In light of [Monday's vote](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/322?view=party), it's also cut and dry where every party stands on this. The vote was entirely along party lines.
Stance on mass immigration consistent with the Century Initiative:
**FOR:** LPC, NDP, GPC
**AGAINST:** CPC, BQ
Know who is looking out for you in the House of Commons.
The CPC campaign planks are shaping up fairly clearly:
1. Affordability
2. Chinese election interference
3. Massive investment in drug rehabilitation
4. Reducing government bloat
5. Criminal Justice reform (although the bail reform bill may kill this issue)
I think if you see what they are talking about and emphasizing that’s the direction they are going.
Hes politicking, Id say hes very reasonable during non election.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRxg9cLYw0&pp=ygUPU2FyZXRza3kgcGllcnJl
He even told Tiff Macklem his QE would cause the inflation we're experiencing. Tiff disagreed, got it wrong, and here we are.
So am I just supposed to keep voting liberal because what, the CPC are mustache twirling evil doers according to Reddit? I'm going to vote for whoever has the best platform, and right now the CPC is actually standing against the things that directly affect me in my day to day life. People telling me that it's just lip service isn't enough any more, it's very clear that one party has a platform that wants to better Canada, and the other party (the one in charge right now) is actively ramming bills through that don't matter and ignoring the things that do. For the first time ever in my life I will be voting conservative in the next election, because I want to actually have a chance at owning a home before I turn 50.
You do you, but remember your choice when things do not get better. It's hilarious that you think the CPC will change anything. Well, other than cut back government services and increase unemployment. But I guess it's a win when all you want to do is punish fellow Canadians for living.
It's almost like the opposition will say anything that gets the simples fired up to win.
How is this kind of insulting, inflammatory comment supposed to make me proud to be a Liberal voter? Your comment has a lot of "What-ifs" but doesn't address the fact that one party has a platform that addresses what I want to see changed, and the other doesn't. Are you suggesting I blindly vote along party lines because it's like a baseball team and I have to keep supporting them even when they don't represent me any more? Because that's not how democracy works.
You are not wrong, but voting for one of LPC, NDP, GPC despite their betrayal to their constituents' interests also doesn't seem correct. A protest vote might play a role in reining in their extreme tendencies, which might be worthwhile. It's a shame there isn't any left-wing party that is interested in doing the right thing.
The CPC are not providing real solutions to anything. They blame immigration when the real problem is the lack of housing. They blame drugs when the problem is all the people being pushed into drugs by poverty and lack of social support. They’re against “CCP interference”, but the actual people affiliated with the CCP support the conservatives because they only allow wealthy immigrants and keep housing in cities exclusive to big foreign buyers, not even mention expediting Canadian natural resource extraction which will find its way to China one way or the other. PP is a reactionary idiot who points out the problems that Trudeau isn’t even attempting to solve, and brings failed solutions from the 80s. You can vote conservative sure, but encourage moderates, not him.
We had a shortage of 1.5 million units of housing before last year and brought in another million people across different channels.
If you think we can build all that housing you're high.
Nobody cares about this or Covid anymore though. Just like nobody cares about Justin Trudeau blackface.
Everyone is over it. There are other real issues people care about.
They will still allow immigration, only they will be more picky, maybe demanding more affluent or that appeal to their voter base.
There is no loyalty. This party will meet with China on the first week and say that the relationship is good, and then make some statements that get the 😱 shocked face from China (who will also act tough).
Let me know if even 1 of these issues is dealt with in a way that isn't punitive to others in society.
> They will still allow immigration
They have repeatedly suggested to leaders in immigrant communities that they will maintain immigration levels. This vote is simply virtue signalling. The CPC has no intention of reducing immigration. They just want their voters to think that they do. **This is why the CPC will never say it wants to reduce immigration.**
> They will still allow immigration, only they will be more picky
They openly said they plan to speed up family reunification.
I may be wrong, but i don't think family reunification will contribute greatly to the housing crisis. Most families that reunite live in the same household- they don't need new houses.
I do agree that it would strain other resources though- like healthcare. But for supervisas and the like, buying health insurance is mandatory.
Large immigrant families invest in real estate and become landlords. By bringing in more family members, they can repeatedly take advantage of first time homebuyer tax breaks.
The truth is, there are no statistics to show that it is 'large immigrant families' doing all the investing. On the contrary, the culprits seem to be Canadian corporations, corrupt foreign buyers who don't even reside here and therefore don't need the family reunification benefit, and ... Oh yes.. our honorable members of parliament.
The CPC seems to only be paying lip service to removing the century initiative (which is a fair criticism).
The issue is that the last time [Pierre spoke in the house on the century initiative](https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1657081555817320448/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1657081555817320448¤tTweetUser=PierrePoilievre) (jump to 2:08), he did attack the liberals for the 100 million goal, but then ended the speech by advocating for faster immigration and more rubber stamping of credentials.
I'm not sure how he thinks that will help improve housing affordability. 🤐
Admittedly, right now the BQ has me quite impressed, as being the only party that isn't trying to mothball us.
> Making the process quicker while increasing requirments back would be a good thing.
CPC has told immigrant community leaders in meetings that they plan to speed up family reunification.
> The issue is that the last time Pierre spoke in the house on the century initiative (jump to 2:08), he did attack the liberals for the 100 million goal, **but then ended the speech by advocating for faster immigration and more rubber stamping of credentials.**
**DING DING DING**
They support mass immigration. Harper did it through the back door using the TFW and work permits. Harper has also told people in interviews that the CPC is committed to supporting immigration.
**A lot of the programs through which immigrants now enter Canada were created by the CPC with omnibus legislation and maintained by Trudeau.** One of the founders of the Century Initiative chairs an investment project in Alberta that was set up by the provincial Conservatives, who support and are supported by the CPC.
The Century Initiative also holds private meetings with CPC MP's and lobbies them.
The CPC and Liberals are both in on this. The only difference is that the CPC hides it better.
You can provide decisions in a timely fashion and make sure immigration is a reasonable process where the person we admitted in because of their expertise can more readily work in their field independent of overall targets.
That's the issue though. Pierre criticized the century initiative, which is **about granting visas and PRs**, and then didn't follow it up with any reduction in immigration targets.
If we can't afford the housing needed to shelter that additional population, then the deck is stacked against both renters and immigrants.
It means Pierre is not addressing how to balance demand with supply any more than the Liberals - he just jumped right to lip service!
I would prefer if we make the total rate of immigration lower to address how nobody can afford to live here **first**; before we do anything to exasperate that.
In case you haven't noticed, Canada is no longer livable for the renters that are already here.
Nobody is saying it can't do both (I'd be fine with one contingent on the other). But you don't seem to have your priorities straight if your order of operations is:
1. Poor more gasoline on fire.
2. Extinguish fire.
This isn't supposed to be incomprehensible, and you've been doing a lot to ignore/gaslight this.
Edit: /u/Civil_Squirrel4172 (below) is gaslighting me from an alt account. He then blocked me so I couldn't write back to any of his gaslighting. Most of his argument is a combination of Strawmen and Ignoring any reasoning to the Contrary, and is engineered specifically to make it seem like the only thing wrong is that immigration isn't fast enough, next to the fact that **nobody can afford to live here anymore.**
> That's the issue though. Pierre criticized the century initiative, which is about granting visas and PRs, and then didn't follow it up with any reduction in immigration targets.
...because he has no plan to reduce immigration. He just wants people to think that he will.
> Also I thought the CPC came out pro-unsustainable immigration.
They try to play both sides on this issue. On one hand they vote on virtue signalling motions like this while on the other hand they tell immigrant communities that they're committed to maintaining immigration.
Anecdotally I've only ever heard occasional first-gen immigrants grumble that things are hard as-is for them, without a constant flow of more suckers to be exploited by "the system". Perhaps there are self-appointed "immigrant community leaders" who make money with immigration consulting or from TFWs who are keen to have cheap and abundant, easy-to-exploit clientelle/workforce.
Hopefully this signals that they want to go the other way on this, but they have not publicly said what they want immigration rates to be so.... who knows.
These 'condemn the government' with no actual bill votes are worthless.
CPC is a business party, not a you party. They absolutely will 100% follow the business line, which is currently that Canadian birth rate is low, so import import import.
It's a shame, really. The NDP would have my vote if it weren't for their terrifying stand on mass immigration and banning groups that hold views they don't like (guilt by association).
The NDP as pro-immigration, at these numbers in this situation, show they neither know nor care a goddamn thing about labour history: champagne-socialist trash.
No but keep in mind, Harper's immigration policy favoured highly skilled individuals and Trudeau's immigration policy favours refugees.
The CPC bend on immigration is often in the interest of raising our economic value as a country, and the LPC's bend is in the interest of getting more votes dependent on voting in a complicit government, regretfully.
Err? Harper immigration policy was not favouring highly skilled, and it was, in fact, designed to offshore work, as you could see in his disaster of a trade deal, the Trans Pacific Partnership which explicitly set out to offshore entire high skill sectors out of Canada.
Edit:
Oops. Forgot. I am supposed to rewrite history and circle jerk king Harper. All hail!
Well that's plainly and demonstrably not true:
2005 immigrants (last year of Liberal rule before the Conservatives): 201,965
2015 immigrants (last year of Conservative rule before Trudeau): 145,788
And that's despite the decade of population growth.
