It cancels out every Liberal housing promise and then some: Canada's biggest immigration surge in 70 years

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

@CdnFox ok - again I'm looking at this one area, specifically where I said:

"Their salaries don't total their contribution to GDP.  People don't earn "GDP Dollars""

And you responded:

"They absolutely do.  How did you think that services are calculated for gdp? Did you think gdp was just durable goods or something?  There are three ways to calculate gdp with different ones used for different sectors and without a doubt wages is one. When a nurse provides an hour's worth of service - it's part of the "Goods and SERVICES" that gpd calculates.  SOME gov't services use total expenditure instead, but wages make up a portion of that.

It is absolutely the case where a service is provided rather than a good produced that the people's wages will be counted towards GDP in one method or the other, either directly or as part of the whole department's expenditure."

Now, I am far less strident than you when discussing economics, mostly because it's a topic in which I'm still learning a lot but also because the best teachers I listen to are usually very cautious with their language.

It seemed basic to me, ie. how GDP is calculated, so I was confused as to why market value of goods/services produced wasn't mentioned in your method.  When you said "salaries have an impact on GDP".  I couldn't figure out what you were talking about.  Turns out what we have is a quibble.

After reviewing the material you posted, which took some time, I realized you aren't calculating 'real GDP" as it's called.

Here's a summary from the CD Howe institute: https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/What to the Different Measures of GDP Tell Us.pdf
 

They (and I) have always referred to the expenditure-based model and they say:
 

What you are calculating IS a valid way of measuring GDP, but the income based method also provides for profit as "income" which might not be obvious.   It's there on the pages you provide.

So if immigrants come to Canada and earn fewer dollars, under the income-based method you use, the surplus/profit paid out to owners would be higher so that GDP would still increase.  Whether it increases per capita is dependent on how much economic output the additional worker is providing.

I'm glad you posted that as I learned about this alternative method of calculating GDP.  Let me know if you agree with my assessment here before I move on to the other points.

And to reiterate: using the recent slowdown itself isn't evidence that "immigration" reduces GDP or GDP/capita any more than citing immigration during boom times would be evidence that it increases it.  You have to go deeper than that.  And to reiterate once more: every liberal and conservative government has used immigration as an economic tool. 

See the graph.

https://www.newcanadianmedia.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Screenshot-2023-04-02-at-11.40.35-AM-1536x862.png

Final iteration: none of what I am saying is meant to refute the idea that the high immigration we're seeing now is a bad idea.  I actually think that it is, but as usual I am concerned with tidying up the public sphere and shooting down oversimplified assertions.

Edited to add: Please read that last paragraph twice before you reply, thanks.
 

No, i'm sorry but you've misunderstood again.  And the source i quoted is the source that's responsible for calculating it in canada. It's pretty definitive.
 

For many various sectors of our economy that is the only way to calculate it.  That is part of the calculation. How else do you measure the value of what a nurse does.

But even in those sectors where they use value of goods produced, the cost of labour is included in the calculation.

What we have  here iis that you were wrong from the get go, insulted me trying to suggest it was me who was wrong, and are now desperately trying to salvage your ego by suggesting that maybe were were both a little wrong.

No.  You were were wrong.  And that's what you get for educating yourself in 5 minutes on google.

So lets move on.

Income and gov't spending absolutely 100 percent is reflected in GDP as i've noted.  So if your only concern is to raise gdp, the most efficient way to do it as a gov't is to borrow money and spend it - NOT to bring in immigrants.

Both immigrants AND spending gov't money are inflationary but of the two immigration above capacity is worse especially when there's already a serous resource crisis in housing and health care.

AND - at least gov't spending directly benefits voters and might scare up some good will for you.  Someone gets to put that money in their pocket and might credit you for it. They DON'T derive that benefit if you just bring in another immigrant. And Immigrants can't vote when they get here.

 

Which brings us back to the initial question -  why is Justin doing this when he KNOWS that people are furious with him over inflation, furious over the housing crisis, and believe that immigration is too high?  I honestly cannot understand it.  His motivation there is beyond me.

Edited December 27, 2023 by CdnFox

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1. No, i'm sorry but you've misunderstood again.  And the source i quoted is the source that's responsible for calculating it in canada. It's pretty definitive.
 

