar stories abound in education (e.g. surges in school enrollment in fast-growing suburbs), public transit, and other infrastructure. In some cities, newcomers have been blamed for driving up demand for services faster than governments can supply them – a narrative the far-right has seized upon, even though immigrants also pay taxes and work in these very services. This highlights a key failing of the period: the lack of a joined-up approach to nation-building. Ideally, immigration levels would be one piece of a broader plan that includes housing strategies, urban planning, and investments in transportation and green spaces to accommodate growth. Instead, Canada essentially “imported” a city of over one million people every 2–3 years with comparatively little advance planning on where those people would live and how cities would cope. As one observer put it, “It’s far easier for politicians to blame immigrants for housing and healthcare crises than it is to actually build more houses or hire more doctors”, and indeed we have started to see some cynical blame-shifting in political discourse[49][50]. But the fundamental issue was not the newcomers themselves – it was the policy disconnect that left both immigrants and Canadian-born residents navigating an overburdened system.
The 2024 Policy U-Turn: Recognition of Reality
By 2024, the cumulative pressures had grown impossible to ignore. Public opinion, while still generally pro-immigration, had shifted significantly towards caution: 58% of Canadians in one survey said immigration levels were too high – a sharp rise from 44% the year before and the highest since the 1990s[51]. Political strategists noted this change with alarm, fearing a backlash if corrective action wasn’t taken. In response, the Trudeau government executed one of the most dramatic immigration policy reversals in modern Canadian history:
- Cutting Targets: In October 2024, Immigration Minister Marc Miller unveiled a new 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan that slashed the previously planned intake. The 2025 permanent resident target was cut to 395,000 (down from 485,000 in 2024), with further drops to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027[52]. This represented a roughly 20% reduction from prior plans – an extraordinary course correction for a government that just a year earlier was championing ever-higher numbers. Miller candidly linked the change to relieving housing and service pressures, saying it would “alleviate pressures on housing, infrastructure and social services”[53]. It was an implicit admission that previous targets were overly ambitious given Canada’s capacity.
- Reining in Temporary Flows: For the first time, the government also set goals to reduce the number of temporary residents. It announced it would shrink the total temporary visa-holder population (students, temporary workers, etc.) from about 6.5% of Canada’s population to 5% by 2026[30][31]. Concrete steps included reintroducing a cap of 24 hours/week on off-campus work for international students (reversing the unlimited work hours allowed in 2022)[54][55], tightening rules on college acceptance to curb subpar programs, and restoring stricter limits on low-wage temporary foreign workers[31]. Provincial Nominee Program quotas were halved for upcoming years, sharply reducing a key economic immigration stream[31]. These moves marked a stark shift from expansion to consolidation.
- Housing and Regional Focus: The government coupled the immigration slowdown with a louder emphasis on housing initiatives. It launched a Housing Accelerator Fund to incentivize cities to “unlock” more housing development, and started tying some infrastructure funding to housing outcomes. There were calls to more directly link immigration to housing supply – for instance, by giving provinces more say in levels based on their construction rates, or by encouraging more newcomers to settle in smaller centres with available housing. While not yet a formal policy, the idea of “intake tied to absorptive capacity” gained traction in public debate. Even opposition leaders who had previously critiqued high immigration numbers (for short-term political gain) moderated their stance, recognizing that outright anti-immigrant rhetoric would not solve the housing crunch either.
In effect, 2024 became a lesson in the perils of short-termism. The government’s retreat illustrated that high immigration targets, set without adequate planning, can be politically unsustainable. It also underscored that immigration policy is not an island: it must be coordinated with economic, urban, and social policy to succeed. As the Council on Foreign Relations observed, Canada’s plan for 500,000 immigrants a year by 2025 was laudable in principle but “critics worry the increase will exacerbate the demand for housing and social services”[5] – a warning that proved prescient. Canada’s long-standing openness to immigration had reached an inflection point: continue on the path of ad hoc growth and risk public backlash (and failure of integration) or recalibrate toward a more sustainable, managed strategy. Ottawa chose the latter, albeit later than it should have.
