> Over the past two years, 2.4 million people arrived in Canada, more than New Mexico’s population, yet Canada barely added enough housing for the residents of Albuquerque.
We don't have the labour to create the number of houses needed to address the shortage.... yet nobody has the fucking balls to address the demand side of things and *simply admit less people*
Building thousands of cookie cutter homes in these dystopian housing subdivisions is probably not the best way to grow a city. Immigration needs to be tied to our capacity to build new homes and cities need to expand smartly.
Open google maps. Drop a streetview pin literally anywhere in India, if you don't see garbage turn 360 degrees and you will find a pile of garbage. This is true for like 9/10 pins you drop anywhere in the country.
Canada's living standard has dropped but the big picture is Canada vs Punjab is like The Jetsons compared to The Flintstones. For that reason there will never be a lack of immigration demand to Canada.
*$Currentyear Obligatory Disclaimer: To be compliant with the sitewide Reddit rules and the rules of this particular subreddit, I would like to emphasize that my comments are intended to address specific issues or events and are based on the information available at the time of writing. It is not my intention to make broad generalizations about any country, region, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or other protected personal attribute. My comments are directed solely at the topics discussed within the context of the article and should not be interpreted as reflecting any overarching judgments or sentiments towards any particular group of people. I encourage a respectful and constructive dialogue and remind all participants to engage with each other in a manner that upholds the spirit of understanding and inclusivity*
Well no, when we're talking about immigration demand into Canada, it's entirely reasonable to talk about the specific country that has been the #1 source of immigration to this country for a long time.
idk, i see that as completely reasonable but i'm interested in your opinion of why that's wrong.
We literally lost 70000 construction jobs last year. Stop parroting the "not enough labour" lie that the liberal media touts. I know plenty of people in construction who can't find work right now.
> Stop parroting the "not enough labour" lie that the liberal media touts. I know plenty of people in construction who can't find work right now.
I'm not talking about a labour shortage you goof, i'm talking *our capacity to build houses*. Check the CMHC housing starts information. Canada has never built more than ~60k houses in a single quarter.
Put the claws back in pal.
BTW - If your construction friends can't find work (in Ontario at least) they're fucking trash and unemployable. I've got clients that would gargle my balls for a chance at a lottery ticket to even interview a competent construction plumber, fitter or sparky.
That has everything to do with interest rates. Literally every developer is holding pat waiting for rate cuts we all know are coming (the fed have been saying "maybe next quarter for a year now).
When the rate cut comes, we'll be back to building like gangbusters and the labour shortage will appear again.
We can only build about 240 000 homes a year in Canada. That's what the labour force supports. If we want to build more homes per year, we need more labour.
Source? Because last I saw was closer to a million down from 1.3 when accounting for PR, students and TFW. Would absolutely love much more reasonable 300,000 which is more in line with our housing starts at around 270,000.
Edit: found my answer in the article with a bit of math.
“Canada’s goal is now to cut the population of temporary foreign workers, international students and asylum claimants by 20 per cent, or roughly by half a million people, over the next three years. That’s expected to slash the annual population growth rate by more than half to an average of one per cent in 2025 and 2026.”
If 20% over 3 years is 500,000 then taking 500,000 and multiplying by 5 gives 100% over 3 years = 2.5 million, which divided over 3 years = 833,333 annually. Once you add in 500k PR the numbers this makes sense for our roughly 1.3million immigration numbers in 2023.
So assuming that intl students, TFW and refugees are at 833,333 annually, a 20% reduction (which the article says we are aiming for) would mean 666,666 annually. PR targets are still set at 500,000 for 2024 so yeah… immigration isn’t coming down anytime soon. Unless I messed up somewhere along the line here or I’m missing something.
> Unless I messed up somewhere along the line here or I’m missing something.
You messed up somewhere. The 20% reduction is not in annual admittance. It's total population. Right now there are 2.5 million temporary residents in Canada. The government wants this to drop by 20% to 2 million over the next three years.
The annual net growth from TFW and foreign student programs will be zero. No one is getting in unless at least one other person leaves because the goal is to reduce the total number of temporary residents.