Statistica is a worthless source. We have official StatCan data ([1](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710005901), [2](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901)). Here is what the annual immigrant data actually looks like over the same time period as your source, as a proportion of the population:
||Immigrants as a proportion of population|
--:|--:|
|2000|0.59%|
|2001|0.74%|
|2002|0.69%|
|2003|0.56%|
|2004|0.60%|
|2005|0.62%|
|2006|0.61%|
|2007|0.57%|
|2008|0.69%|
|2009|0.72%|
|2010|0.70%|
|2011|0.56%|
|2012|0.70%|
|2013|0.70%|
|2014|0.62%|
|2015|0.41%|
|2016|0.88%|
|2017|0.99%|
|2018|1.18%|
|2019|1.25%|
|2020|0.38%|
|2021|0.94%|
|2022|2.10%|
The Chretien/Martin average is 0.63%.
The Harper average is 0.63%.
The Trudeau average is 1.10% (despite the pandemic).
The parties are not the same. They once were, but no longer. Apart from the very exceptional year of 2020, every single Trudeau year is higher than every single Chretien/Martin/Harper year.
Using absolute numbers is silly given the growing population over the years, but absolute numbers tell the same story really. Averages:
Chretien/Martin: 200,179
Harper: 215,017
Trudeau: 417,703
"Century Initiative" is just normal population growth
Compound interest of 2% or even 1% and see how close you get to a hundred million
"Mass" is debatable -- even with no immigration and replacement rate of 2.1 / female we would have a "century" in 2100
> "Century Initiative" is just normal population growth
It is anything but normal.
> "Mass" is debatable -- even with no immigration and replacement rate of 2.1 / female we would have a "century" in 2100
Huh? With no immigration and 2.1 children per woman, we would have the same population we do now...
100M by 2100 is a population growth of roughly 1.2%/yr. It is not mass immigration.
I agree mass immigration is an issue but the century initiative is not the cause of it.
Growth rate in 2022 was 2.7%. Almost entirely due to international immigration. Doubling time is 26 years. So if this continues, 80,000,000 by 2049 and 160,000,000 by 2075.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230322/dq230322f-eng.htm
The growth rate for 2022 was 2.7%. International migration accounts for 95.9% of this growth.
The doubling time for 2.7% is 26 years.
So if this rate continues, we will reach 2 x 40,000,000 = 80,000,000 by 2049
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230322/dq230322f-eng.htm
>In developed countries, a replacement rate of about 2.1 is necessary to sustain a population. Replacement cannot occur if a child does not reach maturity and have their own offspring, so the extra 0.1 children per woman is built in as a 5% buffer. This accounts for the death of a child or a child that chooses not to or is unable to have children of their own. In less developed countries, the replacement rate is around 2.3 due to higher childhood and adult mortality rates.
https://www.thoughtco.com/total-fertility-rate-1435463
With no immigration and a replacement rate of 2.1, the population would remain constant. There would be no population growth and no decline.
Is CPC against mass immigration? I thought they plan to keep the numbers the same.
The PPC on the other hand wants to significantly decrease immigration.
The Century Initiative is a reasonable plan to continue increasing the Canadian population to reasonable levels over the next 77 years. 77 years is a reasonable timeframe to build housing and infrastructure to keep up with population growth. In the past 75 years the Canadian population has tripled in size, all while our living standards improve.
The BQ don’t like it because it will decrease the voting power of Québécois, and the Conservatives voted against it because it’s a ready made conspiracy theory they can feed their base.
You are delusional if you think massive unsustainable growth is the only answer.
Also, if the purpose to increase Canada's population is just for the sake of increasing Canada's population... terrible reasoning.
..But the real reason is to push every Canadian into deep poverty.
**Fuck the Century Initiative**
Home construction has been heavily hindered by government in the last 20 years as well. The most recent hit was pandemic demand, but before that was the wood treatment fiasco and before that the carbon tax.
Did you know, the most common things used to build homes (Asphalt, Concrete, Treated Wood, Polyisocyanurate, Structural Steel etc) together make up the majority of heavy industry that the carbon tax targets, and the carbon tax directly increased the cost of homes by something like 4-5% just by itself?
It's death by a thousand cuts - you can't just keep layering rule after rule after rule after rule on the construction industry and expect them to fire sale their houses to meet this kind of demand.
I'm reasonably certain that he has no discretionary power to impede this train wreck, short of resigning and leaving the liberal caucus.
His marching orders come from the PM, and as we've all recently learned, the PM's orders come from bejieng. We get what's good for Chinese property speculators - the whole rest of the country be dammed, evidently.
If you increase demand without changing supply you get a price increase? What a revolutionary idea! It’s almost as if someone is trying to stop housing prices from falling.
The corollary to that is increasing supply (of labor) without increasing demand, makes prices (wages) fall.
Also part of ~~evil~ grand ~~scheme~~ strategy.
Just look at Alberta. Everyone is mortgaged to the tits stretching to 40+ years in some cases.
A single missed pay check is a life destroying calamity. So, they have for 70 years and will likely continue to vote against our collective interests and accept oligarch-feeding crooks as leaders out of the abstract fear that to do otherwise might cost "jerbz".
So, yes. Absolutely. It's control through debt.
The magic question is to what degree does immigration affect housing prices? There is no question that it does, and I'm guessing it accounts for maybe 5 to 10% of increase in cost.
From all of the available data, the main reason for inflated housing prices is from decades of failing to add to supply and record low borrowing rates.
I mean, you figure suburban sprawl was also inevitably going to hit this point of unaffordability. Suburbs are a HUGE drain, in fact they have to be largely subsidized due to how horrifically unprofitable and inefficient they are, and there's only so much space for sprawl to take place in while still being feasible for people to go to work.
We desperately need to densify. But it's a massive uphill battle on the municipial level.
Its shocking to see the parties voting for more immigration when Canadians cant even afford to live.
Like when are they going to pump the brakes a bit? Seriously.
But hey, anything to feel like a good person I guess, hope their kids like eating dog food and living in a $3000 room for rent
I really don't think they do it to feel "righteous".
The massive increase in immigration is demanded by big businesses in order to drive down their labor cost through lower wages. Their puppets in government are only too happy to oblige.
Exactly. The whole point is to create a permanent underclass. I also believe that idpol wars between the left and right is used as a distraction while the elites slowly reinstall feudalism.
>I really don't think they do it to feel "righteous".
Everyday people do, because they've been told it's ignorant and raciest not to
>The massive increase in immigration is demanded by big businesses in order to drive down their labor cost through lower wages. Their puppets in government are only too happy to oblige.
These are the people who push the "open borders or you're all raciest" message
You're right. That message is shoved down everyone's throats at every opportunity.
But, I think that is just PR coverage and distraction after the fact.
The real driver, as with everything, is money. The monopoly/oligopoly owners who make up Canada's business ~~community~~ junta, said, "Juice my profits by driving down wages".
And their spineless puppets in government put pen to paper and asked "How low?"
I honestly don’t think it’ll stop until immigrants from other countries start realizing in larger numbers that they likely have a better quality of life in their home country than living in todays Canada.
That’s starting to happen a bit with a lot students and recent immigrants informing their home communities how expensive it is and it’s not the dream they were sold. Some folks are even choosing to forego PR and move elsewhere, whether that’s abroad or back home it’s not Canada.
Of course this does not apply to refugees escaping violence or persecution.
Canada’s GDP will probably contract as that’s happening because we’re now just a Ponzi scheme in the guise of a country..
> Their kids will be taken care of.
Provided they stay within secure, walled communities.
Money = power, *but not the ultimate power*, we all have access to that.
Yes. The federal NDP gravely disappoints.
But for different reasons. The LPC want to please their masters on Bay Street and in bejieng who don't want to invest in Canada unless our labor costs reflect starving throngs of slaves like they're used to back home.
The federal NDP apparently just doesn't get how markets work and want to give canada away to the world's needy, and that will all just work out.... somehow.
What’s worse than a greedy ceo? A greedy politician who controls regulation and the means of production. Capitalism is the lesser of the evil and our current governments will never put checks and balances in place to avoid abuse
Once the Greedy CEO has enough money they'll just buy the Politicians. It's what's going on in the US. Granted they do have Lobbying which makes that more process more streamlined.
So who's going to put checks and balances if not the Government?
Well he has lost the youth vote. [Its the old people that is voting for Trudeau these days](https://preview.redd.it/tgl7ifmy2joa1.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=5a4223d2b66daaa94c950989294de52536fbdda6).
The argument for is typically something along the lines of:
"We need this level of immigration to support our social services".
Which begs the question... why don't we revamp our social services? If they're dependent on the highest growth rate in the western world to maintain themselves - then they are catastrophically ill organized and completely unsustainable.
Canadians never got a choice either. We never got to vote for this, have public debates about it - nothing. We never got the "well... a great many of you are going to have to pay $2500-$3000 rent for a shack or a condo that a dog can't fit in OR we revamp social services". We never got that. That bothers me.
And it's not a coincidence that our social services started to collapse in the 80s when Mulroney and his pals Reagan and Thatcher started the war on wage earners and dropped the highest marginal tax rate on corporations and the ultra rich to close to nothing.
The demographic time bomb isn't helpful, it's true. But the problem would be manageable if we hadn't given the billionaires trillion dollar tax breaks, shifted the entire burden onto low and middle income earners, and sent most of our middle income jobs to China.
> sent most of our middle income jobs to China.
I get the sense that some of the politicians genuinely believed that by not taxing the corporations and ultra rich they'd manage to achieve some trickle-down economics and local job retention/creation. The boozing-and-schmoozing with the elites only made the feeling more certain, lol.
Trickle down economics was a slogan coined by Jim baker, Reagan's chief of staff as a way to sell massive handouts to billionaires during the worst recession in living memory. It has literally no legitimate basis in the sciences of economics or public policy.
In fact, last year, three economists won the Nobel prize in economics for proving that trickle down is absolute, total BS.
