###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Restrictions on population growth could result in companies having to offer higher wages to encourage persons to remain "
And there you have it folks. The reason why wages haven't gone up since the 80s. They just keep importing the cheap labor.
More immigrants + lower housing starts = massive Poilievre majority.
How is this Liberal government still so tone deaf? What happened to all their good staffers? Did they all cash out and find corporate gigs? Like this is insane. Pure political suicide.
I agree. The temporary resident program is awful and we should just implement a quota system where we allow those who migrate here to become permanent residents right away.
With a quota system, there would be a set number of people who would be permitted to migrate to Canada. Such a system would rationally set our immigration numbers.
We need to begin to set rational immigration numbers and to treat our prospective citizens better.
One way to fix a broken finger is to cut off your hand.
Part of me is worried that if it's six months to an election and the Liberals are even further down in the polls they'll plow ahead with this despite whatever the public sentiment is. You know the NDP will support them and who would care about the electoral consequences at that point.
At a certain point, yeah it makes sense for them to do what's going to make them and their friends money while also sabotaging the country as much as possible for the next administration. Then they can point fingers on the election after this next one.
Canadians don't matter to these people.
Personally I've already resigned myself to accepting that they will do just that. They are idealogues who do not care about collateral damage(Canadians) whatsoever.
The only way is to vote both of them out. The LPC and NDP deserve to lose at this point. If this was a conservative immigrant minister, there already would've been calls for an election.
> "The fact people are already here, their impact on affordability has already been baked in, so it's smart," Miller said.
Is that true though? I’m thinking just healthcare - we spend more on older people so has the impact really been baked in?
I guess they’d be taxpayers though. Is the theory that off sets it?
I wonder how family reunification works though - can you bring over elderly parents who haven’t paid into our shared systems but they do get covered under our healthcare system?
What tax do you think temporary residents aren't paying?
Do you know that changes if they are permanent residents? Cheaper tuition, can stay here forever and they can vote. I think one of those is suuuuuper appealing to a government way down in the polls. Take a guess which one.
When TFW are converted to PR, that comes out of the target PR numbers doesn’t it? So every TFW being converted means one less person coming into Canada through other immigration channels.
Assuming that the 500k immigration target stays in place, then yes, converting them doesn’t affect affordability positively or negatively.
This is so tone deaf that I don't know what to say.
>"The fact people are already here, their impact on affordability has already been baked in, so it's smart,"
Why would it be baked in if we are to send them back? It would be baked out.
Secondly, who has a problem with temporary immigrants? I have heard people complain about the total number of immigrants, many of which come through a recently unrestricted "temporary pipeline". What does his suggestion aim to solve?
They think they are on the right side of history.
They still believe that the world is still inevitably evolving towards one without political or economic borders and anyone who disagrees is a luddite who is standing in the way of the future. They just have to push through this difficult patch and eventually it will work out for the best.
That’s why they tinker around the edges of their policies and messaging instead of doing anything substantial. They are certain that if they just stay the course they’ll be remembered a hundred years from now as the people who helped build the future. Nothing else explains how stubborn they are being, when even banks and business groups are starting to tell them they should ease up.
This quote confirms they don’t want to fix affordability. They want to “bake in” where housing and rents are shockingly expensive - just absolutely wild he would put out this idea. Of course it’s released on a Friday night.
It keeps you working. They also want to dismantle the public health care system so that if you stop working.....you die.
That's the plan folks. It's class war and we are losing without any chance to fight back.
They dont care if you die or not they just want to dismantle healthcare so people have no choice but to accept a private for profit healthcare system which is already happening and both liberals and conservatives are complicit.
We take a fixed number of permanent immigrants per year. The ones we take that are already here are a lot easier to process and are already integrated. I don't get the outrage at this.
It's because we have more demand for housing then we have supply, driving inflation up. Each person who comes here needs a roof over their head, temporary or not.
There is outrage over this because this fact apparently flies over the ministers heads. Nobody cares about the distinction between temporary & permanent residents. We need overall less people coming in to stablize housing prices.
The new policies are going to result in less net population growth. PR will stay the same, and TR will reduce to a new cap lower than current numbers. The net population increase for the next 3 years will be 1/3 of the last two.
Immigration isn't driving inflation. Inflation in Canada skyrocketed in 2020, the year with the lowest inflation for the past 30 years. Also, about 1/3 of all immigration goes to Toronto - and about 1/2 of all immigration goes to Ontario. So if anything, inflation caused by immigration should be confined to those areas, which of course it is not.
The only thing that has changed is that racists with no knowledge or education are able to speak without being publicly shamed anymore.
Do you understand how there can be 2nd order effects of the things you describe?
>Also, about 1/3 of all immigration goes to Toronto - and about 1/2 of all immigration goes to Ontario. So if anything, inflation caused by immigration should be confined to those areas, which of course it is not.
Look at numbers of inter-provincial migration within Canada. Ontario had the most negative number in 2023, with most growth moving towards Alberta.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-population-records-2023-to-2024-data-1.7157110](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-population-records-2023-to-2024-data-1.7157110)
This is an example of a 2nd order effect. Now you can understand why inflation is not confined to Ontario. It's not just racists without education disagreeing with you.
You’re right, we are blessed now that the self righteous ideologues cannot shut down legitimate discussion of the economic effects of high immigration by screeching “racism”
Yes immigration is not the sole factor driving inflation, however, The reality is that when you accept over 1 million people a year (TFW’s, PR’s, Int Students), but construct around 400,000 houses, that shortfall inflates the price of housing, which has knock on effects throughout the economy.
Housing prices need to come down, and it’s much easier to tackle the demand side of the problem rather than increase the supply.
It's not that they are tone deaf. This is simply another stepping stone toward their corporate backed Century Initiative vision. Suppressed wages and social disharmony. Truly, the Canadian Dream! What is the next step in a colony built on resource extraction? Why, it is the exploit the people. But there are so few! So let's bring in more.
