Justin Trudeau’s resignation as Prime Minister has sparked a wave of uncertainty about the future of Canada’s immigration policies. With Pierre Pollievre’s Conservative Party predicted to win Canada’s next election, Canadians are left wondering: will the Liberal Party’s decade-long stance on immigration endure or buckle under the weight of political change? Trudeau’s abrupt departure could transform the nation’s immigration policies, impacting both current and future generations, and reshape its middle power identity in international affairs.
Canada’s middle power identity has been a cornerstone of its foreign policy in the post-World War II era. Middle powers like Canada gain influence through strategic diplomacy, economic cooperation, and multilateral engagement rather than pursuing hawkish foreign policy maneuvers, backed up by sheer military power. This middle power status is enabled by its security alliance with the United States and the NATO nuclear umbrella, allowing it to pursue its diplomatic initiatives committed to international stability, peacekeeping, and coalition-building.
Immigration has played a pivotal role in this middle-power strategy, not only by shaping its national identity of multiculturalism but also by serving as a tool for economic growth and international reputation-building. Between November 2015 and February 2016, Canada accepted over 25,000 Syrian refugees, showcasing its humanitarian leadership on the global stage. By welcoming immigrants and refugees and presenting itself as a bastion of multiculturalism, Canada projects an image of inclusivity and cooperation, enhancing its soft power and credibility in international forums. Such claims of multiculturalism are rooted in the official adoption of multiculturalism as policy in 1971. Canada’s commitment to diversity reflects its national ethos of embracing different cultures and fostering unity in diversity, a principle that has shaped its identity both domestically and on the global stage.
The Syrian Refugee Resettlement initiative was part of a larger response to the global refugee crisis, with Canada prioritizing families, women, and children for resettlement. The initiative involved significant collaboration between government, private sponsors, and civil society, and it garnered widespread international acclaim. Yet, such narratives often obscure systemic disparities within Canada’s immigration system. Migrant workers, for instance, frequently face limited protections, wages that fail to meet the cost of living, and restricted pathways to citizenship. Additionally, highly skilled migrants—such as doctors and engineers—often suffer credential recognition barriers, relegating them to precarious, low-paying jobs. These inequities expose a citizenship-based hierarchy that challenges Canada’s self-image as a champion of global humanitarianism.
Trudeau’s leadership was characterized by progressive immigration reforms, including raising immigration targets to over 400,000 new permanent residents annually, establishing pathways for temporary workers and international students to gain permanent residency, and resettling over 25,000 Syrian refugees in one of Canada’s most ambitious humanitarian efforts. These policies sought to position Canada as a leader in embracing refugees and skilled workers alike. By admitting a vast influx of newcomers annually, his government sought to address labour shortages, boost economic growth, and promote cultural diversity. However, with his departure, a crucial question remains: will these policies persist, or will Canada’s middle-power identity – built on values of inclusivity and international cooperation – be redefined?
For Canada, immigration reflects a moral imperative to provide refuge to those fleeing conflict and persecution and serves as an economic strategy to address labour shortages and drive growth within the country. Yet, material constraints and popular xenophobic narratives often influence immigration discourse, revealing discrepancies in Canada’s portrayal of itself. While immigration serves an important economic function, social services and critical infrastructure have struggled to keep pace with Canada’s rapidly expanding population. Key parts of the country’s safety net are fraying. In 2013, Canada ranked 13th out of 170 countries in meeting the basic needs of citizens, according to the Social Progress Imperative. By 2023, it had fallen to 39th, largely because it lacks affordable housing. As housing shortages, healthcare backlogs, and stretched public education persist, Canada is challenged to balance the benefits of immigration with the necessary resources to support both newcomers and existing residents.
