It's not hard to notice that public sentiment in Canada toward immigration has shifted dramatically over the past few years. When I tweet something positive about immigration, I know full well that the comments will be overwhelmingly negative and searing (mind you, it's Twitter).

But this isn't just the case on social media. A 2025 survey by the Environics Institute and TMU showed that the majority of Canadians believe there's simply too much immigration. And a more recent survey by Research Co. found that almost half of Canadians — a number that is up 9% since July 2025 — believe immigration is having a mostly negative effect on the country.

While I can appreciate where this is coming from, I think it's important to keep in mind that immigrants in Canada account for approximately one-third of all business owners with paid staff. They help create jobs. And they represent the majority of business owners when it comes to sectors like restaurants, grocery stores, and truck transportation. In sectors like "computer systems design and services" it's roughly 50/50 between immigrants and Canadian-born citizens.

Some of Canada's most notable companies and brands have also been founded by immigrants: Shopify, BlackBerry, Aldo, Magna, Hakim Optical, Molson Brewery, and many others. And in the US, it is reported that at least 59 of the top 100 highest-valued unicorn startups have a foreign-born founder! So, I am of the strong opinion that Canada benefits enormously when the best and brightest choose to come to our country in search of opportunity. It boosts prosperity for everyone.

But let's consider three objections that I have heard.

The first is that immigration is good, but we stopped attracting the best and brightest. Fine; if that's the case, we should better optimize for attracting the world's top talent. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The second is that it's important to first stop the best and brightest who are already here from leaving. And I would agree that this is critical. The "brain drain" needs to be stemmed. But at the same time, these do not need to be mutually exclusive activities. In fact, it may be best to think of it as solving the same problem: increasing opportunities for everyone both attracts and retains talent.

Lastly, I hear some people talk about "cultural continuity." The argument is that economic prosperity isn't everything. We need to also think about our national identity and the value of our local customs. I believe wholeheartedly in a strong Canadian identity. I'm profoundly proud to be Canadian. But what, specifically, must be continued? What should be allowed to change?

Let's consider my favourite city in the world, Toronto.

For roughly a hundred years, Toronto was an intolerant and primarily Anglo-Protestant city. Should that still be the case today in the name of "continuity"? If so, it's likely I wouldn't have been born here. I was raised Catholic, I went to a French-speaking school, and my ethnic background is primarily Irish, French, and Chinese (via South America).

Would the Protestants of Toronto have accepted my kind? It's unlikely on three accounts. Catholics were a problem. A French school would have been viewed as a rebellious political statement. And the Chinese Exclusion Act may have precluded my bloodline before I was born. A little discontinuity has been good for me — and others.

Photo by Richard Hong on Unsplash

A few weeks ago, we spoke about the dramatic change that Toronto's East Bayfront has undergone over the last two decades. It's now a place. I also shared a time-lapse video from Waterfront Toronto showing how the Parliament Slip was landfilled in order to improve the street network in this area. If you missed it (and you like to nerd out on construction), it's worth watching.

In addition to this, Waterfront Toronto has (just?) released this interactive website showing in more detail what's planned for the Quayside area. And if you make it all the way to the end of the experience, you'll land on the below image, which shows some towers and the site earmarked for a school and potential cultural destination.

Clicking on the site leads to this pop-up:

Schools are obviously critical. Education is the number one predictor of household wealth. Build it. But I also think it's important that we take advantage of this opportunity to build a truly remarkable cultural destination on Toronto's doorstep. This is an opportunity for a globally recognized symbol that elevates the city's brand, drives tourism, and serves as an economic development catalyst.

So I would like to encourage those in charge to take this seriously. (If Globizen can help in any way, give us a call.) The right way to do it would be to host an international design competition and put the challenge to the world's best architects. This is not the time or place to be timid. Rather, it's the time and place to beat our chests. This could be a Sydney Opera House or Bilbao moment.

Actually, it could be something even greater: The Toronto Effect.

Cover photo by Antonio Gabola on Unsplash

Whether it's said out loud or not, invariably something like this comes up when talking about new housing development:

“There’s another solution,” says Lucas, mulling over the housing shortage. “I’m not saying I know what it is. Maybe the city’s full. What’s wrong with Windsor instead? Or Cornwall? A hundred years ago, manufacturing and employment were spread out way better than they are now. Everybody needing to be in Toronto and Vancouver is killing us.”

So, is Toronto full? Do we need to return our urban economies to what they were a century ago? To use rough whole numbers, let's consider that Toronto's average population density (in the city proper) is upwards of 5,000 per km2. It's much higher in the downtown core, but our low-density inner suburbs bring down the average.

Now, let's consider Paris, as we often do on this blog. Paris proper has roughly 1/6th the footprint of Toronto (again, the city proper boundary) and roughly 4x the population density (upward of 20,000 people per km2). So, if Toronto is full, what the hell is going on with Paris?

Even Paris is nowhere near full. The opportunities for intensification in central neighborhoods may not be as obvious as they are in Toronto, but urban Paris continues to grow through small-scale projects, office conversions, and, most notably, through ambitious transit projects and mixed-use developments designed to stitch together the greater urban region.

Cities do, of course, face constraints, but they're never technically "full." "Full" is generally shorthand for, "I already live here and I like the way things are, and so I would prefer no one else come and disrupt what I've presently got going on."

Because if this weren't the case, then I suppose you might hear more people say, "I really wanted to move to Toronto, but it was quite literally full. Like, absolutely no physical room for me. I couldn't do it. I would have had to sleep on the streets." Nope. We've got a space allocation for you. In fact, if you're in the market for a new home, give me a call.

Importantly, this is different from a city being, maybe, too expensive. That is not the same as not having any more room. But the two are interconnected: saying a city is full and then blocking housing because of said fullness creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of artificial scarcity. This drives up prices and can then create a false sense of being full.

Of course, in this scenario, you aren't out of land; you're out of permission to use the land differently. "Full" is a funny thing.

Cover photo by Julian Gentile on Unsplash