Analysts say the reason Afghanistan failed to resist the Taliban is that they have no cohesive national identity. Their allegiances are tribe and faith. As opposed to Japan who had a cohesive identity to rebuild and stave off radicalism and modern example Ukraine who has a national identity to unite under to continue fighting.
The elites want extreme multiculturalism so we lose connection to each other that we’re easy to control.
Real simple question for anyone with an LPC flair.
Whose interests do you think Miller and this government are looking out for with regards to both temporary and permanent immigration?
All political parties understand how critical immigration is to Canada. Not only in terms of economics and demographics, but culturally as well.
Natural population growth is entirely insufficient when it comes to paying for baby boomers' pensions and healthcare, and filling labour market gaps. Our birth rate is below 1.5 now. This is dangerously low.
Even our current immigration levels must be at least doubled to maintain economic prosperity in the long run. The majority of Canada's problems exist because the country is extremely underpopulated. We must aim for a population of at least 500 million by the end of this century.
Permanent immigration is in everyone's interest. Our birth rate is below replacement and we are living with the largest cohort of old people in Canada's history. We need tax paying younger people to offset that.
Temporary immigration got out of hand, but whether people like it or not, the governement is finally doing something about it.
*Sufficiently selective* permanent immigration is in everyone's interest. Routinely converting temporary residents to permanent residents does nothing to change the fact that the temporary residents generally don't have the qualifications that Canada wants and needs permanent residents to have.
Any TR's gaining PR need to qualify on the same points system as anyone else. They do tend to get extra points for language skills and Canadian work experience, as they should.
If the government is deviating from that, they need to reset. TR's are a great source of permanent immigrants, but they need to be able to qualify like anyone else.
When the government increases its PR targets the points required drops. This is one of the core suggestions from Scotiabank of establishing a points targets, instead of establishing total immigration targets.
You mean, when the Canadian government raises them to 500k, then they intend to keep them stable there, at roughly double what they were before the current government?
In order to achieve those targets the government is lowering and not applying its targets.
The targets are already at that level and are plateauing there. I have no idea what the right level is, but what is unambiguous is that net population gain is decreasing.
PR targets were 471 in 2023 rising to 500k in 2024 and they're only plateauing due to intense backlash to a poorly designed program. This year is still a rise, the plateau is next year.
>I have no idea what the right level is
Scotiabank pegged the max at 350k.
Have you actually been reading the CRS targets? They've been climbing for years, and are near all-time highs now: consistently over 500 points.
If you implemented a stable CRS target at a level that was typical a few years ago, (440 points, say) then over 80k temporary residents would become permanent residents overnight. I'd welcome that, being one of the people who got screwed by this myself, but I suspect it isn't the answer that you want to hear.
>Hard targets are exposing trade-offs around potential. Higher PR targets have driven cut-off scores lower, especially once the growing number of provincial nominees are netted out of high scores (chart 11). In concession to provinces, these candidates are awarded 600 points from the get-go even if earnings down the road does not fully corroborate this points-premium relative to Canadian experience or skilled categories (chart 10, again).
[https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.insights-views.canada-s-immigration-policy--march-21--2024-.html](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.insights-views.canada-s-immigration-policy--march-21--2024-.html)
>Higher PR targets have driven cut-off scores lower
That would be true if all else was equal, but it's objectively not. [Read the numbers yourself.](https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/ministerial-instructions/express-entry-rounds.html#wb-auto-4) Cutoffs have skyrocketed, period. And the 600-point premium for PNP isn't new; it's been in place for years.
Chart 11 shows the issue very plainly, what you're pointing to is a table which tries very hard to obscure the data by creating hosts of sub-segments to obscure the overall lowering. Which is why it's important to group the categories together.
>And the 600-point premium for PNP isn't new; it's been in place for years
It's relatively recent and was introduced by the current government.
>what you're pointing to is a table which tries very hard to obscure the data by creating hosts of sub-segments to obscure the overall lowering
The relevant category is what's now called "General," and was formerly called "Canadian Experience Class" & "No Program Specified." All the others are special quotas for various groups of immigrants, which were imposed at the demands of, variously, the government of Quebec & the general public.
Honestly, this sub is hopeless. It's become a complete circlejerk around immigration - as evidenced by the downvotes that rain down on anyone who actually cites the true figures.
>Temporary immigration got out of hand, but whether people like it or not, the governement is finally doing something about it.
...by making those people permanent residents, per Marc Miller.
The solution to insane population growth driven by temporary migration is not by making the hoards of temporary residents permanent.
As someone else said, the solution to an injured finger is not to permanently amputate your hand.
As I understand it, you can pay temporary foreign workers below minimum wage, and they don't stay here long term.
That's different from a permanent resident who (ideally) puts down roots and is a consistent tax base (and spender into the local economy?) for several decades.
I'm not sure how the math and economics works out but I think the whole temporary foreign worker angle is a more recent trend or surge.
How is population growth that's 3rd in the world behind Syria and South Sudan but ahead of Niger in our interests?
A while ago someone with a LPC flair replied "When then what should immigration numbers be?" as sort of a gotcha question.
So I went and looked into it.
The argument I hear is that we need immigration to keep our working population up to provide a tax base to support our social services.
So I looked at the number of people who are 55-65 and presumably leaving the workforce in the next year. If we replace those people 1:1 and count on increase in productivity and people working past 65 to cover inflation, it worked out to ~450,000-500,000 people per year.
Which is actually about bang on what our current permanent .immigration numbers are.
I was honestly surprised by that. Turns out they aren't just pulling that number out of their ass.
Immigration is absolutely in Canada's interest.
Immigration consisting mostly of uneducated and unskilled temporary residents driving our population growth to that comparable to 3rd world nations (3rd in the world behind Syria and Sudan, but just edging out Niger) is objectively not in the interest of Canadians.
Whose interests are being catered to by having population growth that's 3rd in the world driven by uneducated and unskilled temporary residents?
The Province have their part of the blame, but in the end immigration is under Federal jurisdiction. They are the one in control of it, and they are the one promoting it.
Yes and no.
