By Riley Donovan | DominionReview.ca

The Carney government will be responsible for Canada’s next Immigration Levels Plan—three year projections that are typically announced in October or November. Under the current plan, put in place by the Trudeau government last fall, this year’s target of 395,000 will gently decline to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027. Given the Carney government’s goal of reducing immigration to what it calls “sustainable” levels, we can probably expect another gentle decline—as well as the announcement of promised reforms to the Temporary Foreign Worker program.

While these expected cuts and reforms are welcome, the Carney government is not questioning the central argument made by the immigration lobby, namely, that Canada needs a continuous and high inflow of newcomers every year. Before the ’90s, Canada had a “tap-on, tap-off” policy based on domestic economic conditions. If, for instance, we were in a recession, levels were kept low. If we had this mentality now, we would probably be hitting the brakes on immigration much harder than we already are, considering the unemployment rate is now above 7%.

Under Brian Mulroney, our traditional “tap-on, tap-off” immigration philosophy was abolished. Under Mulroney’s Immigration Minister, Barbara McDougall, a continuous, high inflow became the new norm.

This became the status quo. The immigration lobby formulated arguments to defend this status quo, and Canada’s political, media, cultural, and academic elite repeated them to the public. These arguments have been recited, mantra-like, for the last 35 years. Over time, even those who remembered that the floodgates were not always wide open began to forget. If they voiced nostalgia for the days when levels were kept relatively low and assimilation was encouraged, they were called racist.

The only problem with all of those arguments for mass immigration? None of them were even remotely accurate.

1) We need immigration because Canada is ageing

In more than twenty years of studies on this claim, nothing has substantiated it.

In a 2003 paper, Canadian sociologist Roderic Beaujot concluded: “It is impossible to use immigration to prevent an increase in the population aged 65 and over as a ratio to the population aged 20-64.”

In 2006, the C.D. Howe Institute report No Elixir of Youth stated: “No conceivable amount of immigration with an age profile such as Canada currently experiences can significantly affect the coming shift in the ratio of older to working-age Canadians.”

A 2025 Migration Policy Institute report found that “even under the highest immigration rates, the old-age dependency ratio would still rise.” The only way to offset ageing would be “continuously increasing the scale of immigration on an indefinite basis”—an obviously absurd policy.

There is no data to support the contention that Canada can use an open-door immigration policy to offset our ageing population. In fact, an ageing society actually has many benefits.

2) Canada must grow its population

The argument that Canada needs immigration-driven population growth is often asserted without evidence: “Well, we need more people.”

The Century Initiative has taken this to its extreme, calling for a population of 100 million by 2100. Its stated reasons—fixing ageing, boosting economic growth, and increasing global influence—collapse under scrutiny.

Immigration does raise total GDP by adding more consumers, but lowers GDP per capita, meaning while the economic pie grows, each slice shrinks. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that immigration cuts will lower total GDP but raise GDP per capita.

As for global influence: population does not equal power. India has far more people than the U.S. but less global clout; the UK (69 million) has more influence than the Philippines (116 million).

3) We need workers to solve “labour shortages”

There is no general labour shortage in Canada. Unemployment is 7.1%, and 16.9% for returning students. That is a vast pool of potential workers.

Sector-specific shortages, like in healthcare and construction, are often exaggerated because immigration itself fuels the demand. More people means more doctors, more teachers, more housing.

Where genuine shortages exist, the onus should be on employers to offer higher wages, benefits, training, and advancement opportunities—not on government to supply cheap foreign labour. If a business model only works by importing low-wage workers, that model should be allowed to fail.

4) Immigration creates a vibrant interchange of cultures

The elite claim that immigration enriches Canada with diversity, but no data or studies support this. Instead, evidence points to fragmentation: Eritrean riots in Calgary, Sikh-Hindu clashes in Ontario, Palestine protests through Jewish neighbourhoods in Windsor, caste-based discrimination in Toronto schools.

Canada increasingly resembles a Tower of Babel, not a harmonious “miniature United Nations.” The failure lies not with immigrants themselves, but with politicians who deny that humans are inherently group-oriented and need shared identity to build cohesion.

All available evidence shows that the arguments for mass immigration are without merit. No amount of repetition will change that.

This is a shortened version of the original article published at dominionreview.ca