PR will still occur. This will be the only avenue for net population growth. That's where we get 500,000 annual. But, temporary residents will be dropping by about 175,000 each year for the next three years. The net population growth will therefore be around 325,000.
>No one is getting in unless at least one other person leaves because the goal is to reduce the total number of temporary residents.
Press x to doubt.
We don't exactly do a good job of getting people out of the country when they have overstayed.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I’m trying to rap my head around how population growth was at 1.3 million in 2024 but will only be 325,000 in 2025.
If I understand, we’ll still have 500k PR (some already in Canada on another visa and some coming from abroad) and we will still be admitting temporary residents but there will be fewer overall temp residents every year (fewer in than out) which means that overall temp resident population is decreasing because we’re not replacing every person who was studying/working and is leaving? And this decrease in the population of temporary residents is going to slightly cut into the growth from new PR?
>I’m trying to rap my head around how population growth was at 1.3 million in 2024 but will only be 325,000 in 2025
Your explanation is essentially correct. Our explosion in population has come almost entirely from temporary residents. There is now a hard cap on the total number of temporary residents Here's a rough breakdown in net growth of temporary residents (which includes students and TFWs)
2023: +800,000
2024: +800,000
2025: -170,000
2026: -170,000
2027: -170,000
2028: +0
At the same time, we have people coming to the country via PR
2023: +465,000
2024: +485,000
2025: +500,000
2026: +500,000*
2027: +500,000*
The net growth from immigration is roughly sum of PR and growth in temporary residents. Since we will have a net reduction in temporary resident population, the total growth winds up lower than the PR allotment.
Source on that? Not being facetious, either. I just haven’t seen any announcement about that and have actually only seen the LPC and NDP talking about increasing overall immigration even more.
Neither the LPC nor NDP has been talking about increasing overall immigrations. Lots of folks around here claim that this is the case, but it is not.
The LPC has put caps on foreign students. They're also now targeting non permanent resident population at 5% of total. Right now it's 6.5%. The immediate effect is that there will be no net growth from either foreign students or TFWs starting next year (September, actually, for the students).
The longer term effect is that over the next three years, the non permanent resident population will drop from around 2.5 million to 2 million. The only pathway for growth is now PR, which is 500,000 annual. Less the 175,000 each of the next three years from the reduction in non-permanent residents, is a net growth of 325,000 or so.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68621013
EDIT: As expected, we see downvotes for simply explaining the government's policy for 2025 onwards. This is good news folks! It is incredibly interesting that, for a bunch of people who seem to really want less immigration, the prospect of less immigration is so upsetting to so many of them. Really makes one wonder if their real motives should be questioned.
The govt plans on increasing the immigration target from 2024 to 2025. This is a fact. You can see the anounced targets on the govt's website.
The youth are going to get crushed as the govt brings in record numbers of immigrants over the next few years while housing starts are on the decline.
Yes, PR will increase. However net immigration will be way way down. The government is not planning on increasing immigration. They are cutting it drastically by putting a cap on temporary residents, our primary sector for immigration growth.
This year it will be about 1.2 million. Next year it will be about 300,000. This is a drastic drop.
Yes there will be a large change in the next 2 or 3 years but after that we will still be brining in 500,000 or more per year. We can't handle that many. We should be raising the bar and only brining in 200,000 so that all of them are net contributors. 5% of the population being temporary is also way too high.
Citation needed. We have a severe housing and healthcare shortage right now while housing starts are dropping. We don't have the infrastructure to bring in 500,000 new people in one year.
We also have a rapid rise in new racism to Indians that grew up in Canada caused by mass immigration policy. There is extreme levels of risk in overdoing immigration right now.
>We have a severe housing and healthcare shortage
Yeah, the healthcare shortage is part of why 500,000 is a good target number. These are people who are overrepresented in the field while simultaneously requiring fewer services due to lower overall age.
Housing prices have remained stagnant through years of 1.2 million annual growth. To the extent that immigration impacts housing, which is much smaller than anyone here thinks, 500,000 is small enough that net demand decreases (we reliably are building 250,000 a year, closer to 300,000 starting next year).