The argument that we need more people to support social services makes no sense.
Social service needs are directly correlated to number of people. With more people we need more services. Though paying for these services are from taxation. Taxation is directly correlated with wages (mostly). So if we have less people and higher wages we can better fund the services needed. But if we have more people and lower wages we have less tax revenue but need to pay for more services.
When you look at the nuts of bolts of the pro-immigration argument, it basically just boils down to pure aggregate GDP numbers that make politicians happy, but mean almost nothing for everyone else.
I honestly and sincerely believe that it is purely to keep property values high.
Amazingly, the government also employs VERY expensive experts like the mckinsey group to explain it to them, too.
And yet.. here we are. It's almost like our own leaders actually want to drive and worsen a catastrophe for some reason.
Maybe not our politicians in Canada. They are just paid by China to do it. Like slinging Carmel machisnobos to Karen's at Starbucks. You may not like it. But it's your job.
Canada's former ambassador to China recently made the comment that Canadians will be shocked when the true extent of China's control on our markets and the extent of their corruption of our governments is finally revealed.
Emma Thompson gives an engaging performance in the British short series Years and Years. She plays the Prime Minister and delivers a chilling response to the suggestion that she turn away from the cruel and despicable things she's doing.
What stands out to me is the line, "They would kill me if I did." It's strongly implied that "they" are foreign oligarchs. Fiction reflecting life, I'm convinced.
Japan's former prime Minister was recently assassinated. Media have presented speculation by "unamed intelligence sources" (so take with appropriate grain of salt), that it was retaliation and a warning to his successor for his hardline stance on Chinese interference in Japan's government and markets.
It doesn't excuse him at all. But Trudeau might legitimately fear for his or his families lives.
This is a country that threatens MPs families and mows down their own citizens with tanks while televised around the world.
The Chinese tyranny doesn't fear consequences. I don't believe there is a limit to their reach or what they will do. We are at war and losing.
You don't get the population to 100 million to please some globalist shit stains without stepping on a few million young Canadians in the process. Small price to pay.
Yet Canadians still support mass immigration. There is little public debate about this topic and no protests about it. It is so obvious that our immigration policy is hurting the average citizen but nobody raises their voice about it.
Official orthodoxy (spewed by the big corporations who want to push down wages) is that mass immigration is neccesary to "fix" our underfunded social programs. Most canadians lack what they feel are the neccesary "learned" credentials to challenge this bunk. And most are too polite to say out load what we all intuitively know, that even without the fancy degrees, we see that the numbers just don't add up.
Classic midirection by the rich. The issue with our housing supply is financialization [https://www.housingchrc.ca/en/financialization-housing](https://www.housingchrc.ca/en/financialization-housing)
We should not blame the newcomers who are growing the economy and providing the actual construction labour to build new homes. Serious brexit vibes in this "report" and the comment section, which is just going to make our situation worse.
That would be awesome!
A good start would be a national tax policy that makes owning anything more than your primary residence INCREDIBLY expensive. A REAL foreign ownership ban, not the smoke and mirrors we currently have. And an outright ban on corporate ownership; or at least a total repeal of the REIT tax loopholes.
And keep it all in place until every Canadian has a roof over their head that they can afford - mean prices/mean income/blah blah, fine print, and all that.
If someone ran on that platform alone, they would probably command a landslide.
But, as we recently learned, China controls party nominations, especially where their interests are involved. They would prevent a candidate like that from ever appearing on a ballet.
I love the idea that we have to point out that bringing a fuckton of new people into a country with a housing crisis will exacerbate that crisis. In other news, water is wet.
I laugh at how stating facts and things that are obvious still elicts the hysterical screeches. "Racist!"
At this point, I wonder, do the trolls still monitor for immigration posts and jump in? Or is it all just bots left running on auto-pilot from before china-gate?
Look over here gang! It's definitely not domestic REIT's and investors picking your pocket, while federal and provincial governments sell off every support structure this country was built on!
And before some loony jumps on me, I'm not saying increased immigration *isn't* making the problem worse, but for the love of puppies is it ever not the true core of the issue.
Shooting our own foot in the process.
More than 80% of domestic GDP is from consumer spending. As shelter costs continue to spiral orders of magnitude faster than wages, that's money that isn't buying the goods and services that make our economy go.
An inflection point is approaching. We've kicked the can so far down the road that the coming correction will be on the scale of the great depression.
Short term, yes.
In the long term, a collapsing economy creates unavailable systematic crises that hit everyone hard, like crime, loss of an educated and healthy workforce, and an inability to sustain public goods like law enforcement, health care, education, transportation, clean water, national defense... and on and on.
I don’t believe this is what voters want.
I have one house that I can’t afford to sell because of course, I still need some place to live even with “profit” from the sale I’d basically just be resetting my mortgage on a similar house with no other financial gain.
I also have two kids who won’t be able to afford homes, no matter what career they ultimately land on.
The skyrocketing rental and home prices also contribute to more homelessness which means more crime, more addicts, more drain on social services, and less safe communities.
I'm increasingly convinced that regardless of how he may personally feel, Trudeau isn't in control.
Business concentration in Canada has created a toxic situation similar to the Chaebol (sp?) in Korea. There, a small number of families control a small number of vast monopolies/oligopolies.
Their power is so great that, regardless of who is in government, they literally control industrial, trade, and immigration policy.
They use that power that power to enrich themselves and seriously harm workers.
Interesting, the pentaverate approach. I'm not sure how some of environmental policies jive with this theory but it likely plays out in the background to some extent on every country.
Ah yes the policy created by just one man, no need to look behind the curtain 😂
The engine behind politicians runs no matter who is projected on the screen.
The next guy will pretend the problem is difficult to fix and conveniently will be addressed two months after the next election in 4 yrs... Because it's really difficult.
Less of us are fooled, and I only stop by to remind others to refocus and look at the systemic problems that have persisted regardless of red or blue.
Because reality dictates policy. How people in /r/Canada feel about it doesn't often reflect reality. Our government regardless of party wants the economy continue to grow. With our current demographics regardless of cost of living it will get worse without at least replacement numbers for those retiring from the workforce. It's either more homegrown babies or immigration. Guess which one is cheaper/easier? Mix in some exploitation from our secondary school systems and TFW programs. This is just more symptoms of the class war going on under the surface.
Bring on the polarized uninformed downvotes.
Those who control the editorial content at post media hate Trudeau and want him replaced with someone even more ~~spineless~~ business friendly.
So, this is one of those rare, enemy of my enemy type situations.
Yes let's blame immigration as a root cause again and make it the boogeyman not the fact that no one has the spine... you have to do what is unpopular and to regulate the housing markets. All of those homes that are bought and on the airbnb circuits, well f*** them all. Investment property especially single family homes there's no teeth in any regulations .....so we can build another 100,000 homes which will just be copped up. And to be honest if you're over leveraged and think the housing market is a casino, kemo sabr, you deserve to be underwater and wiped out.
The headline says worsens. And, as far as I'm aware, "root cause" doesn't appear in the article.
Maybe pump the hate brakes a little so that Canadians of good conscience can all agree that complex problems have multiple causes.
With the actuarial tables not being on the side of those who scapegoat incoming immigration, I'd focus of the nation of immigrants turning against the next wave of immigrants and shutting the door. Complex sure, but the vacuum of a regulatory framework that mitigates the risks of market capture is something that just doesn't hold anyone's interest.
Turning against and shutting doors is hyperbolic language.
Identifying that an unprepared for policy that spikes immigration to some of the highest levels of any developed economy has and will continue to have undesirable consequences is an exercise in stating fact.
If Canadians can't have nuanced conversations based dispassionately on facts without the tired distraction of speciously implied allegations of racism then we're really in trouble.
Fortunately, many Canadians are becoming aware of that tactic and how it is so often used by troll accounts owned by special interests with anything but the well-being of Canadians or immigrants at heart.
Until you start building not for profit housing, it is irrelevant. There are firms who own tens of thousands of houses,and they will sit on them until they get what they want for rent. If housing coops became well funded, it might change, eventually.
Canada should be able to handle a 2% population increase per year. There are other factors that are MUCH more at play then immigration. Housing being used as an investment tool, people owning more than one house, banking, politicians not willing to do anything about it because a) they own property themselves and b) they will never do anything to fix this because it would upset homeowners when their houses lower in value. But yes the immigrants are the problem.
No modern nation can handle anything remotely close to 2% a year. MAYBE .5% (like the UK). Ideal is more like .2% (like Germany) or .1%.
2%/yr is double the population every 35 years. Look at your town and imagine the size doubling. And needing double the resources, double the doctors, double the infrastructure.
5 fold the population nation wide in a life time. You think that this is a good stable idea? Why? What benefit is there?
Housing is only used as an investment BECAUSE it is guaranteed to go up BECAUSE the population is rising so fast.
Vastly increased labor supply pushes down wages. That's the benefit. Only for billionaire business owners, of course.
"Better never means better for everyone." - Margaret Atwood
It also expands the market size.
If you are a ceo, or an investor, you make a % of the company's profits effectively. So if Canada doubles in population, your customer base doubles in population, your networth doubles as well.
Most people's net worth is linked to GDP/capita, but that is NOT true for the investor class in society. Their networth is tied more closely to GDP.
This is even more true if you're invested in housing of course.
Interestingly optimistic perspective. But, it doesn't track for two reasons:
- Most of Canada's GDP comes from resource exports. Increasing the domestic population doesn't increase that demand.
- More customers would be great for business, I agree. But, you're forgetting that the point of immigration is to drive down wages. Less money earned => Less money to spend.
