Post-secondary education at the intersection of austerity and greed
Laura Morales P. (she/her) // Writer & Data Visualization
Andrei Guecco (he/him) // Illustrator
Five years ago, former Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Marco Mendicino stated, “Our message to international students and graduates is simple: we don’t just want you to study here, we want you to stay here.” Today, the gap between institutions’ operating costs and government funding, initially borne by thousands of families in the Global South who viewed tuition fees as an investment to obtain permanent residency, is now impacting colleges and universities across Canada.
In a marketized higher education system, where international recruitment was far more profitable than domestic, institutions started tailoring their programs and scaling their operations to meet an artificial demand. This demand was fueled by recruitment efforts that targeted the desire for an immigration pathway more than the appeal of Canadian education itself. Although this inequitable system has been ongoing for decades, it was only after the recent drop in international enrolment that institutions and the B.C. government were forced to address it.
Initially, the drop in international enrolment was attributed to the 2024 federal cap on student visas. However, instead of a limit, this number has become a target that is far from being met, revealing the government’s miscalculation of the impact that their 2024 policy changes and the narrative to justify them would have on new international student arrivals. Canada has received less than a third of their 2025 target number of new international student arrivals over the first nine months of this year, which was set at 305,900. With the final quarter historically accounting for less than 15 per cent, even the sharply reduced 2026 target of 155,000 new international students appears to be out of reach in 2025.
Now that the Canadian demographic is not able to keep up with the number of enrolment spots that have been created, the Courier reached out to Dr. Lisa Brunner—postdoctoral research fellow at the University of British Columbia Centre for Migration Studies—and Capilano University’s Institutional Research Department to unpack critical questions about the future of post-secondary education in Canada and CapU.
If Canada is offering less, can international tuition increase more?
As Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” This rings true for the policies and narratives around international students being shifted when convenient, as seen in the UK over a decade ago, and in Canada today. In a 2010 BBC News article, the UK Immigration Minister at the time indicated that international students were arriving to live and work rather than study, and by being more selective they would “stop this abuse.” The UK’s crackdown included proposals to eliminate the post-study work route and other measures aimed at cutting net migration in half, even though the Institute for Public Policy Research argued that “cutting the numbers of foreign students would have a limited effect on net migration levels.”
Over a decade later, the Canadian government began a consultation process about the International Student Program in 2023 which, according to Dr. Brunner, documented the government’s concern that international student recruitment had been focusing more on quantity instead of quality. “I find this very disturbing,” stated Brunner, questioning the metrics used to assess the quality of an individual person. “We can assume it’s about their economic contributions to Canada,” she said, referring not only to their contributions as students and workers, but also as potential immigrants. In line with this interpretation, by the beginning of 2024, the amount of money that applicants must demonstrate they have to qualify for a study permit more than doubled, from $10,000 to $20,635, and has continued to rise.
Although there are many similarities between the UK’s and Canada’s attempts to be more selective with the international students they receive, a key difference is how sensitive the demand is to price increases and changes in migration policies. According to the trends in international student mobility published in March, 2025 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canada has one of the highest shares of students from low and lower-middle income countries among OECD members. In contrast, about two-thirds of the UK’s share comes from high and upper-middle income countries.
As explained in Dr. Brunner’s policy brief, “expanded work and permanent residency opportunities in Canada increasingly attracted students from other countries with lower GDP per capita,” which led to a larger number of students from India, Nigeria and the Philippines. On the other hand, when the UK restricted post-study work opportunities, the number of students from India declined, but the number of students from China—driven more by credential value and China’s economic growth than by immigration pathways—grew significantly. Meanwhile, as indicated in the policy brief, China was the top source country for Canada from 2001 to 2017, but “as China’s economy grew and living standards there rose, fewer Chinese students chose Canada.”
When it comes to international students at Capilano University, the average percentage of students in the last three years coming from India is 70.3 per cent, and the second most common country of origin is Iran, with an average of 4.4 per cent (Chart 1). Consequently, significant increases and decreases in the number of students from India, has the biggest impact on CapU’s finances. For instance, the budget for 2023-24 had a $3.3 million deficit, but at the end of the fiscal year it reported a $11.6 million surplus. In contrast, the university is expecting a $7.9 million deficit for 2025-26.
According to Dr. Brunner, the government expected universities to play a filtering role, “to help select ‘high-quality’ immigrants for Canada.” Then—when international student enrolment at the college level and at less elite institutions expanded their operations far beyond what Canada’s own population needed—the government realized it couldn’t rely on a profit-driven education system to serve as a reliable filter for ‘high-quality’ immigrants. For example, the CapU’s internationalization plan published in 2021 aimed to maintain international enrolment at “no less than 30%, and no more than 40% total enrolment FTE,” but the university reported a 51.3 per cent international FTE in 2023-24, and a 48.7 per cent in 2024-25 even after the impact of the 2024 federal changes. These unsustainable recruitment levels, as well as the political pressure to address negative public opinion around immigration, led to the 2024 federal cap on study permits.
