Ottawa Moves to Expand Premiers’ Immigration Powers, With Caution

First, list of detected resources in order of appearance:
1. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) — multiple mentions
2. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) official site for updates — provided URL
3. Provincial Nominee Program (PNP)
4. Economic Mobility Pathways (named as pilot)
5. Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP)
6. Spousal Open Work Permit (SOWP)

I have added up to five verified .gov links, linking only the first in-body mention of each resource per the instructions. No other content or formatting was changed.

(OTTAWA) Canada’s tense debate over immigration control has moved from quiet federal-provincial talks to the centre of national politics, with premiers pressing for more say and Ottawa signaling room to negotiate while holding the line on core federal powers. As of September 12, 2025, no formal devolution of immigration authority has been granted to any province, yet pressure is mounting after a combative summer in which premiers warned they may act on their own if the federal government refuses to share more tools.

At stake is who decides how many workers and families can come, who issues work permits, and how fast newcomers can fill gaps in local labour markets.

Ontario leads the push

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has become the loudest voice in this push. At a July gathering of the Council of the Federation, he pledged to move ahead with Ontario-issued work permits, arguing that delays in federal processing—and the costs cities and provinces shoulder to house and support new arrivals—leave little choice.

He said, “We will be issuing our own work permits. We aren’t going to sit around and wait for the federal government,” invoking Section 95 of the Constitution, which sets out shared jurisdiction over immigration. Ford’s message resonated with several premiers who say the current system asks provinces to handle fallout from decisions they don’t control.

Ottawa’s official position remains firm: work permits and overall intake targets are federal responsibilities. Prime Minister Mark Carney has signaled he welcomes deeper provincial input, especially around economic selection streams, but Immigration Minister Lena Metlege has stressed the need to keep one national system to ensure fairness and effective enforcement across the country. That split—an open prime minister and a minister defending a single architecture—now shapes the public debate.

Quebec’s model and its limits

Quebec’s long-standing arrangement looms over the conversation. Under a federal-provincial agreement rooted in the early 1990s, Quebec selects most of its economic immigrants and sets its own criteria, especially on language.

Other premiers point to Quebec as a working model of deeper provincial authority. Quebec Premier François Legault is seeking even more room to reduce temporary migrants in Montreal and Laval. The Quebec example shows how far agreements can go, but also highlights risks: the deeper the provincial role, the harder it becomes to keep a unified national framework that serves families, employers, and border enforcement.

Pressure builds at the Council of the Federation

The Council meeting on July 24, 2025 became a flashpoint. A bloc of premiers, led by Doug Ford, asked for powers that would have been unthinkable a decade ago:
1. The ability to issue work permits.
2. The ability to set economic immigration levels tailored to their regions.

Ontario’s pitch tied to immediate realities: with nearly 100,000 asylum seekers housed in hotels, Ford argues Ontario can’t carry rising costs while waiting on federal timelines. He says the province knows its labour needs best and can place people faster in roles hospitals, farms, construction sites, and factories struggle to fill.

Manitoba’s Premier Wab Kinew warned that recent cuts to provincial nomination channels have intensified worker shortages in smaller communities. Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia share a view: the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) is their main valve to shape migration, and reducing its flow hurts local economies.

Provincial calls extend beyond permanent pathways. Premiers want:
– More say over temporary foreign worker slots.
– Tighter ties between nominee caps and local job data.
– Faster transitions from temporary to permanent status.

They argue provinces can build pipelines to jobs and provide settlement support that fits local realities, while Ottawa focuses on border security, asylum processing, and removal orders.

The federal levels plan and its consequences

The federal government’s levels plan (set October 2024 for 2025–2027) shaped much of the debate:
– Permanent resident target: 395,000 in 2025.
– Further reductions planned for 2026 and 2027.
– A target to keep temporary residents at no more than 5% of Canada’s population by end of 2026.

Provinces see those caps as blunt instruments that ignore regional differences. Examples:
– In rural Manitoba or northern Ontario, a few hundred workers can keep a hospital or food processor functioning.
– In large cities, housing and transit pressures frame a different set of concerns.

The structural mismatch is clear: provinces shoulder local costs (temporary housing, schools, health care) while Ottawa controls the tap. When federal processing lags, the human effects fall on provincial and municipal systems.

Current rules (as of Sept 12, 2025) — what remains federal

Despite the push, rules have not changed:
– Federal government sets overall intake targets and issues all work permits.
– Provinces can nominate through the PNP, but PNP allocations were cut by 50% in 2024.
– A new rule requires 75% of nominations go to candidates already in Canada, limiting provinces’ ability to recruit abroad.

Impacts of these changes:
– Limits provinces’ use of PNP to target newcomers overseas.
– Rural employers (nurses, welders, heavy-equipment mechanics) face recruitment challenges.
– Smaller communities that relied on overseas nominees see fewer new families and slower growth.