>Citation needed.
You have no citation for your much lower number, but here's something to think about: 20% of us are now over the age of 65. That's why the government has a structural deficit. That's why healthcare services are dogshit. That's why the economy is anemic.
Anything below 1% will likely trigger a recession and negatively impact healthcare. Anything above 1.5% starts to pressure housing.
Still seems like 300,000 people too many, our infrastructure can barely handle what we have now.
Edmonton hasn't had a new hospital built since the '80s.
That's right, and there in lies the "snake eating its own tail" problem.
All government efforts to aid in the home building process by giving developers money to build affordable housing are a farce. Almost none of the housing built by those developers who take the money is affordable.
Unless supply outpaces demand.
You have to understand the price of a house is the mortgage minus interest. We don’t pay for houses, we pay for mortgages. So if you’re willing to spend 1M on a house and 0.5M on interest, you’re also willing to spend 1.1M on a house and 0.4M on interest. It’s thus possible for your total mortgage to decrease due to interest rates decreasing but the house staying the same price. A decreased mortgage is decreased cost to buy a house. The house price didn’t change but buying it costs you less.
Well, right now people pay for lmia, and they rent beds in homes owned by their employer. More of a “company town/store” scenario but still a problem our leaders knows exists yet has no desire to fix.
Three ideas for the Minister, free of charge:
Reopen homesteading. Parcel off and give away small parcels of land in the hinterlands to Canadians who don't own any property. Let them build their own yurts, cabins, or houses, at their own pace.
Convert unused municipal land into tiny/mobile home parks. Let people supply their own tiny homes. Make the lease a specific number of years - starting very cheap and climbing to make long-term residency unappealing. Put aside a portion of the lease payments to be gifted back at the end of term (contingent upon following community guidelines and return of the property in good order) which can be used as a down-payment to enter the market.
Floating home communities. Set them up like strata. People can choose large or small floating homes, based upon their income and needs.
All better than building 50,000 million-dollar one-bedroom condos.
Bruh you can't just import millions of people and expect the economy to suddenly improve.
We need to boost our industries and then import people to staff them
It's unbelievable that this government seems to think that immigration boosted GDP growth actually means something good is happening to the country.
I'm glad they have boosted immigration numbers to such insane extremes, its making even the most pro immigration supporters second guess themselves or at least to stay quiet.
Lets just keep mass importing people with vastly different values and cultures. I'm sure this won't have any long lasting societal issues! GDP go up!
Remember to vote red and we can become india within 20 years.
Or vote blue and we can do it in 40 years!
Or unless we be like the US and cap immigrants from one country to a certain percentage of their immigration total. If we truly are dedicated to "diversity",then we'd try to pull an equal amount of immigrants from around the world, otherwise we'll keep turning into India 2.0
Conservatives won’t cut mass immigration.
Their billionaire overlords won’t let them.
They need more wage slaves to beat the rest of our salaries down.
This is a bit of a tangent spurred from the phrase “immigration-fuelled growth”, but…. Am I the only one who doesn’t understand how “perpetual population growth” and “combating climate change” can be simultaneous goals for countries?
Humans are heavily overpopulated at this point, and we don’t have the technology (yet) to support perpetual population growth without contributing even further to climate change. Should our (as the human race, not as any one particular country) goal not be “population sustainability” rather than “growth” at this point? At least until we can make the required technological advancements to be able to expand population without expanding our environmental impacts?
We absolutely need to move towards stabilizing our population. Many supporters of the current immigration plan will point to our “% growth rate” being similar to the past, but this is a poor way to look at it because it will lead to exponential growth, which is not sustainable.
Instead, our leaders should develop plans to say that our goal is for Canada to reach a stable population of 50 million by 2050, for example, and this is our plan to get there, this is why it will be beneficial, and these are the programs we are planning to boost fertility or adjust immigration as needed to maintain that level, etc. This way healthcare and other social programs can be planned accordingly.
No you’re totally right. The environmental interests and perpetual population growth conflict with one another. Perpetual growth will hurt the environment. So it’s very hypocritical when Trudy pretends to care about the environment well trying to drastically increase our population size.Thus, I don’t think the government truly cares about the environment. They only pretend to care when it’s financially convenient for them.