2. For many various sectors of our economy that is the only way to calculate it.  That is part of the calculation. How else do you measure the value of what a nurse does.

3. But even in those sectors where they use value of goods produced, the cost of labour is included in the calculation.

4. What we have  here iis that you were wrong from the get go, insulted me trying to suggest it was me who was wrong, and are now desperately trying to salvage your ego by suggesting that maybe were were both a little wrong.No.  You were were wrong.  And that's what you get for educating yourself in 5 minutes on google.

5. So lets move on.

6. Income and gov't spending absolutely 100 percent is reflected in GDP as i've noted.  So if your only concern is to raise gdp, the most efficient way to do it as a gov't is to borrow money and spend it - NOT to bring in immigrants.

7. Both immigrants AND spending gov't money are inflationary but of the two immigration above capacity is worse especially when there's already a serous resource crisis in housing and health care.

8. AND - at least gov't spending directly benefits voters and might scare up some good will for you.  Someone gets to put that money in their pocket and might credit you for it. They DON'T derive that benefit if you just bring in another immigrant. And Immigrants can't vote when they get here.

9.  Which brings us back to the initial question -  why is Justin doing this when he KNOWS that people are furious with him over inflation, furious over the housing crisis, and believe that immigration is too high?  I honestly cannot understand it.  His motivation there is beyond me.

1. Fair enough.  As I said in my previous spiel I am by no means certain of my points here.  Trying to learn from you as well as from your sources to get an answer straight in my mind.  If you forget, the last time we had a go-around on this topic in depth, as I recall, I was wrong.

2. For a nurse I can see how it makes sense, since there is no "market" which a nurse uses to sell their services to the public.  

But if you look at this video from Stats Canada, at :37 they do indicate that they use a value-added calculation as well.  The "news to me" part is that they don't ONLY use that, as you have shown.  In the links to your pages that you provided above, they give some details on the calculation and they also use a real GDP calculation by industry as shown here:
 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/subjects/economic_accounts/national_accounts_and_gross_domestic_product

3.   Yes, I agree.

4.  No, I have been studying this for year not for 5 minutes.  I can accept that I might be wrong, as I have been in the past and I have indeed been here too since income-based GDP calculations are clearly a central thing.  I don't remember any inclination to 'insult' you as you are using fact-based arguments here and I'm learning, but I wouldn't blame you for suspecting me of such.

5. Yes

6. I don't know about the most efficient way.  That would need an analysis I haven't looked at here yet.  Are you being sincere or are you mocking Trudeau's deficit spending ?  

7. Ok, I agree with the current housing crisis assessment part.  Not commenting on long-term overall effects from immigration.

8.  All of this seems to be about government spending vs. private firms bringing in immigrants.  If Scotiabank or Tim Horton's brings someone in to work, presumably they are making a profit which figures into the income-based GDP and creates economic activity by increasing demand for goods created by the immigrant.  

9.  The reason is likely that he, and Poilievre the landlord, are oblivious to what the bottom half of working people are enduring right now.  They have always been told that there are economic gains to be had with immigration and simply pushing that button over and over again.  They seem to now be aware that building social housing for "the poor" isn't going to help, for example, the 50% of people who couldn't afford to live in their homes if they went to the market looking for housing in Toronto.  There's no hope for him at this point, as he would have to crash the housing bubble and ruin a bunch of investors to square the circle imo.

--------

I'm trying to work through this with input from you, no insults here.

[I am Groot]

On 12/24/2023 at 2:27 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't think that's the case. If you can provide some cite for it I would look at it.  Every new immigrant increases domestic demand for products and goods, and since there's a working person at the center of it at person is also producing so...

Of course you can argue that the Trudeau policies don't maximize the economic benefit, that the actual net economic benefit is flat or whatever, but as a general statement on immigration, I don't think it holds to say GDP per person goes down

2. Well yes, because of the recession or near recession.  Immigration has gone up every year for decades, or maybe more accurate to say there has been immigration for decades including times when the GDP declined and times are exploded. So you can't really associate immigration with the cause in the short term.

This is economics, mind you, so you will find dissenting opinions also.

Canada's economy shrank in the third quarter, and we only avoided a technical recession because Stats Canada 'revised' the previous quarter to show a rise in GDP instead of the fall they had previously reported. I leave it to the reader to imagine why they did that. 

