Perched on a leather armchair, speaking directly to viewers, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently explained his government’s new plan to reduce immigration by roughly 20 per cent. In two videos — one in English and one in French — he outlined the broad strokes of Canadian immigration policy.

The videos are undoubtedly damage control. Trudeau faces decreasing public support for his government’s immigration policy, calls to resign as party leader, and a federal election that the Liberals are on track to lose.

Since the early 2000s, the Canadian public maintained a largely positive view on immigration. However, public opinion has recently shifted. Even though Canadians’ primary concerns remain the economy, housing and health care, when asked about immigration, a clear majority now say there is too much immigration. The exact cause of this shift remains unclear, but as demonstrated by Europe and the United States, we face potentially serious societal consequences.

As educators focused on immigration, we find Trudeau’s clear communication in the videos impressive. Immigration policy can be complex to communicate, and public attitudes are often based on inaccurate perceptions. Yet, parts of his message shift blame in troubling ways. By attempting to control the narrative with a simple story, Trudeau paints an incomplete picture and perpetuates misleading narratives about Canada’s immigrant selection, higher education and asylum systems.

Justin Trudeau outlines why his government is cutting immigration to Canada.

Increasingly permanent “temporary” residents

In 2022 and 2023, Canada saw the highest annual population growth rates since 1957. While migration has consistently driven Canada’s population growth since 1999, the growth during these two years was uniquely driven by temporary residents, such as migrant workers and international students.

Temporary residents feature prominently in the video, with Trudeau claiming that “most return home” and have “never been a part of the long-term immigration plan.” However, since the late 1990s, both Liberal and Conservative governments increasingly relied on the “rapid expansion” of two-step immigration — that is, bringing in temporary students and workers, then selecting some already in Canada for permanent status.

In other words, many temporary residents do stay. In fact, since the mid-2010s, the majority of permanent residents coming through economic selection streams were two-step immigrants. This rose to 78 per cent in 2021 as the COVID-19 pandemic shut down much international travel.

That same year, then Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Marco Mendicino, said that Canada’s “message to international students and graduates is simple: we don’t just want you to study here, we want you to stay here.”

Today, the federal government’s official website for prospective international students still states: “Many international students and their families have made Canada their home and become citizens. You could too!”

The active recruitment of both international students and workers is also at odds with what some call scapegoating by politicians in both the government and opposition.

Since mid-2023, temporary residents — and international students in particular — have been repeatedly and explicitly linked to Canada’s housing affordability crisis. Although Canada is decreasing its temporary resident population through capping study permits and restricting work permits, two-step immigration remains a key part of Canada’s permanent residency selection system. Many temporary residents understandably expect to remain in Canada.

Blaming higher education

Trudeau also claims that “far too many colleges and universities used international students to raise their bottom line…because they could charge these students tens of thousands of dollars more for the same degree.”

Yes, many schools welcomed many international students. And yes, they unquestionably benefit from higher international student tuition fees, raising deeply problematic ethical issues.

However, schools are not implicated equally. Recent international student growth was disproportionately concentrated in a handful of institutions. And one root problem is a much larger issue: declining public funding for higher education, across political parties, since the 1970s.

Trudeau also fails to mention Canada’s 2014-19 and 2019-24 federal International Education Strategies, both of which stressed international students’ economic contributions.

Given the current precarity of Canadian public higher education, now is the time to call for more resources and defend its value — not point fingers as a deflection technique.

Students at the University of British Columbia’s campus in Vancouver, B.C. Governments should provide more support to higher education, not finger point at international students. (Shutterstock)

Glossing over deportation

Finally, Trudeau tells viewers that “some temporary residents may turn to our asylum system when their visa expires as a shortcut to stay in Canada,” but “if their claim fails, they’ll be sent home.” This sounds straightforward. But it masks a complex concern: A large number of temporary residents were encouraged to choose Canada, asked to make significant sacrifices and told they could stay.

Many now have no legal path to do so. It is no surprise that some, desperate to remain where they have built lives and community, may turn to seeking asylum. Those who do not, or whose claims are rejected, may become undocumented — living increasingly precarious lives.

In May, Trudeau called for a pathway to regularize undocumented migrants’ status. By August, the government said it has no plans to do so due to a lack of public support. Linking asylum claims to fraud risks undermining Canada’s humanitarian values at a time of decreased public trust in asylum claimants.

Simplicity can illuminate or obscure

Trudeau’s videos outline a quick fix to what he appears to suggest are minor policy mistakes. But simplicity can obscure as much as it illuminates. Temporary migration has been a longstanding pathway to permanent residence and citizenship. Public schools are not easy villains. Failed asylum claims are not ordinary bureaucratic decision-making. These policies are complex, as are the consequences for millions of people.

Ultimately, the new immigration plan may not last long. If elected, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has made vague promises to link population growth to the “availability of jobs, homes, and health care” — though what this actually means is unclear. For now, Trudeau’s goal appears to be to prevent public attitudes on immigration from fracturing further and preserve his legacy.

Yet this does not excuse the federal government for shifting the blame. Trudeau’s strongest critique is reserved for “really bad actors who outright exploit people” and “target vulnerable immigrants with promises of jobs, diplomas and easy pathways to citizenship — promises that would never come true.” Is he describing his own government?