Canada Agressively Reverses Immigration Plan... Population To Decline Next 2 Years

[LaLa 19,909]

24 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Canada's a tiny bit larger than the US, it's wild there's no real push to expand a bit into unused land and set up pretty simply built neighborhoods and towns.

Not to put too fine a point on it because I don't think it's actually a big problem lol, but I don't think most non-Canadian realize just how much of the North is truly inaccessible here. Soooo much of Canada it is just not possible to build roads on. It's swampy and muddy and rocky with tons of lake and rivers.

Some places do become more accessible in the winter when the ground freezes, but those roads are insane and climate change is only gonna make things worse. 

We do have many (mostly Indigenous) communities that are fly-in only and to be honest shts pretty bleak there. Like, many don't actually have drinkable water even. (Great job every single government ever )

Government money and programs would be muuuch better spent actually densifying our existing towns and cities, but of course that's not popular with the suberb folks, who's rather sneer at a tent-city as they drive home to mow their useless lawns. Not that I'm bitter  

[Economy 53,090]

19 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Well, there's something to be said about a healthy dose of conservatism. Regulations to protect buyers are great but builders and contractors also need freedoms.

I haven't even really looked into real estate as an issue until it became one of Kamala's main issues ('cause politicians finally realized every voter brings up housing unprompted).

So, she wants that federal funding and regulations like a good liberal but also wants to work with localities on zoning laws, permits, and incentives to make building those 3 million homes by 2028 an actual reality.

Canada sounds like the worst of bureaucratic liberal hell with none of the benefits of progressivism 

Just speaking in general terms as I'm not knowledgeable enough to do otherwise

I get the concepts though and I hope y'all get something functional and fast 

Economically speaking i have to agree. Beaurocratic hell resulting in liberalism without many of its potential benefits (the way the did it here in Canada I mean)

 

You know me. I dont really see most economic policies that are left wing or right wing automatically as good or bad in a black and white kind of way. I think how well applied they are and the individual circumstances and other factors matter even more (thats in part i think theres both success stories and failures around the world for both capitalist and left wing Nations)

 

Canadas Liberalism while great in social stances I definitely feel has severely been mismanaged when it comes to the economic side. 

 

It doesnt help were highly decentralized like the US. Provinces have a lot of power too and when different layers of government add their own beaureocracy, it adds up to a lot in the end and business investment is hurting cuz they dont wanna deal with the crap

 

I work for a multi national multi Billion Dollar logistics and transportation company(Mainfreight, they are similar to Amazon but not as huge) and once on a CEO visit he bluntly said our country was one of the worst for doing business cuz the list of compliances, permits and regulations is so long and complex that its a literal headache to navigate and pure hell and that the only reasom they chose to expand here is because were still the Worlds 10th largest economy and our proximity to the US would make us beneficial to strengthen the net work, i couldnt help but gag 

 

 

[PartySick 174,289]

38 minutes ago, LaLa said:

Not to put too fine a point on it because I don't think it's actually a big problem lol, but I don't think most non-Canadian realize just how much of the North is truly inaccessible here. Soooo much of Canada it is just not possible to build roads on. It's swampy and muddy and rocky with tons of lake and rivers.

Some places do become more accessible in the winter when the ground freezes, but those roads are insane and climate change is only gonna make things worse. 

We do have many (mostly Indigenous) communities that are fly-in only and to be honest shts pretty bleak there. Like, many don't actually have drinkable water even. (Great job every single government ever )

Government money and programs would be muuuch better spent actually densifying our existing towns and cities, but of course that's not popular with the suberb folks, who's rather sneer at a tent-city as they drive home to mow their useless lawns. Not that I'm bitter  

Oh yeah, I know most of Canada is like most of Alaska...which makes sense I guess

Is it that swampy in the southern parts though? Like, I'm looking at a population density map and seeing a pretty bare chunk around the great lakes that, my assumption is, can't be too different from the northern US?

Denser and walkable cities is a criticism we can, and should, throw at every nation  at the same time, I live in the suburbs and idk if I could comfortably exchange my house and land for a smaller area so I kinda get it

There must be a middle ground

[Ayesha Erotica 1,963]

38 minutes ago, Economy said:

and once on a CEO visit he bluntly said our country was one of the worst for doing business cuz the list of compliances, permits and regulations is so long and complex that its a literal headache to navigate and pure hell and that the only reasom they chose to expand here is because were still the Worlds 10th largest economy and our proximity to the US

 

 

Well, still better than Belgium lol. Not rock bottom

When you/he says still world's 10th largest economy, the "still" means "soon 9th or 8th" and not falling to 11th

[Flapjack 1,264]

My usual pop in to say "good" but also "we need way more aggressive numbers" and "they're trying so hard to save themselves, but when they lose the election will the cons try to reverse it or push it even further?"

 

My concern is will lobbyists overstep (as usual) and squish the potential benefits this has for Canadians? I lowkey hope it becomes a short-term goal for the parties to aim for lower temp visas and stable immigration numbers. I have no concerns over high quality individuals who actually are a benefit to this country, but too many of us are struggling atp for me to care about the social etiquette of being welcoming to the masses. 

