Evan, re immigration, please please listen to NE-S's podcast interview last fall with a professor who studies immigration. So informative.
He clarifies many public misconceptions and explains the complexity of policy considerations.
1. Canada needs MORE immigrants to sustain our economy. Our birth rate is simply too low.
2. The 2 million foreigners in 2023-24 were NOT our regular immigrant stream, but an anomalous, post-pandemic influx of TEMPORARY workers, students, and refugees, incl 300,000+ Ukrainians.
3. Canadian companies begged for this (cheap) labour, esp in our health care and food supply sectors because nobody wanted to work in these areas during and post Covid.
4. The ON govt asked for and received 50% of all foreign students to subsidize postsecondary education, which it funds the lowest per capita in Canada.
5. And Ukraine, well, there's a war still raging.
The dept of Immigration advised then Minister Fraser to not take in this many so quickly. He proceeded anyway.
Now, the govt has decided to absorb most of these people by converting them to permanent residency. Evicting them would be expensive, and now these people have useful Canadian work experience, education, etc.
They are generally not as highly skilled as our immigration point system, but easier now to keep them.
Accordingly, the govt has adjusted (reduced) our immigration levels for the next few years.
Final point: later, Canada will need to continue to compete for the best and brightest from around the world. It'll be a challenge.
It’s not clear to me whether people are mad about immigration generally or non-white immigration specifically. Like, if the immigrants were from England, would people blame them for housing scarcity, or would we figure out how to build more apartments? Certainly, building an apartment building isn’t like fusion, mysterious and technologically infeasible. I understand that building is unpopular, in that many people prefer things like height limits, set backs, and yes even the process of various consultations. I get that some people prefer to talk and feel heard rather than have more and better places to live.
My point is, that housing is a separate issue from immigration. If people are anxious about nonwhite immigration, as seems likely, then you have to address that issue specifically. Housing is just a confabulated, more respectful afterthought. If we had enough people would still be pissy about brown people. Likewise if immigrants were white, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Either we’d fix housing or we wouldn’t but people wouldn’t make it about immigrants.
Anyway, if we want to fix immigration from the public’s perspective, we have to revise to rules to favor fewer non-whites for permanent residency or temporary visas. Or we have to address behaviors that make people uncomfortable with non-white immigrants already here, potentially on both sides of the interaction. Which frankly might be too blunt for people to handle. But yeah so it is.
Patrick, I do not argue that no one ever notices skin color.
Having said that, my experience is that we worry far more about whether "Joe," the "new guy on the block" has experience to do the job, the need to fit in to our society and so forth. In other words, a Limey would get the same scrutiny from me as someone from, say, Bangladesh. And, it is my further experience, that most folks that I know are that same way.
Finally, I really find it odious that some folks - look in the mirror, Patrick - seem to think that a call for lower immigration is a racist thing. Nope. Your comment is, quite frankly, offensive. If housing is so scarce that no one (no matter their color) can afford it; if medical care is so hard to come by that so many (no matter their color) cannot get it, then the issue is probably quantity of people. It damned well isn't "quality" of people.
We have - or are supposed to have - a points system for determining whether an applicant is likely to be a good fit. That points system does not address skin color - and it shouldn't - so who really gives a good God Damn whether a successful applicant is green or purple? Oh, yeah, you seem to.
My advice, Sir, is to ignore skin color and look at the ability of the people to fit in, raise families, be law abiding, etc., etc., etc. About the only thing that I have noticed in all our immigrant communities? They all came to give their kids a better life. And we have to meet that obligation but we cannot do that if we lack housing, etc.
I think there is another dimension to this. One thing that hurt the Trudeau government significantly was the complete failure by provinces to fulfill their provincial responsibilities. Housing, health, education, the mechanics of the justice system, policing are all predominantly provincial responsibilities. Especially post Covid, the federal government received all the blame for issues that were squarely in the provincial domain. The Trudeau government wasn’t able to respond to this dynamic effectively.
Going forward, I would very much like to see the Carney government holding provinces to account. Publish the average wait time for standard surgeries like hip replacement. Give quarterly press conferences on how long it takes for criminal cases to get to trial in each province. Name and shame, regardless of the political colour of the provincial government. The federal government needs to make clear, and needs to do this continuously, that provinces need to deliver on their responsibilities. And if they don’t, make it clear where voters should direct their frustration to.
What a depressing reality I am facing: I continue to agree with you!
