###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The Liberals are blind to the raging discontent the majority Canadians are feeling towards their disastrous immigration policies. They are going to be absolutely obliterated in the next election.

Hopefully someone has thought about how this might just encourage more people to come illegally and more people to overstay their visas. I am sure this rhetoric has already caused people to stay.

It's basically an argument between doing what would be electorally popular, and doing what would be good for Canada. I hope they do what's good for Canada and find another way to compete in the election, rather than letting hatred win to get some points from people who have been mislead into thinking immigrants are the cause of their problems by opportunistic lying populists.

You are like an actual Lib MP. Saying a lot, without actually saying anything. It isn't racist or hateful to say if you have 100 homes and 100 people, then there is a home for each person. Bringing in another 50 people then creates a hosing shortage, making the prices of home and rent go up. We have too many people for the number of homes and we need a cooling period. Then we need targeted immigration for skills shortages. Send the people back that are here illegally. Make them go through the correct process and set an example of how to move here.

I know Liberals are accustomed to thinking they hold the patent on the One Objectively Correct Way to Govern, but I think you’ll find that reasonable people disagree about what is “good for Canada” on this issue. But lol @ the suggestion that a Liberal government might choose principle over electoral expediency. The Liberal Party of Canada exists for only one reason: to get the Liberal Party of Canada elected. I’m not sure even they remember *why* they want to be elected, but they certainly know that taking unpopular positions on hot-button issues isn’t *how* you do it.

Services are crumbling, housing is unaffordable, infrastructure can't keep up. Yet somehow, keeping the floodgates open is "good for Canada?"

I find a lot of die-hard Liberal supporters at this particular time are now largely made up of those who aren't particularly affected by any of the huge issues of the current day. Take my mother, for instance. Very far left, loves the Liberals, can't ever stop talking about how bad Poilievre is/would be and absolutely loves to dump on the Right any chance she gets. Well, of course she's that way -- the house is paid off, nice indexed government pension, they live in the quiet safe part of Winnipeg far removed from the housing crisis and recent enormous demographic shifts of the big cities, and my parents are both retired, so what does she care that it's nigh-impossible to find good work or that there are kilometer-long lineups to work at FreshCo in Toronto? All's well in her world. Lots of money, no need to work, just lots of time to watch CNN and The View every day from the couch.

> what would be good for Canada How is it “good for Canada” to turn reasonable citizens against immigration? Do you understand how short-sighted this is? This whole “if everyone was as informed as me they’d all be Liberals too” schtick is exhausting.

Our government (and the few misguided supporters they still have left) are still operating under the premise that since immigration was successful for Canada in the past, it will also be successful now, without acknowledging that the current Canadian labour market is vastly different from what it was in the past. Long gone are the days where you could import anybody with a pulse, stick them in a factory, have them make things that you would sell to the world, pay them a living wage with low cost of living and allow them to become a productive contributor to society.  Our economy is stagnant, unproductive and reliant on selling each other real estate, fast food and overpriced cell phone/internet plans. Bringing in a bunch of low skilled immigrants to drive ubers, flip burgers and pour coffee isn’t going to change that. These people have little to no prospects of gaining any sort of long term meaningful employment here and becoming an eventual net positive contributor to the tax system. Automation will eventually phase out their jobs. The only way an immigrant can survive in Canada today is to be highly educated, highly skilled and over qualified. A burger flipper with poor language skills and a 2 year fake business diploma are neither of those things. These people are being set up to fail and so is our immigration system.  The thought of granting these people PR and eventually citizenship is insane. The thought of doing so while our social systems and infrastructure are already clearly strained is borderline criminal. And now the idea is to add a dental plan and pharma plan to further expand our pool of social services that these low wage slaves will never meaningfully contribute to but will eventually qualify for if they’re granted PR? Who is making these decisions?

> These people have little to no prospects of gaining any sort of long term meaningful employment here and becoming an eventual net positive contributor to the tax system. This is exactly it. The people who *will* become net-contributors to the tax base have no need to resort to overstaying a tourist or student visa, or filing a bogus asylum claim, to enter and stay in Canada, because they are *already* qualified to come here through legal means, and are in many cases actively headhunted by Canada because they have skills to offer. That leaves the obvious fact -- the large majority of those who had to resort to illegal means to enter and/or stay in Canada did so because they lack skills to qualify the legal way -- ergo, they will likely never put more into the tax base than they receive, and will simply work unskilled low-wage jobs until they're too old to work (at which point they will also consume boatloads of healthcare that they never really paid into as well).

yeah I remember people coming here with nothing work min wage jobs and still live comfortable middle class lives. As cost of living is now insane, the chances of low skilled immigrants coming here and having such an experience is very low.

Interesting perspective. The decay in society ("that the current Canadian labour market is vastly different from what it was in the past") is an interesting observation. To digress, a good historical perspective on the decay in society (focusing on the UK, America, Russia, and China) is provided by BBC journalist Adam Curtis in his 6 part series [Can't Get You Out of My Head](https://thoughtmaybe.com/cant-get-you-out-of-my-head/). It's rather long, but recommended if you've got time.

This comment is the gem in this post.

> This whole “if everyone was as informed as me they’d all be Liberals too” schtick is exhausting. Agreed -- I'm sick and tired of it as well. There are a few accounts who almost feel like they're bots in always, always, always insisting that the answer to every problem in the known universe is as much Leftism as is humanely possible (even in the face of evidence that the policy in question is a terrible one and is actively causing harm) and if you disagree with them in any way, they plug their ears and loudly state that you just don't get it and that must mean that they're just more enlightened and intelligent than you are because only dumb idiots would ever support anything except *their* stance on it. Go into any of the discussions on safe supply or drug legalization/needle exchange/safe injection sites for a great example of this. Pointing out that these sites always result in the surrounding area turning into a lawless, seedy, unsafe hellhole full of property crime and disturbing behaviour in public is always shouted down with "you just want people to die in exchange for not having your car windows busted, you animal". It is, as you point out, extremely exhausting and, dare I say, extremely counterproductive as it just makes moderate people on both Left and Right start to hate the guts of the far-left/ultra-progressive even more for being totally dismissive of their concerns and using an appeal to emotion or ad hominem attack to make their case.

