Across the Atlantic, an unlikely beacon of hope has emerged for correcting Western immigration excesses: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who leads the U.K.’s centre-left Labour Party. This May, he announced sweeping new rules that should set a new standard for serious immigration reform regardless of political ideology.
In Canada, though most politicians will now admit we’ve massively messed up the immigration file, their vision for fixing the problem lacks clarity and sufficient ambition. Canadian leaders would be wise to take inspiration from Starmer’s immigration overhaul for an urgent made-in-Canada reset.
In particular, the federal Conservatives should see Starmer’s mainstreaming of broad immigration reform as an opportunity to lead on a key issue Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals appear reluctant to go the distance on. Carney, for his part, should be comfortable in following in the Labour Party’s footsteps, a party that he supported and enjoyed a close working relationship with—and even endorsed—during his time in the U.K. This wouldn’t be taking cues from nativist extremists—Starmer’s move on immigration is within a political framework broadly consistent with the prime minister’s own.
But so far, on immigration, the new Liberals look a lot like the old Liberals. Carney says he’ll return immigration to “sustainable levels” by limiting temporary workers and international students to 5 percent of the total population by 2028 (down from 7.3 percent). He also pledges to cap new permanent residents to 1 percent of Canada’s population by 2027, which still equals over 415,000 new admissions—roughly a new London, Markham, or Laval—every year.
As recently as 2019, we welcomed only 341,000 new permanent residents. In 2015, it was just 271,839. By all counts, these are still incredibly elevated numbers that far exceed our already burdened housing, health care, and employment capacity.
European progressives, it seems, are ahead of their North American counterparts on the excesses of open borders.
Similarly, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives haven’t shown themselves to be significantly more serious. Their election platform pledged to “keep the rate of population growth below the rate of housing growth, job growth, and health care accessibility,” but contained no concrete formula or targets. Poilievre once said in a Juno News interview he’d like targets to return to Harper-era numbers of around 250,000 new permanent residents per year, but that number hasn’t been mentioned since, and notably didn’t make it into the official platform.
In contrast, Starmer has proposed swift, concrete measures to not just get the U.K.’s immigration numbers under control, but also increase the quality of immigrants admitted. This includes plans to raise the qualification for skilled worker visas to require a degree-level credential, demanding higher English proficiency for all newcomers, including dependents, and increasing the cost for employers to sponsor foreign workers by 32 percent. There may be a tax levied for every international student enrolled in a U.K. university, and schools will have to prove that nearly every international student starts and completes their courses. Notably, it’ll now take 10 years of residency instead of five for most migrants to apply for permanent residence.

Applicants recite the Oath of Citizenship as they become new Canadians at a citizenship ceremony in Ottawa, Thursday, March 20, 2025. Justin Tang/The Canadian Press.
If Canadian politicians don’t know where to begin on immigration reform, there’s more than enough meat coming out of Starmer’s kitchen to start chewing on. Of course, policies should be tailored to Canada’s unique needs, but many of the issues that plague Britain exist here, too. Like the U.K., we haven’t simply opened the door to too many immigrants too quickly. We’ve fundamentally changed the type of immigrant we let in, with hugely negative economic and social consequences to match.
There must be a return to immigrants who contribute to Canada’s economy and social fabric. Education, skills, language proficiency, and shared values must be prioritized again over employers’ desire for cheap labour and immigrants who want to reap the benefits of Canada with no intention of ever becoming Canadian in spirit.
Low-hanging fruit should include restoring the integrity of our historically successful points system, which was weakened dramatically under Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. Language requirements must be boosted, no matter the immigration stream. Family reunification is a noble goal, but importing often low-skilled or elderly family members isn’t a luxury Canada can afford at scale as we struggle under the burdens of health-care shortages, a looming elderly care crisis, and massive public debts funded on the backs of young Canadians.
Crucially, employers should be disincentivised from hiring foreign talent over Canadian workers, and temporary foreign workers should be stringently limited. Politicians these days love to say “buy Canadian,” but what about a push to “hire Canadian?” International students should come here to study, not to compete with Canadian youth, who are experiencing decades-high unemployment levels, for jobs.
Rampant immigration fraud and abuse of the asylum system must also be stamped out.
As they reorganize post-election, Conservatives show early signs of shifting their immigration ambitions to meet the moment. The selection of Michelle Rempel Garner, one of the party’s most formidable policy wonks and fierce communicators, as shadow minister for immigration is an encouraging move. So was the first Substack post she penned in her new role, titled “Canada’s immigration system needs massive, wholesale reform.” She seems to get it—if she’s given the leeway and microphone to vigorously fight for change.
There should be no question that we need a radically different approach to immigration. The longer politicians shy away from this reality, the more they push Canada down dangerous economic, social, and political paths. The only question is who will be the first to take Starmer’s lead and offer Canadians not just vague assurances, but bold immigration solutions to get behind?