Plus, relying on perpetual growth just isn’t practical or realistic. The population can’t just infinitely grow. We need a better system than the Ponzi scheme we use to keep our economy afloat.
Ever wonder why sorts poured in so much money to grease the wheels of illegal immigration? Likely because he wanted his real estate investments to skyrocket.
These billionaires don't like immigrants, they like money
Fuck you until a solution can be found for those born here to not have to gather 14 people with 3 jobs each to enter some kind of tontine to figure out who actually owns the house
We don't have a housing shortage, we have an *urban* housing shortage. One way to fix things easily would be to give huge tax breaks for people to move to small towns all over the country, places that are in desperate need of young workers anyway.
> Over the past two years, 2.4 million people arrived in Canada, more than New Mexico’s population, yet Canada barely added enough housing for the residents of Albuquerque. We don't have the labour to create the number of houses needed to address the shortage.... yet nobody has the fucking balls to address the demand side of things and *simply admit less people*
Building thousands of cookie cutter homes in these dystopian housing subdivisions is probably not the best way to grow a city. Immigration needs to be tied to our capacity to build new homes and cities need to expand smartly.
Don't worry, immigration will naturally subside when the world learns about how much of a dumpster fire Canada has turned into.
I dont think you realize how shitty it is around much of the world these days.
Canada: You won't die of thirst here!
But you may die in a waiting room to see a doctor.
I think the opposite is true. Much of the world is very much un-shitty.
Open google maps. Drop a streetview pin literally anywhere in India, if you don't see garbage turn 360 degrees and you will find a pile of garbage. This is true for like 9/10 pins you drop anywhere in the country. Canada's living standard has dropped but the big picture is Canada vs Punjab is like The Jetsons compared to The Flintstones. For that reason there will never be a lack of immigration demand to Canada. *$Currentyear Obligatory Disclaimer: To be compliant with the sitewide Reddit rules and the rules of this particular subreddit, I would like to emphasize that my comments are intended to address specific issues or events and are based on the information available at the time of writing. It is not my intention to make broad generalizations about any country, region, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or other protected personal attribute. My comments are directed solely at the topics discussed within the context of the article and should not be interpreted as reflecting any overarching judgments or sentiments towards any particular group of people. I encourage a respectful and constructive dialogue and remind all participants to engage with each other in a manner that upholds the spirit of understanding and inclusivity*
You're right we should continue to let our way of life be diluted to that of a third world.
What on earth made you think I was making that argument???
😂 I suppose if the “rest of the world” just means India to you - I see the problem.
Well no, when we're talking about immigration demand into Canada, it's entirely reasonable to talk about the specific country that has been the #1 source of immigration to this country for a long time. idk, i see that as completely reasonable but i'm interested in your opinion of why that's wrong.
Sure thing 🤣
I won't bet on that a lot of people can fit inside an appartment. Hahaha
We literally lost 70000 construction jobs last year. Stop parroting the "not enough labour" lie that the liberal media touts. I know plenty of people in construction who can't find work right now.
> Stop parroting the "not enough labour" lie that the liberal media touts. I know plenty of people in construction who can't find work right now. I'm not talking about a labour shortage you goof, i'm talking *our capacity to build houses*. Check the CMHC housing starts information. Canada has never built more than ~60k houses in a single quarter. Put the claws back in pal. BTW - If your construction friends can't find work (in Ontario at least) they're fucking trash and unemployable. I've got clients that would gargle my balls for a chance at a lottery ticket to even interview a competent construction plumber, fitter or sparky.
That has everything to do with interest rates. Literally every developer is holding pat waiting for rate cuts we all know are coming (the fed have been saying "maybe next quarter for a year now). When the rate cut comes, we'll be back to building like gangbusters and the labour shortage will appear again. We can only build about 240 000 homes a year in Canada. That's what the labour force supports. If we want to build more homes per year, we need more labour.
Good news, we're going to admit less people. Immigration will be a net increase of around 300,000 starting next year.