Turning Crisis into Opportunity: Toward a Long-Term Immigration Strategy
The challenges of the past decade, as stark as they are, come with a silver lining: they offer clear lessons and an impetus to reform. Immigration remains crucial to Canada’s future – with an aging native-born population and one of the world’s lowest birth rates (around 1.3 children per woman), Canada needs newcomers to grow its labor force, spur innovation, and support the tax base of tomorrow[56][57]. The question is how to welcome immigration in a way that truly benefits both the newcomers and the existing population in the long run. Below are key principles and proposals for a redesigned immigration policy that looks beyond short-term optics:
1. Link Immigration Intake to Absorptive Capacity: Going forward, Canada can implement a more evidence-based mechanism to set immigration levels in line with the country’s capacity to absorb newcomers. This means developing metrics for housing supply, regional infrastructure, and labor market needs, and calibrating targets accordingly. For example, annual immigration targets could be adjusted upward only if national housing completions are trending at a sufficient pace, or if specific provinces/territories have plans in place to accommodate growth (extra school seats, transit expansions, etc.). If housing construction lags or unemployment rises, the intake could be moderated until conditions improve. This would prevent the kind of imbalance seen in 2015–2023, making growth more sustainable. Notably, such a system might require an independent advisory body – akin to economic councils – that can depoliticize the process by recommending targets based on data rather than political timetables. The goal is steady, predictable immigration that doesn’t overshoot the country’s capacity. It’s a nuanced balancing act: as the AMSSA brief argued, “Canada doesn’t have an immigration problem; it has a planning problem”[29]. Solve the planning problem, and higher immigration can be sustained without public anger.
2. Tie Newcomers to Regions That Need Them (and Support Them): One striking feature of recent years is the concentration of immigrants in a few big cities. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Calgary receive a disproportionate share of newcomers, which exacerbates local housing crises and labor gluts in some professions, even as smaller cities or rural areas continue to face acute labor shortages and population decline. A better regional distribution of immigration could ease pressure in hot markets while revitalizing struggling communities. Policies to achieve this might include expanding regional nominee programs that require settling in less-populated areas, offering tax incentives or housing support for immigrants who move to smaller centres, and strengthening initiatives like the Atlantic Immigration Program or Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot. Crucially, this must go hand in hand with ensuring jobs and services in those regions – for instance, matching immigrants to specific job offers in regions with genuine shortages (e.g. nurses in rural towns), and funding local settlement agencies so that newcomers in those areas can integrate successfully. By aligning intake with regional labor market gaps, Canada can fill vacancies in industries like healthcare, agriculture, and skilled trades without oversaturating metro markets. This approach tackles two problems at once: overburdened mega-cities and underpopulated smaller communities.
3. Emphasize Integration Outcomes, Not Just Intake Numbers: The success of an immigration policy should be judged less by how many people arrive each year and more by how well those people are faring after 5, 10, 20 years. Are they employed at levels commensurate with their skills? Have they found affordable housing? Do they feel socially integrated and are they on the path to citizenship? These questions speak to long-term benefits for Canada. Going forward, immigration policy needs to incorporate integration benchmarks. For example, the government could track and publicly report statistics like the employment rate and average income of recent immigrants, their credential accreditation timelines, language acquisition, and so forth – and use those to adjust programs. If highly skilled immigrants are driving taxis for years, that’s a policy failure that needs remedy (through bridging courses, mentorship, or improved points system tweaks). The 2015 introduction of Express Entry, which favored those with Canadian experience, was a step in this direction and did modestly improve earnings outcomes for some newcomers[48][40]. Similarly, the 2023 Express Entry tweak to invite candidates in high-demand fields (e.g. healthcare, STEM)[58] is an attempt to better link immigration to immediate needs. But these selection-stage fixes must be paired with post-arrival support. A constructive approach would expand funding for credential recognition programs (so that an engineer or doctor from abroad can get licensed faster), invest in affordable housing specifically for newcomers (perhaps through public-private partnerships), and ensure that immigrants are not just seen as “outputs” to meet quotas, but as new Canadians to invest in. Canada could even explore a version of the German model where local municipalities get a financial bonus per newcomer settled, to bolster local services – turning immigration into a catalyst for community development rather than a burden.