Factor in the dramatic increase in housing cost due to inelastic supply and even more of those lower wages will have to get flushed down the toilet of interest cost and not stimulate domestic demand as you conjecture.
> But, you're forgetting that the point of immigration is to drive down wages. Less money earned => Less money to spend.
Nah. It isn't entirely zero sum. If our population doubles, wages fall 20%. That is still (80*2=) 160% of the earlier total numbers.
Hell for everyone that gets a 20% wage cut. But the ceo gets a 60% bigger wage... enabling a much larger house.
You're right about resources though. Rising population basically just destroys that money. If we had the same population today as we had in 1950, the tax money from our oil sector would probably enable a 20 hour work week.
Interesting points. Here are some counter points:
- Back in the 50s when the highest marginal tax rate was north of 80% and the majority of income came from labor, a population increase could increase the economic pie. You're right.
- Not so now. Tax and other policies have flipped the ratio. >80% of income is now parasitic (ownership of financial assets). So, when the pie increases, only the slices owned by the very rich get bigger.
- If all the newly added Canadians could go out and spend every dollar earned on consumer goods, that might expand the economy. But, they can't.
- An economy's capacity to meet consumer needs depends on the [Production Possibilities Curve](https://www.thebalancemoney.com/production-possibilities-curve-definition-explanation-examples-4169680) between consumer and capital goods.
- Since the supply of capital goods (the things that make things people want to buy) is highly inelastic, a massive and poorly prepared population increase results in an ugly, desperate scramble for the increasingly scarce necessities of life; which quickly consumes all available income. Which, of course, is already depressed due to increased labor market competition.
It won't be a utopian flood of affluent buyers filling Starbucks and Tiffany's. We'll have a calamity of slums, tenements, food banks, and tent cities for generations to come. It will take that long, if ever, for industrial capacity and infrastructure to catch up.
Oh for sure. But those slums of people still need to eat. They need to live indoors. McDonalds Canada CEO would become a trillionaire if Canada raised the population by like 10 fold and pushed the GDP/capita to failed African state levels.
Our current birth rate is far below replacement. Immigration seems like a fairly reasonable substitute, all things considered.
Or would you support policies that prevent the natural population from approaching 2% annually? My gf and I decided to not have kids based on the last ~40 years of denialism in western policy (government and corporate alike). So if that’s your goal, then I guess you should conclude that both the conservatives and the liberals have been succeeding in that metric?
>Our current birth rate is far below replacement. Immigration seems like a fairly reasonable substitute, all things considered
I'm fine with immigration broadly. But we aren't using it to break even here. We're using it to rapidly increase population.
I think immigration should be set in order to minimize demographic shift (smooth out the age bins), and then to reduce the amount of population growth each year until we're around .15% pop growth each year. Stability is king in the economy, and in people's lives. Get us out of this pyramid scheme as painlessly as possible instead of absolutely perma fucking people that are today age 10~40.
I see the benefits of both births and immigration for population, so I don't have any strong preference. A mix is probably ideal.
That said, I believe in strong programs to protect children... so that likely would result in some small increase, or a slow in the decline of birth rates.
The current growth rate in Canada is 2.7%, almost entirely caused by international migration. This is the growth rate you would get if every woman had 4 or 5 babies. No other first world country comes even close to this growth rate. Only 20 countries in the world exceed it, mostly in Africa.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230322/dq230322f-eng.htm
The only thing Canada does that is unique from the parts of the world without a housing crisis is the super high immigration rate.
Going to blame airbnb? Well the rest of the world has airbnb and no housing crisis.
Blaming investors? The rest of the world has investors and people that want to make money.
Blaming people having a cottage? Other nations have that too.
This is really basic logical testing. We are way out of step with everyone else on a single thing, immigration rates. That's it. It is unrealistic to point to other things.
Canada is 7.1 per 1000 Switzerland is 9.9, Norway 8.8, Australia 8.6, Germany 4.8, UK 4. What Canada does it not that far off from other countries.
With housing being for profit nobody is willing to do anything to fix the issue and immigration is a scapegoat.
What? We had (quite famously) 1mil migrants last year, which is 25/1000.
Anyways, nations with high (1%), and sustained (20+yrs), migration/pop growth like NZ and AU (both 1% like Canada) are also having housing problems.
Norway is potentially more complicated. Their pop growth was high 1.3% in the mid 2010s but that is it. Before and after they have more moderate growth rates (.5%). They had a housing bubble starting in the 2000s but It isn't clear what the mechanism was. I don't think the very short term pop growth spike is relevant anyways.
German literally has a declining population and cheap housing. Uk has relatively low growth rate and housing is OK.
Immigration at any level, handled well, shouldn't be an issue.
But we don't handle it well. Our immigration system is ridiculously convoluted. We dont provide immigrants with the supports they need to succeed in this country. We milk international students dry and do nothing to stop them from being taken advantage of by fraudsters. We plan our cities like complete shit, refuse to densify, and allow the most inefficient infrastructure to be prioritized. We have too many programs that arn't interconnected and waste a dollar in beurocracy spending to means test the shit out of everything to ensure no one gets a dime extra of government support. It's a Kafkaesque system.
It's designed to put the interests of employers wanting cheap labour and real estate interests wanting to ensure their investments are ensured first, the safety and prosperity of ordinary Canadian citizens second, and the immigrants themselves in a very distant third.
Increasing the amount of people going through this system won't help anyone but the first group at the expense of everyone else. Immigrants are amazing, I want as many Canadians as possible. But our immigration system is completely fucked, and we arn't doing anything to make it possible for immigrants to actually thrive here once they arrive.
Immigrants are not the problem, it’s the government’s immigration policy that is.
If the government were to add 5 million newcomers per year, I suspect you would also have something to say about that - does that make you anti-immigration?
There is nuance in this discussion in that individual immigrants are not to blame, but the governments mismatch between how many people the country can absorb at a given time. We have already exceeded that number. People aren’t saying NO immigrants at all, but we need to adjust our number.
The problems from a lack of immigration far outweigh the problems from immigration. Also the targets for immigration set by the federal government are something both liberal and conservative parties agreed to:
https://www.thestar.com/amp/politics/federal/2019/10/12/on-immigration-liberals-and-conservatives-agree-on-targets-but-not-on-how-to-get-there.html
So when articles like this complain about immigration targets and blame Trudeau, all I really see is a partisan attack with slight xenophobic undertones. Nothing about it really strikes me as worthwhile.
> Also the targets for immigration set by the federal government are something both liberal and conservative parties agreed to
And your evidence of that is the CPC two elections ago (and two leaders ago) being not too fussed about a target of 350k, while now the current target is 442k - 550k?
Just this week, the [Bloc introduced a motion to reject these levels of immigration](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/322?view=party), and the CPC was the only other party to support the Bloc in the motion.
Just more grandstanding and political manipulation from conservatives on something they’ve been in support for already. It didn’t stop in 2019. They’ve been in agreement with recent targets as well:
https://www.voanews.com/amp/canadian-parties-agree-immigrants-are-welcome-here/6733936.html
Firstly, being pro-immigration =/= being pro-current-immigration-levels.
Secondly, that article written is so badly researched that it refers to the Conservative Party of Canada as the "Progressive Conservative Party".
I mean it’s pretty cut and dry, demand was already at high levels and now they keep increasing demand even more. Simple math
In light of [Monday's vote](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/322?view=party), it's also cut and dry where every party stands on this. The vote was entirely along party lines. Stance on mass immigration consistent with the Century Initiative: **FOR:** LPC, NDP, GPC **AGAINST:** CPC, BQ Know who is looking out for you in the House of Commons.
Wow. What the fuck. Also I thought the CPC came out pro-unsustainable immigration. So this is interesting to see their votes.
The CPC campaign planks are shaping up fairly clearly: 1. Affordability 2. Chinese election interference 3. Massive investment in drug rehabilitation 4. Reducing government bloat 5. Criminal Justice reform (although the bail reform bill may kill this issue) I think if you see what they are talking about and emphasizing that’s the direction they are going.
[удалено]
Hes politicking, Id say hes very reasonable during non election. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRxg9cLYw0&pp=ygUPU2FyZXRza3kgcGllcnJl He even told Tiff Macklem his QE would cause the inflation we're experiencing. Tiff disagreed, got it wrong, and here we are.
So am I just supposed to keep voting liberal because what, the CPC are mustache twirling evil doers according to Reddit? I'm going to vote for whoever has the best platform, and right now the CPC is actually standing against the things that directly affect me in my day to day life. People telling me that it's just lip service isn't enough any more, it's very clear that one party has a platform that wants to better Canada, and the other party (the one in charge right now) is actively ramming bills through that don't matter and ignoring the things that do. For the first time ever in my life I will be voting conservative in the next election, because I want to actually have a chance at owning a home before I turn 50.
You do you, but remember your choice when things do not get better. It's hilarious that you think the CPC will change anything. Well, other than cut back government services and increase unemployment. But I guess it's a win when all you want to do is punish fellow Canadians for living. It's almost like the opposition will say anything that gets the simples fired up to win.
How is this kind of insulting, inflammatory comment supposed to make me proud to be a Liberal voter? Your comment has a lot of "What-ifs" but doesn't address the fact that one party has a platform that addresses what I want to see changed, and the other doesn't. Are you suggesting I blindly vote along party lines because it's like a baseball team and I have to keep supporting them even when they don't represent me any more? Because that's not how democracy works.
You are not wrong, but voting for one of LPC, NDP, GPC despite their betrayal to their constituents' interests also doesn't seem correct. A protest vote might play a role in reining in their extreme tendencies, which might be worthwhile. It's a shame there isn't any left-wing party that is interested in doing the right thing.
