Canada's immigration backlash grew fast after 2022. New polls show it easing, but still high

Canadians turned sharply against immigration after 2022. Ottawa responded by cutting its targets. The newest polls show the backlash easing, but concern is still high, and the next national immigration plan is due in Thursday's federal budget.

That sequence is the core of the story. The Environics Institute reported on October 26 that 48 percent of Canadians now say the country has too much immigration. That is down from 58 percent in 2024, but far above the 27 percent recorded in 2022. A statement that "anti-immigration sentiment is rising" would have been accurate in 2023 and 2024. On the evidence available this week, the better description is a high plateau that has begun to slip.

This article reviews the polling, the federal and provincial policy changes, the housing and economic evidence, and the positions of the main parties. It also covers organized activity on the margins of the debate and the arguments from economists, business groups and settlement groups. Every figure below comes from a page opened for this report. Where sources disagree or a claim could not be checked, the text says so. See the Canada issue guide for background on the country's politics and the methodology page for how 567politics handles polls.

What the polls show

No single poll settles the question, because pollsters word questions differently and use different methods. The trend, though, is consistent across several sources.

The Environics Institute for Survey Research and the Diversity Institute at Toronto Metropolitan University run the long-running Focus Canada series. Its 2026 survey interviewed 2,000 adults by telephone from September 8 to 21. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The report says opposition to immigration doubled between 2022 and 2024, from 27 percent to 58 percent. It says opinion has "begun to swing back toward more openness," and adds that views "remain more negative than they were prior to the shift that began in 2023."

According to the summary from the Diversity Institute, 48 percent now say there is too much immigration. Another 48 percent disagree. The share was 56 percent in 2025. In the same survey, 75 percent agree that immigration has a positive effect on the economy, and 68 percent reject the idea that immigrants take jobs from other Canadians, up eight points from 2025.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, known as IRCC, tracks the same question over a longer period. Its transition binder for 2026 reports that the share saying there are too many immigrants fell from 46 percent in 1996 to 22 percent in 2020, stayed at 22 percent in March 2023, and then jumped to 54 percent in November 2024. It was 47 percent in November 2025. The binder calls the 2023 and 2024 shift "significant" and describes a "slight recovery" in 2025.

0%

20%

40%

60%

199646%

199741%

200236%

200529%

200926%

202022%

Mar 202322%

Nov 202454%

Nov 202547%

199620022009Mar 2023Nov 2025

Source: IRCC transition binder 2026, Annual Tracking Telephone Survey

Show the numbers

Year	Too many immigrants
1996	46%
1997	41%
2002	36%
2005	29%
2009	26%
2020	22%
Mar 2023	22%
Nov 2024	54%
Nov 2025	47%

Other pollsters show a similar arc, with caveats about comparing across firms:

The EKOS result comes from a summary by The Canada Brief. It also found 31 percent saying the number is about right and 13 percent saying there are not enough. The comparison with Leger's 58 percent, a 13-point drop, links two different firms, so the exact size of the change is uncertain. The Leger survey was published by the Association for Canadian Studies and found a fall from 65 percent to 58 percent after the government cut its 2025 target.

Abacus Data's survey asked a different question. It found 49 percent of Canadians viewing immigration negatively and 26 percent positively, almost unchanged from 50 percent negative a year earlier. Abacus paid for its own survey and used online panels. It also found 67 percent calling the 2026 target of 380,000 permanent residents too high, down from 72 percent when it tested the older 500,000 figure in November 2024. Because the wording of a "negative view" and a "too high" target differs from "too much immigration," these numbers should not be set side by side as a trend.

The Angus Reid Institute did not publish a national "too many immigrants" figure in the material reviewed for this article. Its most recent immigration release in the sources reviewed was a poll of Albertans, covered below.

What people say is behind the concern

Environics asked people who say there is too much immigration why they think so. Twenty-eight percent cited poor management of the immigration system, 28 percent cited jobs or the economy, and 26 percent cited housing prices. The housing figure was 38 percent in 2023. The percentages apply only to those who said there is too much immigration, and they describe perceptions, not measured effects.

