A big change is coming. The new Carney government has announced a sharp pullback in the number of temporary immigrants Canada will admit over the next few years — and people are reacting, loudly and, honestly, with a mix of relief, worry and frustration. On paper it looks tidy: fewer temporary foreign workers, fewer international students. In reality, the problems that pushed these numbers up in the first place remain.
What the budget does
The headline numbers are straightforward and hard to ignore. The target for temporary foreign worker (TFW) arrivals in 2026 is now 60,000 — down from 82,000 that had been set previously. The international student target is being cut even more dramatically: from 305,900 down to 150,000. That’s nearly half as many students expected compared with the earlier projection.
Finance Minister Carney framed it as a corrective move. He pointed out that temporary residents were only about three percent of Canada’s population in 2018 but had grown to around 7.5 percent by the time he took office. His point: that increase happened quickly, faster than Canada’s ability to provide housing, health services and other essentials. There’s truth in that — and it’s a convenient political touchstone for a government promising to tighten immigration controls.
Also read: When the Badge Becomes a Burden: Policing, Pain and the Search for Trust in Nunavik
Why some people support the cuts
Some conservatives say the TFW program depresses wages and reduces job opportunities for young Canadians. Pierre Poilievre went further, calling for scrapping the program altogether and accusing the previous government of replacing domestic workers with low-wage temporary labour. That message lands with people who feel squeezed by the cost of living and uncertain job prospects. You can see why it’s politically potent: if you’re struggling to get a first job or a stable wage, you want a simple fix, and cutting the number of foreign workers looks like one.
Why advocates say this is the wrong move — and not enough
But the critics on the other side are not being alarmist without reason. Many advocacy groups and unions point out that temporary workers are doing critical, often unpleasant or essential jobs — in health care, in farming, in long-term care and so on. Lynn Bueckert from the Hospital Employees’ Union in B.C. put it plainly: foreign workers are “sustaining the system, not draining it.” I tend to agree. Some services would simply collapse overnight without those workers.
Yet there’s another, more painful point that keeps coming up: the structure of the TFW program itself. Amnesty International, and other human-rights voices, say the program can be exploitative by design. Workers are tied to employers, often blocked from moving freely, and in many cases denied clear pathways to permanent residency because they’re labeled “low-skilled.” That combination creates vulnerability: wage theft, unsafe living conditions, verbal or even sexual abuse — the kinds of stories heard while Amnesty gathered its report. A UN special rapporteur even described the program as “a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery.” Strong words, but they reflect real cases.
The stuck-in-place problem is huge. If a worker faces abuse, they may be trapped economically and legally. So cutting numbers doesn’t untie that knot. It simply reduces how many people will enter a system that remains flawed. Reformers say the better route is to create federal pathways to permanent residency for many of these workers — especially health-care workers — and to overhaul the program so workers aren’t tied to exploitative conditions.
Also read: How the budget stacks up against the Liberals’ promises
The international student shock
The cut to international students brings a different set of problems. Universities and colleges across Canada have, over the past decade, used international tuition as a significant revenue source. Domestic tuition is much lower; international undergraduates this year were expected to pay around $41,700 on average, compared with $7,700 for Canadian students. As provincial government funding shrank — in some provinces substantially — institutions leaned harder on foreign fees to keep programs running.
So when Ottawa caps or cuts international student numbers, the financial hole is immediate and painful. Last year’s cap already led to big losses for universities and colleges. The Council of Ontario Universities estimated a $300 million hit for one school year, with more to come. Institutions responded by cutting programs, trimming faculty and, in some cases, axing courses days before term start. I can’t help but feel a bit torn here: on one hand, international students fuel revenue but also enrich campuses, bringing new perspectives and global connections. On the other hand, unchecked growth raised legitimate capacity concerns — housing, services, and student support simply couldn’t keep up.
Who pays the price?
Students, faculty and local communities end up paying. Fewer resources mean larger class sizes, more administrative strain, and faculty burnout. Student unions and associations are now prioritizing what services they can preserve and what they must let go. It’s a cascade: funding cuts lead to program closures, which lead to fewer staff, which leads to worse student experience and more stress on the remaining teachers.
So yes, reducing international student numbers might relieve pressure on housing and public services in the short term. But without a plan to make up the lost funding, it risks destabilizing post-secondary education — and that affects domestic students too.
A messy, mixed picture
There’s an odd paradox here: the government wants to slow temporary arrivals because the country struggled to absorb rapid growth. But many sectors genuinely need workers right now. The policy choices are not mutually exclusive, but the current approach feels partial. Cut numbers — sure. Reform the program to stop abuse and create routes to permanent residency — also necessary. Fix how universities are funded so they don’t depend on volatile international tuition — essential. Yet the budget only does one of those things plainly: it cuts the numbers.
Also read: New Focus on Drug Precursors: The Evolving Battle Against Fentanyl in Canada
I think most people want balance, even if they disagree on specifics. We want fair work, safe conditions, and a system that doesn’t exploit people. We also want communities that can house and support new arrivals without collapsing. Achieving that requires more than trimming quotas. It needs structural change, a willingness to redesign programs and to invest in public services — and a bit of political patience, which, let’s be honest, is in short supply.
Leave a comment