Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think the political challenge is that any immigrants hoping to have family join them in Candaa will take any reduction as an attack on them. It's tough to say you will reduce immigration numbers without this happening, and you will lose immigrant votes for it. Which then also makes it an easy opposition attack point. "Pierre doesn't believe your family should join you in Canada".

I don't really buy that. People campaign on reducing immigration all that time, and most polls show a plurality of Canadians think current immigration targets are too high. And it's the most tangible effect that a government could have on housing supply/demand in the short term.

So I don't think the Conservatives have any real intention of reducing immigration significantly. Which makes sense. Big business loves a healthy labor supply and more consumers, and they're the ones that drive policy for both major parties. You can even see it in their policies. "Removing gatekeepers" and forcing an arbitrary number of housing starts is just shorthand for funnelling money to the large property developers that fund the Conservatives by reducing their costs and increasing their profit margins.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think the political challenge is that any immigrants hoping to have family join them in Candaa will take any reduction as an attack on them. It's tough to say you will reduce immigration numbers without this happening, and you will lose immigrant votes for it. Which then also makes it an easy opposition attack point. "Pierre doesn't believe your family should join you in Canada".

You are right. It takes bold leadership to do what is right, instead of what gets votes. The problem is the Liberals have been so good at using identity politics, that it forces the opposition to play the same game.

Trudeau has led us down so many rabbit holes, that I think his name should be changed to "Bugs Bunny".

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

No, I don't think that's it at all. If they were that worried about perception and political ammunition, they wouldn't have passed resolutions about trans kids, vaccines, and women's bathrooms.

First-generation immigrants tend to be more socially conservative than native-born Canadians. So I don’t see resolutions around trans kids and women’s bathrooms being alienating to voters in the immigrant-rich ridings that the Conservatives need to win to form the government.

[flamesfever]

I think where the Conservatives are showing bold leadership is where they are making resource development, and the jobs and income that comes with it, more important than fighting Climate Change.

Just look for the articles on Climate Change to be ramped up significantly on CBC near the election.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think where the Conservatives are showing bold leadership is where they are making resource development, and the jobs and income that comes with it, more important than fighting Climate Change.

Just look for the articles on Climate Change to be ramped up significantly on CBC near the election.

Bold leadership is sticking their head in the sand and ignoring the problem?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Bold leadership is sticking their head in the sand and ignoring the problem?

Prioritizing the issues that effect everyone.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Bold leadership is sticking their head in the sand and ignoring the problem?

I think it means they'll announce soon how they will supersede provincial sovereignty and regulator oversight to ram through Energy East and GNL Quebec and Northern Gateway, etc.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

First-generation immigrants tend to be more socially conservative than native-born Canadians. So I don’t see resolutions around trans kids and women’s bathrooms being alienating to voters in the immigrant-rich ridings that the Conservatives need to win to form the government.

I don't think there's any evidence that there's any real political calculus going on with these motions. Are you really suggesting that they want to and will restrict immigration, but won't say anything about it? That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as the only reason to even talk about immigration is for the political benefit. There's no real practical justification for significantly reducing immigration far below its current level if we want to maintain labor force growth.

[calculoso]

Different tangent…

To me, any privatization effort, with the “profit responsibility”, needs to be evaluated through the lens of increased inflation.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't think there's any evidence that there's any real political calculus going on with these motions. Are you really suggesting that they want to and will restrict immigration, but won't say anything about it? That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as the only reason to even talk about immigration is for the political benefit. There's no real practical justification for significantly reducing immigration far below its current level if we want to maintain labor force growth.

Where is the need for maintaining the labor force when developers are already starting to slow down the rate of development due to high interest rates, high material costs, and falling or static real estate prices.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Where is the need for maintaining the labor force when developers are already starting to slow down the rate of development due to high interest rates, high material costs, and falling or static real estate prices.

Walm-mart apparently needs more greeters.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think where the Conservatives are showing bold leadership is where they are making resource development, and the jobs and income that comes with it, more important than fighting Climate Change.

Just look for the articles on Climate Change to be ramped up significantly on CBC near the election.

I think that this is where the Cons are missing the boat.
Canadians don't want bold and brash, we can calm and sensible. We don't want a sea change, we can this same thing as always but a little different.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't think there's any evidence that there's any real political calculus going on with these motions. Are you really suggesting that they want to and will restrict immigration, but won't say anything about it? That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as the only reason to even talk about immigration is for the political benefit. There's no real practical justification for significantly reducing immigration far below its current level if we want to maintain labor force growth.