Ottawa has introduced new and updated pathways amid lower targets:
– Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot slated to become permanent by the end of 2025.
– New work-permit streams for agriculture and fish processing.
– Adjustments to Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) and Spousal Open Work Permit (SOWP) rules.

The federal argument: prioritize people already in Canada who are likely to settle. Provinces counter that those steps still leave them short of specialized workers they need from abroad.

Legal, practical, and policy concerns

Legal and practical barriers limit provincial unilateral action:
– Provinces don’t control border controls, removal orders, or national security screening.
– If provinces issued permits not recognized by Ottawa, workers could be in legal limbo.
– The PNP already gives provinces influence over permanent residence, especially in skilled streams, and could be adjusted without creating rival systems.

Policy experts warn:
– Devolving authority beyond existing PNP tools could fragment the system.
– New provincial permit regimes risk a patchwork of rules across provinces.
– Any major shift must account for Ottawa’s deportation authority and national enforcement.

Many experts say careful, measured adjustments—such as flexible PNP caps, faster federal processing tied to provincial job data, and tailored settlement funding—could ease pressure without fracturing national coherence.

Settlement funding and provincial costs

Settlement funding is another battleground. Provinces seek more federal dollars for:
– Housing
– Language classes
– Job matching and settlement services

Federal response: settlement funding has grown and must be spread across the country. Provinces counter that high-cost urban centres—Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver—absorb the greatest pressures and need more immediate help.

Manitoba’s experience underlines ripple effects:
– Halving PNP allocations in 2024 means fewer families settling in towns with community programs built around newcomers.
– Employers shelving expansion plans due to reduced nominee flows.
– Longer and murkier timelines to permanent residence for internationally recruited nurses.

Risks of uncoordinated provincial action

Some premiers and municipal leaders warn of unintended consequences:
– If provinces control selection without coordination, newcomers may cluster in large cities, increasing housing pressure.
– Provinces could undercut each other with softer rules, creating a race-to-the-bottom.
– Unilateral provincial permits without federal recognition could confuse employers and put workers at risk.

Policy experts advocate for:
– Incremental adjustments (e.g., expanded PNP caps tied to verified demand).
– Faster federal processing that uses provincial labour data.
– Targeted settlement funding for municipalities carrying heavier loads.

Federal incremental moves and provincial response

Ottawa has signalled progress through incremental measures:
– Making Economic Mobility Pathways permanent by end of 2025.
– New streams targeting agriculture and fish processing.
– Adjustments to PGWP and SOWP rules to better link study, work, and family life to long-term outcomes.

Federal claim: these moves help while maintaining one set of rules across provinces. Provinces say steps are too small for the scale of their needs.

What negotiations might yield

Likely areas for compromise include:
– Expanded PNP allocations tied to proven local demand.
– Faster federal processing aligned with provincial job data.
– Targeted funding for municipalities and service providers handling housing and settlement.
– Creation of tailored work permit streams in high-need sectors, while keeping federal control of status and enforcement.

Provinces (e.g., Ontario) may keep applying pressure with plans on paper to issue their own permits even if such permits lack federal authorization. That political pressure could be the principal driver of compromise.

Practical implications for newcomers and employers

For those planning to move and for employers:
– The federal government continues to set levels and issue work permits.
– Provinces nominate under the PNP within federal caps; Quebec operates under its special agreement.
– Follow updates from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and monitor provincial nomination pathways.

IRCC official site for updates: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)

Experts (per VisaVerge.com) highlight that:
– The clash is as much about timing as authority—provinces want faster matches between people and jobs; Ottawa wants steady, fair intake.
– Careful expansion of nominee caps tied to local data could meet many provincial goals without creating parallel permit systems.
– Unilateral provincial actions risk confusion and harm to workers and employers.

Political outlook and near-term expectations

The political stakes are high because immigration affects everyday services—hospitals, schools, housing, transit, and markets. The balance between provincial demands and federal authority will drive negotiations through the fall and winter.

Key actors to watch:
– Doug Ford (Ontario) pushing for more provincial tools.
– Wab Kinew (Manitoba) demanding restored nominee numbers.
– François Legault (Quebec) guarding and expanding Quebec’s distinct space.
– Federal leaders (PM Mark Carney, Minister Lena Metlege) defending a single national framework while negotiating provincial input.

As of today:
– No formal devolution yet.
– The PNP remains the main provincial lever, operating with tighter conditions.
– Work permits remain federal.
– Federal levels plan is in force (lower permanent targets and a ceiling on temporary residents).
– New pathways are being piloted and refined, with some slated for permanence by year’s end.

For now, people considering moving and employers looking to hire should assume the existing system applies. Track IRCC updates for changes to intake caps or pathway rules, and watch provincial announcements for nominee intake windows and any bilateral tweaks or added funding.

Key takeaway: The debate will continue. Negotiations are likely to produce tweaks—more PNP flexibility, faster processing, and targeted funding—rather than an immediate, formal shift of immigration authority from Ottawa to the provinces.