4. Foster Transparency and Public Engagement: One reason short-term optics dominated is that the public wasn’t fully engaged in a nuanced discussion about immigration trade-offs. To maintain public trust, policymakers should be frank about the challenges and invite citizens (including immigrants themselves) into the planning process. For instance, holding public consultations on immigration levels (as is done for budgeting) could surface local concerns early and generate ideas for solutions. Regular impact assessments – e.g. how many housing units are needed per 100,000 immigrants – should be published and debated. This kind of openness can preempt misinformation and defuse the scapegoating of immigrants for policy failures. As commentator David Moscrop noted, “cynical politicians will blame immigrants for failures entirely their own”, whereas the proper response is to fix those failures[59][49]. Immigration policy redesigned in the public interest must therefore include accountability measures: if, say, targets are raised, there should be a parallel plan announced for housing and infrastructure, so the public sees a commitment to making it work. In essence, marry the numbers with a narrative of nation-building that citizens can buy into, rather than springing population growth on communities without support.
5. Preserve Canada’s Openness – with Pragmatism: Finally, it’s important to underscore that a call for more planning is not a call for shutting the door. Canada’s openness to immigration has been a source of strength, economically and socially, and it remains a distinguishing feature that sets us apart from many Western countries. The aim of reform is to safeguard that openness for the long term by making it sustainable. This means being pragmatic: prioritizing categories that yield clear benefits (e.g. skilled workers in key sectors, family reunification that improves well-being, refugees who enhance Canada’s humanitarian legacy) and avoiding unmanaged influxes that stoke backlash. It may also mean embracing innovation in immigration – for example, pilot programs that link immigration explicitly to housing (such as offering permanent residence to tradespeople who help build homes, killing two birds with one stone), or creating “smart” quotas that automatically adjust with economic indicators. With climate change and global instability likely driving more migration pressures in the future, Canada should position itself as a forward-thinking destination that grows its population in harmony with growth in capacity. The lesson of 2015–2025 is that failing to do so leads to broken consensus and reactive cuts. The course correction of 2024, though abrupt, gives Canada a chance to catch its breath and plan anew.
From Short-Termism to Stewardship
The story of Canada’s immigration policy from 2015 to 2025 is one of lofty aspirations colliding with practical limits. In pursuit of political and economic gains, successive plans pushed immigration to record heights, until reality intervened in the form of housing shortages, public discontent, and a hastily revised strategy. It is a testament to the importance of statecraft over showmanship. Immigration, as many have pointed out, is not just a numbers game – it’s about nation-building, which requires patience, investment, and foresight. Canada’s experience reveals that when immigration policy is driven by short-term optics, the long-term costs can undermine the very goals leaders sought to champion (economic vitality, social cohesion, global leadership in welcoming refugees).
Yet, this is not a call to reverse course into insularity. It is, rather, a call to do better. Canada can remain a world leader in immigration by adopting a more thoughtful, measured approach that aligns growth with capacity. That means building the houses, transit, and hospitals before or at least in tandem with welcoming waves of new Canadians. It means treating immigrants not as faceless inputs for GDP, but as partners in our communities – deserving of the same quality of life and opportunities that existing citizens expect. As one expert poignantly described, Canada at times behaved like a “narcissistic partner,” luring immigrants with promises of opportunity only to change the rules or turn backs when they arrive[60]. We must strive to be better partners to those we invite in, for our sake as much as theirs.
In concrete terms, the next chapter of Canadian immigration policy could include dynamic intake targets tied to real-world metrics, robust collaboration with provinces and cities on settlement, and an emphasis on outcomes (like housing and good jobs for newcomers) over outputs. By linking immigration to housing supply, matching newcomers to regional needs, and improving integration pathways, Canada can ensure that each new resident enriches the country in ways that are felt broadly and positively. This would mitigate the zero-sum perception that currently fuels backlash and instead highlight immigration as a win-win, as it ought to be.