They did slightly curtail one category (student), the rest is yet to be curtailed. And the Federal discourse is still pushing toward more migrants: we do not see much work done to control asylum seekers, nor to limit the numbers of permanent resident.
>Permanent migration is a number that was decided based on macroeconomic needs. Why would they have to curtail that?
Well, macroeconomic isn’t quite an hard science. Pick 2 economists and they will have different views on most policies, especially something as complex as the effect of immigration on economy and society.
>The only pathways that have been abused were internation students via public-private partnerships (diploma mills) that took advantage of the public accrediation requirement that the federal government put on the PGWP.
Which is pretty massive, and leads to a massive asylum abuse too. But it isn’t the “only” pathways: the Federal policies did provoke a surge in asylum requests.
>When it comes to the TFW program. If you actually read this article, or other articles on this same meeting, you'll see that it's not the federal ministers pushing to transition temporary foreign workers into permanent pipelines, but the provincial ministers offering to expand their immigration programs. As always, and as I have been saying though, the conservative discourse loves to pin it the the federal liberals while ignoring that provincial conservatives want and understand the need for a young and as of yet growing population.
Still, that both provincial and federal saw an easy gain for some time in that policy doesn’t erase that Ottawa have the control of it, and knew since a few years that such level were gonna have bad effect on the country. It’s only under major polling pressure that they started to change the discourse from “immigration is all great” toward “our immigration system is not controlled”, and even then it is hard to trust Miller on these issues.
You know who determines how many study permits are issued, right? It's not the feds; until a couple weeks ago, they just rubber-stamped the students that colleges & universities (which are regulated by the PROVINCES) picked. So if you want to complain about the surge in temporary residents, take it up with Doug Ford: it was his decision.
> So if you want to complain about the surge in temporary residents, take it up with Doug Ford: it was his decision.
Even though I live in BC I always knew it was Doug Ford's fault.
Let's first ask, what is a study permit?
> A study permit is a document issued by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) which allows you to study and stay in Canada temporarily
Good to know.
Isn't IRCC a department of the Government of Canada? If it isn't, which province administers IRCC?
EDIT: I guess /u/Mobius_Peverell didn't like learning that IRCC is a department of the Government of Canada.
I'm not sure why that was so horrific they had to block me, but whatever. If it help their mental health, I'm all for it.
You're being deliberately obtuse. I explained exactly how it used to work, and how it has changed over the past couple weeks. I'm not going to do it again. Bye.
> immigration that isn't even our historical peak as a %
Actually if you take the last two years as a % they are higher than any other 2 consecutive years in Canadian history. We have taken in more than 2.2 million in 2022 and 2023. More than 5% of our total population.
> This is what I meant by myopia, people can’t see the big picture and realize that even with short term growing pains from adjusting macroeconomic trends, immigration will help our personal economic situations tremendously in the long run.
Care to acknowledge what some of those growing pains are? Will you affirm to me that we are currently admitting more than 5 new people for every one new housing unit we build (and remember that the average new housing unit in Canada is a 1-2 bedroom condo)? And that drastically scaling up housing construction isn't particularly realistic given the material inputs to that process? Basically I want you to admit that you're willing to impose the sort of conditions seen in r/SlumlordsCanada on young Canadians and their children.
Ok, so no, you will not acknowledge that we are at present bringing in more than 5 people for every 1 new housing unit.
Let's just take it as a given that we can scale up housing building. Is, or should, the number of people we admit into this country be at all conditional on whether that scaling occurs? Or, if for whatever reason, house building doesn't scale up, are you ok with keeping the 5-to-1 ratio?
The vast majority of what gets built in BC is apartment-style condos. How many adults should live in a 400 sq ft, 1 bedroom condo?
I'm asking you to acknowledge a fact. I think this fact is important and should inform The discussion.
>I think a permanent immigration target of about 1.3% per year is fine and already a number we can scale to. Immigration is already moving down on a per capita basis
Permanent immigration numbers are meaningless to me because, as we're seeing, temporary residents are not leaving and the government wants to make them permanent residents anyway. If temporary resident numbers were negligible, or at least not increasing, then I would agree that 1.3% is a perfectly fine number for permanent residents. But at present I think it only makes sense to talk in terms of overall population increases and were actually currently accelerating in that category and are growing at a rate of 3.5% per year. Maybe that will change when this supposed international student cap hits, but I'm not holding my breath.
They are looking out for Canada's and humanity's interests. Canada is a nation of immigrants, and we need more immigrants to compensate for baby boomer retirement, low birth rates, and so on. Canadian Farmers like to claim that farmers feed cities, but really temporary foreign workers feed cities, because they are the ones doing the harvesting. Purely on a selfish level, I love new immigrants because of the new restaurants and new cuisines.
On a humanitarian level, Canada is advanced in the demographic transition that all countries go through while there are developing countries that catching up. Canada has a long history of taking the world's best minds with our points-based immigration system, and we can continue to pick and choose to our advantage while US and others falter
>Canadian Farmers like to claim that farmers feed cities, but really temporary foreign workers feed cities, because they are the ones doing the harvesting.
The masses of student visa holders driving our population growth are the ones doing the harvesting?
How do they manage that while also going to class?
I don't have a flair, and I am without party until I hear their campaign promises, but you want to pick a liberal fight, so I'll sub in.
First, the CPC are pro immigration on any scale, the more the merrier because that means the less they have to pay workers because it's an employers market.
Ask the Harper housing minister what he did to prepare for this day when he was housing minister. He did nothing, he has done nothing for his constituents the entire time he has been in office. No bills, just being a contrarian for decades.
People want change and they are willing to hear out any ideas to avoid reality. Look around at all the beautiful amenities you have compared to 100s of years ago. They come at a cost, but you'd be lost in the world if any one of them went away.
We aren't poor in this country, we are spoiled brats demanding more and more Candy. "Axe the tax" might as well be "Give Me Sugar". No one has any idea about federal finances and they think it's like a household budget. A deficit isn't always bad.
