Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently took a direct approach to address growing public discontent about immigration. Sitting on a leather armchair, he explained his government’s new plan to reduce immigration by approximately 20 percent. The videos aim to counter rising criticism, dwindling public support, and mounting calls for Trudeau to resign as the Liberal Party leader ahead of a federal election that polls suggest his party is likely to lose.
Trudeau’s messaging comes at a critical time when Canadian attitudes toward immigration have shifted markedly. Historically viewed positively, immigration is now increasingly scrutinized by a public more concerned about housing shortages, strained health care, and economic uncertainty. Recent surveys indicate a majority of Canadians believe immigration levels are too high.
While Trudeau’s presentation attempted to clarify his government’s stance, critics argue it oversimplifies complex issues, scapegoats vulnerable populations, and sidesteps deeper systemic problems in Canada’s immigration and higher education systems.
Canada’s population has grown at unprecedented rates over the past two years, driven largely by an influx of temporary residents, including international students and migrant workers. Temporary residents now account for much of the country’s immigration-related growth.
In his address, Trudeau emphasized that “most [temporary residents] return home” and were “never part of the long-term immigration plan.” However, experts point out that this claim misrepresents the reality of Canada’s immigration landscape. Since the late 1990s, both Liberal and Conservative governments have increasingly embraced “two-step immigration.” This model encourages temporary migrants, such as international students and workers, to transition into permanent residency.
By 2021, two-step immigrants constituted 78 percent of new permanent residents under economic immigration programs. This trend accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when restrictions on international travel shifted Canada’s reliance toward migrants already in the country.
Despite Trudeau’s assertion, many temporary residents expect to stay in Canada — a sentiment reinforced by government messaging and policies. For example, a statement by former Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino in 2021 encouraged international students to remain in Canada, signaling that their contributions were valued beyond their studies.
Nevertheless, the Trudeau administration recently announced measures to curb the number of temporary residents, including capping study permits and tightening work permit regulations. While these policies aim to address housing and labor market pressures, they leave many temporary residents in limbo, straining trust between migrants and the government.
Trudeau’s critique of Canadian colleges and universities for exploiting international students has sparked intense debate. He accused institutions of prioritizing profit by charging international students significantly higher tuition fees, adding that this behavior has contributed to broader systemic issues.
While there is some truth to these allegations, Trudeau’s focus on higher education institutions overlooks critical context. The explosive growth in international student enrollment has been concentrated in a handful of schools, particularly private colleges, while public institutions grapple with chronic underfunding.
Since the 1970s, provincial and federal governments have gradually reduced financial support for higher education, forcing universities to rely increasingly on tuition revenue. This reliance became a cornerstone of Canada’s 2014-19 and 2019-24 International Education Strategies, which explicitly encouraged recruiting international students for their economic contributions.
Critics argue Trudeau’s remarks deflect from the root causes of the problem. Public underinvestment in education, compounded by policy decisions encouraging international recruitment, has created a precarious system. Rather than addressing these systemic challenges, Trudeau appears to place undue blame on schools, many of which operate within the constraints of government policy.
In the videos, Trudeau also addressed asylum claims, stating that some temporary residents misuse the asylum system as a “shortcut” to remain in Canada. He assured viewers that rejected claimants would be deported.
While this rhetoric may appeal to voters concerned about immigration control, it obscures a more nuanced issue. Many temporary residents arrive in Canada under the impression that pathways to permanent residency are more accessible than they actually are. When faced with limited options to stay legally, some turn to the asylum system as a last resort.
This dynamic is symptomatic of a larger issue: Canada’s immigration framework invites temporary residents with promises of opportunity but often leaves them without clear, achievable routes to permanence. In May, Trudeau hinted at creating pathways to regularize the status of undocumented migrants. However, by August, his government backtracked, citing insufficient public support.
Linking asylum claims to fraudulent intent risks undermining Canada’s reputation as a global leader in humanitarianism. Moreover, it exacerbates the precariousness faced by undocumented migrants, many of whom contribute significantly to their communities despite living in legal limbo.
Trudeau’s videos aim to simplify a multifaceted issue into digestible talking points. However, critics warn that such simplicity can be misleading. By emphasizing “bad actors” and systemic flaws, Trudeau risks deflecting accountability from his own government’s role in shaping the current immigration landscape.
One of the sharpest criticisms in Trudeau’s message targets those who exploit immigrants, promising jobs, diplomas, or pathways to citizenship that fail to materialize. Yet, as some observers note, the government itself has fostered an environment ripe for such exploitation. Policies that encourage temporary migration, coupled with insufficient oversight, create vulnerabilities that bad actors exploit.
The Prime Minister’s messaging may resonate with voters frustrated by rising housing costs and strained public services. However, it fails to acknowledge that these challenges stem from broader systemic issues, such as inadequate urban planning, insufficient public investment, and uneven economic development.
Trudeau’s address reflects a broader political calculus. With public opinion shifting against immigration, the Liberal government is keen to stem further erosion of support. A recent poll indicated that immigration is increasingly viewed as a strain on housing and health care systems, reinforcing perceptions that the current levels are unsustainable.
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has capitalized on this sentiment, promising to link immigration levels to housing and job availability. While his proposals remain vague, they pose a significant challenge to the Liberals’ narrative, particularly in light of their declining popularity.
The political stakes are high. If Trudeau’s immigration plan is perceived as insufficient or insincere, it could further alienate voters ahead of the next federal election.