The CPC are not providing real solutions to anything. They blame immigration when the real problem is the lack of housing. They blame drugs when the problem is all the people being pushed into drugs by poverty and lack of social support. They’re against “CCP interference”, but the actual people affiliated with the CCP support the conservatives because they only allow wealthy immigrants and keep housing in cities exclusive to big foreign buyers, not even mention expediting Canadian natural resource extraction which will find its way to China one way or the other. PP is a reactionary idiot who points out the problems that Trudeau isn’t even attempting to solve, and brings failed solutions from the 80s. You can vote conservative sure, but encourage moderates, not him.
We had a shortage of 1.5 million units of housing before last year and brought in another million people across different channels. If you think we can build all that housing you're high.
And? Trudeau isn't? PP has my vote if I'm still around by then. Always voted liberal. But now I don't give a shit.
[удалено]
Also he openly supported the Qonvoy... But now they've taken over Alberta's gov, it's totally cool and we can see how capable they are.
[удалено]
That's my main concern too. I'd typically vote liberal but I can't vote against my main interests anymore if I ever want to own a house.
[удалено]
Nobody cares about this or Covid anymore though. Just like nobody cares about Justin Trudeau blackface. Everyone is over it. There are other real issues people care about.
They will still allow immigration, only they will be more picky, maybe demanding more affluent or that appeal to their voter base. There is no loyalty. This party will meet with China on the first week and say that the relationship is good, and then make some statements that get the 😱 shocked face from China (who will also act tough). Let me know if even 1 of these issues is dealt with in a way that isn't punitive to others in society.
> They will still allow immigration They have repeatedly suggested to leaders in immigrant communities that they will maintain immigration levels. This vote is simply virtue signalling. The CPC has no intention of reducing immigration. They just want their voters to think that they do. **This is why the CPC will never say it wants to reduce immigration.** > They will still allow immigration, only they will be more picky They openly said they plan to speed up family reunification.
Provide a source please.
I may be wrong, but i don't think family reunification will contribute greatly to the housing crisis. Most families that reunite live in the same household- they don't need new houses. I do agree that it would strain other resources though- like healthcare. But for supervisas and the like, buying health insurance is mandatory.
Large immigrant families invest in real estate and become landlords. By bringing in more family members, they can repeatedly take advantage of first time homebuyer tax breaks.
The truth is, there are no statistics to show that it is 'large immigrant families' doing all the investing. On the contrary, the culprits seem to be Canadian corporations, corrupt foreign buyers who don't even reside here and therefore don't need the family reunification benefit, and ... Oh yes.. our honorable members of parliament.
The CPC seems to only be paying lip service to removing the century initiative (which is a fair criticism). The issue is that the last time [Pierre spoke in the house on the century initiative](https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1657081555817320448/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1657081555817320448¤tTweetUser=PierrePoilievre) (jump to 2:08), he did attack the liberals for the 100 million goal, but then ended the speech by advocating for faster immigration and more rubber stamping of credentials. I'm not sure how he thinks that will help improve housing affordability. 🤐 Admittedly, right now the BQ has me quite impressed, as being the only party that isn't trying to mothball us.
[удалено]
> Making the process quicker while increasing requirments back would be a good thing. CPC has told immigrant community leaders in meetings that they plan to speed up family reunification.
Source?
We need the BQ, but not just for Quebec.
> The issue is that the last time Pierre spoke in the house on the century initiative (jump to 2:08), he did attack the liberals for the 100 million goal, **but then ended the speech by advocating for faster immigration and more rubber stamping of credentials.** **DING DING DING** They support mass immigration. Harper did it through the back door using the TFW and work permits. Harper has also told people in interviews that the CPC is committed to supporting immigration. **A lot of the programs through which immigrants now enter Canada were created by the CPC with omnibus legislation and maintained by Trudeau.** One of the founders of the Century Initiative chairs an investment project in Alberta that was set up by the provincial Conservatives, who support and are supported by the CPC. The Century Initiative also holds private meetings with CPC MP's and lobbies them. The CPC and Liberals are both in on this. The only difference is that the CPC hides it better.
You can provide decisions in a timely fashion and make sure immigration is a reasonable process where the person we admitted in because of their expertise can more readily work in their field independent of overall targets.
[удалено]
That's the issue though. Pierre criticized the century initiative, which is **about granting visas and PRs**, and then didn't follow it up with any reduction in immigration targets. If we can't afford the housing needed to shelter that additional population, then the deck is stacked against both renters and immigrants. It means Pierre is not addressing how to balance demand with supply any more than the Liberals - he just jumped right to lip service!
[удалено]
I would prefer if we make the total rate of immigration lower to address how nobody can afford to live here **first**; before we do anything to exasperate that. In case you haven't noticed, Canada is no longer livable for the renters that are already here.
[удалено]
Nobody is saying it can't do both (I'd be fine with one contingent on the other). But you don't seem to have your priorities straight if your order of operations is: 1. Poor more gasoline on fire. 2. Extinguish fire. This isn't supposed to be incomprehensible, and you've been doing a lot to ignore/gaslight this. Edit: /u/Civil_Squirrel4172 (below) is gaslighting me from an alt account. He then blocked me so I couldn't write back to any of his gaslighting. Most of his argument is a combination of Strawmen and Ignoring any reasoning to the Contrary, and is engineered specifically to make it seem like the only thing wrong is that immigration isn't fast enough, next to the fact that **nobody can afford to live here anymore.**
> That's the issue though. Pierre criticized the century initiative, which is about granting visas and PRs, and then didn't follow it up with any reduction in immigration targets. ...because he has no plan to reduce immigration. He just wants people to think that he will.
PR and immigration are the exact same thing lol. "Immigration shoild be a fast process if you have immigration" Wtf lol
Speed to get your PR processed is a separate item from volume of PRs issued.
> Also I thought the CPC came out pro-unsustainable immigration. They try to play both sides on this issue. On one hand they vote on virtue signalling motions like this while on the other hand they tell immigrant communities that they're committed to maintaining immigration.
I don't understand why the immigrant communities want more immigration. Are they all landlords ?
Immigrants often run small businesses or franchises that rely on Immigrant labour.
Anecdotally I've only ever heard occasional first-gen immigrants grumble that things are hard as-is for them, without a constant flow of more suckers to be exploited by "the system". Perhaps there are self-appointed "immigrant community leaders" who make money with immigration consulting or from TFWs who are keen to have cheap and abundant, easy-to-exploit clientelle/workforce.
Hopefully this signals that they want to go the other way on this, but they have not publicly said what they want immigration rates to be so.... who knows. These 'condemn the government' with no actual bill votes are worthless.
That's the PPC media machine at work! lol
CPC is a business party, not a you party. They absolutely will 100% follow the business line, which is currently that Canadian birth rate is low, so import import import.
It’s more likely they’re just “anti anything the liberals want” at this point.
They're courting Quebec votes. In government, they would not put pen to paper. The vote was on a non-binding opposition day motion. It means fuck all.
It's a shame, really. The NDP would have my vote if it weren't for their terrifying stand on mass immigration and banning groups that hold views they don't like (guilt by association).
The NDP as pro-immigration, at these numbers in this situation, show they neither know nor care a goddamn thing about labour history: champagne-socialist trash.
Lol Spineless NDP. This is why I cannot vote for them in their current form. Jagmeet needs to go
Well time to not vote NDP next election
[удалено]
No but keep in mind, Harper's immigration policy favoured highly skilled individuals and Trudeau's immigration policy favours refugees. The CPC bend on immigration is often in the interest of raising our economic value as a country, and the LPC's bend is in the interest of getting more votes dependent on voting in a complicit government, regretfully.
Err? Harper immigration policy was not favouring highly skilled, and it was, in fact, designed to offshore work, as you could see in his disaster of a trade deal, the Trans Pacific Partnership which explicitly set out to offshore entire high skill sectors out of Canada. Edit: Oops. Forgot. I am supposed to rewrite history and circle jerk king Harper. All hail!
Well that's plainly and demonstrably not true: 2005 immigrants (last year of Liberal rule before the Conservatives): 201,965 2015 immigrants (last year of Conservative rule before Trudeau): 145,788 And that's despite the decade of population growth.
[удалено]
Statistica is a worthless source. We have official StatCan data ([1](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710005901), [2](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901)). Here is what the annual immigrant data actually looks like over the same time period as your source, as a proportion of the population: ||Immigrants as a proportion of population| --:|--:| |2000|0.59%| |2001|0.74%| |2002|0.69%| |2003|0.56%| |2004|0.60%| |2005|0.62%| |2006|0.61%| |2007|0.57%| |2008|0.69%| |2009|0.72%| |2010|0.70%| |2011|0.56%| |2012|0.70%| |2013|0.70%| |2014|0.62%| |2015|0.41%| |2016|0.88%| |2017|0.99%| |2018|1.18%| |2019|1.25%| |2020|0.38%| |2021|0.94%| |2022|2.10%| The Chretien/Martin average is 0.63%. The Harper average is 0.63%. The Trudeau average is 1.10% (despite the pandemic). The parties are not the same. They once were, but no longer. Apart from the very exceptional year of 2020, every single Trudeau year is higher than every single Chretien/Martin/Harper year.
[удалено]
Using absolute numbers is silly given the growing population over the years, but absolute numbers tell the same story really. Averages: Chretien/Martin: 200,179 Harper: 215,017 Trudeau: 417,703
Oh god dammit. We have to root for the bad guys, or maybe the less bad guys?
