Federal Government & Politics II

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Is it as effective as tweaking immigration or monetary policy to reduce demand instead? Probably not.

They have announced plans to pretty dramatically scale back immigration—specifically temporary immigration, which has really been driving our various crises—for the next three years. The specifics on how they’ll accomplish that, admittedly, are extremely thin right now (consultations with provinces need to happen apparently) but they made quite a fanfare about it so I expect something will happen.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

They have announced plans to pretty dramatically scale back immigration—specifically temporary immigration, which has really been driving our various crises—for the next three years. The specifics on how they’ll accomplish that, admittedly, are extremely thin right now (consultations with provinces need to happen apparently) but they made quite a fanfare about it so I expect something will happen.

Their plan is to reduce the intake of temporary immigrants by about 20%...by 2027. This is coming after a 100% increase in the intake of temporary immigrants between 2019 (which itself was a 50% increase from 2015) and 2023.

That's pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things. For context: we had about 260,000 TFR admissions in 2015, 400,000 in 2019, and 800,000 in 2023. Under the current plan, that will be reduced to 640,000 by 2027. But that's still in addition to the 500,000 PRs that will be admitted, and additional migration through other (ie. refugee) streams, plus natural growth & new household formation. Meanwhile, we're currently at about 220,000 housing starts per year - unless that number somehow triples within the next 3 years, that means we're going to continue to be falling further behind on our housing needs.

[casper]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Their plan is to reduce the intake of temporary immigrants by about 20%...by 2027. This is coming after a 100% increase in the intake of temporary immigrants between 2019 (which itself was a 50% increase from 2015) and 2023.

That's pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things. For context: we had about 260,000 TFR admissions in 2015, 400,000 in 2019, and 800,000 in 2023. Under the current plan, that will be reduced to 640,000 by 2027. But that's still in addition to the 500,000 PRs that will be admitted, and additional migration through other (ie. refugee) streams, plus natural growth & new household formation. Meanwhile, we're currently at about 220,000 housing starts per year - unless that number somehow triples within the next 3 years, that means we're going to continue to be falling further behind on our housing needs.

Not quite. Average household in Canada is 2.9 people. So 220,000 homes would house around 660,000 people. We are close, but we clearly need to be building more than those coming in to address the backlog.

[Acajack]

This is another friendly reminder that behind closed doors Pierre Poilievre is already being warned not to reduce the intake of fresh new suckers (tm) too much when he becomes PM.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

As should be expected from a Liberal housing policy. It is measures, well thought out and provides long-term housing security for those that take advantage.
…….

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

If they had done this a decade ago, or at least prior to turbocharging immigration they'd have genuinely been doing something. Instead, this is too little too late: after a decade of inflationary housing policy it won't be enough to bridge the gap they've created (which, as noted above, is only expected to get worse in the coming years as our housing shortfall continues to grow).

Is it better than the Conservative's housing plan? Probably. Is it as effective as tweaking immigration or monetary policy to reduce demand instead? Probably not. Either way, the fact that all of these housing announcements have been reactionary (and only after stubbornly resisting the public's calls to take any responsibility on the issue for the longest time) to the side-effects of some of their other policy is demonstrative of poor leadership.

It would have been nice if the Trudeau government had done it starting in 2015. I totally agree with that. And I really wonder how Andrew Scheer would have reacted to it. Something tells me that the CPC would have fought hard against it and would have made it an election issue in 2019.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Their plan is to reduce the intake of temporary immigrants by about 20%...by 2027. This is coming after a 100% increase in the intake of temporary immigrants between 2019 (which itself was a 50% increase from 2015) and 2023.

That's pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things. For context: we had about 260,000 TFR admissions in 2015, 400,000 in 2019, and 800,000 in 2023. Under the current plan, that will be reduced to 640,000 by 2027. But that's still in addition to the 500,000 PRs that will be admitted, and additional migration through other (ie. refugee) streams, plus natural growth & new household formation. Meanwhile, we're currently at about 220,000 housing starts per year - unless that number somehow triples within the next 3 years, that means we're going to continue to be falling further behind on our housing needs.

Well a lot of the temporary ones really fill up the homes with many more people than Canadians would. We are getting good bang for our buck in many ways.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is another friendly reminder that behind closed doors Pierre Poilievre is already being warned not to reduce the intake of fresh new suckers (tm) too much when he becomes PM.

Businesses need them and there will be lots of talk behind the scenes from business owners telling PP that there needs to be an adequate number of people available who will work for less and whatever else. Many of these owners will be donors to PP and the CPC.

[casper]

Someone sent me a link to a video by Rebel News (sorry I just can't link to that organisation). It was of PP being asked if he would withdraw from the Paris accord and turn his back on UN sponsored treaties to address climate change.

He (PP) said no he would not. He would promote carbon capture and work in removing barriers to clean energy production. He clearly understood the need to transition off oil and gas.

I was pleasantly surprised. While carbon capture is a bit of shell game, it did sound like he has a clear understanding of the challenges our society faces.

With a degree of distrust, I will say that his position on this topic is marginally acceptable.

Originally Posted by Loco101

Businesses need them and there will be lots of talk behind the scenes from business owners telling PP that there needs to be an adequate number of people available who will work for less and whatever else. Many of these owners will be donors to PP and the CPC.