GDP per person would not go down if you were taking care to only bring in skilled immigrants who would earn high salaries and generate higher economic activity. GDP per person goes down when you bring in a lot of low income/low production people instead. Which is what the Liberals have been doing.

Real gross domestic product, which is adjusted for inflation, shrank at an annualized pace of 1.1 per cent in the third quarter, according to figures published by Statistics Canada on Thursday. The results were considerably weaker than the Bank of Canada’s estimate of 0.8-per-cent growth and Bay Street’s expectations of a slim 0.1-per-cent increase.

Canada’s economic performance has increasingly diverged from that of the U.S., which posted a 5.2-per-cent expansion in the third quarter.

Still, the economic situation looks more grim when soaring population growth is accounted for. GDP per capita – a popular measure of living standards – has fallen for five consecutive quarters.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/economy/article-canada-economy-gdp-third-quarter-2023/

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Fair enough.  As I said in my previous spiel I am by no means certain of my points here.  Trying to learn from you as well as from your sources to get an answer straight in my mind.  If you forget, the last time we had a go-around on this topic in depth, as I recall, I was wrong.

2. For a nurse I can see how it makes sense, since there is no "market" which a nurse uses to sell their services to the public.  

But if you look at this video from Stats Canada, at :37 they do indicate that they use a value-added calculation as well.  The "news to me" part is that they don't ONLY use that, as you have shown.  In the links to your pages that you provided above, they give some details on the calculation and they also use a real GDP calculation by industry as shown here:
 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/subjects/economic_accounts/national_accounts_and_gross_domestic_product

3.   Yes, I agree.

4.  No, I have been studying this for year not for 5 minutes.  I can accept that I might be wrong, as I have been in the past and I have indeed been here too since income-based GDP calculations are clearly a central thing.  I don't remember any inclination to 'insult' you as you are using fact-based arguments here and I'm learning, but I wouldn't blame you for suspecting me of such.

5. Yes

6. I don't know about the most efficient way.  That would need an analysis I haven't looked at here yet.  Are you being sincere or are you mocking Trudeau's deficit spending ?  

7. Ok, I agree with the current housing crisis assessment part.  Not commenting on long-term overall effects from immigration.

8.  All of this seems to be about government spending vs. private firms bringing in immigrants.  If Scotiabank or Tim Horton's brings someone in to work, presumably they are making a profit which figures into the income-based GDP and creates economic activity by increasing demand for goods created by the immigrant.  

9.  The reason is likely that he, and Poilievre the landlord, are oblivious to what the bottom half of working people are enduring right now.  They have always been told that there are economic gains to be had with immigration and simply pushing that button over and over again.  They seem to now be aware that building social housing for "the poor" isn't going to help, for example, the 50% of people who couldn't afford to live in their homes if they went to the market looking for housing in Toronto.  There's no hope for him at this point, as he would have to crash the housing bubble and ruin a bunch of investors to square the circle imo.

--------

I'm trying to work through this with input from you, no insults here.

Sure - you're fairly correct with regards to the nurses, basically their wage is the value of the "work" they 'created",  just as the "profit" from selling a "gizmo" is the value of the goods produced in an industry.

Where industries produce goods they use that. where industries produce services they use that.  It makes sense. In both cases you're basically trying to look at the value of what was created after expenses, and in the case of a service that's the value of the services provided.

And yes it's the most efficient way. You can do your analysis another time, this whole thread can't be about educating you.

as to point 8 - no, at the end of the day ALL immigration is the responsibility of the federal gov't.  No business or other org can bring someone in without their blessing.  And if you USED to make 10 dollars profit per person in canada, and it drops to 8 dollars per person - even tho timmies makes a profit the quality of life for the people goes down.  We can have an extended discussion about that if you like but at the end of the day that's simply the truth.

Right now trudeau has opened the doors to an insanely high amount of immigration - vastly higher by every metric than we've had in history with the possible exception of the early 50's which will be exlipsed in the next year or so.

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The reason is likely that he, and Poilievre the landlord, are oblivious to what the bottom half of working people are enduring right now.

ROFLMAO -  Polievre is speaking out against this nonsense, so while i know you're a big justin supporter lets not try to defend justin by claiming its other people who 'don't get it' LOL  - mr "not a leftie".   

