Is Canada Overspending on Global Talent Over Its Own?

Examining overspending, lack of accountability and the reasons home-grown skills lag behind.

Canada keeps writing big cheques to import top global minds while its own talent pipeline looks shaky. The $1.7 billion Global Impact+ Research Talent Initiative over 12 years is the latest example. It targets more than 1,000 leading researchers with $1 billion for chairs, $120 million for early-career talent, $400 million for labs and gear, and $133.6 million for doctoral and postdoc awards. Fields like AI, clean tech, health and advanced manufacturing get priority. Universities have already landed dozens of hires, many from U.S. schools. The Global Talent Stream lets firms fast-track skilled foreign workers too, with promises of training locals or creating jobs.

Yet the pattern is familiar. Highly skilled people, including immigrants, leave at high rates. One in five immigrants exits within 25 years. Those with doctorates are nearly twice as likely to go as bachelor’s holders. ICT pros, engineers, software developers and managers show the weakest retention. Canadian-born STEM grads from top schools follow the same path, drawn by higher U.S. pay, lower taxes and bigger opportunities. Tech founders are heading south faster too. Canada often acts as a temporary stop: train or attract talent, then watch it move on.

This raises an obvious question. Why aren’t there enough home-grown talents to begin with? Canada produces plenty of university graduates. Post-secondary attainment ranks high by global standards. But the system is not delivering the skilled workers the economy actually needs in the volumes required.

Math skills among 15-year-olds have declined for about two decades on international PISA tests. STEM readiness, defined as the level needed for post-secondary study in those fields, has fallen sharply. Estimates suggest roughly 66,000 fewer young people each year now clear that bar compared with earlier cohorts. Science scores hit record lows in the latest cycle even while staying above the OECD average. The education system spends heavily, yet accountability for results is weak and outcomes keep slipping. Programs often disconnect from labour market needs. Employers report shortages in technical skills, AI, cybersecurity, trades and nursing, while many graduates sit in jobs that do not use their degrees.

Demographics add pressure. Baby boomers are retiring faster than younger workers can replace them, leaving fewer mid-career people ready for senior roles. Businesses face a smaller experienced talent pool. At the same time, high personal taxes kick in at relatively modest income levels. Weak commercialization, low business R&D and limited firm scaling mean the domestic payoff for top skills looks weaker than in U.S. innovation hubs. Top performers leave because the returns are higher elsewhere. Reliance on immigration to fill gaps has further reduced incentives for firms to invest in training locals or in productivity-boosting capital. Labour becomes the easier, cheaper option.

Short-term winners include universities that gain prestige hires and tech firms that use fast-track visas. Long-term returns remain thin. Canada hosts strong research capacity yet captures little of the commercial upside. Accountability for the billions spent is limited. Big announcements arrive with multi-year funding, but clear tracking of whether talent stays, patents stay Canadian or companies scale here is hard to find.

Pouring money into foreign recruitment without fixing the domestic pipeline, declining school outcomes, skills mismatches, tax and incentive problems, and the pull of better opportunities abroad looks like expensive displacement rather than a real solution. Home-grown talent is not missing by accident. The system has not prioritized producing and keeping it.

BACKGROUNDER

Canada’s Equity Gaps in PISA 2025

Canada shows relatively strong equity by international standards, particularly on socio-economic and immigrant-background measures. Performance gaps exist and vary by dimension, but they are often smaller than the OECD average. High overall scores coexist with meaningful differences by socio-economic status, gender, language of instruction, immigrant generation and province.

Socio-Economic Status
Socio-economically advantaged students (top 25% on the PISA economic, social and cultural status index) outperformed disadvantaged students (bottom 25%) by: 

• 59 points in science (OECD average gap: 85 points) 
• 56 points in reading (OECD: 77) 
• 63 points in mathematics (OECD: 83)

Socio-economic status explained only about 6% of the variation in science performance in Canada, versus 12% across the OECD. This places Canada among systems that combine high average achievement with relatively high fairness (low variance explained by background). 

The socio-economic gap in science narrowed between 2015 and 2025. Advantaged students’ scores declined more than those of disadvantaged students. About 15% of disadvantaged students in Canada reached the top quarter of national science performance and are considered academically resilient. Canada ranks among a small group of high-performing systems (alongside Estonia, Japan, Korea and others) that achieve both strong inclusion (high share of students above Level 2) and strong fairness.

Immigrant Background
Roughly 39% of Canadian 15-year-olds have an immigrant background (first- or second-generation), more than double the OECD average of 17%. 

In science, the overall gap between non-immigrant and immigrant students was negligible (non-immigrant average around 518, immigrant around 514, difference of about 4 points or statistically non-significant in some reports). First-generation students scored lower than non-immigrants, while second-generation students often scored higher than both groups. Similar patterns appear in reading and mathematics: overall immigrant and non-immigrant scores are comparable nationally, though first-generation students lag and second-generation students frequently outperform. 

This outcome stands out internationally. Many countries with large immigrant populations show sizable negative gaps for immigrant students. Canada is frequently cited as an example of a system that combines a high share of immigrant students with strong average performance.

Gender

• Science: Boys scored about 5 points higher than girls. 
• Reading: Girls scored about 22 points higher (OECD average gap favouring girls: 30 points). 
• Mathematics: Boys scored about 20 points higher (OECD: 13 points).

These patterns match international norms but are moderated in reading. Gender gaps appear in most provinces, with some variation in size.

Language of Instruction and Home Language
Students in majority-language school systems (English in most of Canada, French in Quebec) outperformed those in minority-language systems by roughly 31 points in science. Similar advantages for majority-language systems appear in reading (around 42 points) and mathematics (around 15 points). 

Home language also matters. Students speaking a language other than English or French at home often score lower in reading than English speakers, with smaller or non-significant differences relative to French speakers in some analyses.

Provincial Variation
Equity gaps intersect with large provincial differences in average performance. Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia generally post higher averages. Atlantic provinces and some Prairie provinces tend to score lower. Within provinces, socio-economic gaps range from about 39 points (New Brunswick, science) to 66 points or more (British Columbia). The highest-to-lowest performer gap (90th to 10th percentile) is similar to the OECD average nationally (about 258 points in science) but varies by province.

Overall Assessment
Canada’s equity profile is a relative strength. Socio-economic gaps are narrower than the OECD average, and immigrant students as a group perform close to non-immigrant peers despite their high share of the student population. Gender and language gaps persist and align with broader international patterns. Provincial disparities remain substantial and compound other equity issues. 

The narrowing of the socio-economic gap partly reflects greater declines among advantaged students rather than large gains among disadvantaged ones. Sustained declines in average scores across the board still reduce the absolute number of high-performing students from all backgrounds, including those from lower socio-economic groups who reach top levels.

Primary official sources

• OECD PISA 2025 Results (Volume I and related tables/databases). This includes the international rankings, average scores, change statistics from 2022 and earlier cycles, socio-economic disparities, immigrant-background data, gender gaps and proficiency-level distributions. Country notes specific to Canada provide detailed national figures and comparisons with the OECD average.
• Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) publications:
  • Measuring Up: Canadian Results of the OECD PISA 2025 Study (full public report).
  • PISA 2025 Highlights document. These supply pan-Canadian and provincial scores, trends over time (including science since 2006), language-of-instruction differences, immigrant-generation breakdowns and detailed equity tables.