2025 consultations on immigration levels – final report

Contents

Overview and context

Every year, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) engages with a wide range of stakeholders and partners from across the country to help us shape Canada’s next Immigration Levels Plan.

Traditionally, the Immigration Levels Plan focused on how many permanent residents would be admitted to Canada in a given year, and set targets for overall admissions per immigration category. Last year, we expanded that scope by including targets for temporary resident arrivals of students and workers.

We built on that new approach while planning for this year’s immigration levels. Our efforts were also guided by the Government of Canada’s commitments to:

How we engaged on the 2026–2028 Immigration Levels Plan

To inform the 2026–2028 Immigration Levels Plan, IRCC engaged with stakeholders and partners across Canada who work in areas closely tied to immigration. This engagement took place over several months prior to finalizing the plan.

Between July 21 and August 17, 2025, a total of 8,513 stakeholders and partners were invited by email to participate in an online survey (PDF, 0.3 MB) – an increase of 25% from the 6,772 invited in 2024. We received 840 survey responses completed on behalf of stakeholder and partner organizations such as academic and educational institutions, businesses, chambers of commerce, Francophone organizations, labour unions, non-profits, and settlement and resettlement agencies. In addition to completing the online survey, some organizations also provided written submissions.

To broaden participation, we also launched a dedicated webpage with background information and an opportunity for the public to complete the online survey. This resulted in 18,135 responses from individuals – an increase of 400% from 3,626 the previous year.

Moreover, IRCC held thematic conversations with a number of stakeholders and partners to explore key elements of the upcoming Immigration Levels Plan. Participants included urban planners, municipalities involved in welcoming newcomers, economists from Canadian banks, small and medium-sized businesses, Francophone organizations, as well as experts who shared insights on how Canada can strategically attract global talent.

IRCC also consulted with provinces and territories, as required under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This collaboration is guided by a jointly developed framework and includes ongoing engagement through a dedicated working group of the Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration (FMRI).

About this report

The findings summarized in this report only reflect the views of those who participated in this engagement process between June and September 2025. IRCC’s engagement with provinces and territories, as well as analysis of public opinion research, labour market information and immigrant outcomes are not part of this report.

This engagement was designed to be open to all interested organizations and individuals. Consequently, the results presented in this report are not considered statistically representative, and cannot be projected to the Canadian population.

When analyzing data from survey responses, we’ve rounded percentages to whole numbers. As a result, totals may not add up to 100. Respondents were asked to identify whether they were completing the survey on behalf of an organization, or as an individual. Responses from individuals therefore reflect input from members of the public, as well as those affiliated with organizations but not answering on behalf of their organization. Data tables for quantitative survey responses are included in Annex A.

For this report, we used Microsoft Copilot to help compile and synthesize data collected through submissions from our engagement process. Any personal identifiers, such as names of individuals or company names, were removed prior to their use. Learn more about the Government of Canada’s commitment to a responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI).

What we heard

Public interest in immigration levels – both in terms of the number of newcomers and the balance across immigration streams – remains high. This year’s engagement process further underscored that interest, with a record number of responses received by the department.

Recurring themes from this year’s engagement process highlight a strong desire for immigration policy that is both responsive and stable. There appears to be a general consensus from organizations involved in immigration and communities that serve immigrants and non-immigrants, that immigrant selection must be strategic and targeted to ensure it contributes to building a stronger economy while also protecting the quality of life and access to services for those already in Canada.

Stakeholders and partners consistently emphasized the need for better alignment between immigration planning and Canada’s economic needs, particularly in attracting and retaining talent. There was widespread support for maintaining stability and predictability in immigration levels to avoid unintended economic disruptions. Enhanced data collection and sharing were also identified as critical tools to foster collaboration across sectors and jurisdictions.

Participants underscored the importance of recognizing regional and local realities, noting that a one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient to address the diverse needs of communities across the country. A clear understanding of labour market demands and skills shortages was seen as essential to shaping effective immigration pathways. At the same time, concerns were raised about Canada’s absorptive capacity – especially in relation to housing, infrastructure, and health care – which many felt must be addressed to ensure successful integration and long-term sustainability.