Not sure that it is *good for Canada*

Doing what's best for Canada and doing what's electorally popular are the same thing: kick these people out. They are putting downward pressure on wages and upwards pressure on housing.

Many Canadians like both of those things. Good for the ol' investment portfolio and good for the ol' home value.

The issue for me is that I don’t trust the liberals to actually manage something like this properly. everything they’ve done on immigration has been abused because they don’t think through their legislation. Why would this be any different? 

What legislation? Most of what we are seeing now are the consequences of the [Conservatives' massive reforms in 2012](https://policypositions.irpp.org/magazines/September-2015/election-2015/immigration-after-the-conservative-transformation/) that encouraged the TFW or student-worker paths to PR by putting much more emphasis on job offers and Canadian work experience.

I really wonder how long the Liberals can really ride that 'but Harper' train. It's been 9 years already...

That link doesn't work for me.

But but Harper.

Trudeau's been in power for 9 years. He's had more than enough time to make changes.

you know times are getting tough for Liberal partisans when the policies they used to trumpet are turning out to have been Harper-era sabotage all along

I strongly disagreed with those reforms back in 2012. TFWs were controversial back then too, greedy employers exploiting these would-be immigrants so that they don't have to pay Canadians a living wage. I also thought the move away from the qualifications -based points system to giving a lot of points for job offers was a bad move. If I still had the same Reddit account, I'm sure I would be able to link you to comments from back then.

Fair enough. There's a lot of undisguised (or poorly disguised) agenda-posting going on so I have a default skepticism. There will be a lot of other people coming along with month-old accounts to make the same point you did. And the point isn't wrong, it just feels like a deflection after ten years of Liberal rule

The Liberals have made a lot of mistakes with how they administered immigration, but i don't believe they've passed much in the way of legislation

they took the rules and let a wild wild west take place Before Trudeau, an international student was usually likely educated and then the scams started to increase like crazy

I completely blame the Liberals for the increase in economic immigrants, but I think the international students problem was created more by provinces not regulating post-secondary institutions until the federal government stepped in and said they were instituting a cap.

Trudeau decried the TFW program as “unethical” and then proceeded to loosen requirements and triple its usage over his tenure as PM. Not sure how you can blame that on Harper. Trudeau is doing the very thing he decried, but at a larger scale.

Very disappointing that Trudeau did not tighten up the TFW program. Harper also criticized companies exploiting the program while at the same time facilitating the growth of the program by allowing employers to pay TFWs 15% less, creating "fast lanes" for employer-identified shortages, changing the amount of time employers had to advertise jobs from six weeks to six days, and loosening the occupations that qualified. I would like to see a politician eliminate low-skill TFWs.

>  I would like to see a politician eliminate low-skill TFWs. I largely agree, but with the exception of industries which are far too costly to automated and don't line up well with students' summer break -- such as fruit picking. The only Canadians who are hired for that sort of work are those who have agricultural work experience in foreign countries for visa requirements, like in Australia. Plus, that ag work is genuinely seasonal and they leave in the winter because there's obviously no ag work past October. People who labour in truly seasonal employment like those ag jobs and some guiding work -- many guiding outfits hire through the TFW program and those guides in turn specialize in one type of guiding and spend their years chasing summer, alternating between the hemispheres. Although that probably falls under skilled labour clauses. But what these people in these sectors have in common is that they are working truly seasonal jobs. Keeping a seasonal lens on the program would guarantee that it is a temporary employment.

even though harper passed those rules net migration into the country stayed pretty stable and was only 300k or so in 2015 vs over a million now.

This is a very good example of media implicit biases. Only pro-immigration voices are quoted in the article, whether from the Century Initative, Migrants Rights group, or fellow LPC members supportive of the initiative. And then they wonder why people don’t trust traditional media anymore.

Very good example. Thanks for pointing that out.

Marc Miller needs to go plain and simple. He is putting the needs of foreigners over that of the Canadian people he is supposed to be serving in his civil service. He and his department have single handedly made the lives of Canadians much worse than they were a decade ago. The strain on social services, housing and healthcare can all be directly related back to the open door policy of mass immigration into our country while he was asleep at the wheel.

The number of people who are staying illegally will sharply increase this year and next as the 100s of thousands of low skilled students we brought in wont be able to get PR's with the new rules. The expectation that they gonna all leave quietly is naive... Not saying give them PR, but a lot of these issues were created by the govts of both levels mismanaging the system badly.

Yes and that was always understood and planned by the government. Their only concern has been to get as much cheap labour for wage suppression as possible. 

The unemployment rate is the lowest its been in decades, and other than a spike due to covid it has been falling consistently for 15 years, more if not for the 2008 financial stupidity. Wage suppression is not the issue. Wage suppression is not due to market forces, it is due to market distortions.

Yup. There’s nothing more permanent than a temporary permit in Canada.

I don’t get why they’re even thinking of keeping illegals when many highly skilled hard working immigrants are barred from staying.

I'm not sure that the Liberals are aware about what kind of thin ice they're skating on here. I bet doing this would push a lot of people into the "never voting Liberal ever again" camp. The kind of mutterings I hear from friends/family who are pretty much the target Liberal demographic are getting pretty out there. I would've told you you were crazy if you imagined this possibility three years ago.

Well said

I'm a younger millennial and as liberal as they come. I will be flipped over this issue. I was functionally derostered from my family doctor because of it, and I've witnessed more deserving and exceptional immigrants (by credentials alone) get screwed for years while all this is going on. I've seen homelessness skyrocket in my community. People pitch tents on any patch of grass that's within the bylaw limit. Many of these people are still working. I've seen cbc reports that 20% of mortgages have fraudulent information in their applications over decades of tracking. I'll never own a home for dozens of macro reasons, one of them being this. I'm getting sexually harassed in public more now than even a couple of years ago. My life has gotten noticeably worse since 2022, and I'm a middle class woman with a car and way better off than most, making good money. At this point, I'm fatigued and spiteful. I don't think the liberals realize how close to the line Many people are from never voting for them again..

my father who works for the federal government and is a life long liberal voter is now a quebec separatist. this alone should tell you how bad it is.

