Carney adds Century Initiative co-founder to Canada-U.S. council, signaling return to record high immigration

[CdnFox]

Carney adds Century Initiative co-founder to Canada-U.S. council | iPolitics

The Century Initiative, co-founded by Mark Wiseman, calls for a massive increase in Canada’s immigration levels, with the ultimate goal of bringing the country’s population to 100 million people by the end of the century.

Well there you go.  Back to insanely High inflation, back to insanely High housing prices back to what we just had under Trudeau.

At least he's not hiding he's a piece of shit. Hopefully people will see this and realize this guy is a disaster

[Barquentine]

I've long thought Canada should have a population of 100 mil. Country this size with a pop. of 40 mil, about California's or metro Tokyo? Getting there's the problem, for sure but 60 mil over 75 yrs? might be doable.

 

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

I've long thought Canada should have a population of 100 mil. Country this size with a pop. of 40 mil, about California's or metro Tokyo? Getting there's the problem, for sure but 60 mil over 75 yrs? might be doable.

 

A big population is no guarantee of more prosperity. The Liberals have a mass immigration policy now and our per capita GDP has fallen.

Carney likely agrees with Trudeau about us having no core identity so he'll continue to bring in people that don't share our values.

100 million people AND net-zero? Yeah right.

Edited March 21 by ironstone

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

I've long thought Canada should have a population of 100 mil. Country this size with a pop. of 40 mil, about California's or metro Tokyo? Getting there's the problem, for sure but 60 mil over 75 yrs? might be doable.

 

And what would Canada be like then? Nothing like it is now. Overcrowded cities full of third-world people still with their own customs and values and nothing at all left of Canada's historical institutions, cultures or values.

By the way, small penis syndrome is not a basis for a massive influx of people. The most happy populations in the world live in countries with small populations. 

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Carney adds Century Initiative co-founder to Canada-U.S. council | iPolitics

The Century Initiative, co-founded by Mark Wiseman, calls for a massive increase in Canada’s immigration levels, with the ultimate goal of bringing the country’s population to 100 million people by the end of the century.

Well there you go.  Back to insanely High inflation, back to insanely High housing prices back to what we just had under Trudeau.

At least he's not hiding he's a piece of shit. Hopefully people will see this and realize this guy is a disaster

Wiseman is one of his policy advisors. You know who else is among his policy advisors? Our old friend Domnic Barton. So yeah, you can expect big immigration increases. Calling it a 'return to' is a mistake given we still have mass immigration of often unvetted people with low skills. That was only 'temporarily' pulled back until the election after all, just like the foreign students and foreign workers. 

Edited March 21 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

I've long thought Canada should have a population of 100 mil. Country this size with a pop. of 40 mil, about California's or metro Tokyo? Getting there's the problem, for sure but 60 mil over 75 yrs? might be doable.

 

The issue is not the number. The issue is the rate it happens at.

Other countries have had horrible experiences with immigration, whereas traditionally Canada has had a very positive experience even though it has a fairly High immigration rate traditionally. Traditionally our population is about 15% immigrant at all times.

But that is because we had a very clear and complicated system that worked well. Our flag and point system identified those most likely to be able to integrate, we had strong mentorships to help people transition from their home country to a Canadian way of life by using others who had already done so to help them learn the differences while still keeping compatible traditions. We had well funded systems to help with language, additional education and so on.

It wasn't perfect and needed fine tuning for sure, and we still have the problem of foreign credentials not being recognized by Canadian institutions like they should be. But by and large it was extremely successful.

Trudeau ruined all of that. He overloaded the system with more immigrants than the system could cope with and it collapsed. Now we have immigrants living homeless on the streets, we have immigrants who are furious because they have no jobs and can barely get by and aren't getting any help.

This also severely reduces our GDP per capita which means we have to provide more health services and more government services without additional tax revenues.

 

Of Course we will eventually hit 100 million people. Our country geographically can comfortably support 300 million easily and without crowding.

But that cannot happen at the pace they want to set. It would be a catastrophe. In fact it was a catastrophe, that's how we got our inflation rate, that's why housing is unaffordable, that is why our standard of living is going down. We brought in way too many too fast.

Poilievre wants to index immigration to our actual infrastructure increases. In other words we only bring in as many people as we build new homes, have new hospitals and medical facilities, etc. Want to bring in people faster? No problem, just figure out a way to increase the number of homes and medical facilities and educational facilities etc and you can bring them in

And that's probably the smart way to do it.