IRCC's own tracking data point the same way. In August 2025, 56 percent agreed that immigration puts too much pressure on housing prices in their city or town, up from 34 percent in March 2022 and down from 61 percent in June 2024. Sixty-three percent agreed that immigration has put too much pressure on public services. Only 22 percent agreed the immigration system is well managed overall. In January 2026, 41 percent said the government was on the wrong track on immigration and 26 percent said it was on the right track. Even so, only 7 percent named immigration as the one issue that deserves the most government attention. The economy and jobs drew 19 percent, and cost of living and housing drew 17 percent.

Abacus found a similar pattern. Among its respondents, 69 percent said immigration hurts the cost and availability of housing. When asked why the system is not working, 51 percent pointed to insufficient housing and infrastructure and 47 percent to strain on public services. Abacus read those answers as a "scarcity" concern, not a cultural one. That is the pollster's interpretation. Poll answers like these show what people believe, and the housing section below tests the underlying claims.

Opinion splits along party and regional lines. In the Environics survey, 80 percent of NDP supporters and 64 percent of Liberal supporters disagree that Canada takes in too many immigrants, compared with only 20 percent of Conservative supporters. On the economic effect, 87 percent of Liberal supporters and 86 percent of NDP supporters see a positive impact. Conservative supporters are split, 50 percent positive and 45 percent negative.

By region, Immigrer.com, summarizing a Le Devoir report, says Quebec had the lowest share saying there is too much immigration in Canada, at 43 percent, down eight points. Alberta had the highest, at 58 percent. In the EKOS poll, people born outside Canada were less likely to say there are too many immigrants, 35 percent, than people born in Canada, 47 percent.

How the numbers changed: targets, arrivals and temporary residents

The federal government started cutting in 2024. Under the plan announced that October, the 2025 target for permanent residents fell from 500,000 to 395,000, according to the Association for Canadian Studies. The 2026 to 2028 levels plan, released with the November 2025 budget, holds permanent resident admissions at 380,000 a year, with a planning range of 350,000 to 420,000. It raises the economic share of admissions to 64 percent by 2027.

For temporary residents, the plan sets targets for new arrivals of 385,000 in 2026 and 370,000 in 2027 and 2028. Those totals include 155,000 students in 2026 and 150,000 a year after that. The Canadian Council for Refugees said that temporary resident figure compares with 516,600 in the 2025 plan. The government also set a goal of bringing the temporary population below 5 percent of the total population by the end of 2027. The plan also includes two one-time measures outside the 380,000 target. One streamlines permanent residence for about 115,000 protected persons already in Canada over two years. The other speeds up the move to permanent residence for up to 33,000 temporary workers in 2026 and 2027. The Canadian Press put the combined figure at about 148,000.

The effects show up in Statistics Canada's September 23 estimates:

• Canada's population reached 41,798,407 on July 1, 2026, up 189,425 people, or 0.5 percent, in a year. That is the lowest July-to-July growth rate since 1915-16.
• The number of non-permanent residents fell by 154,614 to 2,779,774, or 6.7 percent of the population. That is the largest annual drop since comparable records began in 1971-72. It is down from a peak of 2,984,285, or 7.2 percent, on October 1, 2024.
• Study permit holders fell by 140,827 and holders of work and study permits by 81,163.
• New permanent immigrants numbered 368,224 in 2025-26, the fourth straight annual decline and the first total under 400,000 since 2021-22.

0%

1%

2%

3%

2021/221.8%

2022/232.7%

2023/242.8%

2024/251.1%

2025/260.5%

2021/222022/232023/242024/252025/26

Source: Statistics Canada, The Daily, Sept. 23, 2026

Show the numbers

Period	Growth
2021/22	1.8%
2022/23	2.7%
2023/24	2.8%
2024/25	1.1%
2025/26	0.5%

Statistics Canada said the population changes since 2020 are "almost entirely attributable to changes in international migration." It also said it made a larger-than-usual revision this year because newer data showed more permit extensions than the earlier data did. The Hub reported that the revision added roughly 300,000 people to the earlier estimate. It cited an RBC Economics analysis attributing about 80 percent of the change to non-permanent residents. The Hub also quoted former Statistics Canada analyst Philip Cross calling such a large correction "very unusual." Statistics Canada's own release does not give a single figure for the size of the revision.