Sometimes you're just so painfully transparent  

 

In any case -  even justin can read basic polling numbers. Whether he agrees or not the public has (correctly) associated high inflation and home rents/prices with immigration.   You claim he simply wanted to increase GDP but as we've seen that just doesnt' make sense.

So what is his reason to do this in the face of public pushback? Honestly -  i  can't figure it out. It just makes no sense politically so i assume there's some other motive.

[I am Groot]

On 12/24/2023 at 8:59 PM, Michael Hardner said:

And since I'm out here on a limb... Just trying to state the case for immigration as a general policy... Since every Canadian government for decades has had fairly high immigration...

Would you like me to post the G&M article covering why Mulroney tripled immigration back in the 80s because his immigration minister convinced cabinet new immigrants became loyal party supporters of the party in power when they arrived as soon as they get to vote? It's not done for our benefit, but for theirs. 

On 12/24/2023 at 8:59 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Can someone, anyone, point to a statement by Poilievre saying he's going to eliminate immigration or cut it even or drastically reduce it? I mean it's such a stupid policy. So ridiculous that anyone who even defends immigration must use crayons right?

So big brain Pierre. He must be ready to cut it to zero right?

I don't know what has given you the idea Conservatives, much less conservatives think Poilievre is a genius. He's a political animal. And he knows that half the population of Toronto and Vancouver are immigrants. He's also way out ahead. The last thing he needs is to allow the Lib/NDP, with their media allies to jump up and down screaming he's anti-immigrant. Which they WOULD do.

His most recent comment, when pressed, was that he would tie immigration numbers to our healthcare resources and our ability to build housing as well as the economy. That 'suggests' to the base who want immigration slashed that he will take action while giving the Lib/NDP/media no real ammunition to attack him since what he said is inarguable common sense.

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Would you like me to post the G&M article covering why Mulroney tripled immigration back in the 80s because his immigration minister convinced cabinet new immigrants became loyal party supporters of the party in power when they arrived as soon as they get to vote? It's not done for our benefit, but for theirs. 

I don't know what has given you the idea Conservatives, much less conservatives think Poilievre is a genius. He's a political animal. And he knows that half the population of Toronto and Vancouver are immigrants. He's also way out ahead. The last thing he needs is to allow the Lib/NDP, with their media allies to jump up and down screaming he's anti-immigrant. Which they WOULD do.

His most recent comment, when pressed, was that he would tie immigration numbers to our healthcare resources and our ability to build housing as well as the economy. That 'suggests' to the base who want immigration slashed that he will take action while giving the Lib/NDP/media no real ammunition to attack him since what he said is inarguable common sense.

 

The research indicates that politicians that think that immigrants are all going to vote for them are simply wrong. Immigrants are far more likely to vote based on the area they move to. In other words if they're in downtown toronto they vote liberal and if they move to alberta they tend to vote conservative.

Further - they dont' tend to vote at all.  Immigrant-citizens have a lower voting rate vs just about any other group.

Given that no matter what only a percent will vote for you and usually only if they're in areas that probably vote for you already  it's kind of a fools' logic to bring people in hoping they'll vote for you. How does packing even MOAR liberal voters into downtown toronto and vancouver win you seats? It's like trying to flood alberta with Conservative voters - would you even notice a difference in the legislature

 Current immigrants and normal canadians tend to want 'responsible' immigration which is what PP's trying to suggest saying he'll tie it to capacity numbers.  Which is a winning answer, but for sure you're correct it's death to say that'll mean a reduction in immigration this far away from an election.  The libs and cbc will say it means he plans to deport your grandmother.

[I am Groot]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The research indicates that politicians that think that immigrants are all going to vote for them are simply wrong. Immigrants are far more likely to vote based on the area they move to. In other words if they're in downtown toronto they vote liberal and if they move to alberta they tend to vote conservative.

That makes no sense. Plus, I don't believe it since there is usually a competitive back and forth between the Liberals and NDP in our bigger cities. Got any of this 'research' you mention?

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Further - they dont' tend to vote at all.  Immigrant-citizens have a lower voting rate vs just about any other group.