I agree that there’s real political calculus behind those motions - they’re brought forward by constituency associations and delegates with no real consideration of the strategic electoral impact.

And no, I don’t think the Conservatives plan to reduce core immigration (though I do think they might reduce or freeze international student visa and TFW intake).

My point was that there’s nothing politically incoherent about trying to win battleground ridings and the motions to prohibit medical interventions for transgendered minors. I doubt those motions are big vote-losers in Brampton and Richmond.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Where is the need for maintaining the labor force when developers are already starting to slow down the rate of development due to high interest rates, high material costs, and falling or static real estate prices.

There are lot more industries in the country than construction. The point is, we need to maintain a sustainable ratio between working-age people and retired people, or else the whole thing just breaks down.

Ultimately, current seniors didn't pay near enough into the system to fund the services they expect. When there was a favorable demographic makeup, "pay as you go" made a lot of sense because there were far, far more working age people than retirees, but that's not the case anymore. So things like universal healthcare, CPP, OAS, etc. simply can't work without one of three things happening (or a combo of them):

1) Reduction in services (i.e. OAS cuts, poorer healthcare, etc.);

2) Tax/fee increases (which are an inevitability if you allow the labor force to shrink while expecting them to pay for the same level of services for an aging society); or,

3) Enough immigration to keep the labor force growing at its historical rate of about 1.3% a year. In the current context where there are 2 people retiring for every 1 teenager entering the workforce, that translates to about 500K new permanent residents a year, which is the current government's target.


Of the three, immigration should be by far the most palatable solution, which is why all the major parties seem to agree on it. But that doesn't stop people from blaming immigration for the country's problems and treating it as a partisan issue.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I agree that there’s real political calculus behind those motions - they’re brought forward by constituency associations and delegates with no real consideration of the strategic electoral impact.

And no, I don’t think the Conservatives plan to reduce core immigration (though I do think they might reduce or freeze international student visa and TFW intake).

My point was that there’s nothing politically incoherent about trying to win battleground ridings and the motions to prohibit medical interventions for transgendered minors. I doubt those motions are big vote-losers in Brampton and Richmond.

Sure, but they're still hot-button issues that the leadership would have probably preferred weren't even brought up given their current spot in the polls. Those things can still alienate a portion of the urban and suburban voters they're going after and it can change the conversation away from the Conservative Party's current strengths.

My point was, the grass roots of the party clearly aren't worried about wading into controversial issues. So if the party honestly planned to curtail immigration significantly, or even if there was appetite among the base to do so, they'd be talking about it. Particularly because it's a vulnerability for current government. I don't buy for a second that they couldn't or wouldn't have come up with modest proposals for immigration reform because of fear of being branded as racists.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by opendoor

There are lot more industries in the country than construction. The point is, we need to maintain a sustainable ratio between working-age people and retired people, or else the whole thing just breaks down.

Ultimately, current seniors didn't pay near enough into the system to fund the services they expect. When there was a favorable demographic makeup, "pay as you go" made a lot of sense because there were far, far more working age people than retirees, but that's not the case anymore. So things like universal healthcare, CPP, OAS, etc. simply can't work without one of three things happening (or a combo of them):

1) Reduction in services (i.e. OAS cuts, poorer healthcare, etc.);

2) Tax/fee increases (which are an inevitability if you allow the labor force to shrink while expecting them to pay for the same level of services for an aging society); or,

3) Enough immigration to keep the labor force growing at its historical rate of about 1.3% a year. In the current context where there are 2 people retiring for every 1 teenager entering the workforce, that translates to about 500K new permanent residents a year, which is the current government's target.


Of the three, immigration should be by far the most palatable solution, which is why all the major parties seem to agree on it. But that doesn't stop people from blaming immigration for the country's problems and treating it as a partisan issue.

I see your point, however, with our unusual situation of helping the Ukrainian and Afghanistan people, along with the usual immigrants, combined with the large number of foreign students and those we don't even know are here, we are ending up with increasing our population by closer to one million people.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I see your point, however, with our unusual situation of helping the Ukrainian and Afghanistan people, along with the usual immigrants, combined with the large number of foreign students and those we don't even know are here, we are ending up with increasing our population by closer to one million people.

I think the main problem is there's a conflict between what the labour force needs & housing affordability.

The immigration is needed for many reasons (as already outlined) but it's further contributing to already high housing costs, so we're kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't right now.