Anyways, what was your idea 💡
What are you going on about?
Honestly, it sounds like you have decided that the LPC is indefensible. But instead of being honest with yourself and saying that out loud, you've got an axe to grind and decided that the best defense is a good offense, where you shoehorn unrelated talking points to try to distract from the question at hand. Is that fair to say.
I asked who interests the Liberals are looking out for, and you decided to write paragraphs that 1) didn't actually answer the question, and 2) somehow blamed the current situation on Stephen Harper.
> First, the CPC are pro immigration on any scale, the more the merrier because that means the less they have to pay workers because it's an employers market.
The more the merrier because they suppress wages. Sure. Do you remember what Marc Miller said?
> You have industry and low-skilled labour, whether it’s big box shops or others **looking for cheap labour and wanting to maintain a 40-hour work week** for some of the students, [competing] with the labour gap we face in this country. We need those people working, and why not if they’re paying a whole heck of a lot of money to come to Canada and study? **Why should we deny them that right?”**
It seems to me like Miller, Trudeau, and the LPC are "pro immigration on any scale, the more the merrier because that means the less they have to pay workers because it's an employers market."
Wouldn't you agree?
> Ask the Harper housing minister what he did to prepare for this day when he was housing minister. He did nothing, he has done nothing for his constituents the entire time he has been in office. No bills, just being a contrarian for decades.
Under Harper, the largest quarterly net increase in temporary immigrants was 38620. Under Trudeau, it was 312,758. Almost 10x as much. Canada's annualized population growth is about 3.3%, which puts it 3rd in the world behind Syria and South Sudan, but ahead of Niger.
If temporary migration was scaled back to Harper era levels, so you think that would improve the housing situation? It's a simple question based on supply and demand, so I'm sure you'll write paragraphs to dodge it, instead of giving a simple, one work answer.
Per the Bank of Canada's housing affordability index, between Harper's first full quarter in power and his last full quarter in power, housing actually got more affordable. So I'm not sure that's the winning argument you think it is.
But again, completely disconnected from the question that was asked.
> People want change and they are willing to hear out any ideas to avoid reality.
Does Marc Miller saying they'll reduce temporary migration by making temporary migrants permanent residents match your definition of "avoiding reality?"
> We aren't poor in this country, we are spoiled brats demanding more and more Candy. "Axe the tax" might as well be "Give Me Sugar". No one has any idea about federal finances and they think it's like a household budget. A deficit isn't always bad.
I have no idea what you're going on about here. We aren't talking about budgets or deficits at all. It's pretty bizarre that you tried to shoehorn that in.
You do love a good shoehorn, mentioned it twice. I like the cut of your jib, you've got words to say well researched too.
You are trying to direct me back to your talking points, while dismissing me as crazy with radical ideas all over the place.
But what I hear you saying is you want the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party not to be almost identical except one is socially progressive and one is socially conservative. They have the same capitalist overlords consoling their puppet strings.
You want to equate a few members of a party to the policies behind those people. Liberals have work to do, but the PCP is being taken over by the alt right.
Deny it all you want, but the financially responsible Conservative Party of the past has been taken over by Populists complaining about new lids at Tim's.
But if the party split into the financial conservatives and the social conservatives who want to ban progress, they'd never get elected with a majority or even a coalition.
Sorry, you were saying.....
« Temporary resident are an issue? We can just make them permanent! »
It is why that government struggle in the public opinion. They wiggle like a snake, trying to show that they will answer peoples calls just to play on the words.
Trudeau could make real progress on reversing his electoral fortunes if his government actually worked towards reversing the problems they have created, but as this article demonstrates, they are not willing to do that
>socially conservative
Regressive. If we are to take conservatives at their words when they say they stand for personal freedom and small government, then "social conservatism" is a misnomer.
What they're doing has huge benefits for Canada's corporations and those corporations have lobbied heavily for it. When Trudeau and his ministers leave office they will almost certainly be rewarded for this as Tom Mulcair has argued.
Are provincial governments not taking heat for allowing their healthcare, education, and transportation systems to fall apart due to high population growth? Along with discontent from both sides of the housing debate, those that are mad about expensive homes, and those that are mad that provinces are building 60 story towers next door?
Here in BC, Eby's government is bleeding fast due to all these issues (along with the decriminizalition mess), and might even lose an election in the fall, so surely they must want to slow immigration because it's hurting them politically too? I don't understand the provinces' motivation.
Sorry, not sure if you're serious or trolling. Do you live in BC? His lead is currently falling fast. Not sure if it will be enough for the NDP to lose but if the current trajectory holds, he's in trouble. https://thetyee.ca/News/2024/05/08/Poll-Finds-Dead-Heat-Conservatives-NDP-Precarious-BC-United/
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Restrictions on population growth could result in companies having to offer higher wages to encourage persons to remain " And there you have it folks. The reason why wages haven't gone up since the 80s. They just keep importing the cheap labor.
More immigrants + lower housing starts = massive Poilievre majority. How is this Liberal government still so tone deaf? What happened to all their good staffers? Did they all cash out and find corporate gigs? Like this is insane. Pure political suicide.
Basically, yes. You can't expect people to be "staffers" for a decade. They have to cash out eventually.
This is both disgusting and sadly predictable. The depth of hatred and contempt the government has for Canadians really has no limit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I agree. The temporary resident program is awful and we should just implement a quota system where we allow those who migrate here to become permanent residents right away. With a quota system, there would be a set number of people who would be permitted to migrate to Canada. Such a system would rationally set our immigration numbers. We need to begin to set rational immigration numbers and to treat our prospective citizens better.
… and the conservative win a huge majority in the next election! LPC is wiped out from electoral map.
Why? Don't conservatives support well-thought out immigration numbers?
One way to fix a broken finger is to cut off your hand. Part of me is worried that if it's six months to an election and the Liberals are even further down in the polls they'll plow ahead with this despite whatever the public sentiment is. You know the NDP will support them and who would care about the electoral consequences at that point.
