Canada is managing migration without taking a sledgehammer approach. Here’s how Australia can, too
As the debate over migration policy continues, it’s not too late for the government to address the pitfalls of its plan by looking to its Canadian counterparts.
Canada's approach to migration management has garnered attention as Australia navigates its own contentious debate. While politicians in Australia have looked to Canada for guidance, the Canadian government's strategy diverges from a simple reduction in immigration numbers. Instead, Canada has targeted the size of its temporary resident population as a key policy objective.
Unlike Australia's focus on net overseas migration (NOM), Canada has set a target to reduce the proportion of temporary residents to less than 5% of the total population by the end of 2027. This shift involves planning for a specific number of temporary arrivals and holding permanent migration at a steady rate. Canada has also tightened pathways that extend temporary status and encouraged departures as visas expire, alongside transitioning some temporary residents to permanent status.
The results have been notable: Canada's temporary resident population has fallen from a peak of about 3.15 million in October 2024 to around 2.56 million by April 2025. This has led to lower asking rents in major cities but may also impact housing construction demand. Economically, an earlier version of the plan could have reduced aggregate GDP, though per capita GDP and wages have remained stable.
Public sentiment in Canada has shown mixed reactions; while initial concerns about immigration levels surged, they have since receded. Some Canadians still view the government's handling of immigration as inadequate, yet overall confidence appears to be improving.
A crucial aspect of Canada's strategy is its focus on the stock of migrants already present in the country, recognizing that temporary residents often contribute significantly to society. This approach prompts important questions for Australia and Canada alike about the appropriate proportion of the population that should remain in temporary status, considering both practical and ethical implications.
Written by urgent.news from The Conversation AU's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