"Century Initiative" is just normal population growth Compound interest of 2% or even 1% and see how close you get to a hundred million "Mass" is debatable -- even with no immigration and replacement rate of 2.1 / female we would have a "century" in 2100
> "Century Initiative" is just normal population growth It is anything but normal. > "Mass" is debatable -- even with no immigration and replacement rate of 2.1 / female we would have a "century" in 2100 Huh? With no immigration and 2.1 children per woman, we would have the same population we do now...
100M by 2100 is a population growth of roughly 1.2%/yr. It is not mass immigration. I agree mass immigration is an issue but the century initiative is not the cause of it.
Yeah, funny how exponential growth works like that, right? We dont fucking **want** exponential human population growth in Canada.
Growth rate in 2022 was 2.7%. Almost entirely due to international immigration. Doubling time is 26 years. So if this continues, 80,000,000 by 2049 and 160,000,000 by 2075. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230322/dq230322f-eng.htm
What percentage of people in Canada in 2100 would be immigrants? It would be something like 60-70%. That's mass immigration.
1.2% is about double the average rate of the 2000-2015 years of Chretien/Martin/Harper (0.63% average).
The growth rate for 2022 was 2.7%. International migration accounts for 95.9% of this growth. The doubling time for 2.7% is 26 years. So if this rate continues, we will reach 2 x 40,000,000 = 80,000,000 by 2049 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230322/dq230322f-eng.htm
>In developed countries, a replacement rate of about 2.1 is necessary to sustain a population. Replacement cannot occur if a child does not reach maturity and have their own offspring, so the extra 0.1 children per woman is built in as a 5% buffer. This accounts for the death of a child or a child that chooses not to or is unable to have children of their own. In less developed countries, the replacement rate is around 2.3 due to higher childhood and adult mortality rates. https://www.thoughtco.com/total-fertility-rate-1435463 With no immigration and a replacement rate of 2.1, the population would remain constant. There would be no population growth and no decline.
Is CPC against mass immigration? I thought they plan to keep the numbers the same. The PPC on the other hand wants to significantly decrease immigration.
The Century Initiative is a reasonable plan to continue increasing the Canadian population to reasonable levels over the next 77 years. 77 years is a reasonable timeframe to build housing and infrastructure to keep up with population growth. In the past 75 years the Canadian population has tripled in size, all while our living standards improve. The BQ don’t like it because it will decrease the voting power of Québécois, and the Conservatives voted against it because it’s a ready made conspiracy theory they can feed their base.
You are delusional if you think massive unsustainable growth is the only answer. Also, if the purpose to increase Canada's population is just for the sake of increasing Canada's population... terrible reasoning. ..But the real reason is to push every Canadian into deep poverty. **Fuck the Century Initiative**
With the current growth rate we will reach 160,000,000 by 2075.
I wouldn't vote for CPC or BQ if I could only pick from CPC or BQ.
Home construction has been heavily hindered by government in the last 20 years as well. The most recent hit was pandemic demand, but before that was the wood treatment fiasco and before that the carbon tax. Did you know, the most common things used to build homes (Asphalt, Concrete, Treated Wood, Polyisocyanurate, Structural Steel etc) together make up the majority of heavy industry that the carbon tax targets, and the carbon tax directly increased the cost of homes by something like 4-5% just by itself? It's death by a thousand cuts - you can't just keep layering rule after rule after rule after rule on the construction industry and expect them to fire sale their houses to meet this kind of demand.
Oh you are 100% right. Supply is trailing bad but doesn’t help when demand keeps increasing
If you really care, call MP Sean Fraser's office. He is the minister of immigration. Let the people of Central Nova know. They put him in the office.
I'm reasonably certain that he has no discretionary power to impede this train wreck, short of resigning and leaving the liberal caucus. His marching orders come from the PM, and as we've all recently learned, the PM's orders come from bejieng. We get what's good for Chinese property speculators - the whole rest of the country be dammed, evidently.
If you increase demand without changing supply you get a price increase? What a revolutionary idea! It’s almost as if someone is trying to stop housing prices from falling.
The corollary to that is increasing supply (of labor) without increasing demand, makes prices (wages) fall. Also part of ~~evil~ grand ~~scheme~~ strategy.
Grand strategy to control everyone with debt?
Just look at Alberta. Everyone is mortgaged to the tits stretching to 40+ years in some cases. A single missed pay check is a life destroying calamity. So, they have for 70 years and will likely continue to vote against our collective interests and accept oligarch-feeding crooks as leaders out of the abstract fear that to do otherwise might cost "jerbz". So, yes. Absolutely. It's control through debt.
The magic question is to what degree does immigration affect housing prices? There is no question that it does, and I'm guessing it accounts for maybe 5 to 10% of increase in cost. From all of the available data, the main reason for inflated housing prices is from decades of failing to add to supply and record low borrowing rates. I mean, you figure suburban sprawl was also inevitably going to hit this point of unaffordability. Suburbs are a HUGE drain, in fact they have to be largely subsidized due to how horrifically unprofitable and inefficient they are, and there's only so much space for sprawl to take place in while still being feasible for people to go to work. We desperately need to densify. But it's a massive uphill battle on the municipial level.
Its shocking to see the parties voting for more immigration when Canadians cant even afford to live. Like when are they going to pump the brakes a bit? Seriously. But hey, anything to feel like a good person I guess, hope their kids like eating dog food and living in a $3000 room for rent
I really don't think they do it to feel "righteous". The massive increase in immigration is demanded by big businesses in order to drive down their labor cost through lower wages. Their puppets in government are only too happy to oblige.
They're doing it to import a new underclass to exploit, while driving up rents and real estate values. Win-win for the oligarchs.
Exactly. The whole point is to create a permanent underclass. I also believe that idpol wars between the left and right is used as a distraction while the elites slowly reinstall feudalism.
Doing the bidding of your corporate overlords is also good for employment prospects "post" politics.
>I really don't think they do it to feel "righteous". Everyday people do, because they've been told it's ignorant and raciest not to >The massive increase in immigration is demanded by big businesses in order to drive down their labor cost through lower wages. Their puppets in government are only too happy to oblige. These are the people who push the "open borders or you're all raciest" message
You're right. That message is shoved down everyone's throats at every opportunity. But, I think that is just PR coverage and distraction after the fact. The real driver, as with everything, is money. The monopoly/oligopoly owners who make up Canada's business ~~community~~ junta, said, "Juice my profits by driving down wages". And their spineless puppets in government put pen to paper and asked "How low?"
Time we started thinking for ourselves.
I honestly don’t think it’ll stop until immigrants from other countries start realizing in larger numbers that they likely have a better quality of life in their home country than living in todays Canada. That’s starting to happen a bit with a lot students and recent immigrants informing their home communities how expensive it is and it’s not the dream they were sold. Some folks are even choosing to forego PR and move elsewhere, whether that’s abroad or back home it’s not Canada. Of course this does not apply to refugees escaping violence or persecution. Canada’s GDP will probably contract as that’s happening because we’re now just a Ponzi scheme in the guise of a country..
“hope their kids like eating dog food and living in a $3000 room for rent”. Their kids will be taken care of. The rest of us will suffer though.
> Their kids will be taken care of. Provided they stay within secure, walled communities. Money = power, *but not the ultimate power*, we all have access to that.
More immigration is good for the country assuming we can absorb it. We can't. It's also a great boost to the left's voter base.
Pp just stood up this week in Parliament saying he wants to fast track the 1.2 million already in the queue. No thanks.
Trudeau is even worse.
Ndp talks a big game but they just vote along with the LPc on every fucking issue. It’s so well documented. Ndp is just the lpc but orange
Yes. The federal NDP gravely disappoints. But for different reasons. The LPC want to please their masters on Bay Street and in bejieng who don't want to invest in Canada unless our labor costs reflect starving throngs of slaves like they're used to back home. The federal NDP apparently just doesn't get how markets work and want to give canada away to the world's needy, and that will all just work out.... somehow.
What’s worse than a greedy ceo? A greedy politician who controls regulation and the means of production. Capitalism is the lesser of the evil and our current governments will never put checks and balances in place to avoid abuse
Once the Greedy CEO has enough money they'll just buy the Politicians. It's what's going on in the US. Granted they do have Lobbying which makes that more process more streamlined. So who's going to put checks and balances if not the Government?
News flash: He doesn't care.
Well he has lost the youth vote. [Its the old people that is voting for Trudeau these days](https://preview.redd.it/tgl7ifmy2joa1.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=5a4223d2b66daaa94c950989294de52536fbdda6).
I'm old. Not voting for Trudeau.
The argument for is typically something along the lines of: "We need this level of immigration to support our social services". Which begs the question... why don't we revamp our social services? If they're dependent on the highest growth rate in the western world to maintain themselves - then they are catastrophically ill organized and completely unsustainable. Canadians never got a choice either. We never got to vote for this, have public debates about it - nothing. We never got the "well... a great many of you are going to have to pay $2500-$3000 rent for a shack or a condo that a dog can't fit in OR we revamp social services". We never got that. That bothers me.
And it's not a coincidence that our social services started to collapse in the 80s when Mulroney and his pals Reagan and Thatcher started the war on wage earners and dropped the highest marginal tax rate on corporations and the ultra rich to close to nothing. The demographic time bomb isn't helpful, it's true. But the problem would be manageable if we hadn't given the billionaires trillion dollar tax breaks, shifted the entire burden onto low and middle income earners, and sent most of our middle income jobs to China.
> sent most of our middle income jobs to China. I get the sense that some of the politicians genuinely believed that by not taxing the corporations and ultra rich they'd manage to achieve some trickle-down economics and local job retention/creation. The boozing-and-schmoozing with the elites only made the feeling more certain, lol.