The revision matters politically. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said the government "under-reported the number of people here by 300 thousand people." He offered two possible explanations, that officials cannot track who is in the country or that they were not honest about the number. Statistics Canada's release describes a data update tied to permit extensions that earlier records had not captured. It does not address anyone's motives, and the other documents reviewed do not either.

The current plan is also being tested against its own goal. The temporary population stands at 6.7 percent. Reaching 5 percent by the end of 2027 would require a much larger drop. University of Waterloo economist Mikal Skuterud told The Canadian Press the figure suggests the government will have a hard time meeting that goal. Parisa Mahboubi, who chairs the C.D. Howe Institute's immigration targets council, said it is hard to estimate the temporary population because of limited exit tracking and because some people overstay or become permanent residents.

What comes next

Prime Minister Mark Carney told the New York Times in an interview, reported by The Canadian Press on September 29, that the question is now "when do we resume some controlled increase in the population, which is the nature of Canada." He said the government wants to be sure the system is "under control" first. In July he had said the government had "taken back control." A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Lena Diab said the 2027 to 2029 plan will "ensure immigration remains at sustainable levels." The spokesperson pointed to an October 2025 TD Bank report suggesting lower immigration is easing housing pressure.

The law requires the plan by November 1, with a grace period when that date falls on a weekend. A government source told The Canadian Press that the update will be in the budget Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne tables on Thursday, November 5. Champagne said Canada once brought in more people than public services could handle or communities could absorb. No new targets had been published as of this writing, so any claim about what the plan will contain is unverified. The budget context includes a recent rate increase and a dispute over deficits.

The C.D. Howe Institute's immigration targets council, which includes academics and former Alberta premier Jason Kenney, recommends admitting 380,000 permanent residents next year, 350,000 in 2028 and 340,000 in 2029. It also recommends treating the 5 percent temporary population goal as a ceiling and aiming for 3 percent. Skuterud said the panel is still recommending historically high immigration, at about 0.9 percent of the population.

Housing and affordability

Housing is the most common reason people give for wanting lower immigration, so it is worth checking what the data show.

The Bank of Canada, in an October 8 explainer, said population growth of as much as 3 percent a year in the early 2020s helped ease worker shortages, but "it also increased pressure on housing and social services." The bank noted that housing supply responds slowly. It said fewer arrivals "could lower pressure on housing costs," while also meaning fewer workers and weaker demand for goods and services.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's mid-year rental update, published June 9, shows a mixed picture:

• Asking rents for two-bedroom apartments kept falling in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary. Ottawa joined that group, with asking rents falling since the second quarter of 2025.
• Landlords told CMHC the main driver was new supply. In Toronto and Vancouver they also pointed to a surge of rented condominiums. Landlords were offering incentives, in some cases several months of free rent.
• Average rents paid on occupied units kept rising, because rents jump when a tenant leaves.
• Vacancy was highest in buildings completed after 2020 and in units near colleges and universities.
• Affordability for existing tenants worsened in most major markets in early 2026. Edmonton and Toronto were exceptions.

CMHC's report does not tie the rent trends to immigration cuts alone. It credits supply growth first and slower demand second. That matters for two arguments in the debate. One holds that high immigration drove housing costs up. The other holds that blaming newcomers for housing is misplaced. The CMHC data support part of each: demand pressure from fast population growth is a documented concern, and supply is the main stated reason rents are now easing. Neither argument is settled by one report.

The Hub, citing CMHC's fall supply report, wrote that Canada needs 417,000 to 469,000 new homes a year to restore 2019-level affordability by 2036, which implies a yearly shortfall of 187,000 to 238,000. It also reported a forecast that housing starts will fall from 259,028 last year to 241,400 in 2026. Those figures come from a secondary source, and the CMHC report itself was not reviewed for this article.

International students sit in the middle of the housing debate. Statistics Canada's age data show the number of people in their 20s fell by 154,973 in the past year, which it called consistent with the drop in study permits.

Where the parties stand

Liberal government. The government says it has restored control. The 2026 to 2028 plan holds permanent admissions at 380,000 and cuts temporary arrivals. Carney has said a controlled increase will come once the system is stable, calling it "the nature of Canada." Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said the government has reduced levels since 2024 to "stabilize" supports for all Canadians, after U.S. President Donald Trump said Canada was "destroying itself" by letting in "millions" of people without proper security checks. CBC News reported that federal ministers called Trump's views inaccurate.