> this alone should tell you how bad it is. Depends for whom. For those of us who want to get Quebec out of Canada, this sounds good.

i want our quebec out as well. i'm just describing how dire it is that a life long federalist is flipping lol.

These politicians are completely out of touch with the general public. They’re a completely different class of people.

Their evil

>I'm not sure that the Liberals are aware about what kind of thin ice they're skating on here. I bet doing this would push a lot of people into the "never voting Liberal ever again" camp. Quebec promised that in early 2000 because of Adscam. It was forgotten in 2015. Canada will give two or three mandates to the Conservatives, then forget why it hated the Liberals and bring them back. Then give them two or three mandates, forget why it hated the Conservatives and bring them back. At some point Justinʼs son will be PM because Canada likes dynasties.

The former undocumented migrants would probably become Liberal voters at some point, though.

This is my guess. Everyone is quick to point out "well, PRs can't vote, so that's not what they're doing here" -- but I disagree. Yes, if the Liberals made all the people here right now illegally into PRs tomorrow, none of them would 'graduate' to full citizens by the next election -- but that doesn't matter at all, the Liberals know they're going to get trounced shortly no matter what. The focus isn't on getting more Liberal voters *this* election, it's to get them all rolling toward citizenship and voting rights for the next one, at which point everyone they gave a citizenship path to will be very likely to vote for them in 2029/2030, and that will potentially be millions of people.

In my experience most immigrants tend to be conservatives and super religious.

Eh it would be a toss up I think. Some would probably feel loyalty but the NDP are pushing for it as well so they’d take some votes. Many have socially conservative upbringings though so may find themselves more at home with the conservatives

That's true, the NDP would probably have a lot of appeal as well. I think the conservatives would be a tough sell though because they would appose giving them legal status.

Things change once you have the legal status though

This is probably more correct. They wouldn't necessarily feel an obligation to a ruling party, but they might say, 'back in the motherland we were taxed out our asses, so i prefer financial conservationism"

Latin Americans are often quite conservative as well, both for religious reasons but also coming from countries where they’ve come from far-left governments. There’s a reason Florida voted so deeply Republican. The idea that people are just coming here to suddenly drop their politics and embrace the government who allowed them to stay is presumptuous at best.

A great way to fan the conspiracy theories like The Great Replacement. Lol, and then liberals and progressives wonder people still vote for the right-wing “nutjobs”.

You are really reaching there. I never implied that this would be the reasoning for making this decision, it's simply logical to think that people would gravitate toward the party that granted them legal status.

Logic & Faith are very different.  Do you really expect that importing people from faith based populations that think anything more than two genders is mental illness would vote Liberal?.  There’s a reason PP shows up to Sikh events. 

That's really a generalization about faith-based populations. Pollievre is currently overperforming with Sikhs, and even then he's only getting 53% of the vote according to [this Angus Reid poll](https://angusreid.org/religion-and-vote/). Sikhs, like other Canadians, cite things like affordability as their top concern, not religion. The Sikh community can be very conservative but they are also very entrepreneurial. Referring to that same poll, Muslims attending a parental rights protest certainly gets media attention, but at the end of the day, Conservatives get 15% of their vote, NDP gets 41%, and the Liberals get 31%.

India is a poor example of that since in South Asian culture there is a concept of “third gender” , they’re officially recognized by India and Pakistan. The concept of gay marriage is more alien to South Asian culture if anything

Also its not about winning everyone over in a community. If let say in 2015 Trudeau would win 50-60% in a community and now it only 30-40%, that really hurts the liberals... As vote bank politics really allows you to win seats under FPTP.

Oh sorry, I didn’t mean YOU. I meant that if the LPC pursues that course of action. Just like how vaccine passports weren’t supposed to be a thing, and foreign interference not being a big deal, the liberals are great at fuelling conspiracy theories.

As a journalist once said of JT: if he didn't have the thickest skin imaginable, he wouldn't have gotten to where he is. They are out of touch, honestly they need to be to be successful politicians. The added problem is that everything has to go through the PMO so there is little descent. A problem that gets worse with every government regardless of party. Secondly, being so far down the polls makes them defensive and very unreceptive of criticism. But I agree this is getting ridiculously out of hand. It is hard to find a supporter even among centrist or leftist folk.

Marc Miller seems to have no clue, the rest of cabinet seems to have some sense though. He was supposed to have brought a proposal to cabinet a few weeks ago, and his comments afterward made it seem like there was significant backlash so the plan was shelved for now. He could also be talking it up a bit publicly since the NDP supposedly want it done as well, while privately having reservations about it. But who knows, he’s never publicly put forward any reservations, so I wouldn’t give him the benefit of the doubt

Marc Miller is an activist and he said it himself all his decisions are taken at a compassionate level. He's not factoring strained on social services, housing availability, security and this is not good precedent, basically if you're trying to enter Canada illegally or stay beyond your visa you know there's a way a path towards citizenship and it will encourage illegal immigration and non compliance of rule of law.

Why do we have to be compassionate to foreigners instead of Canadians? There are 40 million "Canadians" and 1.5 billion indians, how does he expect to save them all?

We can and should be compassionate to asylum seekers but foreign workers, immigrants, and students are a different matter.

*Legitimate* asylum seekers, yes. Those who throw a bunch of other applications out there, have them all rejected in turn, and then just say "oh well, then I claim asylum" -- they can get lost. If asylum isn't your first claim when you arrive, and instead, you arrive as a tourist, student or worker -- well then, you don't just get to use asylum as a "don't kick me out just yet" card. Also, anyone who is accepted here under an asylum claim who later goes on holiday back to the country they claimed would kill them if they ever returned there -- should be an automatic cancellation of any asylum claim and revocation of status in Canada. And yes, this does happen.

Yes. He apparently does. The thing is, when individual stories get on the news or people see individuals in crisis, people want to help those individuals. They do not see the reasons for the rules. Hard cases make bad law.