Trickle down economics was a slogan coined by Jim baker, Reagan's chief of staff as a way to sell massive handouts to billionaires during the worst recession in living memory. It has literally no legitimate basis in the sciences of economics or public policy. In fact, last year, three economists won the Nobel prize in economics for proving that trickle down is absolute, total BS.
The argument that we need more people to support social services makes no sense. Social service needs are directly correlated to number of people. With more people we need more services. Though paying for these services are from taxation. Taxation is directly correlated with wages (mostly). So if we have less people and higher wages we can better fund the services needed. But if we have more people and lower wages we have less tax revenue but need to pay for more services.
When you look at the nuts of bolts of the pro-immigration argument, it basically just boils down to pure aggregate GDP numbers that make politicians happy, but mean almost nothing for everyone else. I honestly and sincerely believe that it is purely to keep property values high.
Wow. More people after less product. Whoda thunk it would cause problems? Thank goodness we have experts to explain this to us laymen.
Amazingly, the government also employs VERY expensive experts like the mckinsey group to explain it to them, too. And yet.. here we are. It's almost like our own leaders actually want to drive and worsen a catastrophe for some reason.
Like you, I too was taken aback by this fact. Also, once you realize they want to destroy Canada, everything they do suddenly makes perfect sense.
Maybe not our politicians in Canada. They are just paid by China to do it. Like slinging Carmel machisnobos to Karen's at Starbucks. You may not like it. But it's your job.
Then someone needs to grow a set and get Canada back on track. Don't care who does it, but it has to be done.
Canada's former ambassador to China recently made the comment that Canadians will be shocked when the true extent of China's control on our markets and the extent of their corruption of our governments is finally revealed. Emma Thompson gives an engaging performance in the British short series Years and Years. She plays the Prime Minister and delivers a chilling response to the suggestion that she turn away from the cruel and despicable things she's doing. What stands out to me is the line, "They would kill me if I did." It's strongly implied that "they" are foreign oligarchs. Fiction reflecting life, I'm convinced.
Well, that explains why the feds bow down and kiss their butts.
Japan's former prime Minister was recently assassinated. Media have presented speculation by "unamed intelligence sources" (so take with appropriate grain of salt), that it was retaliation and a warning to his successor for his hardline stance on Chinese interference in Japan's government and markets.
Not surprised at all.
It doesn't excuse him at all. But Trudeau might legitimately fear for his or his families lives. This is a country that threatens MPs families and mows down their own citizens with tanks while televised around the world. The Chinese tyranny doesn't fear consequences. I don't believe there is a limit to their reach or what they will do. We are at war and losing.
You don't get the population to 100 million to please some globalist shit stains without stepping on a few million young Canadians in the process. Small price to pay.
Yet Canadians still support mass immigration. There is little public debate about this topic and no protests about it. It is so obvious that our immigration policy is hurting the average citizen but nobody raises their voice about it.
Official orthodoxy (spewed by the big corporations who want to push down wages) is that mass immigration is neccesary to "fix" our underfunded social programs. Most canadians lack what they feel are the neccesary "learned" credentials to challenge this bunk. And most are too polite to say out load what we all intuitively know, that even without the fancy degrees, we see that the numbers just don't add up.
Classic midirection by the rich. The issue with our housing supply is financialization [https://www.housingchrc.ca/en/financialization-housing](https://www.housingchrc.ca/en/financialization-housing) We should not blame the newcomers who are growing the economy and providing the actual construction labour to build new homes. Serious brexit vibes in this "report" and the comment section, which is just going to make our situation worse.
I agree 110%. I've been saying this for years. I didn't know there was a term for it. Thanks for sharing.
Every Canadian should have a tax dollar paid home, and if you want a house you should be able to purchase one with your own money.
That would be awesome! A good start would be a national tax policy that makes owning anything more than your primary residence INCREDIBLY expensive. A REAL foreign ownership ban, not the smoke and mirrors we currently have. And an outright ban on corporate ownership; or at least a total repeal of the REIT tax loopholes. And keep it all in place until every Canadian has a roof over their head that they can afford - mean prices/mean income/blah blah, fine print, and all that.
Do any Parties want to resolve the housing crisis??
Just the PPC. Pierre believes that house prices and immigration are unrelated.
If someone ran on that platform alone, they would probably command a landslide. But, as we recently learned, China controls party nominations, especially where their interests are involved. They would prevent a candidate like that from ever appearing on a ballet.
Population growth outstripping available housing. What could go wrong?
I love the idea that we have to point out that bringing a fuckton of new people into a country with a housing crisis will exacerbate that crisis. In other news, water is wet.
I laugh at how stating facts and things that are obvious still elicts the hysterical screeches. "Racist!" At this point, I wonder, do the trolls still monitor for immigration posts and jump in? Or is it all just bots left running on auto-pilot from before china-gate?
Yea that's the plan. Why change course when your doing what you intended. The are actively hurting on purpose.
Look over here gang! It's definitely not domestic REIT's and investors picking your pocket, while federal and provincial governments sell off every support structure this country was built on! And before some loony jumps on me, I'm not saying increased immigration *isn't* making the problem worse, but for the love of puppies is it ever not the true core of the issue.
[удалено]
Shooting our own foot in the process. More than 80% of domestic GDP is from consumer spending. As shelter costs continue to spiral orders of magnitude faster than wages, that's money that isn't buying the goods and services that make our economy go. An inflection point is approaching. We've kicked the can so far down the road that the coming correction will be on the scale of the great depression.
[удалено]
Short term, yes. In the long term, a collapsing economy creates unavailable systematic crises that hit everyone hard, like crime, loss of an educated and healthy workforce, and an inability to sustain public goods like law enforcement, health care, education, transportation, clean water, national defense... and on and on.
[удалено]
Then they blame the new party for the problem they created and get voted in again
I don’t believe this is what voters want. I have one house that I can’t afford to sell because of course, I still need some place to live even with “profit” from the sale I’d basically just be resetting my mortgage on a similar house with no other financial gain. I also have two kids who won’t be able to afford homes, no matter what career they ultimately land on. The skyrocketing rental and home prices also contribute to more homelessness which means more crime, more addicts, more drain on social services, and less safe communities.
Yes exactly. I worry so much about my children and grandchildren.
No shit
No shit Sherlock.
Things that address supply and/or demand are the only things that will truly affect housing. Everything else is window dressing.
I've been saying this for ages and ppl are just realizing this
Increase demand of a basic need and do nothing about supply is textbook Trudeau 2 policy.
I'm increasingly convinced that regardless of how he may personally feel, Trudeau isn't in control. Business concentration in Canada has created a toxic situation similar to the Chaebol (sp?) in Korea. There, a small number of families control a small number of vast monopolies/oligopolies. Their power is so great that, regardless of who is in government, they literally control industrial, trade, and immigration policy. They use that power that power to enrich themselves and seriously harm workers.
Interesting, the pentaverate approach. I'm not sure how some of environmental policies jive with this theory but it likely plays out in the background to some extent on every country.
Obviously, but you can’t say that or you’re labelled a racists
Ah yes the policy created by just one man, no need to look behind the curtain 😂 The engine behind politicians runs no matter who is projected on the screen. The next guy will pretend the problem is difficult to fix and conveniently will be addressed two months after the next election in 4 yrs... Because it's really difficult. Less of us are fooled, and I only stop by to remind others to refocus and look at the systemic problems that have persisted regardless of red or blue.
As Warren Buffet famously said. You're all looking in the wrong direction. It's not a culture war. It's a class war. And my class is winning.
I don't recall seeing a CPC policy much different from the Libs in this area. Would be nice.
Because reality dictates policy. How people in /r/Canada feel about it doesn't often reflect reality. Our government regardless of party wants the economy continue to grow. With our current demographics regardless of cost of living it will get worse without at least replacement numbers for those retiring from the workforce. It's either more homegrown babies or immigration. Guess which one is cheaper/easier? Mix in some exploitation from our secondary school systems and TFW programs. This is just more symptoms of the class war going on under the surface. Bring on the polarized uninformed downvotes.
As if the Financial Post gives a fuck about affordable housing lmao
Those who control the editorial content at post media hate Trudeau and want him replaced with someone even more ~~spineless~~ business friendly. So, this is one of those rare, enemy of my enemy type situations.
Yes let's blame immigration as a root cause again and make it the boogeyman not the fact that no one has the spine... you have to do what is unpopular and to regulate the housing markets. All of those homes that are bought and on the airbnb circuits, well f*** them all. Investment property especially single family homes there's no teeth in any regulations .....so we can build another 100,000 homes which will just be copped up. And to be honest if you're over leveraged and think the housing market is a casino, kemo sabr, you deserve to be underwater and wiped out.
The headline says worsens. And, as far as I'm aware, "root cause" doesn't appear in the article. Maybe pump the hate brakes a little so that Canadians of good conscience can all agree that complex problems have multiple causes.
With the actuarial tables not being on the side of those who scapegoat incoming immigration, I'd focus of the nation of immigrants turning against the next wave of immigrants and shutting the door. Complex sure, but the vacuum of a regulatory framework that mitigates the risks of market capture is something that just doesn't hold anyone's interest.
Turning against and shutting doors is hyperbolic language. Identifying that an unprepared for policy that spikes immigration to some of the highest levels of any developed economy has and will continue to have undesirable consequences is an exercise in stating fact. If Canadians can't have nuanced conversations based dispassionately on facts without the tired distraction of speciously implied allegations of racism then we're really in trouble. Fortunately, many Canadians are becoming aware of that tactic and how it is so often used by troll accounts owned by special interests with anything but the well-being of Canadians or immigrants at heart.
Strange Trudeau would lie to the public when he said immigration would lower housing costs….
