Century Initiative welcomes the federal government’s 2025 Budget and accompanying Immigration Levels Plan, which mark a clear shift toward “quality over quantity”—a stronger focus on permanent migration, innovation, and productivity alongside sharper reductions in temporary programs and public service spending.
The emphasis on stability and long-term planning is an important step toward restoring confidence in Canada’s immigration system. However, achieving “quality” will require more than new targets—it will depend on execution, coordination, and capacity across housing, infrastructure, and workforce systems.
“Canada’s prosperity depends on aligning population growth with the ability to house, employ, and integrate people successfully,” said Lisa Lalande, CEO of Century Initiative. “We support the move toward a more stable and predictable immigration system, but a credible plan must connect people, housing, infrastructure, and skills. Without that alignment, ambition won’t translate into delivery.”
Century Initiative has consistently called for a national population strategy that links immigration, housing, and economic policy. The Budget’s proposed investments in productivity, green industries, and credential recognition are positive steps. Yet, sharper cuts to temporary migration and the public service must be managed carefully to avoid undermining service capacity—particularly in areas like immigration processing, settlement, and infrastructure delivery.
As noted in Century Initiative’s 2025 National Scorecard on Canada’s Growth and Prosperity, long-term success depends on sustained immigration levels of 1.15–1.25 per cent of Canada’s population to offset aging demographics and maintain economic growth. Below these levels risks Canada's ability to have the tax base to fund, and the workforce it needs, to deliver the generational investments outlined in the budget.
“Canada’s next chapter depends on connecting the dots,” added Lalande. “Quality needs a plan—and that plan must link people, places, and opportunity.”
Please read further analysis here.