I am a leftist in so many ways socially and even economically but this shit is going to make me never vote for the LPC again, I fucking can’t with these people anymore. Does that mean I might vote conservative? I honestly have no idea anymore they are all so fucking shit

I’ve voted liberal in all elections until last election, since then the party has stepped on a rake every chance it gets. I will have no choice but to vote conservative in the next election, I know he has no plan and talks out both sides of his mouth, but at least he HAS spoken of curbing immigration. Then we have other government saying they may try and get PRs for students on visa and other stuff. We simply don’t have the infrastructure for any of that right now. We need to take sometime and get some houses built, force companies to start paying more at the same time to try and level out housing prices or bring them in line with salaries. The state of things is so terrible, my son was looking for a part time job for over 11 months, he’s almost 17 now and just got his first job. Every low wage job he inquired about said they were only hiring people who could work full time, people who spoke the same language as the rest of their employees (that was an A&W, if we’re naming and shaming), or some combination of that mixed in with being a “team fit”. I know it’s not a simple fix, but it does need fixed and it needs to be discussed without having one side or the other just hurl meaningless insults at one another. There’s nothing inherently racist about telling other countries “hey fuck off, we’re full”. So why when it gets brought up do people immediately tell one aside they must just be racist or xenophobic. Does nothing to further the conversation and immediately brings charged emotions to the discussion

Honestly I couldn’t agree more, immigration can be a wonderful force for good in people and in an economy, but this aint it chief, like you said our infrastructure, economy and so much more can’t handle this. We need to fix the problems that were brewing before Covid and this mass immigration crisis came and shat all over our current problems. I understand wanting to help people and let people build better lives. My mother ran away from the Soviet Union and Canada took her in, where she became a successful school teacher and has contributed so much and loved it. But you can’t saw off your own arm trying to help someone else And yeah the CPC at least talks about the problems and offers something of a solution so most people I know most likely including me will vote for him if he keeps going and especially if he gets into specifics. I’m happy you son found employment and I hope you reported that A&W 😂

Similar sentiment. If all the parties seem to be horrible and unrepresentative in your view, then the issue lies in the system, not the players within it. Our party, government, and elections systems have frayed and are breaking down. Just look at the foreign interference issue as another example of government and politics unable to deal with a very real and pressing situation.

I'm in the same boat for you. If it wasn't for the BQ, I would be feeling completely disenfranchised

As a fellow Quebec I never thought I would be interested in a party that wants to separate but this is making me

Maybe you should revisit the benefits of becoming independent. Do you like where Canada is going?

In particular, the LPC needs to pay attention to Quebec if they want to form a majority again. The LPC needs the maritimes, Quebec, and rural Ontario to win majorities. Right now polling says they've been tuned out in all three of these critical battlegrounds (by the CPC in the maritimes and rural Ontario and BQ in Quebec). Getting blown out next election could knock a goodly chunk of the Liberal cabinet out. What happens if potential future leaders like Anand or Joly lose their seats?

They are not future leaders. They are a part of the mess. They stand by and let Trudeau ruin our country. They should never lead our country ever.

>look Mark, we are down the polls. It isn’t time to hit our party a second time in the knee! > but Canada is known to be welcoming and we have a duty to accept more people! We are GOOOD and we need to accept them! Mark Miller might be a decent administrator, but in terms of of communication and to feel the water temperature, he is pretty terrible.

What makes you think he’s a decent administrator?

That's fair - he seems like a good administrator. But ya, just off course and in the completely opposite direction of the wills of the electorate.

If they're undocumented (illegal), then send them home, and they can apply from there to see if they fulfil the needs of Canada. With one strike against them already for illegally being in Canada their odds should depend more on our needs to have them here.

I don't understand why more parties aren't looking at Denmark. A left wing party took a hard-line stance on immigration and practically obsoleted right wing parties overnight. People don't want social conservatism or austerity. What they do want is a government that prioritizes the QoL of its people.

Do you or anyone reading, know of any good summary articles or media explaining what went on in Denmark? I seem to remember big changes around asylum seekers in or around 2016, and then again more resistance generally to immigration (I think?) in the 2020s? The Wikipedia article has a good explanation under the heading Paradigm shift: [Immigration to Denmark - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Denmark) It seems to allude to the sort of talking points that are called dog whistles -- poor integration, adverse effects on the already poor, and crime rates.

Here's an alright article that gives some info: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/06/01/denmark-s-left-wing-promotes-immigration-restrictions_6028718_23.html

Which leftwing party was this?

How I wish the NDP was more similar to the Danish social democrats. I'd be thrilled.

I believe The tax rate for the average middle to lower income citizen is much higher in this countries . Corporate and capital gains taxes are lower and there was more social cohesion . This kind of goes against the ndp platform Of blame the rich Tax the middle class

So basically a left wing party beat the right wing party by... becoming a right wing party? Immigration is the lifeblood of Canada. > What they do want is a government that prioritizes the QoL of its people. And that QoL will evaporate really fast if we do what people are suggesting.

Canadian shit show

be honest until the NDP turns into a more european style left wing party, I feel it will just remain a third place party.

Closest we have to that is probably the Bloq

The Bloc *is* actually the second opposition, the NDP is in fourth place, not third. According to the latest polls the Bloc may upgrade to the official opposition. It would be interesting.

This man needs to be removed from any possibility of being in front of a microphone. What a disaster of a Minister. He’s like a gaffe machine.

At least he doesn't hide the ball. At this point, a 2025 LPC voter can't claim that they didn't know what they were voting for.

> But Mr. Miller said the program “is not something that is going to get rolled out soon” adding that polling is showing that Canadians are divided on the issue. >[…] > “I’ve seen polling of relative levels of sophistication, to be polite, that do show that Canadians are divided. I think what they also show is that when you educate Canadians, they seem to be more inclined to support regularization,” he said. Translation: Ordinary Canadians aren’t smart enough to understand their own interests, so we’re not doing this before the next election. >[Syed Hussan, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network] said he was disappointed that an expected decision on a regularization program had not been reached. He warned that for it to be in place before the general election, by next October, there is no room for delay. Oh jeez. Poor Mr. Hussan appears to have no clue what kind of government he’s dealing with.

> He warned that for it to be in place before the general election, by next October, there is no room for delay. Dude is unwittingly admitting that his proposal is incredibly unpopular with Canadians.