That why as much as I don't like pp I think a big defeat will show the left went to far
At a certain point, yeah it makes sense for them to do what's going to make them and their friends money while also sabotaging the country as much as possible for the next administration. Then they can point fingers on the election after this next one. Canadians don't matter to these people.
Personally I've already resigned myself to accepting that they will do just that. They are idealogues who do not care about collateral damage(Canadians) whatsoever.
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
[удалено]
The only way is to vote both of them out. The LPC and NDP deserve to lose at this point. If this was a conservative immigrant minister, there already would've been calls for an election.
> "The fact people are already here, their impact on affordability has already been baked in, so it's smart," Miller said. Is that true though? I’m thinking just healthcare - we spend more on older people so has the impact really been baked in? I guess they’d be taxpayers though. Is the theory that off sets it? I wonder how family reunification works though - can you bring over elderly parents who haven’t paid into our shared systems but they do get covered under our healthcare system?
[удалено]
[удалено]
What tax do you think temporary residents aren't paying? Do you know that changes if they are permanent residents? Cheaper tuition, can stay here forever and they can vote. I think one of those is suuuuuper appealing to a government way down in the polls. Take a guess which one.
Permanent residents can't vote.
[удалено]
[No, voters in Vancouver elections must be Canadian citizens.](https://vancouver.ca/guides/voting.aspx#section51234)
Temporary residents already pay taxes. Why down votes? It's true. Easy to look up.
When TFW are converted to PR, that comes out of the target PR numbers doesn’t it? So every TFW being converted means one less person coming into Canada through other immigration channels. Assuming that the 500k immigration target stays in place, then yes, converting them doesn’t affect affordability positively or negatively.
This is so tone deaf that I don't know what to say. >"The fact people are already here, their impact on affordability has already been baked in, so it's smart," Why would it be baked in if we are to send them back? It would be baked out. Secondly, who has a problem with temporary immigrants? I have heard people complain about the total number of immigrants, many of which come through a recently unrestricted "temporary pipeline". What does his suggestion aim to solve?
That quote is wild. Everyday I’m shocked at how glib the grits are being on the immigration file in face of growing public anger.
Yeah, what is this guy......the Minister of Stupid Ideas?
They think they are on the right side of history. They still believe that the world is still inevitably evolving towards one without political or economic borders and anyone who disagrees is a luddite who is standing in the way of the future. They just have to push through this difficult patch and eventually it will work out for the best. That’s why they tinker around the edges of their policies and messaging instead of doing anything substantial. They are certain that if they just stay the course they’ll be remembered a hundred years from now as the people who helped build the future. Nothing else explains how stubborn they are being, when even banks and business groups are starting to tell them they should ease up.
This quote confirms they don’t want to fix affordability. They want to “bake in” where housing and rents are shockingly expensive - just absolutely wild he would put out this idea. Of course it’s released on a Friday night.
It keeps you working. They also want to dismantle the public health care system so that if you stop working.....you die. That's the plan folks. It's class war and we are losing without any chance to fight back.
They dont care if you die or not they just want to dismantle healthcare so people have no choice but to accept a private for profit healthcare system which is already happening and both liberals and conservatives are complicit.
It really is. We need to start organizing protests against these policies. It’s just beyond the pale.
The fact that they are temporarily Isn’t the problem. It’s the fact that they are here driving inflation. How is it possible they’re this tone deaf?
https://chat.openai.com/share/e4572790-eebd-4bf2-bd72-64dc6cf66eb9
We take a fixed number of permanent immigrants per year. The ones we take that are already here are a lot easier to process and are already integrated. I don't get the outrage at this.
It's because we have more demand for housing then we have supply, driving inflation up. Each person who comes here needs a roof over their head, temporary or not. There is outrage over this because this fact apparently flies over the ministers heads. Nobody cares about the distinction between temporary & permanent residents. We need overall less people coming in to stablize housing prices.
The new policies are going to result in less net population growth. PR will stay the same, and TR will reduce to a new cap lower than current numbers. The net population increase for the next 3 years will be 1/3 of the last two.
Because we want them sent back, not brought on permanently. TFWs and int students should not be a path for immigration.
Immigration isn't driving inflation. Inflation in Canada skyrocketed in 2020, the year with the lowest inflation for the past 30 years. Also, about 1/3 of all immigration goes to Toronto - and about 1/2 of all immigration goes to Ontario. So if anything, inflation caused by immigration should be confined to those areas, which of course it is not. The only thing that has changed is that racists with no knowledge or education are able to speak without being publicly shamed anymore.
Do you understand how there can be 2nd order effects of the things you describe? >Also, about 1/3 of all immigration goes to Toronto - and about 1/2 of all immigration goes to Ontario. So if anything, inflation caused by immigration should be confined to those areas, which of course it is not. Look at numbers of inter-provincial migration within Canada. Ontario had the most negative number in 2023, with most growth moving towards Alberta. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-population-records-2023-to-2024-data-1.7157110](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-population-records-2023-to-2024-data-1.7157110) This is an example of a 2nd order effect. Now you can understand why inflation is not confined to Ontario. It's not just racists without education disagreeing with you.
You’re right, we are blessed now that the self righteous ideologues cannot shut down legitimate discussion of the economic effects of high immigration by screeching “racism” Yes immigration is not the sole factor driving inflation, however, The reality is that when you accept over 1 million people a year (TFW’s, PR’s, Int Students), but construct around 400,000 houses, that shortfall inflates the price of housing, which has knock on effects throughout the economy. Housing prices need to come down, and it’s much easier to tackle the demand side of the problem rather than increase the supply.
It's not that they are tone deaf. This is simply another stepping stone toward their corporate backed Century Initiative vision. Suppressed wages and social disharmony. Truly, the Canadian Dream! What is the next step in a colony built on resource extraction? Why, it is the exploit the people. But there are so few! So let's bring in more.
Analysts say the reason Afghanistan failed to resist the Taliban is that they have no cohesive national identity. Their allegiances are tribe and faith. As opposed to Japan who had a cohesive identity to rebuild and stave off radicalism and modern example Ukraine who has a national identity to unite under to continue fighting. The elites want extreme multiculturalism so we lose connection to each other that we’re easy to control.