Conservatives. Poilievre said in July 2025 that he wants "very hard caps" and "more people leaving than coming" for a couple of years while Canada catches up, according to CBC News. CBC noted that the previous government did not have an "open border" policy, which was Poilievre's phrase. On September 30, 2026, immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner said targets must go "way down" and described the Liberals as "allowing too many people in too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up." She did not name a number. She said targets should match the country's capacity to provide services, housing and jobs. In a statement after Alberta's referendum, Poilievre said the party would "cap immigration," cut the numbers "way down," end publicly funded benefits for people without legal status and give provinces control over "selection and numbers." The party has not published a numerical permanent resident target.

New Democrats. Avi Lewis, who won the NDP leadership in late March, said in an interview published by The Walrus, under the headline "NDP Leader Avi Lewis Wants to Reverse Carney's Immigration Cuts," that he wants a single-tier system based on permanent residency on arrival and an end to work permits tied to one employer. He called blaming international students for the housing crisis "disgusting" and called for non-market, co-operative and non-profit housing. His claims that 3,000 people lose their immigration status each day and that 1 million applications are stuck are his own figures, and this article did not verify them.

Bloc Québécois. In an April 2025 statement, Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet called for moving "all" immigration powers to Quebec, continuing consultation on Quebec's reception capacity before targets are set, and regional and sector-based work permits. He said only Quebec can decide its capacity to house, care for, educate and integrate newcomers in French. This article did not find a more recent Bloc statement.

People's Party of Canada. The party led by Maxime Bernier calls in its policy statement for a moratorium on new permanent residents "for as many years as necessary" until the housing crisis has cooled and the economic effects of "mass immigration" have been "neutralized." After that it would admit 100,000 to 150,000 a year. It would deport temporary workers, students, asylum seekers and visitors who stay after their visas expire or whose applications are rejected, stop granting citizenship to babies born in Canada to foreign parents and leave the UN's Global Compact for Migration. The page says it was updated in December 2024.

The camps are not uniform. The C.D. Howe council's recommended 380,000 for 2027 matches the current plan, while the Conservatives want numbers cut "way down." The NDP wants the cuts reversed, while the Liberals say the cuts restored control.

Provinces: Alberta and Quebec

Provincial governments run the services that newcomers use, and they have moved faster than Ottawa on some measures.

Alberta. Premier Danielle Smith's government put five immigration questions to voters on October 19. All five passed, according to Elections Alberta. The results of the immigration questions are not binding. The tallies were:

A fifth question, on proof of citizenship to vote, passed with 58.06 percent. The same ballot asked whether Alberta should start the legal process toward a binding separation referendum. Voters said no, 74.95 percent to 25.05 percent. Turnout was 70.4 percent.

The margins on the immigration questions were narrow. Mount Royal University political scientist Lori Williams told CBC the results do not give Smith the mandate she wanted. CBC reported that the questions were less popular in Calgary and Edmonton than in rural areas. Smith said her government will "proceed with caution" and will focus first on changes affecting economic migrants. The Angus Reid Institute's March survey of 433 Albertans found 66 percent would support restricting temporary residents' access to government-funded social services. The institute noted a margin of error of about 5 points. Before the vote, Smith had said that "throwing the doors open to anyone and everyone across the globe has flooded our classrooms, emergency rooms and social support systems with far too many people, far too quickly."

Opponents made a different case. Stephen Carter, a strategist who ran a campaign against the nine non-separation questions, said immigrants "create jobs and do jobs" and do not come to take advantage of health care or schools. Carney said immigration cooperation with the provinces can be achieved "without constitutional change."

Quebec. The province already has its own plan. Its 2026 to 2029 plan, tabled in November 2025, sets 45,000 permanent admissions in 2026. It plans 84,900 to 124,200 temporary admissions in 2026, ends the two main streams of the Quebec Experience Program and extends a pause on some temporary worker applications in Montreal and Laval through the end of 2026.