If the international student numbers received after the pandemic were not reflecting the actual demand for post-secondary education in Canada, what will be the new normal? The CSU forecasts that numbers will stabilize by 2028-29, with a 15-18 per cent reduction from 2024-25 revenue, which would be similar to their 2017-18 numbers. “We don’t reasonably foresee that our funding levels are ever returning to what they were in the last two-three years,” stated executive director Chris Girodat. However, he clarified that the CSU has always charged the same fees to domestic and international students. On the other hand, given that international tuition at CapU is 4.4 times higher on average—considering business, arts and science programs which are the most common among international students at CapU—than domestic tuition, the financial impact for the university will be greater.
Another similarity that is likely to emerge—between the UK and Canada—is the abrupt increase in domestic tuition fees after reducing the international student population and receiving recommendations from a review of the sector. The drop in domestic student acceptances the UK experienced after their tuition increased in 2012 was back to normal in less than a year, mainly because their number of entrants to higher education has maintained an upward trend over the last three decades, and the number of applicants has been consistently higher than the number of acceptances. However, if Canada were to steal a page from the UK playbook, and increase domestic tuition fees, the subsequent drop in enrolment is unlikely to recover as quickly. The recently announced review of the public post-secondary education sector, which includes the “Review of tuition policy,” acknowledges that the financial pressure experienced by post-secondary institutions are in part due to declining domestic enrolment, and this trend, according to a 2025 BCFS report, can be traced back to tuition hikes in the early 2000s.
On the other hand, since international tuition is not regulated, many institutions have already opted to further increase their tuition fees, including CapU. After the five per cent increase on international tuition for 2025-26—instead of two per cent in par with domestic tuition increase—“CapU executive is recommending a 5% increase for the 2026–27 academic year and a minimum of a 5% increase for the 2027–28 academic year,” as confirmed by the administration in an email exchange with the Courier.
The increase for next academic year was announced to students in a meeting with the university’s VP Finance and VP Strategic Planning on November 19. The VP’s presentation included the Tuition Impact Survey Outcomes, put together by the Capilano Students’ Union (CSU). Almost half of the 308 international respondents indicated that they would be “very likely to stop pursuing a post-secondary education” if the university were to approve a five per cent increase, which could be even higher.
For the five per cent increase to represent a revenue gain for CapU—considering that the headcount of international students for 2025-26 is 2721—the maximum number of students they can afford to lose is less than 130. With the CSU survey sample alone (representing 11.3 per cent of all international students), the number who indicated they would leave (149) already surpasses this break-even threshold. Despite the likelihood of it resulting in a loss, the VPs are moving forward with the decision.
Even though the province doesn’t regulate international tuition, they published the “International Student Enrolment Guidelines” in 2024. In this document, the BC government stated that public post-secondary institutions should provide “transparent tuition fee costs for the standard program requirements over the standard duration of the student’s study program, including any maximum expected increases in tuition.” Still, the disclaimer in CapU’s marketing brochures for international students stating, “Fees are subject to change without notice,” is the only form of transparency that the university has offered so far.
The Courier asked CapU’s administration if the university had faced any kind of sanction from the B.C. government for not following the International Student Enrolment Guidelines. The administrations’ response was one word: No. The Courier also asked whether CapU has a plan to address international students’ financial uncertainty—not knowing what the full cost of their program will be—in the near future. The administration responded, “CapU is committed to supporting each student through their completion pathway. Services are available to help students assess their financial situation and advise on options, including scholarships, bursaries and emergency funding. We encourage students to reach out early to explore these resources.” In an article from 2023, the Courier found that from the 336 options displayed in CapU’s scholarships, bursaries and awards search interface, international students were allowed to apply to approximately seven per cent of these options, and about one per cent were exclusively for them. This previous data will help assess the new financial aid opportunities that may be available in a future article.
Instead of measuring the quality of people, what if we measured the quality of life available to them?
For over a decade, Canada has seen an increase in their international enrolment numbers—which peaked in the years after covid—seemingly unaffected by the growing gap between international and domestic tuition. However, now that the government has abruptly changed their “Study, Work and Stay in Canada” narrative, and adjusted their filters for ‘high-quality’ immigrants, international students are likely to be more critical of what they are getting for the same inflated price (let alone the additional increases being considered). To gauge what the living conditions have been for international students in the last three years, the Courier requested some responses from the Welcome Surveys collected by the Institutional Research department at CapU.