[FlamesAddiction]

In Canada, the philosophy with immigration seems to be that quantity is the main quality. Bring in as many immigrants as you can and hopefully some of them land in sectors where we need them to. Canada can afford to be a lot more selective and used to be a lot more selective. We complain that certain sectors need to be supplemented with immigrants, but it doesn't seem like the policy has been fixing that issue over the years. Are the majority of the 500k immigrants coming to Canada filling in the gaps where the country needs it, or are they mostly just moving to large centers and hoping they fall into some kind of meaningful employment?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

There are lot more industries in the country than construction. The point is, we need to maintain a sustainable ratio between working-age people and retired people, or else the whole thing just breaks down.

Ultimately, current seniors didn't pay near enough into the system to fund the services they expect. When there was a favorable demographic makeup, "pay as you go" made a lot of sense because there were far, far more working age people than retirees, but that's not the case anymore. So things like universal healthcare, CPP, OAS, etc. simply can't work without one of three things happening (or a combo of them):

1) Reduction in services (i.e. OAS cuts, poorer healthcare, etc.);

2) Tax/fee increases (which are an inevitability if you allow the labor force to shrink while expecting them to pay for the same level of services for an aging society); or,

3) Enough immigration to keep the labor force growing at its historical rate of about 1.3% a year. In the current context where there are 2 people retiring for every 1 teenager entering the workforce, that translates to about 500K new permanent residents a year, which is the current government's target.


Of the three, immigration should be by far the most palatable solution, which is why all the major parties seem to agree on it. But that doesn't stop people from blaming immigration for the country's problems and treating it as a partisan issue.

That’s all true. Canadians are in denial about the costs of an aging population, and few politicians want to talk about the tradeoffs we’ll be forced to make around taxes, health care, and pensions. We need immigration to moderate the demographic imbalance.

But immigration in this country is highly concentrated in handful of small regions that have seen home prices skyrocket beyond the affordability of all but the highest-earners, or those with parents who can bankroll eye-watering down payments.

We risk fostering a class-based society where homeowners are all the children of homeowners, while the working class and children of renters have no hope of getting on the property ladder. We also risk generational warfare between those who were fortunate enough to get into the market before prices when crazy and those who weren’t. If someone told you four years ago that the Conservatives would not only lead in support among Canadian Millennials, but lead the Liberals by 19 points and the NDP by 17 points, you probably would have laughed them out of the room. But here we are.

Unaffordable housing also has an impact on family formation - delaying having a kid (never mind a second or third) until you can afford to buy a home at 37, and mortgage payments take up half your income, only makes the demographic imbalance worse.

Governments need to address a bunch of issues around zoning, permitting and the costs of construction in order to increase supply. But even if those measures are passed, ramping up home construction to the levels we need will take more than a decade. Meanwhile, if housing and rents remain this unaffordable or worsen, public anger will grow. Something has to be done in the next 3-5 years or we’re sowing the seeds for enduring breakdown of public trust in institutions in this country. Which would be a very bad thing.

It’s not demagoguery to freeze or roll back international student visas and TFWs as part of a multi-pronged strategy to give housing builds a chance to catch up to population growth. Those measures won’t have a huge impact on housing affordability, but they can be implemented right away and will bear some fruit (however modest) in the short-term.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by opendoor

There are lot more industries in the country than construction. The point is, we need to maintain a sustainable ratio between working-age people and retired people, or else the whole thing just breaks down.

Ultimately, current seniors didn't pay near enough into the system to fund the services they expect. When there was a favorable demographic makeup, "pay as you go" made a lot of sense because there were far, far more working age people than retirees, but that's not the case anymore. So things like universal healthcare, CPP, OAS, etc. simply can't work without one of three things happening (or a combo of them):

1) Reduction in services (i.e. OAS cuts, poorer healthcare, etc.);

2) Tax/fee increases (which are an inevitability if you allow the labor force to shrink while expecting them to pay for the same level of services for an aging society); or,

3) Enough immigration to keep the labor force growing at its historical rate of about 1.3% a year. In the current context where there are 2 people retiring for every 1 teenager entering the workforce, that translates to about 500K new permanent residents a year, which is the current government's target.


Of the three, immigration should be by far the most palatable solution, which is why all the major parties seem to agree on it. But that doesn't stop people from blaming immigration for the country's problems and treating it as a partisan issue.

Drastically increasing the population without any planning for also increasing housing, healthcare, schools, infrastructure etc. Is the problem. It is the same Liberal thinking as "the budget will balance itself".