Key findings

Survey responsesFootnote 1

Who we heard from

To better understand the perspectives shared, we first asked participants whether they were responding as individuals or on behalf of an organization. Those representing organizations were asked about their sector, region, and communities served, while individuals provided information about their province or territory, community size, and language spoken most often at home.

Organizations

Top 3 organization types were not-for-profit, charitable and non-government organizations (27%), educational institutions (23%) and businesses (22%).

Top 3 sectors were education and training (38%), social services (22%) and accommodation, hospitality and food services (14%).

Organizations that responded to the survey operate mainly in Ontario (31%), British Columbia (22%) and Alberta (13%).

Individuals

Almost three quarters (72%) of individuals who responded to the survey live in large urban centres with a population of 100,000 and over.

The vast majority of individuals indicated speaking English most often at home (85%), while 6% indicated speaking French.

Individuals who responded to the survey are mainly based in Ontario (47%), British Columbia (18%) and Alberta (13%).

Planning immigration levels

To inform immigration levels planning, we asked participants for their views on the number of temporary workers and students announced in the current 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan. First, we asked whether the 2026 targets for temporary workers, students, and the combined total represented too many, too few, or about the right number. We then asked for their views on the notional 2027 target and whether levels should increase, stabilize, or decrease beyond 2027.

Temporary resident levels

When asked about temporary resident levels, half of organizations considered the 2026 target to be “about right,” and a quarter believed the target was too low. Looking ahead to 2027, nearly half said the number was appropriate, and a quarter even suggested it should be higher.

In contrast, individuals who responded were more likely to feel that targets for 2026 and 2027 were too high – with over 80% of respondents indicating that those targets represented “too many” temporary residents.

When asked about future direction beyond 2027, individuals leaned heavily towards decreasing temporary resident levels (83%), while organizations opted for stabilization (39%) or modest growth (25%). If increases were to occur, both groups prioritized foreign workers over international students. Conversely, if reductions are necessary, individuals were more inclined to reduce foreign worker admissions, while organizations showed a more even split between workers and students.

Permanent resident levels

When asked about permanent resident levels, over half of organizations advocated for an increase, indicating that the 2026 target included “too few” permanent residents, while a quarter felt it was “about right”. Organizations also largely supported an increased number for the 2027 target, with 59% saying it represented “too few” permanent residents, and roughly a quarter saying the target was “about right”.

More individuals – over 75% – felt the 2026 and 2027 targets were too high.

Beyond 2027, organizations showed strong support for growth, with 60% favouring increased permanent resident levels. In contrast, 75% of individuals preferred a decrease.

When asked which immigration classes should be prioritized if levels rise, both groups overwhelmingly support increasing economic class immigrants. In the case of reductions, both groups leaned towards decreasing refugees, protected persons, and persons in Canada on humanitarian grounds.

Supporting immigrants and communities in Canada

We asked respondents to identify the most important areas for investment to support immigration in their region, such as housing, health care, and infrastructure. We also asked which services would be most useful to newcomers, and what additional investments might be needed.

To support immigration in their regions, both organizations and individuals agreed on the importance of investing in housing and health care services, ranking them as the top priorities. For organizations, post-secondary education and skills training was the third top priority, while individuals prioritized public infrastructure.

When it comes to helping newcomers integrate, language training, employment support, and foreign credential recognition were seen as the most valuable services. Organizations and individuals alike emphasized the need for clear, accessible information and support navigating government and community services.

Francophone immigration

For Francophone immigration, we asked which measures would best support increased admissions of French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec.

There was broad recognition of the importance of enhancing Francophone immigration outside Quebec. Both organizations and individuals prioritized connecting French-speaking newcomers with job opportunities in Francophone minority communities. Optimizing settlement services and improving selection methods for bilingual immigrants were also seen as critical steps.

