What International Education in Canada must rethink for 2026

By Antonio Aragón

As this year begins, the global context feels more fluid than it has in some time. Relationships between countries are being reassessed, old assumptions are being tested, and cooperation is happening in more uneven ways.

From a Canadian perspective, in times of elbows up, these shifts feel particularly close to home.

Recently, Mark Carney, in an article for The Economist, described the world as entering an era of variable geometry. The idea stayed with me, not as a political position, but as a useful way to make sense of what many of us in international education have been already navigating.

In simple terms, variable geometry recognizes that the world no longer moves together at one speed or within one shared framework. Cooperation still exists, but it’s more situational, more pragmatic, and often built around specific goals rather than broad alignment.

People will naturally read this concept differently. Some will feel more comfortable with certain models of global engagement than others.

My approach is not to take sides.

I tend to look at the benefits and constraints of different approaches, and then ask what is workable, responsible, and sustainable, especially in a Canadian context.

From where I sit, and from the conversations I’ve been having with institutions, this lens is becoming increasingly relevant for how we plan.

Let’s define variable geometry within our context

For a long time, Canada’s international education ecosystem has operated with relatively stable assumptions:

• Established federal policy frameworks
• A shared national narrative about international students
• Steady growth in student demand
• Planning built around multi-year forecasts
• Predictable student source markets

Those conditions have clearly shifted.

What we’re seeing instead is a system moving at different speeds, often shaped by provincial, regional, and institutional realities:

• Provinces interpreting federal policy through very different lenses
• Institutions adjusting recruitment and programming based on local housing, labour, and community capacity
• Regional partnerships emerging where national solutions feel too blunt
• Collaboration happening across institutions facing similar pressures, even when they compete elsewhere

This isn’t inconsistency for its own sake. It’s a response to complexity.

International Students still at the centre of Canada’s debate

As we’ve come to know, international students in Canada have become closely linked to broader conversations about housing, affordability, labour markets, and public trust.

That makes them highly visible, and, at times, politically convenient. I wrote about it earlier in Stop Scapegoating International Students.

This visibility has not necessarily created solutions. Students are navigating pressures that largely predate them, while still contributing economically, academically, and socially to communities across the country.

At the same time, they remain one of Canada’s most tangible connections to the world. In a moment when global cooperation feels more selective, international students are still living proof that collaboration is possible.

Messy and imperfect, but real.

What planning for 2026 actually demands

Even with IRCC planning to allow 155,000 new study permits in 2026, which suggests some level of predictability, one of the central challenges I see for Canadian institutions is the temptation to plan as though current conditions are going to improve or reach a new normal.

Variable geometry suggests something different:

• Policy change will remain uneven
• Provinces will continue to scramble for answers while playing a defining role
• Institutional strategies will need to diverge rather than align perfectly
• Growth will look different across programs, regions, and student segments
• In other words, predictability will remain a moving target

This should’t mean abandoning ambition or retreating from international engagement. It means planning with flexibility, rather than waiting for clarity that may not come.

What does a more adaptable Canadian approach look like?

In practice, this might mean:

• Building pragmatic coalitions with governments, employers, and communities where interests align. Example: collaborating with provincial ministries and regional employers to co-design enrolment targets, work-integrated learning, or housing strategies that reflect local capacity rather than national averages.
• Allowing variation across provinces and campuses instead of forcing uniform responses. Example: Recognizing that a mid-sized insitution in Atlantic Canada, a polytechnic in Ontario, and a research university in British Columbia face fundamentally different labour markets, housing realities, and student pathways… and should plan accordingly.
• Layering responsibility, recognizing that student success now depends on more than federal policy alone. Example: Aligning institutional supports, municipal services, employers and community organizations around settlement, employment, and well-being (rather than assuming study and work permits alone determine outcomes).
• Reframing international education around contribution, integration, and long-term value. Example: Shifting the narrative from short-term enrolment recovery to how international learners contribute to regional economies, demographic renewal, innovation, and civic life over time.
• Treating innovation as essential, not experimental. Example: Using targeted pathways, regional pilots, stackable or hybrid credentials, and employer-aligned program as core planning tools (not side projects) especially in sectors facing acute changes (in light of “government response tariffs”, for instance).
• Engaging internationally through curriculum development and partnerships aboard. Example: Co-developing programs with overseas institutions, embedding transnational curricula, or delivering joint credentials that reduce pressure on domestic systems while maintaining academic and reputational strength

What I’ve stopped expecting…

From a Canadian planning perspective:

• A return to a single national narrative
• Long periods of policy stability and clarity
• One solution that fits every province or institution
• Consensus before action
• Focus on volume from a small number of source markets

Those conditions shaped an earlier phase of growth. They’re unlikely to shape the next one.

A closing reflection

International education in Canada has always been shaped by diversity: of regions, institutions, communities, and perspectives.

What has changed is the geometry that connects them.

From where I stand, the institutions that will be best positioned in the years ahead are the ones that:

• Accept complexity without becoming reactive
• Adapt without losing sight of their values
• Remain engaged, active and present
• Protect students while engaging honestly with communities
• … And plan for multiple futures, not just one scenario

This isn’t about choosing sides.

It’s about choosing strategies that fit this moment in time.

If this way of thinking resonates or raises questions, if you agree in part or totally disagree, I’d genuinely welcome the opportunity to chat.

Happy 2026!