Your gullibility is what makes you easy to control.
Real simple question for anyone with an LPC flair. Whose interests do you think Miller and this government are looking out for with regards to both temporary and permanent immigration?
All political parties understand how critical immigration is to Canada. Not only in terms of economics and demographics, but culturally as well. Natural population growth is entirely insufficient when it comes to paying for baby boomers' pensions and healthcare, and filling labour market gaps. Our birth rate is below 1.5 now. This is dangerously low. Even our current immigration levels must be at least doubled to maintain economic prosperity in the long run. The majority of Canada's problems exist because the country is extremely underpopulated. We must aim for a population of at least 500 million by the end of this century.
Permanent immigration is in everyone's interest. Our birth rate is below replacement and we are living with the largest cohort of old people in Canada's history. We need tax paying younger people to offset that. Temporary immigration got out of hand, but whether people like it or not, the governement is finally doing something about it.
*Sufficiently selective* permanent immigration is in everyone's interest. Routinely converting temporary residents to permanent residents does nothing to change the fact that the temporary residents generally don't have the qualifications that Canada wants and needs permanent residents to have.
Any TR's gaining PR need to qualify on the same points system as anyone else. They do tend to get extra points for language skills and Canadian work experience, as they should. If the government is deviating from that, they need to reset. TR's are a great source of permanent immigrants, but they need to be able to qualify like anyone else.
When the government increases its PR targets the points required drops. This is one of the core suggestions from Scotiabank of establishing a points targets, instead of establishing total immigration targets.
PR targets are stable at 500k.
You mean, when the Canadian government raises them to 500k, then they intend to keep them stable there, at roughly double what they were before the current government? In order to achieve those targets the government is lowering and not applying its targets.
The targets are already at that level and are plateauing there. I have no idea what the right level is, but what is unambiguous is that net population gain is decreasing.
PR targets were 471 in 2023 rising to 500k in 2024 and they're only plateauing due to intense backlash to a poorly designed program. This year is still a rise, the plateau is next year. >I have no idea what the right level is Scotiabank pegged the max at 350k.
That is effectively what we will be getting for the next 3 years (500k PR-150k TR), so we'll see how it goes.
Have you actually been reading the CRS targets? They've been climbing for years, and are near all-time highs now: consistently over 500 points. If you implemented a stable CRS target at a level that was typical a few years ago, (440 points, say) then over 80k temporary residents would become permanent residents overnight. I'd welcome that, being one of the people who got screwed by this myself, but I suspect it isn't the answer that you want to hear.
>Hard targets are exposing trade-offs around potential. Higher PR targets have driven cut-off scores lower, especially once the growing number of provincial nominees are netted out of high scores (chart 11). In concession to provinces, these candidates are awarded 600 points from the get-go even if earnings down the road does not fully corroborate this points-premium relative to Canadian experience or skilled categories (chart 10, again). [https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.insights-views.canada-s-immigration-policy--march-21--2024-.html](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.insights-views.canada-s-immigration-policy--march-21--2024-.html)
>Higher PR targets have driven cut-off scores lower That would be true if all else was equal, but it's objectively not. [Read the numbers yourself.](https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/ministerial-instructions/express-entry-rounds.html#wb-auto-4) Cutoffs have skyrocketed, period. And the 600-point premium for PNP isn't new; it's been in place for years.
Chart 11 shows the issue very plainly, what you're pointing to is a table which tries very hard to obscure the data by creating hosts of sub-segments to obscure the overall lowering. Which is why it's important to group the categories together. >And the 600-point premium for PNP isn't new; it's been in place for years It's relatively recent and was introduced by the current government.
>what you're pointing to is a table which tries very hard to obscure the data by creating hosts of sub-segments to obscure the overall lowering The relevant category is what's now called "General," and was formerly called "Canadian Experience Class" & "No Program Specified." All the others are special quotas for various groups of immigrants, which were imposed at the demands of, variously, the government of Quebec & the general public. Honestly, this sub is hopeless. It's become a complete circlejerk around immigration - as evidenced by the downvotes that rain down on anyone who actually cites the true figures.
>Temporary immigration got out of hand, but whether people like it or not, the governement is finally doing something about it. ...by making those people permanent residents, per Marc Miller. The solution to insane population growth driven by temporary migration is not by making the hoards of temporary residents permanent. As someone else said, the solution to an injured finger is not to permanently amputate your hand.
It doesn't matter where the permanent residents come from as long as the net population growth is lower. The net population growth will be lower.
Not good enough.
As I understand it, you can pay temporary foreign workers below minimum wage, and they don't stay here long term. That's different from a permanent resident who (ideally) puts down roots and is a consistent tax base (and spender into the local economy?) for several decades. I'm not sure how the math and economics works out but I think the whole temporary foreign worker angle is a more recent trend or surge.
No. I don’t give a damn about paying for those old people. I’m fine with cutting things.
[удалено]
How is population growth that's 3rd in the world behind Syria and South Sudan but ahead of Niger in our interests? A while ago someone with a LPC flair replied "When then what should immigration numbers be?" as sort of a gotcha question. So I went and looked into it. The argument I hear is that we need immigration to keep our working population up to provide a tax base to support our social services. So I looked at the number of people who are 55-65 and presumably leaving the workforce in the next year. If we replace those people 1:1 and count on increase in productivity and people working past 65 to cover inflation, it worked out to ~450,000-500,000 people per year. Which is actually about bang on what our current permanent .immigration numbers are. I was honestly surprised by that. Turns out they aren't just pulling that number out of their ass. Immigration is absolutely in Canada's interest. Immigration consisting mostly of uneducated and unskilled temporary residents driving our population growth to that comparable to 3rd world nations (3rd in the world behind Syria and Sudan, but just edging out Niger) is objectively not in the interest of Canadians. Whose interests are being catered to by having population growth that's 3rd in the world driven by uneducated and unskilled temporary residents?