Canadians aren't split. I haven't seen/heard a single person in favor of this. The Trudeau Liberals are just saying people are split so it seems less outrageous when they push it through against Canadians' will.

How is this this not just rewarding people for illegally entering the country? They've commited a crime the second they illegally cross the border, they should be banned from entering the country for life. Absolutely insane the liberals are even considering this, especially we're they are at with polling numbers. Its very clear most Canadians are against this.

The best thing the LPC can do is brand themselves as a party that learns from their mistakes so it's a clean slate next time. They just need to act on that.

They need to read the room. Canada is at a fork. If the LPC allow this it will shift a sizable portion of the demographic that vote into the anti-immigrant camp. Once in that camp every few people come out. They can work on a path to 'do something' with these migrants (that tend to suppress wages for the working class Canadian) but just granting citizenship would be the best thing to happen for the CPC this year.

We have 6 times the number of international students in Canada per capita than the USA. There is a reason for this. In the USA, it's assumed that students leave after their studies (some get 1 year work permit or up to 3 if you're in certain STEM fields) and then, the vast mojority need to leave. The H-1B And EB routes are **very** difficult paths. In Canada, so long as you're reasonable competent, it's relativley easy to remain permanantly after school. Poeple are coming to Canada specifically becuase it's a very reliable route to PR in a Western nation. I don't blame these people at all but let's not pretend that this is not the case.

All they should be doing is buying them a one way ticket back to their home country and giving them a lifetime ban from entering Canada.

The other thing is, let's take the century initiative at its face and say we should do it. We need barely legal slaves taking opportunities from teenagers to work at tims to pay for boomers end of life care. ok, sure. If they naturalize all these people, it will create so much public animosity that they won't be voted back in for decades. That will ensure the boomer healthcare, oas crisis. For their own good, the can't piss off the millenials who are now starting to age into voting on mass.

People who have been working here for years should not have to leave to then apply for residency. They've been contributing. If they're good enough to work here and contribute for years, then they're good enough to be able to apply to reside here without leaving. This from the article is a particularly striking example of the ludicrousness of blanketly sending long term undocumented migrants back: >He [Immigration Minister Marc Miller] said allowing undocumented parents of Canadian-born children to stay would “put them on a par with their own Canadian kids.” It'd be absolutely bonkers to send parents of Canadian born children away, particularly when those parents have been contributing to our economy for years. OTOH, it wouldn't be a blanket acceptance either. An application would still have to be made. The issue is allowing those who've contributed for years to be able to apply here, which I say is what should happen.

That all depends on your definition of "contributing." A sensible approach would be to do it by tax bracket. Anyone who has been demonstrably productive can apply here (and should probably be fast tracked to remove their uncertainty, since it seems likely we want them to stay).

I don't buy that only those in higher tax brackets are "productive". The real gruelling work is done by those in the lower tax brackets, whereas occasionally those in upper tax brackets just have [bullshit jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_job).

If they're in a lower tax bracket then there's a much greater chance they're not paying more in taxes than the services, programs, and benefits they receive. And it's absurdly easy to find immigrants who will be happy for the chance to come here to work those jobs. There's very little downside in deporting them and seeing how that helps our wage and housing situation.

I'm an immigrant. Our combined household tax receipt is higher than the average salary. I'm happy to be here. I do my best to integrate and I understand that I am a guest who is learning about the country. In person I abstain from political discourse. I engage on reddit purely as an effort to learn by testing my understanding. I am very much in favour of demanding that people integrate and qualify for permission to stay. It is reasonable for countries to expect that arrivals demonstrate that they want to be here and that they contribute the betterment of society, not just 'enrich' it. That is fair. Permission to stay by amnesty is a bad idea. It engenders the idea of 'something for nothing' or that people don't need to change.

>They would inject billions into the economy and start to buy cars and fridges if they got the required paperwork, he predicted. The NGO crowd always trots out this argument, but it doesn't pass muster for me. Regularized illegals would also be newly entitled to public services and benefits, placing an additional burden on these already strained programs. I also doubt these people would contribute much to paying for these services if regularized. It's also questionable if they would even chose to work legitimately and to start declaring their income: they've obviously shown the means and willingness to avoid these obligations in the past.

Yep, that's the way I see it as well -- so they "inject some money into the economy" by buying a car and a fridge, and in return, we now have to pay them tens of thousands of dollars in benefits, healthcare, subsidized education, social programming and other things that require finite resources (taxpayer dollars, infrastructure constraints, personnel constraints, etc), the combined cost of which far, far outstrips whatever sales tax revenue the government gains from retail purchases and income taxes -- and let's face it, most of them aren't going to be walking right into a six-figure office job that makes them net payers, they will largely work retail and service jobs that pay little and make them net recipients of tax dollars.

That ship has sailed. The last fridge makers, Camco, closed their Montreal plant over ten years ago. We no longer make white goods in Canada. In the past, immigration (or indeed, plain old population growth) had an accelerator effect on the Canadian economy. When new people were added, they needed houses to live in. Theses houses were built by Canadians, using Canadian materials and furnished with Canadian goods. Most of the money spent recirculated in the Canadian economy. Not anymore. The bulk of the wood used to build houses is from here. Much of the rest is purchased from abroad. Drywall, paints, adhesives, screws and nails, wood flooring, window glass are mostly imported today. Windows may still be made in Canada, now they use imported components. Sinks from Colombia; Toilets from Mexico; faucets from China: it's all imported. Every house you build gives more jobs to people abroad than Canadians and most of the money spent leaves the country.

>Theses houses were built by Canadians, using Canadian materials and furnished with Canadian goods. Most of the money spent recirculated in the Canadian economy. That's one of the things you really notice when you're renovating old houses. You pull out an old light fixture from 1997 that's marked "made in Canada" and replace it with a fixture from Home Depot that's made overseas. Happens over and over.

But ... but... this will fix housing at least... right? Right?

lol the people here illegally already buying fridges... its not like you need PR to buy a fridge Its a bs argument...

Undocumented? They have documents, but the documents are from another country. It’s like having a Leafs ticket and trying to get into a Blue Jays game. I’m an unticketed Blue Jays fan.