The past decade’s turbulence around immigration was a self-inflicted policy wound – but also a learning experience. The constructive path forward is clear: treat immigration as the complex, cross-cutting domain it is, not a standalone ticker number to boost at will. Canada’s long-term national interests will be best served by an immigration system that is stable, predictable, and oriented toward shared prosperity, rather than one that chases short-term applause or quick fixes. In turning the page, Canadian leaders and citizens alike have the opportunity to apply these lessons. Done right, Canada can continue to welcome the world – this time with a house (and a plan) ready for the guests.
Sources:
- Banerjee, Rupa et al. “Canada’s Long-Standing Openness to Immigration Comes Under Pressure.” Migration Policy Institute, 24 June 2025[1][35][44][46].
- Bank of Canada. “Economic Progress Report: Immigration, Housing and the Outlook for Inflation.” Speech by Deputy Governor Toni Gravelle, 14 Dec 2023[12][15][16].
- RBC Economics. “Immigration cuts will help narrow Canada’s housing gap but won’t solve crisis.” RBC Thought Leadership, 27 Oct 2024[18][37].
- Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO). “Impact of the 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan on Canada’s Housing Gap.” Nov 15, 2024[36].
- HRD Canada (via Canadian Press). “Wage growth expected amid slowing of immigration in Canada: report.” 8 July 2025[42][33].
- Council on Foreign Relations. “What Is Canada’s Immigration Policy?” Backgrounder by A. Chatzky and D. Siripurapu, updated 10 May 2023[5][6].
- Moscrop, David. “Immigration Politics in Canada are a Cynical – and Dangerous – Affair.” David Moscrop’s Blog, 6 Dec 2024[49][59][60].
- AMSSA (Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies). “A Call for a Thoughtful Immigration Policy in Canada.” Press Release, Nov 2024[29][61].
- Global News / Canadian Press. “Influential Liberal advisers want Canadian population to triple by 2100.” 23 Oct 2016[3][23].
- Statistics Canada. “GDP per capita: Perspectives on the return to trend.” Economic and Social Reports, 24 Apr 2024[32][11].
[1] [2] [7] [8] [9] [10] [20] [26] [30] [31] [35] [40] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [51] [54] [55] [58] Article: Canada’s Long-Standing Openness to Immigr.. | migrationpolicy.org
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/canada-immigration-policy-inflection-point
[3] [4] [21] [22] [23] Influential Liberal advisers want Canadian population to triple by 2100 – National | Globalnews.ca
[5] [6] [56] [57] What Is Canada’s Immigration Policy? | Council on Foreign Relations
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-canadas-immigration-policy
[11] [32] Canada’s gross domestic product per capita: Perspectives on the return to trend
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2024004/article/00001-eng.htm
[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [24] [25] [38] [39] Economic progress report: Immigration, housing and the outlook for inflation – Bank of Canada
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2023/12/economic-progress-report-immigration-housing-outlook-inflation
[18] [37] Immigration cuts will help narrow Canada’s housing gap but won’t solve crisis – RBC
[19] Housing and Immigration – Question Period Notes – Canada.ca
https://search.open.canada.ca/qpnotes/record/cic%2CIRCC-2025-QP-00024
[27] [28] [49] [50] [59] [60] Immigration Politics in Canada are a Cynical — and Dangerous — Affair
https://www.davidmoscrop.com/p/immigration-politics-in-canada-are
[29] [61] A Call for A Thoughtful Immigration Policy in Canada – AMSSA
https://www.amssa.org/about/media/call-for-a-thoughtful-immigration-policy-in-canada
[33] [34] [41] [42] [43] Wage growth expected amid slowing of immigration in Canada: report | HRD Canada
[36] [52] Impact of the 2025-2027 Immigration Levels Plan on Canada’s Housing Gap
[53] Government of Canada reduces immigration