World Education Services (WES) is a non-profit social enterprise dedicated to helping international students, immigrants, and refugees achieve their educational and career goals in the United States and Canada. The weekly roundup includes research, stories, and events of interest to the Canadian immigration and settlement community. This content has been created by WES and is reproduced here with their permission, in partnership.
On October 8, the Ontario Ministry of Health announced a significant change to the medical residency matching process in the province. Three months after the application period opened for 2026 positions, this policy shift has major implications for internationally trained physicians seeking to practice in Canada. Under the new policy, international medical graduates (IMGs) must have attended an accredited Ontario high school for at least two years to be considered in the first two rounds of the residency match. This requirement effectively excludes the majority of immigrant physicians and disproportionately favors Canadians who completed their medical education abroad.
The medical residency application process is lengthy and demanding. In the fall, candidates submit verified transcripts, required documents, and references. Interviews take place in January and February, during which programs rank their preferred candidates and applicants rank their program choices. Match results are released in March, and any unfilled positions enter a second round, opening up to the remaining pool of candidates. According to the Canadian Resident Matching Service, each province sets its own eligibility criteria. Ontario is currently the only province with this specific high school requirement. Advocates for internationally trained physicians have criticized the policy as exclusionary. In the 2024–2025 residency match cycle, 1,032 positions were awarded to Canadian medical graduates, while 432 spots went to IMGs—including both Canadians who studied abroad and immigrant physicians.
Critics also point out that the Ministry could have consulted stakeholders earlier in the year, prior to the opening of the 2026 registration in July. As it stands, many immigrant physicians already engaged in the residency application process now face limited or no viable options for continuing their path to medical practice in Canada.
After decades of generally positive public sentiment toward immigration in Canada, public opinion has shifted as negative narratives have emerged and international students are increasingly perceived as unfavourable migrants. This report offers a historical overview of the various programs and policies that have shaped the international student landscape in Canada.
International students have transitioned from one-step migration pathways to two-step processes, becoming a convenient solution to a range of challenges in Canada’s labour market, immigration system, and higher education sector. However, because international student policy spans multiple federal, provincial, and ministerial jurisdictions, it has evolved into a fragmented and disconnected landscape.
As immigration planning continues to face scrutiny, the objectives of the international student pathway remain uncoordinated and unclear. Canada now stands at a crossroads: it can either continue to manage international student policy through fragmented, short-term fixes, or invest in a coherent and principled framework—one that meets immigration goals, rebuilds public trust, and strengthens the long-term future of Canada’s higher education system.
Liberals introduce 2nd border bill with aim to quickly pass less controversial measures (CBC News)
The Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2) was first introduced to Parliament in June by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree. Aimed at strengthening border security and reforming the immigration system, the proposed legislation includes provisions such as expanding the government's authority to cancel immigration documents, increasing penalties for certain violations, and requiring service providers and organizations to share client information when necessary. From the outset, the bill faced significant criticism and backlash from organizations, legal experts, academics, and service providers.
In early October, the government quietly split Bill C-2 into two separate pieces of legislation—Bill C-2 and Bill C-12—in an effort to expedite the passage of certain measures. Under Bill C-12, some elements from the original June proposal remain, including expanding the Coast Guard’s role, tightening immigration and refugee processes, and enhancing information sharing related to sex offenders and drug enforcement. Meanwhile, the revised Bill C-2 includes provisions that would grant authorities new powers to search mail and access personal information. More than 300 civil society organizations have voiced strong opposition to Bill C-2, arguing that it threatens civil liberties, the rights of migrants and refugees, and the privacy of all Canadians. These groups are calling for both bills to be withdrawn.
OPINION | Ottawa narrows the private path for settling refugees (Globe and Mail)
For decades, Canada’s private sponsorship of refugees program has helped hundreds of thousands rebuild their lives. Launched in 1979, the program enables groups of five or more Canadians or permanent residents—as well as organizations—to sponsor refugees abroad and support their permanent resettlement in Canada. Sponsors commit to providing financial and settlement support during the first year, including housing, furniture, food, and connections to local services.
The program gained global recognition during the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015, when over 100,000 Syrians were resettled. However, in November 2024, IRCC paused new private sponsorship applications. IRCC says existing applications are being processed, and the pause is expected to lift by December 31. Yet internal documents suggest the pause could extend to 2028 to address the immigration backlog.
Critics warn this could discourage future volunteers and erode the capacity of experienced groups. Although reduced immigration targets influenced the decision, research shows privately sponsored refugees often fare better than those supported by government programs. They tend to earn more and rely less on public assistance, making the program both effective and cost-efficient. While Canada may need time to recalibrate its immigration system, its legacy of refugee support is a proven success—and should not be sidelined.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please take this short survey to help improve the KM4S web site. The survey is anonymous. Thank you for your feedback! (click on the screen anywhere (or on the x in the top right corner) to remove this pop-up)