While organizations placed more emphasis on facilitating transitions to permanent residence for French-speaking temporary residents, individuals were more focused on better ways of selecting French-speaking immigrants and offering them settlement support.

Addressing systemic barriers and supporting diversity, equity and inclusion

We asked participants where they see opportunities to improve equitable access to immigration programs and address systemic barriers such as racism, sexism, and ableism.

Many organizations highlighted the need for streamlined and fair recognition of foreign credentials as a key step towards improving equitable access to opportunities for newcomers. Concerns were also raised about persistent discrimination, with calls for more accessible language training, enhanced support services in rural and remote areas, and tailored programming for refugees, 2SLGBTQI+ individuals, women, and persons with disabilities. Limitations to closed work permits and the lack of clear pathways to permanent residence were also identified as barriers that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.

Individual respondents offered a range of perspectives. Some expressed concern about the overrepresentation of immigrants from specific countries and proposed country caps to promote a more balanced intake. Others emphasized the importance of prioritizing qualifications – such as skills, education, and language proficiency – arguing that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies should complement merit-based selection criteria. Additional suggestions for improvement included streamlining foreign credential recognition processes, increasing transparency through the publication of disaggregated data, mandating anti-bias and cultural competency training, launching public awareness campaigns to combat discrimination, and ensuring meaningful inclusion of racialized individuals, refugees, immigrants, and Indigenous voices in policy development.

Learning from the process

Survey respondents were asked a series of questions about their experience engaging with IRCC on immigration levels planning. When asked to identify the most effective ways for the department to engage with them, email and online surveys remain at the top of the list.

Many respondents appreciated that the survey was inclusive of both organizational and individual perspectives. Many found it to be easy to fill out and liked the online format. Others welcomed the open-ended questions that allowed them to elaborate on their views. Several participants noted that the wording of some questions appeared biased and suggested improvements to ensure neutrality. Others voiced the need for greater transparency regarding how their input informs decision-making.

When asked for recommendations to enhance future engagement, both individuals and organizations expressed a desire for more frequent exchanges and opportunities to engage with IRCC on immigration matters, specifically through in-person and virtual discussions, roundtables, and town halls.

IRCC regularly conducts public opinion research surveys to learn about the views and preferences of representative samples of randomly-selected Canadian adults, including the general population, newcomers, Canadians in rural communities, Francophones living outside Quebec, and Indigenous Peoples.

In a November 2024 public opinion research survey conducted by the department by telephone with a random sample of Canadian adults, a modest majority of respondents (54%) indicated that too many immigrants were coming to Canada. Additionally, 52% felt the 2025 target was too high, while only 5% believed it was too low. When informed that the target was 20% lower than the previous year, nearly half still felt it was too high.

IRCC’s public opinion research complements the perspectives gathered through engagement activities, and both are used to help shape immigration policies, programs, and services to better reflect the needs and views of diverse communities across Canada.

Additional input from written submissions

Written submissions provided a rich layer of qualitative feedback that complemented responses received. Many contributors emphasized the need to avoid abrupt changes that could destabilize the economy or disrupt labour markets. A recurring theme was the importance of whole-of-government coordination, with organizations urging better alignment across federal departments to ensure coherent and responsive immigration policy.

Multiple post-secondary institutions advocated for measures to protect the flow of international graduate students. These institutions recommended exemptions from study permit caps and, in some cases, from Provincial Attestation Letters (PALs) or Territorial Attestation Letters (TALs). They also called for faster study permit processing and proposed the adoption of a recognized institutions framework and a distinctions-based approach to better reflect institutional performance and student outcomes. Improved access to immigration-related data was also flagged as a critical need. To support a stable, future-focused system, some emphasized the importance of creating clear, coordinated, predictable, and sustainable pathways from temporary to permanent status – prioritizing permanent residency as a foundational element.