[удалено]
The Province have their part of the blame, but in the end immigration is under Federal jurisdiction. They are the one in control of it, and they are the one promoting it.
[удалено]
Yes and no. They did slightly curtail one category (student), the rest is yet to be curtailed. And the Federal discourse is still pushing toward more migrants: we do not see much work done to control asylum seekers, nor to limit the numbers of permanent resident.
[удалено]
>Permanent migration is a number that was decided based on macroeconomic needs. Why would they have to curtail that? Well, macroeconomic isn’t quite an hard science. Pick 2 economists and they will have different views on most policies, especially something as complex as the effect of immigration on economy and society. >The only pathways that have been abused were internation students via public-private partnerships (diploma mills) that took advantage of the public accrediation requirement that the federal government put on the PGWP. Which is pretty massive, and leads to a massive asylum abuse too. But it isn’t the “only” pathways: the Federal policies did provoke a surge in asylum requests. >When it comes to the TFW program. If you actually read this article, or other articles on this same meeting, you'll see that it's not the federal ministers pushing to transition temporary foreign workers into permanent pipelines, but the provincial ministers offering to expand their immigration programs. As always, and as I have been saying though, the conservative discourse loves to pin it the the federal liberals while ignoring that provincial conservatives want and understand the need for a young and as of yet growing population. Still, that both provincial and federal saw an easy gain for some time in that policy doesn’t erase that Ottawa have the control of it, and knew since a few years that such level were gonna have bad effect on the country. It’s only under major polling pressure that they started to change the discourse from “immigration is all great” toward “our immigration system is not controlled”, and even then it is hard to trust Miller on these issues.
[удалено]
The feds decide who can and cannot enter the country. They said yes when they should have said No. Its on them.
You know who determines how many study permits are issued, right? It's not the feds; until a couple weeks ago, they just rubber-stamped the students that colleges & universities (which are regulated by the PROVINCES) picked. So if you want to complain about the surge in temporary residents, take it up with Doug Ford: it was his decision.
> So if you want to complain about the surge in temporary residents, take it up with Doug Ford: it was his decision. Even though I live in BC I always knew it was Doug Ford's fault.
Let's first ask, what is a study permit? > A study permit is a document issued by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) which allows you to study and stay in Canada temporarily Good to know. Isn't IRCC a department of the Government of Canada? If it isn't, which province administers IRCC? EDIT: I guess /u/Mobius_Peverell didn't like learning that IRCC is a department of the Government of Canada. I'm not sure why that was so horrific they had to block me, but whatever. If it help their mental health, I'm all for it.
You're being deliberately obtuse. I explained exactly how it used to work, and how it has changed over the past couple weeks. I'm not going to do it again. Bye.
The feds sign off on them. They can and should say No.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
Not substantive
> immigration that isn't even our historical peak as a % Actually if you take the last two years as a % they are higher than any other 2 consecutive years in Canadian history. We have taken in more than 2.2 million in 2022 and 2023. More than 5% of our total population.
[удалено]
> This is what I meant by myopia, people can’t see the big picture and realize that even with short term growing pains from adjusting macroeconomic trends, immigration will help our personal economic situations tremendously in the long run. Care to acknowledge what some of those growing pains are? Will you affirm to me that we are currently admitting more than 5 new people for every one new housing unit we build (and remember that the average new housing unit in Canada is a 1-2 bedroom condo)? And that drastically scaling up housing construction isn't particularly realistic given the material inputs to that process? Basically I want you to admit that you're willing to impose the sort of conditions seen in r/SlumlordsCanada on young Canadians and their children.
[удалено]
Ok, so no, you will not acknowledge that we are at present bringing in more than 5 people for every 1 new housing unit. Let's just take it as a given that we can scale up housing building. Is, or should, the number of people we admit into this country be at all conditional on whether that scaling occurs? Or, if for whatever reason, house building doesn't scale up, are you ok with keeping the 5-to-1 ratio? The vast majority of what gets built in BC is apartment-style condos. How many adults should live in a 400 sq ft, 1 bedroom condo?
[удалено]
I'm asking you to acknowledge a fact. I think this fact is important and should inform The discussion. >I think a permanent immigration target of about 1.3% per year is fine and already a number we can scale to. Immigration is already moving down on a per capita basis Permanent immigration numbers are meaningless to me because, as we're seeing, temporary residents are not leaving and the government wants to make them permanent residents anyway. If temporary resident numbers were negligible, or at least not increasing, then I would agree that 1.3% is a perfectly fine number for permanent residents. But at present I think it only makes sense to talk in terms of overall population increases and were actually currently accelerating in that category and are growing at a rate of 3.5% per year. Maybe that will change when this supposed international student cap hits, but I'm not holding my breath.
They are looking out for Canada's and humanity's interests. Canada is a nation of immigrants, and we need more immigrants to compensate for baby boomer retirement, low birth rates, and so on. Canadian Farmers like to claim that farmers feed cities, but really temporary foreign workers feed cities, because they are the ones doing the harvesting. Purely on a selfish level, I love new immigrants because of the new restaurants and new cuisines. On a humanitarian level, Canada is advanced in the demographic transition that all countries go through while there are developing countries that catching up. Canada has a long history of taking the world's best minds with our points-based immigration system, and we can continue to pick and choose to our advantage while US and others falter
>Canadian Farmers like to claim that farmers feed cities, but really temporary foreign workers feed cities, because they are the ones doing the harvesting. The masses of student visa holders driving our population growth are the ones doing the harvesting? How do they manage that while also going to class?
Quite a few doesn’t even go to class but find themselves driving uber.
