Canada's General Election: Comparing Liberal and Conservative Immigration Policies
26 Apr 2025
In the run-up to the 2025 federal election, Canadian political parties have been putting immigration policy at the center of their campaigns. This is because immigration policy is now perceived as an issue of Canadian life and society that goes beyond immigration itself, as it is intertwined with housing, healthcare access, and labor shortages. As a result, the ruling Liberal Party and the main opposition Conservative Party are offering opposing views and solutions to immigration to appeal to voters. In this column, I will focus on the main issues, centering on the platforms of the two parties.
First, there is a difference of opinion on whether to reduce or reinstate the target for permanent resident immigrants. The Liberals have stated that they will maintain their existing plan to accept approximately 395,000 permanent residents in 2025, and that they will remain at 1% or less of the total population after 2027 - a “status quo” choice rather than a dramatic expansion. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are proposing a more conservative reduction, suggesting a return to the levels of the Harper government (2006-2015) of 250,000 to 280,000 per year. While they don't provide exact numbers, they emphasize that population growth should not outpace the supply of housing.
Second, there is also a big difference between the two parties on temporary residents. The Liberals have stated that they want to reduce the total number of temporary residents to no more than 5% of the population by 2027, and have actually announced a series of measures starting in 2024, including limiting the number of study permits, capping PGWPs, and restricting spousal open work permits. The Conservative Party has taken an even harder line. They have announced plans to drastically reduce the number of foreign workers and international students, require all international students to submit to a police criminal record check, and introduce a union pre-approval process for LMIA applications.
Third, in contrast to the Liberal Party's strengthened strategy on economic immigration, the Conservatives have not articulated a specific position. While both parties recognize the need for economic immigration, their approaches differ. The Liberals have pledged to revitalize the Global Skills Strategy to better attract high-skilled talent from the U.S. and elsewhere, and have also pledged to create a system for the rapid recognition of foreign qualifications and experience. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have not directly addressed economic immigration. However, in a speech last year, they did mention the introduction of a national standardized qualification for healthcare workers through the Blue Seal program. This could be interpreted as an attempt to harmonize the different provincial credentialing processes.
Fourth, the Liberals' humanitarian policies on refugees and border management differ significantly from the Conservatives' hardline response. The Liberals emphasize that they will provide legal aid to asylum seekers and work with the United States to jointly manage the border situation. At the same time, they appear to be attempting to strike a realistic balance, promising “swift deportation after due process” for those in the country illegally. The Conservatives have criticized the recent increase in refugee applications, saying that many of them are fraudulent, and have promised to speed up the process by reordering applications in order of recent receipt, and to introduce an exit tracking system to manage illegal immigration in real time.
Fifth, there are also commonalities and differences on French-speaking immigration and urban growth policies. The Liberals emphasize cultural diversity, with a goal of increasing the proportion of French-speaking immigrants from outside Quebec to 12% by 2029. The Conservatives, on the other hand, support French-speaking immigration in principle but have not quantified a target, and their long-term plan to dramatically increase the population of Canada's major cities to drive economic growth emphasizes a cautious approach, arguing that rapid urban sprawl could increase housing, transportation, and health care burdens.
More than just a change of government, the 2025 general election will be a watershed moment for Canada's immigration philosophy. The Liberals want to balance economic growth and immigration while maintaining Canada's identity as a multicultural society, while the Conservatives want to restore institutional order through more manageable levels of immigration. Ultimately, it's up to the people to decide which is the better choice. However, the outcome of this election could lead to significant changes in future immigration policy, so it's time to start thinking about what Canada's choices will be and how we can prepare and respond accordingly.
In the run-up to the 2025 federal election, Canadian political parties have been putting immigration policy at the center of their campaigns. This is because immigration policy is now perceived as an issue of Canadian life and society that goes beyond immigration itself, as it is intertwined with housing, healthcare access, and labor shortages. As a result, the ruling Liberal Party and the main opposition Conservative Party are offering opposing views and solutions to immigration to appeal to voters. In this column, I will focus on the main issues, centering on the platforms of the two parties.
First, there is a difference of opinion on whether to reduce or reinstate the target for permanent resident immigrants. The Liberals have stated that they will maintain their existing plan to accept approximately 395,000 permanent residents in 2025, and that they will remain at 1% or less of the total population after 2027 - a “status quo” choice rather than a dramatic expansion. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are proposing a more conservative reduction, suggesting a return to the levels of the Harper government (2006-2015) of 250,000 to 280,000 per year. While they don't provide exact numbers, they emphasize that population growth should not outpace the supply of housing.
Second, there is also a big difference between the two parties on temporary residents. The Liberals have stated that they want to reduce the total number of temporary residents to no more than 5% of the population by 2027, and have actually announced a series of measures starting in 2024, including limiting the number of study permits, capping PGWPs, and restricting spousal open work permits. The Conservative Party has taken an even harder line. They have announced plans to drastically reduce the number of foreign workers and international students, require all international students to submit to a police criminal record check, and introduce a union pre-approval process for LMIA applications.
Third, in contrast to the Liberal Party's strengthened strategy on economic immigration, the Conservatives have not articulated a specific position. While both parties recognize the need for economic immigration, their approaches differ. The Liberals have pledged to revitalize the Global Skills Strategy to better attract high-skilled talent from the U.S. and elsewhere, and have also pledged to create a system for the rapid recognition of foreign qualifications and experience. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have not directly addressed economic immigration. However, in a speech last year, they did mention the introduction of a national standardized qualification for healthcare workers through the Blue Seal program. This could be interpreted as an attempt to harmonize the different provincial credentialing processes.
Fourth, the Liberals' humanitarian policies on refugees and border management differ significantly from the Conservatives' hardline response. The Liberals emphasize that they will provide legal aid to asylum seekers and work with the United States to jointly manage the border situation. At the same time, they appear to be attempting to strike a realistic balance, promising “swift deportation after due process” for those in the country illegally. The Conservatives have criticized the recent increase in refugee applications, saying that many of them are fraudulent, and have promised to speed up the process by reordering applications in order of recent receipt, and to introduce an exit tracking system to manage illegal immigration in real time.
Fifth, there are also commonalities and differences on French-speaking immigration and urban growth policies. The Liberals emphasize cultural diversity, with a goal of increasing the proportion of French-speaking immigrants from outside Quebec to 12% by 2029. The Conservatives, on the other hand, support French-speaking immigration in principle but have not quantified a target, and their long-term plan to dramatically increase the population of Canada's major cities to drive economic growth emphasizes a cautious approach, arguing that rapid urban sprawl could increase housing, transportation, and health care burdens.
More than just a change of government, the 2025 general election will be a watershed moment for Canada's immigration philosophy. The Liberals want to balance economic growth and immigration while maintaining Canada's identity as a multicultural society, while the Conservatives want to restore institutional order through more manageable levels of immigration. Ultimately, it's up to the people to decide which is the better choice. However, the outcome of this election could lead to significant changes in future immigration policy, so it's time to start thinking about what Canada's choices will be and how we can prepare and respond accordingly.