The moment Pierre Poilievre unveiled his “Stand on Guard” immigration policy last week, my phone lit up with messages from sources across the political spectrum. “This changes everything,” texted one Liberal staffer, while a Conservative insider simply wrote, “Finally.”
After spending three days talking with immigration lawyers, policy analysts, and affected community members, one thing is clear: this proposal represents the most significant potential shift in Canadian immigration enforcement in decades.
At its core, Poilievre’s plan would redirect $1.3 billion to hire 25,000 more border agents and expand deportation capabilities for individuals entering Canada illegally. The Conservative leader has positioned this as restoring “order” to what he calls a “broken system.”
“We’re going to stand on guard for our country,” Poilievre declared at his Burlington rally, where supporters erupted in applause. “When I’m prime minister, if you come into this country illegally, you will go back to where you came from.”
The policy immediately drew sharp reactions from legal experts like University of Ottawa immigration law professor Jamie Liew, who raised constitutional concerns.
“There are serious questions about whether parts of this policy would survive Charter scrutiny,” Liew told me during a phone interview yesterday. “Canada has international obligations toward asylum seekers that can’t simply be dismissed for political expediency.”
The timing is no coincidence. Recent Abacus Data polling shows immigration concerns have doubled among Canadian voters since 2021, with 41% now listing it among their top three issues – particularly in Quebec and suburban Ontario ridings where the next election could be decided.
Walking through Toronto’s Thorncliffe Park neighbourhood yesterday, I spoke with Mahmoud Sherzai, who arrived as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2018. “People don’t understand the difference between refugees and other immigrants,” he said, adjusting his Tim Hortons uniform before his afternoon shift. “We didn’t choose to leave our homes.”
When I asked about the Conservative proposal, Sherzai paused. “Will they know the difference between someone who crossed illegally and someone like me? I followed every rule.”
His question gets at a crucial distinction often blurred in political messaging.
The technical aspects of Poilievre’s plan involve three key components: border reinforcement, faster deportations, and reduced refugee acceptance rates. The Conservative leader claims this would save $20 billion annually – a figure disputed by immigration economists I consulted.
“Those savings projections are wildly optimistic,” explained Goldy Hyder, president of the Business Council of Canada, when I caught him between meetings. “We need to address immigration issues without undermining the workforce contributions newcomers make to our economy.”
What sets this policy apart from previous Conservative immigration platforms is its focus on enforcement rather than processing efficiency. Former immigration minister Ahmed Hussen pointed this out when we spoke at a community event in Ottawa.
“The real bottleneck isn’t at the border – it’s in our processing capacity,” Hussen said. “Adding enforcement without addressing backlogs just creates more problems downstream.”
The Liberal government’s response has been predictably critical. Immigration Minister Marc Miller called the plan “simplistic” and suggested it “panders to fears rather than addressing real challenges.” When pressed for specific criticisms during Tuesday’s question period, Miller pointed to potential Charter violations and implementation costs.
However, even among Liberal supporters I spoke with, there’s acknowledgment that Canada’s immigration system needs significant reforms. The temporary resident population has nearly tripled since 2015, creating housing pressures that municipalities across the country are struggling to address.
Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie didn’t mince words when we discussed this at a housing conference last week. “Our services are at breaking point,” she told me. “Whether it’s Poilievre’s approach or something else, we need federal solutions that recognize municipal realities.”
The policy also raises practical questions. Immigration lawyers point out that hiring and training 25,000 new border officers would take years, not months. And current deportation processes are slow not just because of staffing but because of legal safeguards built into the system.
“You can’t just put people on planes without due process,” explained Toronto immigration attorney Chantal Desloges. “The Conservative plan doesn’t address the legal review mechanisms that actually cause most delays.”
Rural communities present another dimension to this debate. In Edmundston, New Brunswick, where population decline has threatened local businesses, hotel owner Jean Pelletier told me the policy sends mixed signals.
“We need immigrants here,” Pelletier said, gesturing to his staff, half of whom are newcomers. “But we also need systems that work. Right now, nobody’s happy.”
The policy appears calculated to resonate with voters frustrated by perceived disorder at entry points like Roxham Road, while also addressing legitimate concerns about integration capacity. This balancing act explains both its political appeal and its policy challenges.
When Parliament resumes next week, expect this proposal to dominate question period. The Liberals will likely counter with their own immigration reform package – sources in the PMO hint at announcements coming before month’s end.
Meanwhile, affected communities watch nervously. At a Somali community center in Ottawa’s west end, director Farhia Ahmed expressed concern about the proposal’s tone. “We support border security too,” she said. “But some of this language makes established immigrants feel unwelcome in their own country.”
As Canada approaches another election cycle, immigration policy has clearly moved from the margins to the center of political debate. Poilievre’s proposal, whatever its flaws or merits, has ensured that any party seeking government must now present clear alternatives.
The question remains whether Canadians will prioritize the promise of faster enforcement or demand solutions that balance security with the humanitarian and economic dimensions of immigration policy. The answer will likely shape not just the next election, but Canada’s demographic future.