We need to go back to having a very robust detailed effective method for bringing new people to our country and getting them integrated and getting them working and paying taxes to support the next batch. When we had that we were the envy of the world and it's gone

Edited March 21 by CdnFox

[Legato]

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

 

Wiseman is one of his policy advisors. You know who else is among his policy advisors? Our old friend Domnic Barton. So yeah, you can expect big immigration increases. Calling it a 'return to' is a mistake given we still have mass immigration of often unvetted people with low skills. That was only 'temporarily' pulled back until the election after all, just like the foreign students and foreign workers. 

Well he claims to have cut back on immigration so I was referring to official policy rather than the reality I suppose

But there's no doubt. These are exactly the same liberals we have always had. We are going to have massive immigration numbers Far beyond what our economy can support, we are going to have carbon taxes, we are going to have high income and business taxes that drives away investment and represses people's income, we will continue to see investment leave Canada and our GDP per capita go down

Nothing will have changed except the name that follows the word f*ck on people's bumper stickers.

He has literally just admitted in plain English that he has conflicts of interest in his holdings. Putting them in a blind trust means nothing, if you know you've got a foreign oil company in your investments and you know that if Canada produces less oil that investment is going to go up Then It doesn't matter if it's in a blind trust, you know repressing Canadian Oil will mean you'll have more money when you finish regardless

 

I cannot stress how much of an unmitigated disaster this guy will be and he's not really hiding it. Canadians just cannot afford to be this stupid

[Barquentine]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

in other words we only bring in as many people as we build new homes, have new hospitals and medical facilities, etc. Want to bring in people faster? No problem, just figure out a way to increase the number of homes and medical facilities and educational facilities etc and you can bring them in

Unfortunately in reality things will never work that way. Once the supply-demand evens out, no one's going to build much on spec. (Except for small amounts.) The demand will always come first, the exception being a country like Italy with a shrinking population and a supply of old housing. Here we'll always be playing catch-up.

And unfortunately, for decades now, builders have only wanted to build large homes to increase their profits, not 2 bedroom bungalows, not even split entries much. Why not small, expandable modular homes? But I do see lots of apartment bldgs going up. That will help.

 

2 hours ago, Legato said:

I never liked that guy. Something smarmy about him.

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Unfortunately in reality things will never work that way. Once the supply-demand evens out, no one's going to build much on spec. (Except for small amounts.) The demand will always come first, the exception being a country like Italy with a shrinking population and a supply of old housing. Here we'll always be playing catch-up.

And unfortunately, for decades now, builders have only wanted to build large homes to increase their profits, not 2 bedroom bungalows, not even split entries much. Why not small, expandable modular homes? But I do see lots of apartment bldgs going up. That will help.

 

I never liked that guy. Something smarmy about him.

Lol smarmy, long time since  heard that.

[BlahTheCanuck]

This is the number one reason why electing Carney/LPC is a very bad idea, IMO.

[I am Groot]

For me, the other reason for not bringing in huge numbers of people has to do with our culture, who we are as a society and people. We've brought in too many too fast to hold onto that. Instead of immigrant kids intigrating as they grow up in our schools and learn to be like Canadian kids from their peers, it's Canadian kids learning to be like immigrant kids from their peers because in most cities now the overwhelming number of kids in schools are immigrants.

A friend of mine speaks of her son who just graduated high school. He's much more socially conservative than she is, particularly with regard to LGBT people. Why? Because he's one of about six white kids in his class. The rest come from the third world and mostly from countries where sexual minorities get killed, or at least beaten and arrested. These peers are also extremely misogynistic by our standards. Women exist for sex, babies, and housekeeping, and nothing more to them. And they are mostly very religious, especially the Muslims. The more such people we bring over, the more those and similar attitudes will grow. 

[CdnFox]

On 3/21/2025 at 12:03 PM, Barquentine said:

Unfortunately in reality things will never work that way. Once the supply-demand evens out, no one's going to build much on spec. (Except for small amounts.) The demand will always come first, the exception being a country like Italy with a shrinking population and a supply of old housing. Here we'll always be playing catch-up.

HA! You leftist fool, you forgot.....   oh wait. You're right.  Never mind, i owe you one free foolish leftist comment unscolded in the future   It just caught me off guard  

The way our system is currently that is correct, and i have written about this in the past on this forum. We would enjoy a short term benefit of a few years as projects already in the works came off the line and then developers would have compensated and we'd be back to where we started having caught up a little ( a very little)  but falling behind again. 