I have no problems with ever so many of the goals of "progressives" [in quotation marks because I dislike how the left has appropriated that word and assigned descriptors such as "far right" and such to anyone who is even mildly rightish.]. What has annoyed me greatly over the years is the absolute "certainty," the "knowledge" that the "progressive" way was the only way to achieve those goals. At the same time, make no mistake that many of the "right" are equally insufferable.
In fact, it seems to me that while there are absolutely significant differences in some areas between progressives and the right, ever so many times [again, my opinion], we on the rightish side of things have the same aspirations and goals for society; the difference is often how we want to do things. As you point out, deregulation can be useful. Conversely, I acknowledge that some - note: some - regulation is not simply useful but is essential.
I am 74 so that means that I have seen a lot. For example, I was alive in the fifties, sixties and seventies (and since, of course). In that period there was an American politician by the name of Richard Nixon who ultimately was driven from the Presidency for good reason. Nevertheless. While he was still President, China (or as it was known to the Right - capital "R" there - Communist Red China) was a sworn enemy of and anathema to the US. He absolutely shocked the world when he went to China to open diplomatic relations between the countries. It was said that "only Nixon," who was an incredibly staunch anti-Communist could have done that. That made it acceptable for America to talk about China somewhat more coherently.
My point is that so often people simply refuse to see that there are other ways to think of things than their own way. That doesn't mean that their way is wrong, but to refuse to talk about other possibilities, including your own potential for error, is absolutely wrong. Further to refuse to consider the options endorsed by your "opponent" ["enemy"?] is not only wrong but is stupid.
What? No. Don't succumb to the braying intransigence or the truly evil, deeply cultivated narrative of conservatives that is synonymous with that "lie" that we keep hearing about, the one that travels around the world before the truth has a chance. The conservatives are the big tech bros, and Trump, period. Lying pieces of shit. That, and the fact that they don't believe in climate science absolutely DISQUALIFIES them for governance, ever.
The reason we are better, always, is because we don't actually HAVE a narrative; we're open. They're closed.
And obviously we don't engage in "braying intransigence......"
Evan, re immigration, please please listen to NE-S's podcast interview last fall with a professor who studies immigration. So informative.
He clarifies many public misconceptions and explains the complexity of policy considerations.
1. Canada needs MORE immigrants to sustain our economy. Our birth rate is simply too low.
2. The 2 million foreigners in 2023-24 were NOT our regular immigrant stream, but an anomalous, post-pandemic influx of TEMPORARY workers, students, and refugees, incl 300,000+ Ukrainians.
3. Canadian companies begged for this (cheap) labour, esp in our health care and food supply sectors because nobody wanted to work in these areas during and post Covid.
4. The ON govt asked for and received 50% of all foreign students to subsidize postsecondary education, which it funds the lowest per capita in Canada.
5. And Ukraine, well, there's a war still raging.
The dept of Immigration advised then Minister Fraser to not take in this many so quickly. He proceeded anyway.
Now, the govt has decided to absorb most of these people by converting them to permanent residency. Evicting them would be expensive, and now these people have useful Canadian work experience, education, etc.
They are generally not as highly skilled as our immigration point system, but easier now to keep them.
Accordingly, the govt has adjusted (reduced) our immigration levels for the next few years.
Final point: later, Canada will need to continue to compete for the best and brightest from around the world. It'll be a challenge.
That's it.
It’s not clear to me whether people are mad about immigration generally or non-white immigration specifically. Like, if the immigrants were from England, would people blame them for housing scarcity, or would we figure out how to build more apartments? Certainly, building an apartment building isn’t like fusion, mysterious and technologically infeasible. I understand that building is unpopular, in that many people prefer things like height limits, set backs, and yes even the process of various consultations. I get that some people prefer to talk and feel heard rather than have more and better places to live.
My point is, that housing is a separate issue from immigration. If people are anxious about nonwhite immigration, as seems likely, then you have to address that issue specifically. Housing is just a confabulated, more respectful afterthought. If we had enough people would still be pissy about brown people. Likewise if immigrants were white, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Either we’d fix housing or we wouldn’t but people wouldn’t make it about immigrants.
Anyway, if we want to fix immigration from the public’s perspective, we have to revise to rules to favor fewer non-whites for permanent residency or temporary visas. Or we have to address behaviors that make people uncomfortable with non-white immigrants already here, potentially on both sides of the interaction. Which frankly might be too blunt for people to handle. But yeah so it is.
