CILA appreciates ongoing efforts by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada to strengthen the integrity of Canada’s immigration and temporary resident pathways.
Given the dynamic nature of Canada’s economy and labour market, it is incumbent on the federal government to constantly evaluate how to optimize these pathways to advance the country’s policy interests.
Note to Media: CILA is available for media commentary. Please click here if you are a journalist and wish to speak to CILA.
After a period of sustained labour market tightness, Canada is now experiencing a higher unemployment rate of 6.6 per cent, according to Statistics Canada.
Moreover, Canada’s temporary resident population has doubled since 2021 to an estimated 2.8 million people.
As such, it should come as no surprise the federal government has been introducing a series of measures since January 2024 to reduce the temporary resident population. For instance, Immigration Minister Marc Miller announced in March the federal government would introduce a cap on temporary resident levels when it publishes its Immigration Levels Plan 2025-2027 by November 1st.
Nevertheless, CILA wishes to share its views on today’s update by IRCC and ESDC as well as the overall immigration policy landscape.
Why CILA does not support temporary resident caps
CILA does not support arbitrary caps on study permits, work permits, and temporary residents as a whole. The reasons for our opposition to caps include the lack of evidence that shapes the caps. As the period since the pandemic has illustrated, the economy and labour market are too dynamic for government policymakers to be able to accurately project how many temporary residents are needed to complement Canadian workers. In addition, it is unfair to paint all employers with the same brush. CILA strongly supports IRCC and ESDC efforts to strengthen the integrity of the immigration system to tackle fraud and unethical practices. It is also important to recognize there are specialized roles and areas of the labour market that foreign nationals are needed to fill due to the absence of enough Canadian workers, or because of the exceptional nature of the specialized roles. Hence, it is crucial for the federal government to be nuanced in how it applies Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) reforms.
Another major challenge with caps is the uncertainty it creates to global talent about Canada’s reputation as a welcoming destination. Canada likes to compare itself with peer nations such as the United States and United Kingdom, both of whom, as examples, have offered less certainty to global talent over the past decade. Constant changes to immigration policies and the introduction on caps hurts Canada’s brand and makes it more difficult to appeal to global talent in light of increased global competition. It is important to remember that despite current economic challenges, Canada will still need newcomers moving forward in light of the aging of the population and low birth rate.
CILA stresses importance of IRCC and ESDC consulting with stakeholders to determine the best path forward to restore public confidence in immigration
CILA also wishes to stress the importance of formulating measured and thoughtful policies that are weighed carefully following consultations with key stakeholders from across Canada.
There have been very few consultations held by IRCC and ESDC throughout this year to determine the best path forward on managing Canada’s temporary resident levels, including the international student program, Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), and International Mobility Program (IMP).
It is important to remember Canada’s Constitution gives the federal government sole authority to issue visas to foreign nationals. Hence, it is the federal government alone that is solely responsible for the temporary resident population doubling over the past three years. While IRCC and ESDC may blame colleges, universities, and employers for the ballooning figures, the two departments are the ones who authorized the issuance of work and study permits, as well as temporary resident visas (TRVs) and visitor records, to these foreign nationals. Their cutting of corners in recent years have exacerbated the challenges that they are now seeking to address.
For example, in 2023, IRCC decided to pursue “aggressive measures” to clear the TRV backlog, which has since contributed to a rise in asylum claims. As another example, a recent Toronto Star story indicates ESDC officials were pressured to fast-track Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) applications. This is problematic because it underscores operational shortcomings by the federal government, a lack of accountability by the federal government on the mistakes it is making, as well as a lack of fraud prevention by the federal government in the wake of high levels of fraud and unethical behaviour that is being conducted by unscrupulous actors to obtain positive LMIAs. These examples underscore the pitfalls of what happens when IRCC and ESDC seek to achieve short-term objectives without consulting with stakeholders to evaluate the potential consequences of their policy reforms.
CILA also wishes to highlight the disproportionate amount of attention the federal government is paying to the TFWP. According to Minister Miller’s speech in March, the TFWP comprises 9 per cent of Canada’s temporary resident population. In other words, the TFWP is a fraction of Canada’s 2.8 million temporary residents. If the federal government is serious about reducing the share of temporary residents in Canada from its current 6.2 per cent down to 5 per cent within the next three years, it will need to focus on other more substantive efforts in order to move the needle.
At the end of the day, achieving this target can only be done through a three-fold combination of reducing temporary resident arrivals, transitioning more temporary residents to permanent residence, and seeing large numbers of temporary residents leaving Canada voluntarily. We have yet to learn of a comprehensive plan from the federal government on what exactly it will do in these three areas.
Perhaps even more worrisome is the federal government’s unwillingness to explore the most sustainable path forward with the likes of economists, academics, employers, colleges and universities, provinces, lawyers, immigrant-serving organizations, and other key stakeholders. Canada possesses a wealth of expertise that CILA strongly believes the federal government should draw on to come up with a measured plan that advances our collective policy interests, which entails avoiding the potential of long-lasting damage to the economy and Canada’s global reputation as a welcoming destination for international talent.
The federal government’s policies have largely put us in this difficult predicament. It is unrealistic for the federal government to feel that it alone can get us out of it. Ultimately, the federal government and experts across Canada share the same objective, which is to welcome foreign nationals to complement our domestic workforce in support of a stronger, more vibrant economy. In order to achieve this, IRCC and ESDC need to work with experts across sectors to determine how we can best restore public confidence in the immigration system.