[PartySick 174,289]

42 minutes ago, Economy said:

Economically speaking i have to agree. Beaurocratic hell resulting in liberalism without many of its potential benefits (the way the did it here in Canada I mean)

 

You know me. I dont really see most economic policies that are left wing or right wing automatically as good or bad in a black and white kind of way. I think how well applied they are and the individual circumstances and other factors matter even more (thats in part i think theres both success stories and failures around the world for both capitalist and left wing Nations)

 

Canadas Liberalism while great in social stances I definitely feel has severely been mismanaged when it comes to the economic side. 

 

It doesnt help were highly decentralized like the US. Provinces have a lot of power too and when different layers of government add their own beaureocracy, it adds up to a lot in the end and business investment is hurting cuz they dont wanna deal with the crap

 

I work for a multi national multi Billion Dollar logistics and transportation company(Mainfreight, they are similar to Amazon but not as huge) and once on a CEO visit he bluntly said our country was one of the worst for doing business cuz the list of compliances, permits and regulations is so long and complex that its a literal headache to navigate and pure hell and that the only reasom they chose to expand here is because were still the Worlds 10th largest economy and our proximity to the US would make us beneficial to strengthen the net work, i couldnt help but gag 

 

 

Yeah, those economic policies sit on a dial imo. Turn it too far one way or the other and it breaks something. A free market is great until it's so free that abuse and greed become the norm. A regulated market is great until it becomes a sea of roadblocks to productivity and problem solving.

It's hard to turn the dial past a certain point and get a functional state. Some countries pull it off but America and her polite sister aren't "some countries"

That's the worst thing about polarization. In the US at least. The tribalism is whatever, people are always gonna find ways to hate each other, but it literally prevents consensus and accomplishment

That comment from your CEO is rough  "I only came here to see your neighbor"

Idk how much a centralized government can do to fix those issues tbh. Like, here one of the biggest issues people push at the federal level is raising minimum wage to $15 (or now $20) an hour and that's great for some of the medium sized state economies but those are poverty rates in California and New York and smaller businesses in states like Kansas or Missouri can't afford that nor does the pay need to be that high.

The sheer size of both our countries kinda limits how much good the federal government can do without giving the reigns largely over to local governments with a few regulations in place.

Every day I realize how conservative I actually am

[Economy 53,090]

11 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Yeah, those economic policies sit on a dial imo. Turn it too far one way or the other and it breaks something. A free market is great until it's so free that abuse and greed become the norm. A regulated market is great until it becomes a sea of roadblocks to productivity and problem solving.

It's hard to turn the dial past a certain point and get a functional state. Some countries pull it off but America and her polite sister aren't "some countries"

That's the worst thing about polarization. In the US at least. The tribalism is whatever, people are always gonna find ways to hate each other, but it literally prevents consensus and accomplishment

That comment from your CEO is rough  "I only came here to see your neighbor"

Idk how much a centralized government can do to fix those issues tbh. Like, here one of the biggest issues people push at the federal level is raising minimum wage to $15 (or now $20) an hour and that's great for some of the medium sized state economies but those are poverty rates in California and New York and smaller businesses in states like Kansas or Missouri can't afford that nor does the pay need to be that high.

The sheer size of both our countries kinda limits how much good the federal government can do without giving the reigns largely over to local governments with a few regulations in place.

Every day I realize how conservative I actually am

Yeah, i feel European Countries that are smaller in size have an advantage at being able to control policy more effectively centrally.

 

In Portugal where I was from we have Districts. They control small stuff like water, roads and some municipality stuff but anything major is all Federal. U dont have varying minimum wages or major differences in labor laws or road laws etc between districts like u do Canadian Provinces or US States. But like U said $20 is poverty in California but it would kill businesses in Kansas so we need that regional autonomy too

 

I agree about the dial too much one way or the other. But i also think how far u can turn the dial also depends on many factors such as how competently you execute ur strategy

 

Theres also interesting factors to consider like ur neighbours. For example if u tax a lot in Scandinavia it may affect business investment less because their imediate neighbours they trade a lot with do the exact same thing

 

Here in Canada on the otherhand we got an unfortunate race to the bottom since our biggest trading partner (US) enabled some resiculously low tax rates thanks to Trump. Now that makes left wing higher taxes on Corporations have more bad side effects than they otherwise would (not that our corporate taxes are even that high, but relative to the US we lost tge advantage ever since Trumps cuts)

 

Its a very fluid and very complex web of factors trying to determine which policies will yield the most net benefit in varying circumstances thats why I try not to get too hard headed about how far into the left or right of the spectrum is best cuz i think its fluid and can vary depending on the situations, circumstances and also how you go about it too

[LaLa 19,909]

14 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Is it that swampy in the southern parts though? Like, I'm looking at a population density map and seeing a pretty bare chunk around the great lakes that, my assumption is, can't be too different from the northern US?