However it is possible to change that and it was in fact different in the past. Right now there's a number of disincentives to build ahead of or even matching need, but they're all resolvable fairly easy. Most of them are tax related at various levels and if you kill that then you only need to do a few things to make it worth a developer's time to at least match certain production levels happily ahead of or matching expected demand. 

On 3/21/2025 at 12:03 PM, Barquentine said:

And unfortunately, for decades now, builders have only wanted to build large homes to increase their profits, not 2 bedroom bungalows, not even split entries much. Why not small, expandable modular homes? But I do see lots of apartment bldgs going up. That will help.

That simply isn't accurate or even close to the truth.

 

At first this looks like a bc spreadsheet but you'll notice it has a 'canada' figure as its first line in each section, 

Check out the total number of single family housing starts.  Now the row (town) houses, and apartments. (multi unit)

The latter two combined grossly exceed the number of detached single family  by a mile. With apartments being the big winner. Its not even remotely close. AND - apartments and rowhomes BOTH are increasing year over year about DOUBLE the rate that singles are. 

The absolute king of real estate development is still the 4-6 story wood frame apartment building.  And townhomes are also quite popular. Single family dwelling builds are more popular in smaller areas or cities or in small towns.  And the trend is for single familly to fall further and further behind. 

[CdnFox]

On 3/22/2025 at 1:37 PM, I am Groot said:

For me, the other reason for not bringing in huge numbers of people has to do with our culture, who we are as a society and people. We've brought in too many too fast to hold onto that. Instead of immigrant kids intigrating as they grow up in our schools and learn to be like Canadian kids from their peers, it's Canadian kids learning to be like immigrant kids from their peers because in most cities now the overwhelming number of kids in schools are immigrants.

A friend of mine speaks of her son who just graduated high school. He's much more socially conservative than she is, particularly with regard to LGBT people. Why? Because he's one of about six white kids in his class. The rest come from the third world and mostly from countries where sexual minorities get killed, or at least beaten and arrested. These peers are also extremely misogynistic by our standards. Women exist for sex, babies, and housekeeping, and nothing more to them. And they are mostly very religious, especially the Muslims. The more such people we bring over, the more those and similar attitudes will grow. 

But it kind of goes hand and glove. Our successes in the past did rely heavily on the fact that immigrants could come here and there were the resources for them to build a life for themselves. That causes people to tend to adapt to the circumstances they find themselves in and blend in, their kids even moreso. 

But when there isn't enough money and there isn't enough jobs and there isn't even enough homes to live in then the social, Cultural and racial tensions become overwhelming and you see explosions of violence and anger. We have seen this in France, most of the European countries, england, you name it

We absolutely have to reduce immigration to a level that's equal to our ability to absorb them

[Barquentine]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

On 3/21/2025 at 4:03 PM, Barquentine said:

And unfortunately, for decades now, builders have only wanted to build large homes to increase their profits, not 2 bedroom bungalows, not even split entries much. Why not small, expandable modular homes? But I do see lots of apartment bldgs going up. That will help.

That simply isn't accurate or even close to the truth.

I'm just going on what I've seen, working on and off in construction since the 70's. And I can only speak about my part of the country.

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

AND - apartments and rowhomes BOTH are increasing year over year about DOUBLE the rate that singles are. 

I said there's a lot of apartments going up lately. 

[Goddess]

On 3/21/2025 at 5:41 AM, Barquentine said:

I've long thought Canada should have a population of 100 mil. Country this size with a pop. of 40 mil, about California's or metro Tokyo? Getting there's the problem, for sure but 60 mil over 75 yrs? might be doable.

 

A lot of Canada is Arctic tundra or not particularly hospitable for life.

No one wants to live in the Arctic.  that's why the vast majority is squished along the US border.

[Nationalist]

This jack-ass Carney is suicidal. He has no affinity to Canada. His allegiance is to the WTO and the globalists.

[Barquentine]

23 minutes ago, Goddess said:

A lot of Canada is Arctic tundra or not particularly hospitable for life.

Still lots of room even without the tundra.

Oh, and that's why I said 100 mil., not 350 mil like the states.

Edited March 24 by Barquentine
adding text

[Nefarious Banana]

43 minutes ago, Goddess said:

A lot of Canada is Arctic tundra or not particularly hospitable for life.

No one wants to live in the Arctic.  that's why the vast majority is squished along the US border.

A very great portion of Canada is uninhabitable.  Not suited for agriculture nor a population spike.