Submissions focused on global talent stressed the urgency of aligning immigration policy with Canada’s national priorities in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. Contributors from the tech sector highlighted the importance of targeted programs like the Global Talent Stream, and called for deeper collaboration between immigration authorities and industry to ensure Canada remains competitive in attracting top talent. Input from engagement with small and medium-sized businesses echoed these concerns, identifying construction, personal services, and professional services as sectors in high need of skilled labour. They also advocated for greater alignment between foreign workers’ skills and local labour needs to help address ongoing labour shortages and better support temporary residents’ integration into Canadian society.

Some contributors with expertise in the field of economics also stressed the importance of not underestimating the economic and social value of permanent residents already living in Canada, especially those with prior work or study experience, who consistently earn more and integrate faster than newcomers from abroad. To maintain current immigration outcomes and avoid compounding housing and service pressures, they suggested that the Immigration Levels Plan should prioritize in-Canada applicants and more accurately account for the population of non-permanent residents.

From the settlement, integration, and humanitarian sectors, concerns were raised about the growing number of undocumented individuals. These submissions urged the government to reverse recent cuts to humanitarian programs, set the Government Assisted Refugees (GAR) target at 0.25% of the population, and ensure that affordable housing supports are available across regions to facilitate successful integration. Contributors also called for equitable recognition of the impacts of privately sponsored refugees by restoring processing timelines, reducing inventory, and ensuring that private sponsorship complements – rather than replaces – government obligations.

Some contributions from the agriculture sector emphasized the importance of workforce stability, ethical recruitment, and long-term planning. Recommendations included reinstating and expanding permanent residency pathways – such as the Agri-Food Immigration Pilot – improving housing and wage policies, maintain existing exemptions, and recognizing permanent, full-time roles within the sector beyond seasonal positions.

The unique experiences of French-speaking immigrants and the vital role Francophone immigration plays in enhancing the vitality of Francophone minority communities were highlighted. Strengthening promotion and awareness campaigns, supporting institutions and organizations within minority communities, and ensuring conducive conditions for settlement, integration, and retention were identified as key steps to improve outcomes for Francophone immigrants. In addition, targeted recruitment efforts could focus on attracting individuals from Francophile countries (such as Brazil, Mexico and Vietnam) to learn French in Canada prior to pursuing further studies, employment, and permanent residency – helping to reinforce long-term retention and integration.

Some key takeaways from thematic discussions

In addition to survey responses and written submissions, IRCC convened a series of thematic discussions with stakeholders and partners. The following summary highlights some of the key themes that emerged from these conversations.

Leveraging immigration for economic growth

Building a more predictable and efficient immigration system

Aligning credentials with workforce needs

Planning infrastructure and increasing quality of life

Enhancing data for better planning

Supporting international students and academic excellence

Tailoring immigration to regional and rural needs

Helping newcomers thrive in communities across Canada

Promoting public education and inclusive narratives

Advancing Francophone immigration outside Quebec

In your words

Some of the comments submitted by participants, edited for length and clarity:

“Predictability is really important, so I think the government is on the right track in terms of going back to more historic levels – it allows us to plan better. It tends to be the temporary resident component that can be more difficult to accommodate.”

“Across Canada, employer-focused and employer-based supports are critically needed to facilitate meaningful labour market integration. It is also imperative that more focus be put on bringing in newcomers – whether permanent or temporary – with the skills and competences to address Canada’s housing shortage and affordability crisis.”

“Supporting faster, more transparent foreign credential recognition – alongside job search assistance and access to mentorship – can significantly improve equitable access to meaningful employment. This not only enhances individual outcomes, but also strengthens Canada’s workforce and communities.”

“Support for Francophone community organizations, which play a key role in welcoming and integrating immigrants, must be significantly strengthened. These organizations are on the front lines, providing French-language services tailored to the needs of newcomers: guidance, training, employment support, community participation, etc.”

“Equity in immigration means more than arrival. It means creating conditions for all newcomers to thrive, contribute, and feel like they truly belong.”

“The application process must be made simpler and more accessible by providing clear and easily understandable information. This can help reduce barriers for individuals who do not have access to lawyers or immigration consultants.”

“As a country, we would certainly benefit from having high quality immigration data around permanent and non permanent residents, and being able to get that data on a consistent basis.”