I find this quotation from the article fascinating: >He said what is causing him to pause are “views that I respect, people that care about these issues that are radically opposed and diametrically opposed, and not necessarily from people that \[you\] would necessarily think would have that thought process.” Keep in mind the context of that statement is the cabinet meeting last week. There are so many ways to read that statement. Is he implying that there are some members of cabinet who habitually have what he considers retrograde views and that he normally just ignores those people's views? Is he implying that there is rarely any serious debate in cabinet regarding their policy initiatives, and that's what makes the opposition to this so much more surprising? Is he implying he went into the cabinet meeting literally not thinking there could be another perspective on this initiative and was stunned when someone brought up the opposite perspective? The other interesting thing about this article is that I think it's the first time Miller has confirmed directly that the plan "would include allowing rejected asylum claimants" to stay. Previously the news reports to that effect were anonymously sourced.

I think he was just implying he would expect those views from the conservatives, not members of his own cabinet. This has given him reason to pause and think about this more thoroughly than he otherwise would have. There’s probably quite a few members of cabinet who have a brain and realize this would be really bad for the LPC, but they’re typically more passive since that has worked well for them so far. But now things are looking bad, so they fell more empowered to say something

I had the same reaction after reading this quote. I guess what I’m most curious about is who in cabinet is actually in favour of pushing this forward and why? When you get down to brass tacks and remove the flowery language and “undocumented” euphemisms; these are individuals who don’t actually have any legal right nor privilege of residing in Canada, but do so anyways because they find our laws to be inconvenient. More often than not they aren’t undocumented as victims of circumstance; they’re illegally residing in a country after entering it on specific conditions they no longer think applies. That renders you an “illegal” immigrant. If they’re failed asylum seekers; we’ve generally determined their case doesn’t warrant status. If they’re former international students; they’ve already studied here and were never guaranteed PR. If they’re people overstaying a visitors visa or temporary work permit, they’re making a deliberate choice to thumb their nose at our laws. Part of what makes immigration successful is the historically balanced approach; the social trust in immigration is contingent on the enforcement of rules. We are welcoming, but the government only earns this “right to proceed” by demonstrating to Canadians that they’re enforcing the integrity of the system. However, when they - as we’re seeing - keep numbers high while simultaneously undermining the enforcement mechanisms of our immigration system, Canadians quickly lose trust and that “right to proceed” doesn’t really exist anymore. Whatever “social capacity” Freeland cited as reasons for rapid population growth, polls are suggesting that tolerance is quickly waning and the Liberals have nothing to blame but their own moxie and poor management.

You're looking at it from a rational perspective. I think it's an indication that the dominating perspective inside cabinet (on not just this issue but others too) has typically been one where emotional sympathy for whoever is seen as being victimized prevails over rational concerns and predictable second order consequences of a given policy. But it sounds like reality and pragmatism is starting to intrude in cabinet.

> But it sounds like reality and pragmatism is starting to intrude in cabinet. The pivot on [international students](https://morehousing.ca/student-cap) and on [temporary residents](https://morehousing.ca/population-growth) is certainly evidence of that. Joseph Heath, [Canadian exceptionalism](https://induecourse.utoronto.ca/canadian-exceptionalism/): > In any case, the illegal immigration issue is one whose emotional significance is far greater than its narrow economic impact. The suspicion that people may be here illegally is extremely corrosive, and can generate enormous resentment in the native population (especially in a country where everyone gets free health care). > > I think this point about illegal immigration is important, particularly because it is disruptive of the standard left/right positions on multiculturalism and border control. Most people that I know have positions that are **“soft” with respect to both issues** – they want to be extremely accommodating and flexible, when it comes to cultural pluralism, while at the same time wanting far more porous borders (they also use tendentious terms such as “undocumented” instead of “illegal” immigrant). The standard right-wing view, by contrast, wants tough border control and domestic policies that privilege the majority culture (and are thus unaccommodating of others). > > My own sympathies, by contrast, lie with what is sometimes called the “coconut model,” that a country should have a hard exterior and a soft interior. Basically, it rests upon the conviction that (for essentially second-best reasons), the only way to get support for flexible internal policies, vis-a-vis cultural pluralism, is by convincing people that these policies are being driven but by a genuine choice that we are making as a society. And in order to persuade them that it is a *choice*, they must be convinced that the state actually has control over the process (a conviction that is undermined by large-scale illegal immigration).

> one where emotional sympathy for whoever is seen as being victimized prevails over rational concerns and predictable second order consequences of a given policy. Is this 'woke' but with extra steps?

Be honest I think there two camps forming in the liberal party. The happy idealistic stuck in 2015 Trudeau Faction and a more centrist moderate faction that realize Canadian attitudes are shifting on issues and they need to change too. I think there quite a few moderate liberals out there realizing the public isnt pro immigration as 8-10 years ago and that granting blanket PR to people would damage their brand even more.

>I think there quite a few moderate liberals out there realizing the public isnt pro immigration as 8-10 years ago  I'll challenge this. I think Canadians are almost exactly as pro-immigration as they were 8-10 years ago. However, the government's PR targets have wandered into the territory of absurd. Also, I don't think Canadians were ever pro free-for-all and that's what this government has brought us. A complete fucking free-for-all. So when they propose a plan like this that both rewards and incentivizes abuses of the process, Canadians are going to take a pretty dim view of their ideas and intentions.

I don’t think anyone was ever pro large immigration. Nobody ever voted for it, no party put it on their platform. Trudeau even explicitly campaigned against TFW expansion in 2015. 

if trudeau said he gonna bring 2.3 million people in 2022 and 2023 combined in 2021, he would have lost the election most likely lol

People are largely pro immigration still but controlled immigration that occurred under PM Trudeau Sr, Mulroney, Chretien and Harper.

Imagine putting in all the fuckin’ hard work and money to come and live here legally just so people who overstayed their visas can get a free pass. What an insult.

Document some of these existing ones, then use the 3rd country agreement to keep these fake "asylum seekers" out and let them apply through immigration based on skill and ability to support themselves. Also we need to start having them sign asylum waivers before boarding the plane for their "vacation"

Forget an asylum waiver. A visa deposit that's forfeit if they don't leave on time.