Over the top of Lake Superior you mean? Oh yeah, no one wants to live there 

That's actually dominated by the Canadian Shield so very rocky, little soil. Lots and lots (did I say lots?) of lakes so hard to build anything over a decently large area. COLD as fvck most of the year, like truly... and in the like one month of warmer weather the BUGS, mosquitos, blackflies, deer flies... brutal.

Basically there is just no infrastructure up there, it would be hard and expensive to build it given the harsh climate, and then you'd have to convince people to head off like pioneers lol. Maybe in few hundred years when the climate is different and the Water Wars are over the land will be viable lmao 

[Economy 53,090]

39 minutes ago, LaLa said:

Over the top of Lake Superior you mean? Oh yeah, no one wants to live there 

That's actually dominated by the Canadian Shield so very rocky, little soil. Lots and lots (did I say lots?) of lakes so hard to build anything over a decently large area. COLD as fvck most of the year, like truly... and in the like one month of warmer weather the BUGS, mosquitos, blackflies, deer flies... brutal.

Basically there is just no infrastructure up there, it would be hard and expensive to build it given the harsh climate, and then you'd have to convince people to head off like pioneers lol. Maybe in few hundred years when the climate is different and the Water Wars are over the land will be viable lmao 

Tbh. Those areas as beautiful to visit but to actually build cities for people to live in would be really tough abd expensive not to mention very damaging ecologically (the small lakes and swamps can be filled at high monetary and ecological cost)

[littlepotter 76,624]

8 hours ago, Economy said:

@GagaSine @littlepotter @juicyjuicy @VANTABLACK@JustinTrudeau @LaLa thoughts?

 

Im personally very pro immigration overall but even I started to not support their immigration policy as I felt it started to really exagerate it

I don't have plans for immigrating to Canada but it does make me worry about a global shift towards not accepting immigrants, as I do plan to move to Europe. That said, I do understand immigration has a lot of downsides as well. I'm trying not to be too worried because I do feel like I'm very qualified, I have excellent language, cultural understanding, grades, and job experience and any country should be honored to have me.

[Economy 53,090]

10 hours ago, AyeshaErotica said:

Well, still better than Belgium lol. Not rock bottom

When you/he says still world's 10th largest economy, the "still" means "soon 9th or 8th" and not falling to 11th

I think by "still" he meant it in the context that at the end of the day its still a very large economy (almost $2T USD).

 

Australia the companies most profitable Country is a smaller economy so I guess hes saying theres potential for a lot of business so its worth the headache

[Economy 53,090]

8 hours ago, littlepotter said:

I don't have plans for immigrating to Canada but it does make me worry about a global shift towards not accepting immigrants, as I do plan to move to Europe. That said, I do understand immigration has a lot of downsides as well. I'm trying not to be too worried because I do feel like I'm very qualified, I have excellent language, cultural understanding, grades, and job experience and any country should be honored to have me.

Yeah its a dark sentiment that had improved for a long time and social media helped reignite by making toxic ppl very vocal. Especially US conservatives

 

I feel in Canadas case tho fortunately only a few ppl have become truly xenophobic and anti immigration. Most ppl are just against the sheer amount weve had and without proper planning to accomodate them. They are not against immigration at a more reasonable pace

 

However definitely the xenophobes that are full blown anti immigrant have unfortunately risen. They used to be rare to hear about now id say at least 15% to 20% of population has some degree of those sentiments

[HelloHangoverz 17,452]

As I said in another thread on this topic, I start to feel iffy about immigration when the government uses it as a tool to sidestep the negotiating position of workers and entrench low wages. Nobody wants to work as a barista because of the low pay? Let's just bring people in who will accept the low pay. How about let's do the hard work required to raise wages across the board? Not the immigrant's fault obviously and I don't blame them. We're on the same side fighting the same fight. It's the cynicism, laziness and short-sightedness of the government that acquiesces to capitalism each time every time.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,963]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

...

All of Canada, well except for Atlantic Canada, has been geared towards greedy, never-ending population growth for decades, and a whole system has emerged that revolves around it. It would be truly sensational if the population were to truly decline, even if it were only two years. There are reunions of relatives, there are still refugees, there are still illegal border crossings and above all:

Ultimately, a law means nothing if it is not enforced. In Québec, a few years ago, the OQLF (Language Police) compiled a report on the percentage of companies/businesses that disregarded the Loi 101 law (companies must show French writing, greater than English). It was about a fifth. It somehow went down from 23% to 21% in five years, and the OQLF celebrated this as a success. Theoretically, if the law were followed, it should be close to 0%. At the time, there was a Liberal government that simply did not urge, or even demotivated, its public servants to comply. It takes institutions that are willing to enforce and respect such laws. Canada is not Hungary, not Japan. It doesn't have mass institutionalised state workers who are against mass migration and somehow migrants will continue to get through. I expect immigration to perhaps decrease, but still be a plus (and population increasing) and still above the average of the world.

[weed 79,287]

so they plan on over 1.1 million people leaving every year for the next 2 years?? or 0.2% of what figure?