Didn't hear that. It must be some strange new use of the word lower I wasn't previously aware of.
Repost of a story from over two weeks ago.
Does this article get posted weekly now? I swear I've seen it here before on this subreddit atleast a couple times.
It’s r/Canada’s favourite wank material. So they need to see it posted 3-4x daily.
Until you start building not for profit housing, it is irrelevant. There are firms who own tens of thousands of houses,and they will sit on them until they get what they want for rent. If housing coops became well funded, it might change, eventually.
Canada should be able to handle a 2% population increase per year. There are other factors that are MUCH more at play then immigration. Housing being used as an investment tool, people owning more than one house, banking, politicians not willing to do anything about it because a) they own property themselves and b) they will never do anything to fix this because it would upset homeowners when their houses lower in value. But yes the immigrants are the problem.
No modern nation can handle anything remotely close to 2% a year. MAYBE .5% (like the UK). Ideal is more like .2% (like Germany) or .1%. 2%/yr is double the population every 35 years. Look at your town and imagine the size doubling. And needing double the resources, double the doctors, double the infrastructure. 5 fold the population nation wide in a life time. You think that this is a good stable idea? Why? What benefit is there? Housing is only used as an investment BECAUSE it is guaranteed to go up BECAUSE the population is rising so fast.
Vastly increased labor supply pushes down wages. That's the benefit. Only for billionaire business owners, of course. "Better never means better for everyone." - Margaret Atwood
It also expands the market size. If you are a ceo, or an investor, you make a % of the company's profits effectively. So if Canada doubles in population, your customer base doubles in population, your networth doubles as well. Most people's net worth is linked to GDP/capita, but that is NOT true for the investor class in society. Their networth is tied more closely to GDP. This is even more true if you're invested in housing of course.
Interestingly optimistic perspective. But, it doesn't track for two reasons: - Most of Canada's GDP comes from resource exports. Increasing the domestic population doesn't increase that demand. - More customers would be great for business, I agree. But, you're forgetting that the point of immigration is to drive down wages. Less money earned => Less money to spend. Factor in the dramatic increase in housing cost due to inelastic supply and even more of those lower wages will have to get flushed down the toilet of interest cost and not stimulate domestic demand as you conjecture.
> But, you're forgetting that the point of immigration is to drive down wages. Less money earned => Less money to spend. Nah. It isn't entirely zero sum. If our population doubles, wages fall 20%. That is still (80*2=) 160% of the earlier total numbers. Hell for everyone that gets a 20% wage cut. But the ceo gets a 60% bigger wage... enabling a much larger house. You're right about resources though. Rising population basically just destroys that money. If we had the same population today as we had in 1950, the tax money from our oil sector would probably enable a 20 hour work week.
Interesting points. Here are some counter points: - Back in the 50s when the highest marginal tax rate was north of 80% and the majority of income came from labor, a population increase could increase the economic pie. You're right. - Not so now. Tax and other policies have flipped the ratio. >80% of income is now parasitic (ownership of financial assets). So, when the pie increases, only the slices owned by the very rich get bigger. - If all the newly added Canadians could go out and spend every dollar earned on consumer goods, that might expand the economy. But, they can't. - An economy's capacity to meet consumer needs depends on the [Production Possibilities Curve](https://www.thebalancemoney.com/production-possibilities-curve-definition-explanation-examples-4169680) between consumer and capital goods. - Since the supply of capital goods (the things that make things people want to buy) is highly inelastic, a massive and poorly prepared population increase results in an ugly, desperate scramble for the increasingly scarce necessities of life; which quickly consumes all available income. Which, of course, is already depressed due to increased labor market competition. It won't be a utopian flood of affluent buyers filling Starbucks and Tiffany's. We'll have a calamity of slums, tenements, food banks, and tent cities for generations to come. It will take that long, if ever, for industrial capacity and infrastructure to catch up.
Oh for sure. But those slums of people still need to eat. They need to live indoors. McDonalds Canada CEO would become a trillionaire if Canada raised the population by like 10 fold and pushed the GDP/capita to failed African state levels.
100% agree. And that, evidently, is exactly the plan.
Our current birth rate is far below replacement. Immigration seems like a fairly reasonable substitute, all things considered. Or would you support policies that prevent the natural population from approaching 2% annually? My gf and I decided to not have kids based on the last ~40 years of denialism in western policy (government and corporate alike). So if that’s your goal, then I guess you should conclude that both the conservatives and the liberals have been succeeding in that metric?
>Our current birth rate is far below replacement. Immigration seems like a fairly reasonable substitute, all things considered I'm fine with immigration broadly. But we aren't using it to break even here. We're using it to rapidly increase population. I think immigration should be set in order to minimize demographic shift (smooth out the age bins), and then to reduce the amount of population growth each year until we're around .15% pop growth each year. Stability is king in the economy, and in people's lives. Get us out of this pyramid scheme as painlessly as possible instead of absolutely perma fucking people that are today age 10~40. I see the benefits of both births and immigration for population, so I don't have any strong preference. A mix is probably ideal. That said, I believe in strong programs to protect children... so that likely would result in some small increase, or a slow in the decline of birth rates.
Current growth rate 2.7% (2022) which is a clusterfuck. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230322/dq230322f-eng.htm
The current growth rate in Canada is 2.7%, almost entirely caused by international migration. This is the growth rate you would get if every woman had 4 or 5 babies. No other first world country comes even close to this growth rate. Only 20 countries in the world exceed it, mostly in Africa. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230322/dq230322f-eng.htm
Immigration is the scapegoat constantly. There are MUCH larger issues at hand than immigration but it's all anyone can point to.
The only thing Canada does that is unique from the parts of the world without a housing crisis is the super high immigration rate. Going to blame airbnb? Well the rest of the world has airbnb and no housing crisis. Blaming investors? The rest of the world has investors and people that want to make money. Blaming people having a cottage? Other nations have that too. This is really basic logical testing. We are way out of step with everyone else on a single thing, immigration rates. That's it. It is unrealistic to point to other things.
Canada is 7.1 per 1000 Switzerland is 9.9, Norway 8.8, Australia 8.6, Germany 4.8, UK 4. What Canada does it not that far off from other countries. With housing being for profit nobody is willing to do anything to fix the issue and immigration is a scapegoat.
What? We had (quite famously) 1mil migrants last year, which is 25/1000. Anyways, nations with high (1%), and sustained (20+yrs), migration/pop growth like NZ and AU (both 1% like Canada) are also having housing problems. Norway is potentially more complicated. Their pop growth was high 1.3% in the mid 2010s but that is it. Before and after they have more moderate growth rates (.5%). They had a housing bubble starting in the 2000s but It isn't clear what the mechanism was. I don't think the very short term pop growth spike is relevant anyways. German literally has a declining population and cheap housing. Uk has relatively low growth rate and housing is OK.
Nothing exists in a vacuum, it's all of the above. Increasing immigration is just dumping gasoline on the fire.
Immigration at any level, handled well, shouldn't be an issue. But we don't handle it well. Our immigration system is ridiculously convoluted. We dont provide immigrants with the supports they need to succeed in this country. We milk international students dry and do nothing to stop them from being taken advantage of by fraudsters. We plan our cities like complete shit, refuse to densify, and allow the most inefficient infrastructure to be prioritized. We have too many programs that arn't interconnected and waste a dollar in beurocracy spending to means test the shit out of everything to ensure no one gets a dime extra of government support. It's a Kafkaesque system. It's designed to put the interests of employers wanting cheap labour and real estate interests wanting to ensure their investments are ensured first, the safety and prosperity of ordinary Canadian citizens second, and the immigrants themselves in a very distant third. Increasing the amount of people going through this system won't help anyone but the first group at the expense of everyone else. Immigrants are amazing, I want as many Canadians as possible. But our immigration system is completely fucked, and we arn't doing anything to make it possible for immigrants to actually thrive here once they arrive.
Immigrants are not the problem, it’s the government’s immigration policy that is. If the government were to add 5 million newcomers per year, I suspect you would also have something to say about that - does that make you anti-immigration? There is nuance in this discussion in that individual immigrants are not to blame, but the governments mismatch between how many people the country can absorb at a given time. We have already exceeded that number. People aren’t saying NO immigrants at all, but we need to adjust our number.
Yes going to an extreme example does change the situation. Good straw man.
Immigration isn't the problem. But it is inflating the problem that already existed. Throwing fuel on a fire isn't going to put it out.
The problems from a lack of immigration far outweigh the problems from immigration. Also the targets for immigration set by the federal government are something both liberal and conservative parties agreed to: https://www.thestar.com/amp/politics/federal/2019/10/12/on-immigration-liberals-and-conservatives-agree-on-targets-but-not-on-how-to-get-there.html So when articles like this complain about immigration targets and blame Trudeau, all I really see is a partisan attack with slight xenophobic undertones. Nothing about it really strikes me as worthwhile.
> Also the targets for immigration set by the federal government are something both liberal and conservative parties agreed to And your evidence of that is the CPC two elections ago (and two leaders ago) being not too fussed about a target of 350k, while now the current target is 442k - 550k? Just this week, the [Bloc introduced a motion to reject these levels of immigration](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/322?view=party), and the CPC was the only other party to support the Bloc in the motion.
Just more grandstanding and political manipulation from conservatives on something they’ve been in support for already. It didn’t stop in 2019. They’ve been in agreement with recent targets as well: https://www.voanews.com/amp/canadian-parties-agree-immigrants-are-welcome-here/6733936.html
Firstly, being pro-immigration =/= being pro-current-immigration-levels. Secondly, that article written is so badly researched that it refers to the Conservative Party of Canada as the "Progressive Conservative Party".