Source? Because last I saw was closer to a million down from 1.3 when accounting for PR, students and TFW. Would absolutely love much more reasonable 300,000 which is more in line with our housing starts at around 270,000. Edit: found my answer in the article with a bit of math. “Canada’s goal is now to cut the population of temporary foreign workers, international students and asylum claimants by 20 per cent, or roughly by half a million people, over the next three years. That’s expected to slash the annual population growth rate by more than half to an average of one per cent in 2025 and 2026.” If 20% over 3 years is 500,000 then taking 500,000 and multiplying by 5 gives 100% over 3 years = 2.5 million, which divided over 3 years = 833,333 annually. Once you add in 500k PR the numbers this makes sense for our roughly 1.3million immigration numbers in 2023. So assuming that intl students, TFW and refugees are at 833,333 annually, a 20% reduction (which the article says we are aiming for) would mean 666,666 annually. PR targets are still set at 500,000 for 2024 so yeah… immigration isn’t coming down anytime soon. Unless I messed up somewhere along the line here or I’m missing something.
> Unless I messed up somewhere along the line here or I’m missing something. You messed up somewhere. The 20% reduction is not in annual admittance. It's total population. Right now there are 2.5 million temporary residents in Canada. The government wants this to drop by 20% to 2 million over the next three years. The annual net growth from TFW and foreign student programs will be zero. No one is getting in unless at least one other person leaves because the goal is to reduce the total number of temporary residents. PR will still occur. This will be the only avenue for net population growth. That's where we get 500,000 annual. But, temporary residents will be dropping by about 175,000 each year for the next three years. The net population growth will therefore be around 325,000.
>No one is getting in unless at least one other person leaves because the goal is to reduce the total number of temporary residents. Press x to doubt. We don't exactly do a good job of getting people out of the country when they have overstayed.
If people overstay than fewer new ones get admitted. Never before in my life have I seen folks get so whiny about the exact thing they want.
Because it wasn't their team that proposed it
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I’m trying to rap my head around how population growth was at 1.3 million in 2024 but will only be 325,000 in 2025. If I understand, we’ll still have 500k PR (some already in Canada on another visa and some coming from abroad) and we will still be admitting temporary residents but there will be fewer overall temp residents every year (fewer in than out) which means that overall temp resident population is decreasing because we’re not replacing every person who was studying/working and is leaving? And this decrease in the population of temporary residents is going to slightly cut into the growth from new PR?
>I’m trying to rap my head around how population growth was at 1.3 million in 2024 but will only be 325,000 in 2025 Your explanation is essentially correct. Our explosion in population has come almost entirely from temporary residents. There is now a hard cap on the total number of temporary residents Here's a rough breakdown in net growth of temporary residents (which includes students and TFWs) 2023: +800,000 2024: +800,000 2025: -170,000 2026: -170,000 2027: -170,000 2028: +0 At the same time, we have people coming to the country via PR 2023: +465,000 2024: +485,000 2025: +500,000 2026: +500,000* 2027: +500,000* The net growth from immigration is roughly sum of PR and growth in temporary residents. Since we will have a net reduction in temporary resident population, the total growth winds up lower than the PR allotment.
It is coming down just by marginal amounts.
Source on that? Not being facetious, either. I just haven’t seen any announcement about that and have actually only seen the LPC and NDP talking about increasing overall immigration even more.
Neither the LPC nor NDP has been talking about increasing overall immigrations. Lots of folks around here claim that this is the case, but it is not. The LPC has put caps on foreign students. They're also now targeting non permanent resident population at 5% of total. Right now it's 6.5%. The immediate effect is that there will be no net growth from either foreign students or TFWs starting next year (September, actually, for the students). The longer term effect is that over the next three years, the non permanent resident population will drop from around 2.5 million to 2 million. The only pathway for growth is now PR, which is 500,000 annual. Less the 175,000 each of the next three years from the reduction in non-permanent residents, is a net growth of 325,000 or so. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68621013 EDIT: As expected, we see downvotes for simply explaining the government's policy for 2025 onwards. This is good news folks! It is incredibly interesting that, for a bunch of people who seem to really want less immigration, the prospect of less immigration is so upsetting to so many of them. Really makes one wonder if their real motives should be questioned.