Quebec's politics changed on October 5. The Parti Québécois, led by Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, won 59 seats and will form a minority government, CBC reported. The Coalition Avenir Québec no longer has a single seat. Fragomen's summary of the Parti Québécois platform says it proposes the following, none of which is yet in effect:

• Cut non-permanent residents from more than 500,000 to 250,000–300,000 by the end of the term.
• Cut permanent admissions from about 45,000 to 35,000 a year.
• Pause permanent economic immigration directly from abroad, selecting from temporary residents already in Quebec.
• Reduce temporary foreign workers to about 40,000 and students to about 50,000.
• Ask that Quebec receive 22 percent of the country's asylum seekers.

The next annual Quebec plan is expected after the National Assembly returns in November. Polling shows a split picture in the province. Environics found Quebec had the lowest share saying Canada has too much immigration, but Leger's March 2026 survey found 71 percent of Quebec respondents supporting more provincial control. The Leger report surveyed 1,627 adults online from February 27 to March 2. It found 65 percent of Canadians support giving provinces significantly more control, with 94 percent of Bloc voters and 77 percent of Conservative voters in favor. Environics noted that its Quebec result refers to immigration to Canada as a whole, and does not measure support for Quebec's own targets.

Incidents and organized activity

The sources reviewed describe organized activity on the edge of the debate, not mass street protest. Polling gives no sign that most people who want lower numbers support such groups. This article does not treat the two as the same thing.

The Dominion Society of Canada, a non-profit registered in 2025, advocates what it calls "remigration." CBC News reported that its website lays out a plan to deport five million to nine million people, including temporary workers, permanent residents and some people born in Canada to non-citizen parents. The group planned a conference in the Hamilton area on August 29. CBC later reported that it moved to Burlington after community protests and statements against it.

Opinions about the group differ sharply. Evan Balgord, who directs the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, calls it "the political arm of the white nationalist movement." Barbara Perry of Ontario Tech University told CBC the group's arguments are "inherently racist and xenophobic." The group's founder, Daniel Tyrie, a former executive director of the People's Party, denies that its policies rest on ethnicity. He told CBC the membership "includes Canadians from a wide variety of political backgrounds and associations." He also told CBC that "posters and stickers are only the beginning" and "we are organizing, we are growing, and we are not going away."

Ottawa police said they received 18 public reports about the group's posters and stickers as of early October. They said none of the reported content constitutes a possible hate crime and that the posters, on their face, have not met the legal threshold. The city's bylaw office received four complaints and removed the materials. Balgord said he believes the group's message violates the law and asked why its leaders have not been charged. Police, in the statement CBC reported, did not say that.

Former Conservative cabinet minister Jason Kenney, who was federal immigration minister from 2008 to 2013, drew a line within the debate. He said there are "totally legitimate concerns" about "imprudent or irresponsible immigration policy," but that this is "categorically different than basing our immigration policy on race." He said the group tries to turn public concern into "a racist message." Tyrie rejects that description.

This article did not find verified national data on hate crimes or attacks against immigrants in 2026, so it makes no claim on that point.

What economists, business groups and settlement groups say

Economists broadly agree that cutting immigration slows growth in total output, but they disagree about how much that should worry policymakers.

A May 2026 paper from the C.D. Howe Institute by Don Drummond and Parisa Mahboubi projected that employment would fall about 0.3 percent in 2026, roughly 54,000 jobs, in a normally working labor market. It projected real GDP growth of 0.4 to 0.5 percent in the near term and about 1.2 percent over the long run. It estimated the level of real GDP in 2060 would be about 11.5 percent lower than under official projections. The authors wrote that these outcomes reflect "demographic constraints, not economic weakness." They added that "Canada's economy is not broken. It is adjusting," and that immigration's contribution depends on "absorptive capacity" and the mix of newcomers. They also call for higher productivity and better credential recognition.

Skuterud, a member of the institute's targets council, takes a different view of the labor argument. He cautioned that business lobbying could lead the government to treat immigration as a fix for businesses. He said firms facing a tight market could offer "higher wages" or "more attractive jobs." Business groups disagree. When the 2025 to 2027 plan was announced in October 2024, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said the cuts would shrink the labor pool and reduce Canada's ability to attract foreign investment. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said at the time there were 379,000 persistent private sector job vacancies. It called it appropriate to turn the immigration dial up or down with labor market needs, but said any "huge swings" hold significant implications for employers, workers and the economy. Both statements are from 2024, and neither group's reaction to the 2026 to 2028 plan was reviewed for this article.