Patrick, I do not argue that no one ever notices skin color.
Having said that, my experience is that we worry far more about whether "Joe," the "new guy on the block" has experience to do the job, the need to fit in to our society and so forth. In other words, a Limey would get the same scrutiny from me as someone from, say, Bangladesh. And, it is my further experience, that most folks that I know are that same way.
Finally, I really find it odious that some folks - look in the mirror, Patrick - seem to think that a call for lower immigration is a racist thing. Nope. Your comment is, quite frankly, offensive. If housing is so scarce that no one (no matter their color) can afford it; if medical care is so hard to come by that so many (no matter their color) cannot get it, then the issue is probably quantity of people. It damned well isn't "quality" of people.
We have - or are supposed to have - a points system for determining whether an applicant is likely to be a good fit. That points system does not address skin color - and it shouldn't - so who really gives a good God Damn whether a successful applicant is green or purple? Oh, yeah, you seem to.
My advice, Sir, is to ignore skin color and look at the ability of the people to fit in, raise families, be law abiding, etc., etc., etc. About the only thing that I have noticed in all our immigrant communities? They all came to give their kids a better life. And we have to meet that obligation but we cannot do that if we lack housing, etc.
I think there is another dimension to this. One thing that hurt the Trudeau government significantly was the complete failure by provinces to fulfill their provincial responsibilities. Housing, health, education, the mechanics of the justice system, policing are all predominantly provincial responsibilities. Especially post Covid, the federal government received all the blame for issues that were squarely in the provincial domain. The Trudeau government wasn’t able to respond to this dynamic effectively.
Going forward, I would very much like to see the Carney government holding provinces to account. Publish the average wait time for standard surgeries like hip replacement. Give quarterly press conferences on how long it takes for criminal cases to get to trial in each province. Name and shame, regardless of the political colour of the provincial government. The federal government needs to make clear, and needs to do this continuously, that provinces need to deliver on their responsibilities. And if they don’t, make it clear where voters should direct their frustration to.
What a depressing reality I am facing: I continue to agree with you!
I have no problems with ever so many of the goals of "progressives" [in quotation marks because I dislike how the left has appropriated that word and assigned descriptors such as "far right" and such to anyone who is even mildly rightish.]. What has annoyed me greatly over the years is the absolute "certainty," the "knowledge" that the "progressive" way was the only way to achieve those goals. At the same time, make no mistake that many of the "right" are equally insufferable.
In fact, it seems to me that while there are absolutely significant differences in some areas between progressives and the right, ever so many times [again, my opinion], we on the rightish side of things have the same aspirations and goals for society; the difference is often how we want to do things. As you point out, deregulation can be useful. Conversely, I acknowledge that some - note: some - regulation is not simply useful but is essential.
I am 74 so that means that I have seen a lot. For example, I was alive in the fifties, sixties and seventies (and since, of course). In that period there was an American politician by the name of Richard Nixon who ultimately was driven from the Presidency for good reason. Nevertheless. While he was still President, China (or as it was known to the Right - capital "R" there - Communist Red China) was a sworn enemy of and anathema to the US. He absolutely shocked the world when he went to China to open diplomatic relations between the countries. It was said that "only Nixon," who was an incredibly staunch anti-Communist could have done that. That made it acceptable for America to talk about China somewhat more coherently.
My point is that so often people simply refuse to see that there are other ways to think of things than their own way. That doesn't mean that their way is wrong, but to refuse to talk about other possibilities, including your own potential for error, is absolutely wrong. Further to refuse to consider the options endorsed by your "opponent" ["enemy"?] is not only wrong but is stupid.
What? No. Don't succumb to the braying intransigence or the truly evil, deeply cultivated narrative of conservatives that is synonymous with that "lie" that we keep hearing about, the one that travels around the world before the truth has a chance. The conservatives are the big tech bros, and Trump, period. Lying pieces of shit. That, and the fact that they don't believe in climate science absolutely DISQUALIFIES them for governance, ever.
The reason we are better, always, is because we don't actually HAVE a narrative; we're open. They're closed.
And obviously we don't engage in "braying intransigence......"
Whatever these assholes might be right about, it absolutely pales in significance next to what they're wrong about, which is everything that matters.
Can all those conservative voters be wrong? Yeah, for sure, I mean look at religion.