Chris Busch is the AVP of Enrolment Management and Senior International Officer at the University of Windsor, where he leads strategic enrolment and international initiatives.
There's recent reports coming out that indicate a 35% drop in international interest when it comes to studying in Canada. What do you see happening with Canada's international reputation going forward and how that impacts universities?
First, statistics about a 35% decrease may be fictitious. It could be more significant than that. The changes introduced by the IRCC are substantial, but I don't think anyone has fully grasped the magnitude or the final impact of those changes yet.
As you know, IRCC decided to reduce the number of study permit applications, believing the influx of students could have been more sustainable. They also felt the academic experience needed to meet expectations, particularly at specific institutions. Housing pressures were another concern. However, their heavy-handed approach has damaged Canada's reputation as a welcoming destination, even though we still need international talent.
I recently traveled to India and other parts of Asia, and prospective students, applicants, and agents are confused. They don’t fully understand the changes or their implications, and communication from IRCC hasn’t been as clear as it could be. There’s a lot of uncertainty across the whole ecosystem.
The impact on Canada’s post-secondary sector is going to be huge. The last estimate put international education at $39 billion in export value, according to Global Affairs Canada. I suspect that it'll be a blessing if we hit even half of that by 2025. Right now, the only thing keeping things afloat is the positive experience of current students. But attracting new students is hard when there’s so much uncertainty – students don’t know what rules will be in place a year from now. They’re holding back, and understandably so.
Would you risk your family’s savings on such an uncertain future? That’s the kind of dilemma students face, pushing them toward other markets or making them delay their plans.
Without expecting you to have all the answers, what do you think is the way forward? How can Canada restore its reputation?
That’s the million-dollar question. The real issue is figuring out who owns the “Canada” educational brand.
Right now, EduCanada, which is part of the Trade Commission, has been instructed to downplay and de-resource anything that supports the EduCanada brand. Instead of focusing on recruitment, they’re focusing on academic partnerships. However, Global Affairs Canada is ultimately responsible for the international education brand. If they aren’t willing to fix the damage or reimagine the future, other organizations must step up.
The Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) could take a leadership role. They already represent the entire sector: K-12, colleges, and universities, both public and private. With a unifying force like that, the industry stays cohesive. Colleges and Institutes Canada (CICAN) is pulling in one direction, Languages Canada in another, and every association is doing its own thing.
Strategically, we need the ministers of education from across the provinces and the federal government to sit down and decide on a way forward. Unfortunately, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) hasn’t been particularly collaborative – either among themselves or with the federal government. Without a clear strategy, we’re going to fall behind. We were once market leaders, but if this keeps up, we’ll be overtaken.
“The real issue is that IRCC is acting like Canada’s Ministry of Education without fully understanding the sector or consulting with it.”
With all the visa caps limiting new students, are universities focusing more on retention strategies to ensure current students complete their programs?
First, you have to think about the fact that, at least at Canadian public universities, international retention has been relatively easy. Primarily for graduate students, they’re making intentional decisions when they choose where and what to study, and they’ve invested heavily in their education.
Regarding retention, the real challenge isn’t students abandoning their programs but transferring to other institutions. Universities often don’t track where these students go, which makes it harder to address the issue.
Most of our international students are in graduate programs at the University of Windsor, and their retention rate is higher than that of domestic graduate students. Domestic students often leave programs due to life changes, financial pressures, or job opportunities. But international students usually stay the course.
For undergraduates, though, we might see some retention challenges. A key issue is the transition from education to the workforce. If students don’t see a clear path from their academic program into employment – and possibly settlement – they may choose to leave Canada or switch institutions.
So with fewer international students, there’s a pretty sizable financial strain. How are you seeing institutions navigating this revenue fallout?
Alex Usher recently wrote an article on this, and he’s right – Ontario universities could see nearly a billion dollars in deficits over the next couple of years. Some colleges built up reserves over the past few years, which they can draw on now, but most public universities didn’t.
Public universities are meant to invest tuition revenue in the students currently enrolled, not build surpluses for the future, right? They’re not looking to build up a war chest to support an institution perpetually because that’s not serving current learners. That makes them very enrollment-sensitive. Schools like the University of Toronto, with their large endowments, will be fine. However, smaller universities will face severe constraints, especially those outside the Greater Toronto Area.
Many schools have already implemented hiring freezes, and some are considering cuts to academic programs. But it’s not easy to make these changes. You can’t retrain an engineer to teach molecular biology, for example. Faculty hiring is a long-term commitment – often 40 years or more – so decisions aren’t made lightly.
Some universities offer voluntary retirement packages, but that’s also tricky. If faculty retire from fields with high demand – both from students and in the job market – the university still needs to rehire, limiting any potential savings.
It's complex because universities aren't that nimble. The government will have to step up the ante and provide more financial support.
“In the past, Canada could rely on its reputation, but now we’ll need to work harder and spend more.”
What does competition in international markets look like going forward from here?
The cost of recruiting international students will rise. The Honourable Mark Miller, Ministry of IRCC, has made that clear. We’re entering an arms race for talent. If the flow of students slows, universities will have to fight harder for every applicant
You’ll see institutions offering more scholarships, bursaries, and other incentives to attract students. Canada will also have to increase its investment in in-country recruiters and raise agent commissions, similar to what the UK and Australia have been doing. In the past, Canada could rely on its reputation, but now we’ll need to work harder and spend more.
There’s also a growing focus on transnational education. The UK, for example, offers its academic programs in other countries, allowing it to expand its brand and generate revenue while keeping student costs lower. So, Canada will have to explore this model or risk shrinking its institutions.
One last question – IRCC’s recent announcement ties post-graduation work permits to students passing a language proficiency test. Is this a challenge or an opportunity?
Honestly, I think it’s a terrible move. If students want to succeed in Canada, they already need to have strong English or French skills – depending on their region. Most universities already have higher language requirements for admission than IRCC is asking for work permits, so it feels unnecessary.
It also adds another cost for students, who might have to retake a language test just to get their work permit – even if they already met the requirement when they started their program.
What’s even more confusing is the difference in language requirements between colleges and universities. A business degree from the University of Windsor is treated differently from one at St. Clair College, even though both programs are in business. This inconsistency just confuses the market.
The real issue is that IRCC acts like Canada’s Ministry of Education without fully understanding or consulting with the sector. While I know what they’re trying to achieve, how they’ve implemented these changes has done more harm than good.