By Mata Press Service

Canada is entering a new phase in its immigration debate, which is being defined by sharp generational divides and mounting political tension.

A new poll shows that while many Canadians continue to value the contributions of newcomers, an increasing share, particularly older citizens, want immigration levels pulled back.

As Ottawa signals plans to curb record intake targets, this clash of views is set to shape the country’s political and cultural battles in the years ahead, according to a Research Co. survey released this week

The poll found 43% of Canadians believe immigration has a positive impact, up slightly from last year. Nearly four-in-ten (39%) see it negatively, while 18% remain unsure.

The sharpest divide is generational. More than half of Canadians aged 55 and over (51%) want fewer immigrants admitted, compared to 40% of those aged 35–54 and just 30% among younger adults.

Mario Canseco, president of Research Co., said the results underscore a clear age split.

“By a seven-to-one margin, older Canadians prefer cutting immigration levels over raising them. Younger Canadians are far more divided,” he said.

Political allegiance also shapes perceptions. Liberal (55%) and NDP (59%) voters largely see immigration as beneficial, while only 27% of Conservative supporters share that view.

Geography adds another layer.

British Columbia leads with 52% of residents viewing immigration positively, followed by Quebec (49%), Alberta (44%) and Ontario (40%). The sentiment drops in the Prairies (35%) and is lowest in Atlantic Canada (30%).

The poll also highlights differences by ancestry. Half of Canadians of European descent favour reducing immigration, compared to 36% of Indigenous respondents, 28% of South Asians, and 26% of East Asians.

Beyond numbers, Canadians remain divided on how immigration should shape the national identity. Two-in-five (40%) back a multicultural “mosaic” that preserves cultural differences, while 44% favour a “melting pot” model where newcomers assimilate.

The mosaic concept resonates strongly with NDP supporters (58%) but loses ground among Liberals (47%) and Conservatives (28%). Men, Albertans, and middle-aged Canadians are more likely to favour assimilation.

The findings come as the federal government reviews its record-high immigration targets — 485,000 newcomers in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025. With housing shortages worsening and healthcare systems under strain, Ottawa has already signalled that intake levels could be reduced starting in 2026.

The public mood mirrors that balancing act: 68% of Canadians say immigrants’ hard work makes the country stronger, yet 66% insist that newcomers should only be welcomed if they adopt Canadian values.

Canada is now growing at its fastest pace since the 1950s, driven almost entirely by immigration. The poll reveals a country at a crossroads: younger generations and urban centers leaning toward openness, older Canadians and some regions pushing for restraint.

As Ottawa recalibrates policy, the question is no longer just how many newcomers Canada should admit,   but how the nation defines itself in the process, said an immigration advocate.

Meanwhile, Canadian immigration lawyers are raising alarm over what they call an “alarming increase” in arbitrary refusals of temporary resident applications, warning that flawed decision-making at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is undermining both fairness and the country’s economic goals.

In a letter to Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab and her deputy, Dr. Harpreet Kochhar, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA) said refusals are being issued even in cases where applicants have provided comprehensive documentation showing eligibility, financial support, purpose of travel, and ties to their home country.

Instead of tailored assessments, lawyers report that IRCC officers are increasingly relying on boilerplate refusal reasons that appear disconnected from the evidence submitted. Applicants are left resubmitting files multiple times or resorting to judicial review — options that clog the system and drive up costs for both clients and taxpayers.

The concerns come as the federal government pushes to cap temporary residents at 5% of Canada’s population by 2027, part of a broader effort to bring immigration growth to “sustainable levels”. At the same time, Ottawa continues to champion immigration as a way of “attracting the best talent in the world to help build our economy.”

CILA argues that the surge in arbitrary refusals is at odds with that mandate. “The lack of procedural fairness and consistency is eroding public and professional confidence in Canada’s immigration system,” the group wrote

With refusals piling up, the number of Federal Court immigration proceedings has soared — growing 83% since 2020. Lawyers say judicial review is now one of the only options left to challenge questionable decisions, but the process is costly and burdensome.

“Judicial review is expensive, time-consuming, and creates unnecessary stress for clients,” the letter noted, adding that unfounded refusals remain in an applicant’s record and “taint their future chances of success”.

To address what it calls systemic flaws, CILA outlined a series of reforms, including:

· Creating a Data Integrity Unit within IRCC to quickly triage and correct administrative errors, modelled after a similar unit at the Canada Border Services Agency.

· Developing an early dispute resolution system, allowing errors to be resolved before reaching Federal Court.

· Reinstating the IRCC Case Management Team, eliminated in recent years, which previously gave lawyers a way to seek quick reviews of problematic decisions.

· Improving officer training and oversight around automated decision tools, which CILA says have contributed to shallow, poorly reasoned refusals.

· Establishing an Immigrant Bill of Rights and an Ombud Office for IRCC to boost accountability and improve client service, modelled after the Canada Revenue Agency’s taxpayer protections.