The Canadian Council for Refugees welcomed a measure to give permanent residence to 115,000 protected persons but criticized cuts to refugee resettlement. It said privately sponsored refugees fall from 23,000 to 16,000 and government-assisted refugees from 15,250 to 13,250. The council also urged focusing on pathways to permanent status and open work permits for temporary workers, not cuts, citing "high levels of exploitation."

A fallacy check applies on both sides. Poilievre's remark that the Liberals pursued a "failed experiment with open borders" is a phrase CBC noted does not describe the policy: the previous government had no open-border policy, though CBC also noted admissions reached levels not seen in decades. Saying that the arrival of large numbers of newcomers caused the housing shortage ignores other factors, such as supply, which CMHC names as the main reason rents are now easing. On the other side, an argument that opposition to levels is simply prejudice does not fit the Environics and Abacus findings, where respondents mostly cite housing, jobs and management of the system. Pointing to a flawed argument does not show that its conclusion is wrong. It shows that the argument needs better evidence.

Limits of the evidence

Polls from different firms ask different questions, so cross-firm comparisons carry uncertainty. The Environics series is the cleanest trend because it repeats the same question by the same method, and it shows 58 percent in 2024 and 48 percent in 2026. No poll reviewed here was taken after the levels plan is released. Population estimates are preliminary and were revised upward this year. The Hub's account of the revision and the CMHC supply figures come from a secondary source. Parties' claims about each other, including the claim that the government lied about the population count, are attributed and not verified.

What to watch

The budget on Thursday will give the first official figures for 2027 to 2029. Quebec's new government is expected to table a plan that could move toward its campaign proposals. Alberta must decide how far to act on non-binding referendum results. For the federal political context, see 567politics coverage of Poilievre's budget demands and the December 7 by-elections.

Differing perspectives

How should Canada set its immigration levels amid public concern over housing, services and jobs?

Each position is summarized as its supporters make it, with equal weight and in alphabetical order. A summary is not an endorsement; the evidence for each is weighed in the story above.

• Avoid large swings to protect labor supply

  Who holds it: The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business

  Business groups argue that employers rely on immigration to fill persistent vacancies and that sharp cuts shrink the labor pool and weaken Canada's ability to attract investment. The Federation says adjusting levels up or down with labor market needs is reasonable, but that large swings carry significant consequences for employers, workers and the economy, so changes should be gradual and predictable.

  In their words: Canadian Federation of Independent Business ↗

• Cut levels much further

  Who holds it: The federal Conservative Party, including Leader Pierre Poilievre and immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner

  Conservatives argue that earlier admissions outran housing, health care and job supply, and that levels should come down much further until services catch up. They say the party would cap immigration, cut numbers well below current plans, end publicly funded benefits for people without legal status, and give provinces more say over selection and numbers so that arrivals match what communities can absorb.

  In their words: Conservative Party of Canada ↗

• Give Quebec control of its numbers

  Who holds it: The Bloc Québécois

  The Bloc argues that only Quebec can judge how many newcomers it can house, care for, educate and integrate in French. It says immigration powers should move fully to Quebec, that targets should follow consultation on the province's reception capacity, and that work permits should be regional or sector-based rather than tied to one employer.

  In their words: Bloc Québécois ↗

• Keep the cuts and plan a controlled increase

  Who holds it: The federal Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney

  The government says it has brought the system back under control by holding permanent resident admissions at 380,000 a year and cutting temporary arrivals. It argues that levels must stay sustainable for housing and public services, and that the question now is when to resume a controlled increase in population. It points to its multi-year levels plan and one-time measures for people already in Canada as its balanced approach.

  In their words: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada ↗

• Reverse the cuts and widen status

  Who holds it: The federal New Democratic Party under Leader Avi Lewis

  New Democrats argue that blaming newcomers for the housing crisis is wrong and that the answer is more non-market housing. They say Canada should offer permanent residency on arrival, end work permits tied to a single employer, and reverse the Carney government's cuts, so that people who live and work in Canada are not left without status or rights.

  In their words: The Walrus ↗