They vote often enough to have the three major parties salivating for their votes, attending every cultural festival and begging for votes at every mosque and temple they can find. You think Trudeau isn't changing our foreign policy to please the immigrants? He's certainly not doing it out of principle. 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Current immigrants and normal canadians tend to want 'responsible' immigration which is what PP's trying to suggest

Prior to the first election he won Trudeau promised to double the number of elderly immigrants who can be sponsored over. How is that responsible? Apparently the promise won him sufficient votes he did it again the second and third elections. I think he did that because it won him votes from certain new immigrant communities.

Now, I tend to agree with you that the fear that cutting immigration will outrage all immigrants is nonsense. But it doesn't have to. Suggesting you do it will enable the other parties and the media to portray you as anti immigrant, xenophobic and racist. Which is why there isn't a single politician in English Canada at any level who dares to call for immigration to be cut.

 

[Michael Hardner]

I do like that GDP per capita is of interest to some types.  Check out the GINI Coefficient next 😉

[blackbird]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS

I had a quick look at your link and could not see anything that proved man causes climate change.

You referenced some experiments in labs, but that does not represent the real world or earth atmosphere.

Seems you put a lot of trust in man-made claims without any real proof.

97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural.

Man only contributes 3%.  

So it is impossible to prove man is the cause of global warming.

It is therefore just a unproven assumption.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

That makes no sense. Plus, I don't believe it since there is usually a competitive back and forth between the Liberals and NDP in our bigger cities. Got any of this 'research' you mention?

 

Why would that make no sense?  Politicians do stupid things all the time. I'm sure they believe the same myths most of us do but where's the evidence for it?

As to some of the research - here's a taste. You can look up more yourself.

https://cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2012/Thomas.pdf

This shows that the liberal support among visible minorities is waning and notes that there is no real correlation for immigratns voting for the party that let them in so to speak and is more likely to be regional.

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/31900/1/Pikkov_Deanna_L_201108_PhD_thesis.pdf

That one notes that the voting history PRIOR to immigration tends to drive whether or not they'll vote and how they'll vote an even affects the next generation. It is documented in several studies that immigrants tend to vote far less than regular canadians.

https://elections.ca/res/rec/part/paper/ethnocultural/ethnocultural_e.pdf

This one confirms immigrants do not vote as much as natural canadians.

Quote

This study confirmed that while immigrant status is not a barrier to electoral participation,
newcomer status is associated with lower rates of turnout. New arrivals who emigrated to
Canada since 1991, and who were eligible to vote, were significantly less likely to cast a ballot
in 2000, regardless of their personal characteristics, resources, integration into family and
religious networks,

Did you need more? there's more if you need it.

There is a large body of work, and it all points to the same thing -  cultural groups do not tend to vote as a block most of the time (occasionally will around specific issues),  new immigrants vote less, where they wind up is more likely to determine how they vote than who let them in.

Quote

They vote often enough to have the three major parties salivating for their votes

Not really.  All parties try to get ALL votes.  And occasionally a party will target a specific ethnic group, but rarely do they make a major push specifically for newcomers.

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Prior to the first election he won Trudeau promised to double the number of elderly immigrants who can be sponsored over. How is that responsible?

I don't think that won him many votes.  The analysis after the election showed that his victory was largely due to fatigue with harper and his stance on FPTP (which he completely bailed on) and his dope stance.  That got him his majority - and he has never won the popular vote again despite massive immigration incrases.

 

It is a popular myth that immigrants will vote for the party that lets them in or that they all want to see open borders. The research again and again suggests that's just not much of a thing.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I do like that GDP per capita is of interest to some types.  Check out the GINI Coefficient next 😉

Did we learn a new word today

GDP,  Debt to GDP, gdp per capita are all valuable indicators, but never in isolation. Getting a true picture of the economic situation requires a little bit more than that - but they can certainly give you a good idea or indicate a weak point deserving more attention.

At the moment our gdp per capita is radically falling behind our g 7 and g 20 counterparts - and is expected to at this point for 40 years according to international banking studies.

That is absolutely horrible. It's not JUST about immigraiton but that's playing a big role at the moment. We're focusing about getting more warm bodies here than we are getting them integrated and working in skilled professions and that creates a very serious problem that won't be fixed easily - AND they are substantially contributing to inflation because we're bringing in more than we can increase our infrastructure (housing, meds, etc) to handle.

The damage to our economy right now is horrific and will take a very long time to resolve unfortunately and during that time people will have a lower quality of life than they should have.