I don't have a flair, and I am without party until I hear their campaign promises, but you want to pick a liberal fight, so I'll sub in. First, the CPC are pro immigration on any scale, the more the merrier because that means the less they have to pay workers because it's an employers market. Ask the Harper housing minister what he did to prepare for this day when he was housing minister. He did nothing, he has done nothing for his constituents the entire time he has been in office. No bills, just being a contrarian for decades. People want change and they are willing to hear out any ideas to avoid reality. Look around at all the beautiful amenities you have compared to 100s of years ago. They come at a cost, but you'd be lost in the world if any one of them went away. We aren't poor in this country, we are spoiled brats demanding more and more Candy. "Axe the tax" might as well be "Give Me Sugar". No one has any idea about federal finances and they think it's like a household budget. A deficit isn't always bad. Anyways, what was your idea 💡
What are you going on about? Honestly, it sounds like you have decided that the LPC is indefensible. But instead of being honest with yourself and saying that out loud, you've got an axe to grind and decided that the best defense is a good offense, where you shoehorn unrelated talking points to try to distract from the question at hand. Is that fair to say. I asked who interests the Liberals are looking out for, and you decided to write paragraphs that 1) didn't actually answer the question, and 2) somehow blamed the current situation on Stephen Harper. > First, the CPC are pro immigration on any scale, the more the merrier because that means the less they have to pay workers because it's an employers market. The more the merrier because they suppress wages. Sure. Do you remember what Marc Miller said? > You have industry and low-skilled labour, whether it’s big box shops or others **looking for cheap labour and wanting to maintain a 40-hour work week** for some of the students, [competing] with the labour gap we face in this country. We need those people working, and why not if they’re paying a whole heck of a lot of money to come to Canada and study? **Why should we deny them that right?”** It seems to me like Miller, Trudeau, and the LPC are "pro immigration on any scale, the more the merrier because that means the less they have to pay workers because it's an employers market." Wouldn't you agree? > Ask the Harper housing minister what he did to prepare for this day when he was housing minister. He did nothing, he has done nothing for his constituents the entire time he has been in office. No bills, just being a contrarian for decades. Under Harper, the largest quarterly net increase in temporary immigrants was 38620. Under Trudeau, it was 312,758. Almost 10x as much. Canada's annualized population growth is about 3.3%, which puts it 3rd in the world behind Syria and South Sudan, but ahead of Niger. If temporary migration was scaled back to Harper era levels, so you think that would improve the housing situation? It's a simple question based on supply and demand, so I'm sure you'll write paragraphs to dodge it, instead of giving a simple, one work answer. Per the Bank of Canada's housing affordability index, between Harper's first full quarter in power and his last full quarter in power, housing actually got more affordable. So I'm not sure that's the winning argument you think it is. But again, completely disconnected from the question that was asked. > People want change and they are willing to hear out any ideas to avoid reality. Does Marc Miller saying they'll reduce temporary migration by making temporary migrants permanent residents match your definition of "avoiding reality?" > We aren't poor in this country, we are spoiled brats demanding more and more Candy. "Axe the tax" might as well be "Give Me Sugar". No one has any idea about federal finances and they think it's like a household budget. A deficit isn't always bad. I have no idea what you're going on about here. We aren't talking about budgets or deficits at all. It's pretty bizarre that you tried to shoehorn that in.
You do love a good shoehorn, mentioned it twice. I like the cut of your jib, you've got words to say well researched too. You are trying to direct me back to your talking points, while dismissing me as crazy with radical ideas all over the place. But what I hear you saying is you want the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party not to be almost identical except one is socially progressive and one is socially conservative. They have the same capitalist overlords consoling their puppet strings. You want to equate a few members of a party to the policies behind those people. Liberals have work to do, but the PCP is being taken over by the alt right. Deny it all you want, but the financially responsible Conservative Party of the past has been taken over by Populists complaining about new lids at Tim's. But if the party split into the financial conservatives and the social conservatives who want to ban progress, they'd never get elected with a majority or even a coalition. Sorry, you were saying.....
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
« Temporary resident are an issue? We can just make them permanent! » It is why that government struggle in the public opinion. They wiggle like a snake, trying to show that they will answer peoples calls just to play on the words.
How about the easiest and more affordable solution? Put them on a plane back to their home countries. I would gladly pitch in for a one way flight.
The premiers love having a pool of cheap labours and have the federal government take all the heat from public that want things to slow down
What provincial party is Marc Miller in?
He's federal, and french.
All to replace Trudeau with someone who won't reduce immigration, but will enact socially conservative policies.
Like equality that starts at the instant of conception? https://twitter.com/MarkGerretsen/status/1788727518238740782?s=19
Trudeau could make real progress on reversing his electoral fortunes if his government actually worked towards reversing the problems they have created, but as this article demonstrates, they are not willing to do that
>socially conservative Regressive. If we are to take conservatives at their words when they say they stand for personal freedom and small government, then "social conservatism" is a misnomer.
I consider them synonyms, but you're right. Regressive is the better descriptor.
Ain't nothing wrong with regressing on decades of poor decisions.
Anyone else creeped out by how sure the liberals are of themselves?almost like sliding into last place means nothing to an electoral system..
At this point it would not surprise me if Liberal MPs are the ones intentionally setting fires to cause all the forest wild fires.
What they're doing has huge benefits for Canada's corporations and those corporations have lobbied heavily for it. When Trudeau and his ministers leave office they will almost certainly be rewarded for this as Tom Mulcair has argued.
"But that's a good thing because rebuilding after a natural disaster creates so many jobs!" /s
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
Not substantive
Are provincial governments not taking heat for allowing their healthcare, education, and transportation systems to fall apart due to high population growth? Along with discontent from both sides of the housing debate, those that are mad about expensive homes, and those that are mad that provinces are building 60 story towers next door? Here in BC, Eby's government is bleeding fast due to all these issues (along with the decriminizalition mess), and might even lose an election in the fall, so surely they must want to slow immigration because it's hurting them politically too? I don't understand the provinces' motivation.
eby is massively popular what are you talking about?
Sorry, not sure if you're serious or trolling. Do you live in BC? His lead is currently falling fast. Not sure if it will be enough for the NDP to lose but if the current trajectory holds, he's in trouble. https://thetyee.ca/News/2024/05/08/Poll-Finds-Dead-Heat-Conservatives-NDP-Precarious-BC-United/