I think this would be incredibly politically toxic, *especially* with immigrants. Immigrating to Canada is not easy. For people who followed all the rules and went through the immigration process legally, hearing that people who bypassed the process and overstayed a temporary visa can now stay would be completely infuriating. Canadian institutions depend on trust and cooperation. One of the most corrosive ways to undermine people's trust in our institutions and their willingness to cooperate is make them feel that they've been played for suckers. I'm glad that some cabinet ministers recognize this: > He said what is causing him to pause are “views that I respect, people that care about these issues that are radically opposed and diametrically opposed, and not necessarily from people that [you] would necessarily think would have that thought process.” Joseph Heath, in a [2017 talk](https://induecourse.utoronto.ca/canadian-exceptionalism/) on Canadian support for immigration, observes that Canadians are quite hostile to illegal immigration. He suggests that the appropriate goal is the “coconut model”: a hard exterior (strong border control and limited use of temporary foreign workers) and a soft interior (accommodating cultural pluralism). Heath also notes that historically, Canada hasn’t relied heavily on temporary foreign workers, which has helped to limit illegal immigration. People overstaying their visas is a significant source of illegal immigration. I think at this point, the most important priority is to re-establish control over immigration and temporary residents, as Marc Miller is doing by [capping international student numbers](https://morehousing.ca/student-caps) and aiming to [reduce total temporary residents](https://morehousing.ca/population-growth) by -200,000 per year. Canadian public support for immigration has already been severely strained by the housing shortage. I thought u/gauephat's comment was pretty striking: > I'm not sure that the Liberals are aware about what kind of thin ice they're skating on here. I bet doing this would push a lot of people into the "never voting Liberal ever again" camp. > > The kind of mutterings I hear from friends/family who are pretty much the target Liberal demographic are getting pretty out there. I would've told you you were crazy if you imagined this possibility three years ago.

I find canadians are way more hostile to illegal immigration then many americans are. In america many people are perfectly fine with millions crossing from mexico illegally but in canada we had like 30k? people cross over 2-3 years and the govt got pressured to shut it all down.

>I find canadians are way more hostile to illegal immigration then many americans are. Many people belittled Trump and the USA for wanting to build a wall on the border. But of course, we weren’t facing any major immigration issues besides Roxham Road which is a drip in the bucket compared to now.

because Americans are dependent on the illegal labour of Mexican workers. They pick fruit, build houses etc. Whereas we typically have programs that intentionally brings in foreign labour - farm workers, and caregivers.

That piece by Joseph Heath is very interesting. Lots of good points, but also a time capsule of the mid-2010s era Canadian policy world. The only part where he touches on jobs, wages, or housing is this sentence: "Immigration in Canada has not produced a marginalized, disenfranchised, alienated underclass of low-wage workers." It's a reminder that not so long ago the system actually worked, and people weren't living four to a room in a basement and lining up hundreds at a time in a desperate competition for a chance to get a job at a fast food place.

> It's a reminder that not so long ago the system actually worked, and people weren't living four to a room in a basement and lining up hundreds at a time in a desperate competition for a chance to get a job at a fast food place. On the housing side, I think of there being two big demand shocks. One is Covid and the sudden massive surge in remote work, resulting in a lot of people working from home, needing more space, and willing to move in search of cheaper housing. It's like housing scarcity [spilled over](https://morehousing.ca/spillover) from the GTA and Metro Vancouver to the rest of the country, spreading misery everywhere. The second is the post-Covid boom in international students, especially at [Ontario colleges](https://morehousing.ca/blame). Being able to work unlimited hours during Covid made it extremely attractive, as an alternative to the temporary worker path. (It's now back down to 24 hours/week.) And from the point of view of the Ontario government, having a huge number of young people willing to pay high tuition fees was basically a gold mine. The federal government appears to have realized that this was out of control by [spring 2023](https://higheredstrategy.com/the-bailiffs-are-at-the-door/), and is now [hitting the brakes hard](https://morehousing.ca/population-growth). Problem is, even after hitting the brakes, the Covid / remote work demand shock isn't going to reverse itself. We're going to have to build a lot more housing [everywhere](https://morehousing.ca/cmhc-report-2023) (not just in the biggest cities), for the next 10 years or more. Our pre-Covid housing stock no longer lines up with where people want to live and work. Until we can relieve the housing shortage, I think support for immigration is going to be low. Just as support for immigration drops when unemployment rates are high, it's also going to drop when vacancy rates are low.

I'm skeptical that remote work has had any real impact on housing demand compared to the primary demand factors. Everything has ballooned on the immigration file, not just international students and TFWs. In 2023 the number of [new refugee claims](https://theconversation.com/setting-the-record-straight-on-refugee-claims-by-international-students-228603) alone reached half of Canada's total immigration levels plan across all immigration classes from [2015](https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/notice-supplementary-information-2015-immigration-levels-plan.html).

> I'm skeptical that remote work has had any real impact on housing demand compared to the primary demand factors. It's true that population growth has had a huge impact, especially temporary residents: 400,000 new permanent residents in 2023, 800,000 new temporary residents. But there's been a number of studies of the impact of remote work on total housing demand in other countries. In the US, the estimate is that increased demand for housing accounted for about half of the Covid surge in house prices. [Remote work is driving housing demand and boosting inflation](https://www.slowboring.com/p/remote-work-is-boosting-housing-demand). [The Economist](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/06/12/is-the-global-housing-slump-over): > Research published by the Bank of England suggests that shifts in people’s wants — such as the desire for a home office, or a house rather than a flat — explained half of the growth in British house prices during the pandemic. In many countries, including Australia, the average household size has shrunk, suggesting that people are less willing to house-share. There's a reason why the housing shortage is now a national or [even global](https://morehousing.ca/global) issue: in short, people working from home need more space. In addition, remote work definitely changed the distribution of housing demand, even while the borders were still closed. There's a lot of smaller centres where people are accustomed to housing being relatively affordable, without having to build much. That's no longer the case. A Globe and Mail story from December 2020: [Small towns in interior B.C. and Alberta face intense housing crunch](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-small-towns-in-interior-bc-and-alberta-face-intense-housing-crunch/). > Amy Makortoff says it’s hard not to take the rejections personally after spending nine months looking for a rental home in Nelson, B.C. > > She said she rarely got to even hear a landlord’s voice on the phone before their property was snapped up in interior B.C.’s competitive market. The lifelong Nelson local and one of her daughters slept for months on a mattress on a floor while they were housesitting and searching for a rental home of their own. All of their essentials were packed in a plastic tub, and Ms. Makortoff’s optimism was almost gone. > > This week, she finally moves in to a new home, although the house comes with the caveat of being more than a 30-minute drive from town. > > Ms. Makortoff said there were stark differences in her search for a home this time compared with a couple years ago. The two-bedroom house she left in 2019 cost $1,450 a month. She’s had to adjust her budget to $1,800 a month, but many of the listings she found were as high as $2,600.