“There is a huge opportunity here to attract top talent to Canada, but we need to seize this moment.”

“Canada’s immigration policies should prioritize and capitalize on the unique economic growth advantages offered by international students, who graduate with Canadian credentials and experience, local professional networks, and first-hand knowledge of Canadian workplace norms and factors that enable smooth labour market integration.”

“There’s a lot of opportunity in Canada around small and medium-sized cities where there is capacity to build, where there is affordability, and where you have labour force needs. I think Canada’s immigration policy needs to be more mindful of how we might spread the opportunities of immigration to small and medium-sized cities across the country, where the need for the immigration is greatest and where the capacity to accommodate is greatest.”

“I feel like we need to change the narrative with immigration, and say that we are not taking jobs away from anyone. We’re not overusing the immigration system – we are an employer using the system responsibly and wanting to bring in the right people. We want to help build the Canadian economy for the future.”

Thank you

We extend our sincere appreciation to everyone who contributed to this year’s engagement process – whether by completing the online survey, submitting written feedback, or participating in discussions. Your insights play a vital role in shaping Canada’s immigration planning.

We are committed to a continued whole-of-society, whole-of-government approach to immigration, and will continue to keep the lines of communication open.

Annexes

Annex A: Survey responses

The following includes complete quantitative data for survey responses from the final report.

Question 3: Which of the following best describe(s) your organization? (Please select all that apply)Footnote 2

Number of responses % of organizations
Not-for-profit, charitable or non-government organization 227 27%
Educational organization (primary or secondary school, post-secondary institution, designated learning institution, student association, school board, etc.) 191 23%
Business 184 22%
Settlement or resettlement organization 129 15%
Academia, research foundation or institution, or think tank 68 8%
Advocacy group 67 7%
Diversity, equity and inclusion organization 67 7%
Language training organization 61 7%
Francophone minority community organization (including members of Welcoming Francophone communities, Francophone Community Immigration Pilot communities, or Francophone Immigration Networks) 53 6%
Economic development organization 43 5%
Immigration consulting 30 4%
Faith-based organization 25 3%
Member of a Local Immigration Partnership (LIP) 25 3%
Multicultural or ethno-cultural association 24 3%
Health care organization or other care service 21 3%
Industry or sector council 20 2%
Arts and culture organization (archives, art gallery or museum, cinema, concert venue, library, performing arts venue, theatre or dance company, etc.) 19 2%
Chamber of commerce or board of trade 19 2%
Government – Municipal or regional administration 17 2%
Legal service 15 2%
Tourism organization 15 2%
2SLGBTQI+ organization 14 2%
Labour union or workers’ advocacy group 11 1%
Member of a Rural Community Immigration Pilot community 7 1%
Government – Arm’s-length agency/Crown corporation 1 <1%
Government – Federal 4 <1%
Government – Provincial or territorial 4 <1%
Indigenous (First Nations, Inuit or Métis) organization 4 <1%
Other 60 7%
Prefer not to say 4 <1%

Question 3a: [If “Indigenous (First Nations, Inuit or Métis)” is selected above] Which of the following best describe(s) your organization or collective? (Please select all that apply)

Number of responses % of organizations
Inuit 3 75%
First Nation 2 50%
Métis 1 25%

Question 4: If applicable, in which of the following sector(s) does your organization operate? (Please select all that apply)Footnote 3

Number of responses % of organizations
Education and training 323 38%
Social services 181 22%
Accommodation, hospitality and food services 118 14%
Arts, entertainment and recreation 56 7%
Health care 60 7%
Consulting and legal services 53 6%
Administrative services 50 6%
Agriculture and agri-food 38 5%
Construction 43 5%
Professional, scientific and technical services 43 5%
Technology 43 5%
Tourism 42 5%
Transportation 37 4%
Manufacturing 35 4%
Retail and trade 31 4%
Aerospace and defence 21 3%
Energy 21 3%
Engineering 21 3%
Automotive 19 2%
Bio-manufacturing and life sciences 18 2%
Forestry 18 2%
Utilities 16 2%
Banking and insurance 13 2%
Mining and oil and gas extraction 12 1%
Real estate and rental and leasing 12 1%
Fashion and design 10 1%
Other 150 18%
Not applicable 38 5%
Prefer not to say 6 1%