This growing strain on Canada’s social infrastructure has not gone unnoticed. The Liberal Party’s immigration policies, heavily shaped by Trudeau’s leadership, have faced increasing scrutiny by the public, fueled by a growing divide between the government’s ‘optimistic’ framing of immigration and the lived realities of many Canadians. Concerns about transparency, the pace of immigration, and its alignment with Canada’s ability to integrate newcomers have been at the heart of these debates. The primary concern is whether Canada can implement anticipatory and proactive socio-economic policies to support its ambitious immigration targets. Although Trudeau’s government framed immigration as essential to the nation’s prosperity, his government’s recent reduction in immigration targets reflects shifting priorities. Concerns over immigration policies surfaced under Trudeau’s leadership, casting doubt on whether the post-Trudeau Liberal Party can uphold these commitments. Furthermore, growing opposition from the Conservative Party threatens to undermine the ambitious goals championed by Trudeau. The question is not merely whether immigration targets will be met, but whether Canada’s leadership can uphold its foundational principles going forward.
Historically, the Conservative Party has been more cautious in its approach to immigration and may push for a model centred on economic pragmatism, potentially tightening refugee admissions, reducing family reunification quotas, and prioritizing skilled workers in high-demand sectors. While such measures could address immediate economic concerns, they put Canada’s image as a middle power and champion of multiculturalism at risk.
Moreover, these policies could exacerbate systemic inequities, disproportionately impacting racialized communities and low-income immigrants. For instance, reductions in immigration targets or stricter eligibility criteria could limit opportunities for family reunification – a cornerstone for many communities to establish networks, achieve economic stability, and integrate into Canadian society, further challenging Canada’s multicultural identity.
Global dynamics also complicate Canada’s immigration future. As countries compete for skilled workers, Canada’s attractiveness will depend on more than just immigration quotas. Investments in affordable housing, accessible healthcare, and strong infrastructure are essential to ensuring newcomers thrive. Public perception is another important factor. Although many Canadians have historically expressed support for high immigration levels, recent data shows that 58% now believe the country accepts too many immigrants. This growing skepticism, driven by concern over housing affordability, economic anxieties, and perceived mismanagement of immigration policies, threatens the longstanding consensus around Canada’s immigration system. Immigrants are increasingly framed as burdens rather than contributors within Canadian media, and international students are increasingly scapegoated for the housing crisis, undoubtedly contributing to the recent shift in public opinion. Selective empathy and dehumanizing portrayals often skew public discourse, framing immigrants as threats to national stability, as well as key drivers of social and economic crises. When these biases go unacknowledged, Canada’s immigration policy initiatives are vulnerable to populist rhetoric.
Immigration is more than a policy issue; it is a test of Canada’s middle-power identity and its ability to uphold its reputation as a champion of inclusivity and cooperation on the global stage. The way Canada navigates the challenges of balancing economic pressures, infrastructure demands, and humanitarian commitments will determine whether it can truly lead by example in a world increasingly dominated by anti-immigration rhetoric. However, this pluralist vision cannot be realized without addressing Canada’s material crises. These realities forced Trudeau’s government to scale back its ambitious immigration targets, highlighting the need for comprehensive reforms that prioritize both existing residents and newcomers. Without such action, immigration easily becomes scapegoated for deeper systemic failings. The stakes are not just economic or political but existential, reflecting the values and aspirations of Canada.
Edited by Clio Bailey
This article is written by a Catalyst Staff Writer and does not necessarily reflect the political opinion of the platform. Catalyst is a student-led publication that encourages engagement with global issues from a learning perspective
Kirit Ghumman is in her second year at McGill University, currently pursuing a B.A. in Political Science with a minor in International Development Studies. As this year’s Staff Writer for Catalyst, Kirit is determined in analyzing the complex intersections of international politics and development issues. With a keen focus on immigration, refugee law, and statelessness, Kirit’s writing delves into how international politics shape vulnerable communities, shedding light on the challenges and injustices they face. At Catalyst, Kirit aims to provide nuanced, well-researched insights into how shifting power dynamics impact the marginalized, especially through a lens of justice and human rights.