 

But none of that answers the question of why Trudeau is being so bull headed about it.  It makes no immediate sense and i don't mean that in some sort of "he must have some evil plan" kind of way - it just feels like he's given up on the next eleciton and is focused on doing things that may even make his chances worse for some other reason.

 

[CdnFox]

@Michael Hardner  i know i've already provided the information for this but seeing as this article just popped up and is particularly relevant to our discussioni thought i'd leave it for you to peruse.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-immigration-per-capita-gdp

 

Canada's high immigration is driving down per-capita GDP: report

Canada's GDP has contracted. And a new report says it might be driven in part by high immigration levels

Edited December 28, 2023 by CdnFox

[myata]

Find an odd word in this news report (BBC):

"An Australian man was killed in an Israeli air strike in South Lebanon with his brother, member of Hezbollah".

To be continued.

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I do like that GDP per capita is of interest to some types.  Check out the GINI Coefficient next 😉

This is not a reply likely to engender respectful dialogue, y'know. Some types?

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

This is not a reply likely to engender respectful dialogue, y'know. Some types?

Sorry if I offended.  I tend to back off when people are offended by me.  You?

[ironstone]

On 12/24/2023 at 1:50 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Because a lot of your premises are false? GDP increases with immigration.

Canada's high immigration is driving down per-capita GDP: report (msn.com)

I'm not against immigration, but mass immigration is another story.

[I am Groot]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry if I offended.  I tend to back off when people are offended by me.  You?

That is not in my nature. When people offend me I tend to do my best to return the favor.

As you may have noticed on occasion.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Canada's high immigration is driving down per-capita GDP: report (msn.com)

I'm not against immigration, but mass immigration is another story.

I hate the term 'mass immigration'  because i've never met a single person who could define what "Mass" means in that context.

How many immigrants makes a 'mass'?  Or are we going with a number or is it literally by weight or volume   is 2 a mass? is 200 thousand?

But - if you were to claim that "Mass" immigration was what occurs when the  number of immigrants exceeds the country's ability to provide integration, housing, medical, education and other infrastructure for  then it would make sense.

That's not how it's used as a term but it wouldn't be a bad use.

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I hate the term 'mass immigration'  because i've never met a single person who could define what "Mass" means in that context.

How many immigrants makes a 'mass'?  Or are we going with a number or is it literally by weight or volume   is 2 a mass? is 200 thousand?

But - if you were to claim that "Mass" immigration was what occurs when the  number of immigrants exceeds the country's ability to provide integration, housing, medical, education and other infrastructure for  then it would make sense.

That's not how it's used as a term but it wouldn't be a bad use.

If there are so many you have to claim you no longer have the ability to even interview prospective immigrants ahead of time to choose the best ones, then that constitutes 'mass'. 

[blackbird]

On 12/24/2023 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

why Poilievre hasn't said he'll cut immigration, let alone stop it.

PP knows its not politically correct to oppose immigration.  He would lose a lot of votes.  That's just being practical.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

If there are so many you have to claim you no longer have the ability to even interview prospective immigrants ahead of time to choose the best ones, then that constitutes 'mass'. 

The way justin runs his gov't departments that would put the number at 7.

[ironstone]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But - if you were to claim that "Mass" immigration was what occurs when the  number of immigrants exceeds the country's ability to provide integration, housing, medical, education and other infrastructure for  then it would make sense.

That's not how it's used as a term but it wouldn't be a bad use.

I would agree with that generalization. Canada has a problem with the health care system being overloaded and of course the housing shortage. It's not unreasonable to think that we are currently taking in too many people.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

I would agree with that generalization. Canada has a problem with the health care system being overloaded and of course the housing shortage. It's not unreasonable to think that we are currently taking in too many people.

Yes - and a number of other metrics too at this point.  Population growth exceeds job growth at the moment, in many areas population is exceeding childrens education increases as well.

And - the reason' we've had such successful immigraiton historically is that there is a significant network of mentors and gov't services to get new arrivals up to speed, speaking very good english or french, introduced to employers etc etc.  And that has been completely overwhelmed making it MUCH harder for people to prosper and thrive especially given the inflationary pressures.

You can't have more immigration than you can provide for and the disaster we're seeing now is what happens when you do - and it's peanuts to what comes next if we don't get it under control.