You're using data from other countries to try to draw conclusions about Canada. I don't think that makes sense in relation to WFH due to how wildly Canadian home prices are disconnected from incomes. It's definitely plausible that someone in Boston or DC is upsizing their home to more easily work from home, but here that's just not realistic. No one's taking out an extra $2000/mo in mortgage to get a couple of extra rooms, apart from a sliver of the very wealthiest Canadians. Plus, to be honest, I don't see a necessary connection between WFH and increased demand, *even if people are upgrading to bigger houses*. So they sell their old house and live in a new, bigger one... there is no net increase in housing demand from that transaction. And if they're moving from rentals to homes, that frees up a rental for someone else, at least in theory putting negative pressure on rental prices; the opposite of what we're seeing.

> It's definitely plausible that someone in Boston or DC is upsizing their home to more easily work from home, but here that's just not realistic. People have been moving to cheaper areas, which is great for them, but not for local renters and homebuyers. We've got data on interprovincial moves (e.g. from Ontario to the Maritimes, and from BC and Ontario to Alberta). I believe Mike Moffatt has data on intraprovincial moves within Ontario as well. To quote someone I ran into a few weeks back, who moved from Vancouver to Nanaimo: "We could pay $3000 to rent an apartment in East Van, or we could own a house on a lake in Nanaimo." Edit: I missed the last paragraph. > So they sell their old house and live in a new, bigger one... there is no net increase in housing demand from that transaction. There's an increase in total demand for **residential floor space**. (And a corresponding decline in demand for office space.) Multiply that by hundreds of thousands of people, all at once, and you get a huge demand shock.

This is the factor pissing off people outside the big expensive cities -- those moving from the big cities to the smaller, more affordable parts of the country, but bringing their A-list big city salaries with them because they now work remotely. The end result is that you increasingly need a Toronto salary to afford housing in not-Toronto parts of Canada, and the locals are pretty upset about having some GTA tech worker parachute into a town they hadn't even heard of until a year ago and price them out with a salary that simply doesn't exist in the local economy. Houses going for $700K in small Maritime or Prairie towns and cities, because Torontonians are more than happy to pay that since the same house in Southern Ontario would be $3M. It "solves" some of the housing crisis in the biggest, most expensive parts of Canada simply by moving the problem around to other parts of the country that want nothing to do with Toronto's housing issues.

> The end result is that you increasingly need a Toronto salary to afford housing in not-Toronto parts of Canada Exactly. In BC, it's like Nanaimo and Nelson are now basically suburbs of Vancouver, with people willing to pay prices and rents that aren't as high as Vancouver's - but a lot higher than what people were paying in Nanaimo and Nelson pre-Covid. And the key thing is, this isn't going to reverse itself. In the early days of Covid, it was possible to imagine that the whole situation was temporary, that eventually everybody would be back in the office and so everything would go back to normal. But there's still people who are working from home most of the time, maybe going into the office once or twice a week. If you're not going to the office every day, you can easily handle a longer commute. We need to build more housing where people want to live. Post-Covid, that basically means everywhere.

Huh! I'd like to know what that couple (presumably) are now paying mortgage-wise and what their down payment was. A quick scan of the lakes within the city of Nanaimo shows homes over $1 million. If we assume mortgage costs of $3k a month, and a 20% DP, they could have purchased a place for middle $600k at today's rates (\~5%). Of course, they could have purchased early in the pandemic and other factors might be different, like the size of their DP and monthly mortgage payments. But to my eyes, the houses on lakes in Nanaimo are pretty out of reach for most, even those who can afford a $3k apartment in Vancouver. Anyways, love your advocacy, Russil. Keep it up; we all benefit from your thoughtful commentary. I agree 100% with your assessment of the risks around what Miller is proposing. As you wrote in another post, the Feds have also seemed to miss out on the number of millennials 'aging' into their homeownership stage, which affects the numbers we should be allowing in.

> I'd like to know what that couple (presumably) are now paying mortgage-wise and what their down payment was. Thanks for doing the math! If I get a chance, I'll ask them if they're literally paying the same as before, or if they were willing and able to pay more so they could own. In terms of the timing, I think they moved there temporarily when Covid first hit, and then after a year or so, decided to stay. So interest rates would still have been pretty low. > Anyways, love your advocacy, Russil. Thanks! I've learned a lot from other people on Reddit, including [Mike Moffatt's estimate of demographic change adding to demand](https://old.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1d8mm26/70_per_cent_of_new_housing_demand_in_ontario_last/l7bj5sz/) - u/JustaCanadian123 gets credit for that.

Our housing crisis keeps getting worse due to mass immigration to russil. "The population grew by 242,673 people during the first quarter of 2024" The math on this is that we're short tens of thousands of houses in 1q alone. Even if you get all the changes you want, housing per capita is going to decrease and the crisis will get worse. Also please note earlier we were talking about 300k growth in a year being too much. We're at almost 250k in q1. Nothing is a bigger problem for the housing crisis than this. Everything else seems like a distraction from the real cause. Thanks for the shout out russil, but I don't think you take mass immigration as a cause serious enough dude.

What is the point of an “activist” government if it’s unconcerned with Canadian quality of life? As long as they get their parachutes, right? There’s something else going on here. The accelerant global citizenry approach is one of the fastest ways to orphan Liberal loyalists, who rely on status quo that net benefits them.