Question 5: In which province(s) or which territory(ies) does your organization operate? (Please select all that apply)

Number of responses % of organizations
Across CanadaFootnote 4 93 11%
Alberta 109 13%
British Columbia 183 22%
Manitoba 50 6%
New Brunswick 61 7%
Newfoundland and Labrador 28 3%
Northwest Territories 11 1%
Nova Scotia 61 7%
Nunavut 12 1%
Ontario 262 31%
Prince Edward Island 25 3%
QuebecFootnote 5 88 10%
Saskatchewan 43 5%
Yukon 26 3%
Outside of Canada 22 3%

Question 5a: [If “Quebec” is selected alone above] Does your organization have a national mandate, or is your mandate limited to the province of Quebec?

Number of responses % of organizations
National mandate 27 31%
Quebec mandate 61 69%

Question 6: In which language(s) does your organization primarily operate? (Please select all that apply)

Number of responses % of organizations
English 708 84%
French 240 29%
Other 42 5%

Question 7: Does your organization represent or serve members from one of the following communities? (Please select all that apply)

Number of responses % of organizations
Large urban population centre, consisting of a population of 100,000 and over 540 64%
Medium population centre, with a population of between 30,000 and 99,999 360 43%
Small population centre, with a population of between 1,000 and 29,999 380 45%
Rural or remote area, with a population of less than 1,000 257 31%
Prefer not to say 8 1%
Not applicable 52 6%

Question 8: In which province or territory do you live?

Number of responses % of individuals
Alberta 2,433 13%
British Columbia 3,318 18%
Manitoba 552 3%
New Brunswick 264 1%
Newfoundland and Labrador 137 1%
Northwest Territories 23 <1%
Nova Scotia 628 3%
Nunavut 4 <1%
Ontario 8,531 47%
Prince Edward Island 60 <1%
Quebec 1,423 8%
Saskatchewan 462 3%
Yukon 43 <1%
Outside of Canada 110 1%
Prefer not to say 146 1%

Question 9: Which language(s) do you speak most often at home?

Number of responses % of individuals
English 15,499 85%
French 1,086 6%
Other 1,220 7%
Prefer not to say 329 2%

Question 10: Which best describes the community where you live?

Number of responses % of individuals
Large urban population centre, consisting of a population of 100,000 and over 12,977 72%
Medium population centre, with a population of between 30,000 and 99,999 2,564 14%
Small population centre, with a population of between 1,000 and 29,999 1,897 10%
Rural or remote area, with a population of less than 1,000 440 2%
Prefer not to say 456 1%

Question 11: Which of the following would you say are the most important areas of focus for Canada’s immigration system? (Listed in order of importance, with 1 being the most important.)

Organizations
% top 3
Individuals
% top 3
Help address economic and labour force needs and bring new skills to Canada 90% 80%
Sustain and strengthen communities in all regions across Canada 61% 60%
Reunite families 49% 45%
Support humanitarian commitments 38% 51%
Contribute to Canada’s diversity 26% 16%
Increase Canada’s population 19% 13%
Support the development of Francophone minority communities 16% 34%