Before the higher financial requirement and other federal changes put in place in 2024, the percentage of students who did not expect to work during the academic year was less than six per cent, while the majority expected to work between 16 and 30 hours per week, and 11 per cent more than 30 hours (Chart 2). According to the responses for 2025-26, after the increased financial requirement, 11 per cent expect not to work and 75 per cent expect to work from eight to 24 hours per week. When it comes to international students’ commute times to campus—considering exclusively one-way trips—only about 16 per cent commute for 30 minutes or less, whereas more than half indicated it takes them more than one hour (Chart 3).
On the other hand, according to Dr. Brunner’s policy brief, international students have been disproportionately working in low-wage sectors, and had “worse employment outcomes than their domestic counterpart” after graduation. Moreover, international students were concentrated in fields of study that were not necessarily aligned with Canada’s labour market needs; for example, an average of 60 per cent of international students at CapU have been concentrated in business, arts and sciences programs in the last three years. Lastly, like most newcomers, international students have also reported discrimination and racism in the labour market.
In 2022, Dr. Brunner published a scholarly article seeking “a more just Canadian education-migration system,” which viewed the disruption caused by the pandemic as “an opportunity to reimagine rather than to return.” Given that the 2024 federal policy changes have triggered a comparable disruption, Brunner reflected on this new opportunity to rebuild the system in a more sustainable way. “The first step is for anyone living in Canada,” she said, referring especially to those who work, study or benefit from higher education institutions, to recognize that “we all benefited from a form of exploitation of non-Canadian citizens.” According to Brunner, these benefits are often seen as something people are entitled to, rather than a set of privileges assigned randomly at birth and justified by colonial international borders.
In Dr. Brunner’s view, “the belief in citizenship as a legitimate marker to separate us versus them” is one of the key components behind the current crisis in higher education. When it comes to the role of immigration in society, she questioned, “Is it really to select the ‘best of the best’ and exploit them as much as possible to benefit Canada?”
An austerity solution for a greed problem
*The Courier supports critical analysis but does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in this segment.
According to a 2025 BCFS report, “In the 1970s and 1980s, public funding made up over 80% of institutional revenue,” but a few decades of a neoliberal tax regime later, that figure is now just 40 per cent. As explored in a previous interview with Dr. Dale McCartney, Canada has massively reorganized its tax regime to benefit the wealthy and corporations since the 1980s. In other words, the insufficient government funding has less to do with the province actively reducing allocated funding, and more to do with the province having less money to distribute in the first place.
It was already hard to justify a large-scale wealth transfer from the Global South to subsidize post-secondary education in countries of the Global North. However, if international student tuition is at an all-time high to maintain a tax regime that allows the wealthiest people in the province to hoard an even larger share of the province’s wealth, then the austerity solution that the province is considering—including the increase of domestic tuition—highlights the real problem: greed.
For instance, on October 31, 2025, the BC Green Party published a media release titled “It’s time for the ultra-wealthy to pay their fair share.” According to their calculations, the province can raise approximately $1.5 billion in annual revenue by increasing “the current top two tax brackets by 1 point,” and by adding three new personal income tax brackets for the “ultra-wealthy.” With the new tax brackets, income over $350,000 would be taxed an additional 3.5 per cent, income over $500,000 an additional 6.5 per cent, and income over $1 million an additional 9.5 per cent, which would become the highest rate at 30 per cent. To put the annual $1.5 billion of additional revenue in context, $200 million was the amount identified as the “material increase” that would address systemic issues—such as the sector’s reliance on international tuition—in the 2022 provincial funding formula review report.
Additionally, the gap between the cost of international education—the sum of all expenses involved in delivering it—and the price set by institutions is widening even more in a time when Canada is offering less. This price reflects what many students were willing to pay for a pathway to permanent residency. But, if Canadian institutions want to be chosen for the value of their credentials alone, then they must align their price with that educational value.
Lastly, students in B.C. have organized multiple protests and rallies against tuition increases in the past, which have led to a 10-year tuition freeze (from 1991 to 2001) and the two per cent cap on tuition increases in 2005. However, protests have never led to a tuition decrease, not even after the 92.6% tuition increase between 2001 and 2005 that impacted the “once steady trend of annual increases in student numbers,” as indicated by the 2025 BCFS report. In other words, if the provincial review that is underway resulted in a steep increase of domestic tuition, it is very likely to become the new normal. Reverting it would require a lot more effort than keeping the two per cent cap in place. With the review results set for release in mid-March 2026, students, faculty, staff, and any B.C. resident concerned about shifting the burden of decades of unsustainability onto students have until then to get organized.
Thank you for this clear and courageous analysis. You name what is too often obscured: the funding crisis in Canadian higher education is the result of long-standing policy choices, not sudden shifts in enrolment. Your refusal to treat austerity as inevitable and your insistence on examining who has been asked to absorb the costs offer an essential contribution to this conversation. This piece invites a more honest reckoning with equity, responsibility, and the future of post-secondary education in Canada.