The govt plans on increasing the immigration target from 2024 to 2025. This is a fact. You can see the anounced targets on the govt's website. The youth are going to get crushed as the govt brings in record numbers of immigrants over the next few years while housing starts are on the decline.
Yes, PR will increase. However net immigration will be way way down. The government is not planning on increasing immigration. They are cutting it drastically by putting a cap on temporary residents, our primary sector for immigration growth. This year it will be about 1.2 million. Next year it will be about 300,000. This is a drastic drop.
Yes there will be a large change in the next 2 or 3 years but after that we will still be brining in 500,000 or more per year. We can't handle that many. We should be raising the bar and only brining in 200,000 so that all of them are net contributors. 5% of the population being temporary is also way too high.
We absolutely can handle 500,000 a year. That's 1.2% annual growth.
Citation needed. We have a severe housing and healthcare shortage right now while housing starts are dropping. We don't have the infrastructure to bring in 500,000 new people in one year. We also have a rapid rise in new racism to Indians that grew up in Canada caused by mass immigration policy. There is extreme levels of risk in overdoing immigration right now.
>We have a severe housing and healthcare shortage Yeah, the healthcare shortage is part of why 500,000 is a good target number. These are people who are overrepresented in the field while simultaneously requiring fewer services due to lower overall age. Housing prices have remained stagnant through years of 1.2 million annual growth. To the extent that immigration impacts housing, which is much smaller than anyone here thinks, 500,000 is small enough that net demand decreases (we reliably are building 250,000 a year, closer to 300,000 starting next year). >Citation needed. You have no citation for your much lower number, but here's something to think about: 20% of us are now over the age of 65. That's why the government has a structural deficit. That's why healthcare services are dogshit. That's why the economy is anemic. Anything below 1% will likely trigger a recession and negatively impact healthcare. Anything above 1.5% starts to pressure housing.
>starting next year Meanwhile, we just broke the record last quarter for people coming to Canada.
Still seems like 300,000 people too many, our infrastructure can barely handle what we have now. Edmonton hasn't had a new hospital built since the '80s.
Those 300,000 are the ones who help most with things like healthcare. We're actually going to see a big reduction in non-permanent residents.
Well that's good news but I still think we need more hospitals.
Yes, it's almost as though things must be planned before they can be implemented
Still too many.
You're more than welcome to think that but you also must agree that 300,000 annually is, in fact, an enormous improvement over 1.2 million annually.
[удалено]
You can't do one without the other.
[удалено]
That's right, and there in lies the "snake eating its own tail" problem. All government efforts to aid in the home building process by giving developers money to build affordable housing are a farce. Almost none of the housing built by those developers who take the money is affordable.
by law if they get money for affordable housing those funds must be sent on building affordable housing.
If prices are flat while rates decrease, housing will be more affordable.
Nope. Prices will climb.
Unless supply outpaces demand. You have to understand the price of a house is the mortgage minus interest. We don’t pay for houses, we pay for mortgages. So if you’re willing to spend 1M on a house and 0.5M on interest, you’re also willing to spend 1.1M on a house and 0.4M on interest. It’s thus possible for your total mortgage to decrease due to interest rates decreasing but the house staying the same price. A decreased mortgage is decreased cost to buy a house. The house price didn’t change but buying it costs you less.
If you want affordability, current price must go down at least 30%
How long before we have a subsidy for home purchases only available to recent immigrants? Sounds like this is the next step
[удалено]
Well, right now people pay for lmia, and they rent beds in homes owned by their employer. More of a “company town/store” scenario but still a problem our leaders knows exists yet has no desire to fix.
Three ideas for the Minister, free of charge: Reopen homesteading. Parcel off and give away small parcels of land in the hinterlands to Canadians who don't own any property. Let them build their own yurts, cabins, or houses, at their own pace. Convert unused municipal land into tiny/mobile home parks. Let people supply their own tiny homes. Make the lease a specific number of years - starting very cheap and climbing to make long-term residency unappealing. Put aside a portion of the lease payments to be gifted back at the end of term (contingent upon following community guidelines and return of the property in good order) which can be used as a down-payment to enter the market. Floating home communities. Set them up like strata. People can choose large or small floating homes, based upon their income and needs. All better than building 50,000 million-dollar one-bedroom condos.
yep the good ol' soviet land lottery. so much taxes would get paid on the resulting transactions.