Temporary resident levels

Question 12: The current Immigration Levels Plan supports efforts to reduce temporary resident volumes to 5% of Canada’s population. Taking into consideration those temporary residents that will transition to permanent residents or leave Canada, arrival targets are set in the current plan at 516,600 in 2026. For each of the following categories and the overall total, do you feel that this number of temporary workers and students would be too many, too few or about right? For ease of reference, you can consult the full 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan.
Organizations
Too many About right Too few Don’t know
Workers
2026 target: 210,700
15% 25% 50% 11%
Students
2026 target: 305,900
22% 25% 43% 10%
Both categories
2026 target: 516,600
14% 23% 50% 10%
Individuals
Too many About right Too few Don’t know
Workers
2026 target: 210,700
80% 8% 10% 2%
Students
2026 target: 305,900
84% 8% 6% 2%
Both categories
2026 target: 516,600
83% 6% 9% 2%
Question 13: The current Immigration Levels Plan sets a notional target for 2027 to welcome 543,600 temporary workers and students. Do you feel that this number of new temporary workers and students would be too many, too few or about right?
Organizations Individuals
Too many 16% 84%
About right 25% 6%
Too few 49% 8%
Don’t know 10% 2%
Question 14: Beyond 2027, would you like to see the levels of temporary workers and students increase, stabilize, or decrease?
Organizations Individuals
Increase 51% 8%
Stabilize at 543,600 per year 26% 8%
Decrease 13% 83%
Don’t know 10% 1%
Questions 19 and 21: If the levels of temporary workers and students were to increase, which category of temporary residents would you prioritize for growth? If the levels of temporary workers and students were to decrease, for which category of temporary residents would you recommend a decrease?
Organizations
If levels increase, where to increase? If levels decrease, where to decrease?
Foreign workers 46% 35%
International students 42% 38%
Don’t know 12% 27%
Individuals
If levels increase, where to increase? If levels decrease, where to decrease?
Foreign workers 32% 47%
International students 29% 44%
Don’t know 39% 9%

Permanent resident levels

Question 15: The current Immigration Levels Plan sets notional targets for new permanent residents in each immigration class for 2026. For each of the following immigration classes and the overall total, do you feel that this number of new permanent residents would be too many, too few or about right? For ease of reference, you can consult the full 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan.
Organizations
Too many About right Too few Don’t know
Economic classes (for example, workers or business immigrants)
2026 target: 229,750
8% 25% 57% 10%
Family classes (for example, spouses or partners, children or parents of people already in Canada)
2026 target: 88,000
10% 33% 42% 15%
Refugees, protected persons, and persons in Canada on humanitarian grounds (for example, resettled refugees or asylum seekers)
2026 target: 62,250
24% 30% 29% 17%
All categories
2026 target: 380,000
(less than 1% of Canada’s population)
8% 25% 53% 14%
Individuals
Too many About right Too few Don’t know
Economic classes (for example, workers or business immigrants)
2026 target: 229,750
71% 14% 14% 2%
Family classes (for example, spouses or partners, children or parents of people already in Canada)
2026 target: 88,000
71% 16% 11% 3%
Refugees, protected persons, and persons in Canada on humanitarian grounds (for example, resettled refugees or asylum seekers)
2026 target: 62,250
76% 13% 8% 3%
All categories
2026 target: 380,000
(less than 1% of Canada’s population)
77% 8% 13% 2%
Question 16: The current Immigration Levels Plan sets a notional target for 2027 to welcome 365,000 new permanent residents, which is less than 1% of Canada’s population. Do you feel that this number of new permanent residents would be too many, too few or about right?
Organizations Individuals
Too many 8% 75%
About right 23% 9%
Too few 59% 15%
Don’t know 9% 1%
Question 17: Beyond 2027, would you like to see the levels of permanent residents increase, stabilize, or decrease?
Organizations Individuals
Increase 60% 14%
Stabilize at 365,000 immigrants per year 23% 10%
Decrease 8% 75%
Don’t know 9% 1%
Questions 18 and 20: If the levels of permanent residents were to increase, which immigration class would you prioritize for growth? If the levels of permanent residents were to decrease, for which immigration class would you recommend a decrease?
Organizations
If levels increase, where to increase? If levels decrease, where to decrease?
Economic classes 70% 15%
Refugees, protected persons, and persons in Canada on humanitarian grounds 13% 35%
Family classes 9% 14%
Don’t know 8% 36%
Individuals
If levels increase, where to increase? If levels decrease, where to decrease?
Economic classes 61% 22%
Refugees, protected persons, and persons in Canada on humanitarian grounds 13% 43%
Family classes 9% 27%
Don’t know 17% 8%
Question 22: To what extent should federal permanent economic immigration programs select workers to support key sectors of the economy with longstanding labour needs in occupations that require a high school diploma or no formal education (such as on-the-job training)?
Organizations Individuals
A lot more 27% 11%
More 33% 8%
Less 9% 10%
A lot less 10% 60%
No change necessary 9% 5%
Don’t know 12% 6%