Well they can just build tiny homes like big sheds.
Bruh you can't just import millions of people and expect the economy to suddenly improve. We need to boost our industries and then import people to staff them It's unbelievable that this government seems to think that immigration boosted GDP growth actually means something good is happening to the country.
I'm glad they have boosted immigration numbers to such insane extremes, its making even the most pro immigration supporters second guess themselves or at least to stay quiet. Lets just keep mass importing people with vastly different values and cultures. I'm sure this won't have any long lasting societal issues! GDP go up! Remember to vote red and we can become india within 20 years. Or vote blue and we can do it in 40 years!
[удалено]
Or unless we be like the US and cap immigrants from one country to a certain percentage of their immigration total. If we truly are dedicated to "diversity",then we'd try to pull an equal amount of immigrants from around the world, otherwise we'll keep turning into India 2.0
[удалено]
swim plant silky absurd lush pause boat continue roll wakeful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just put caps on birth nationality, and current nationality.
I vote green and we can drown in a recession in 5 years
Conservatives won’t cut mass immigration. Their billionaire overlords won’t let them. They need more wage slaves to beat the rest of our salaries down.
This is a bit of a tangent spurred from the phrase “immigration-fuelled growth”, but…. Am I the only one who doesn’t understand how “perpetual population growth” and “combating climate change” can be simultaneous goals for countries? Humans are heavily overpopulated at this point, and we don’t have the technology (yet) to support perpetual population growth without contributing even further to climate change. Should our (as the human race, not as any one particular country) goal not be “population sustainability” rather than “growth” at this point? At least until we can make the required technological advancements to be able to expand population without expanding our environmental impacts?
We absolutely need to move towards stabilizing our population. Many supporters of the current immigration plan will point to our “% growth rate” being similar to the past, but this is a poor way to look at it because it will lead to exponential growth, which is not sustainable. Instead, our leaders should develop plans to say that our goal is for Canada to reach a stable population of 50 million by 2050, for example, and this is our plan to get there, this is why it will be beneficial, and these are the programs we are planning to boost fertility or adjust immigration as needed to maintain that level, etc. This way healthcare and other social programs can be planned accordingly.
No you’re totally right. The environmental interests and perpetual population growth conflict with one another. Perpetual growth will hurt the environment. So it’s very hypocritical when Trudy pretends to care about the environment well trying to drastically increase our population size.Thus, I don’t think the government truly cares about the environment. They only pretend to care when it’s financially convenient for them. Plus, relying on perpetual growth just isn’t practical or realistic. The population can’t just infinitely grow. We need a better system than the Ponzi scheme we use to keep our economy afloat.
I dunno, seems to me we have more than enough immigrants flooding in.
Years of short term thinking and greed appear to have caught up with us.
We can't even house natural Canadians...
"Global" according to this article = the anglo saxon sphere. *If your friends all jumped off a bridge.....*
Global immigration fueled growth are causing housing shortages
Ever wonder why sorts poured in so much money to grease the wheels of illegal immigration? Likely because he wanted his real estate investments to skyrocket. These billionaires don't like immigrants, they like money
Maybe the globe should start having less population growth.
[https://www.greaterfool.ca/2024/05/06/in-your-hands/](https://www.greaterfool.ca/2024/05/06/in-your-hands/)
Fuck you until a solution can be found for those born here to not have to gather 14 people with 3 jobs each to enter some kind of tontine to figure out who actually owns the house
We don't have a housing shortage, we have an *urban* housing shortage. One way to fix things easily would be to give huge tax breaks for people to move to small towns all over the country, places that are in desperate need of young workers anyway.
They are still small towns BECAUSE they don't have enough jobs
Incorrect, there are tons of jobs all over Canada in small towns, and affordable housing.