Supporting immigrants and communities in Canada

Question 23: How important would investment in each of the following be to support immigration in your region? (Listed in order of importance, with 1 being the most important.)
Organizations
% top 3
Individuals
% top 3
Housing 79% 75%
Health care services 75% 79%
Post-secondary education/skills training 35% 17%
Public infrastructure 31% 53%
Public transportation 29% 32%
Early learning and child care services 29% 16%
Schools (primary and secondary) 23% 25%
Question 24: Which of the following aspects would be most useful to newcomers and would best support immigration in your region? (Listed in order of importance, with 1 being the most important.)
Organizations
% top 3
Individuals
% top 3
Employment and career development support 65% 55%
Language training 64% 77%
Foreign credential recognition support 64% 59%
Clear and easily accessible information about services and programs 43% 40%
Help accessing government or community services 32% 22%
Resources to start and maintain a business in Canada 16% 33%
Diversity, equity and inclusion services 14% 16%
Question 26: The Government of Canada has committed to enhancing the vitality and economic development of Francophone minority communities, notably through a gradual increase in admissions of French-speaking permanent residents outside Quebec. Which of the following aspects would be most useful to support increased Francophone immigration in your region? (Listed in order of importance, with 1 being the most important.)
Organizations
% top 3
Individuals
% top 3
Increased efforts to connect French-speaking newcomers with job opportunities and employers in Francophone minority communities 75% 73%
Facilitated transition to permanent residence for French-speaking temporary residents (workers and students) 68% 47%
Optimized settlement services for French-speaking newcomers in Francophone minority communities 62% 65%
Better ways to select French-speaking and bilingual immigrants across all immigration classes 59% 76%
Targeted expansion of promotion efforts in Canada and overseas 35% 39%

Learning from the process

Question 29: What are the most effective ways for IRCC to engage with you and/or your organization on immigration levels planning? (Please select all that apply)
Organizations Individuals
Email 80% 52%
Online surveys 63% 68%
Group discussions and meetings 49% 15%
Roundtables and town hall conversations 49% 20%
Virtual events 42% 18%
In-person events 38% 18%
Hybrid events (virtual and in-person) 38% 16%
Online engagement platforms 34% 32%
Written submissions (without survey questions) 23% 12%
Other 5% 6%
Question 33: IRCC regularly engages with stakeholders and partners from across the country on immigration. What topic(s) would you be interested in exploring with us as part of future engagement initiatives?
Organizations Individuals
Addressing economic and labour force needs 78% 59%
Helping remove barriers to welcoming newcomers 62% 20%
Supporting immigration to rural communities across Canada 53% 27%
Supporting family reunification 30% 19%
Resettling refugees and helping those in need of protection 29% 16%
Continuing to advance reconciliation 28% 15%
Supporting the development of Francophone minority communities 27% 15%
Responding to growing global humanitarian crises 25% 16%
Other 12% 30%
Question 34: Do you agree to have your responses published in full or in part in subsequent reports?
Organizations Individuals
Yes, with full attribution – My full name and/or my organization’s name can be published 21% 10%
Yes, with partial attribution by name – Only my full name can be published 3% 4%
Yes, with partial attribution by organization – Only my organization’s name can be published 12% 0%
Yes, with anonymized contribution – My comments can be published, but without reference to either my full name or my organization’s name 46% 63%
No, I do not agree to have my written submission published at all 18% 23%

Annex B: Participating organizations

The following list includes organizations that participated in the online survey, shared written submissions, or took part in thematic conversations between June and September 2025.

Page details

2025-11-04