Clearly, we need the immigration.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by casper

Not quite. Average household in Canada is 2.9 people. So 220,000 homes would house around 660,000 people. We are close, but we clearly need to be building more than those coming in to address the backlog.

It’s basic math. If Monkeyronins numbers and your number re: household size are correct, we need to increase our housing construction by 130k a year. That doesn’t even tackle the current deficit. It doesn’t seem “close” and I’ve yet to see any Liberal announcement that actually addresses these numbers. They’re throwing a few billion at a problem that would cost trillions to fix. It’s clear that this isn’t going to fix anything.

Originally Posted by Loco101

Well a lot of the temporary ones really fill up the homes with many more people than Canadians would. We are getting good bang for our buck in many ways.

Having three TFW to a bachelor unit (or 20 in a SFH) drives up rent prices. It’s great “bang for your buck” for the landlord.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

Clearly, we need the immigration.

I don’t think that is clear at all. 3G Capital wants high levels of unskilled immigration because it doesn’t want to raise wages, improve benefits, etc. the needs of 3G Capital are not the same as the needs of the country.

[Loco101]

It was big news in Northern Ontario today as my MP Charlie Angus announced that he will not be running in the next election.

Also not running next time is NDP MP Carole Hughes who currently represents Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing.

The riding boundaries will change and I will be in Kapuskasing-Timmins-Mushkegowuk and will have more land area than the United Kingdom!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Businesses need them and there will be lots of talk behind the scenes from business owners telling PP that there needs to be an adequate number of people available who will work for less and whatever else. Many of these owners will be donors to PP and the CPC.

Almost no one is saying that in front of a microphone anymore but that doesn't mean it isn't still being forcefully emphasized.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Almost no one is saying that in front of a microphone anymore but that doesn't mean it isn't still being forcefully emphasized.

He either cuts immigration or we will see the PPC split the right at the election after. I don't expect we'll go back to 2015 levels. But I think 2019 levels are possible.

Also, it's not just a problem of the numbers. How they are distributed creates a massive problem too. Directing aspiring foreign students to actual shortage areas like construction, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, etc would actually help the economy, addressing the productivity crisis that economists are screaming about. Even if it hurts low wage sectors like fast food and retail.

And if we were going to resort to wage suppression (not that I think this is a good idea), what the government should have done is offer a substantial alternative to the US and their H1B treadmill. Make Canada the branch plant of choice for Google, Apple, IBM, etc. They did some of this. But we would have been way better off with even more of these folks than strip mall business graduates.

Also. Worried about colleges surviving but want to improve the quality of foreign student graduates? Half the students. Double the education. Make 2 yr college diplomas the minimum for work permits. Colleges get the same amount of revenue with fewer students to manage and the economy gets better skilled graduates. Sure they are more indebted. But we've never really cared about that. Why start now?

We may need immigration and the business sector may be screaming for it. But there's still plenty of policy room to improve quality while reducing quantity.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Their plan is to reduce the intake of temporary immigrants by about 20%...by 2027. This is coming after a 100% increase in the intake of temporary immigrants between 2019 (which itself was a 50% increase from 2015) and 2023.

That's pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things. For context: we had about 260,000 TFR admissions in 2015, 400,000 in 2019, and 800,000 in 2023. Under the current plan, that will be reduced to 640,000 by 2027. But that's still in addition to the 500,000 PRs that will be admitted, and additional migration through other (ie. refugee) streams, plus natural growth & new household formation. Meanwhile, we're currently at about 220,000 housing starts per year - unless that number somehow triples within the next 3 years, that means we're going to continue to be falling further behind on our housing needs.

No, the plan is more dramatic than that—it’s to reduce temporary migrants down to 5% of the population (from 6.2) by 2027. To achieve that we’ll actually need to have net negative temporary migration over the next two years at least—something like -150,000 per year, instead of +800,000. Subtract 150,000 from the 500,000 PRs and we’re looking at 350,000 newcomers annually, down from more than a million last year. And maybe less than that, since some of the PR quota will be made up for by temporary migrants already here, getting PR status.

If they achieve this, population growth will plunge dramatically in the next two or three years, allowing a chance to catch up housing, etc., before returning to high (though not as-high as recently) levels. The question is more how they can achieve such a dramatic pivot.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

No, the plan is more dramatic than that—it’s to reduce temporary migrants down to 5% of the population (from 6.2) by 2027. To achieve that we’ll actually need to have net negative temporary migration over the next two years at least—something like -150,000 per year, instead of +800,000. Subtract 150,000 from the 500,000 PRs and we’re looking at 350,000 newcomers annually, down from more than a million last year. And maybe less than that, since some of the PR quota will be made up for by temporary migrants already here, getting PR status.

If they achieve this, population growth will plunge dramatically in the next two or three years, allowing a chance to catch up housing, etc., before returning to high (though not as-high as recently) levels. The question is more how they can achieve such a dramatic pivot.

It's a relative measure though. You're assuming they will cut immigration. The may just increase the denominator to reduce the fraction. Either way, we'll see. Whatever they do should be reflected in statistics 6 months from now.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

Someone sent me a link to a video by Rebel News (sorry I just can't link to that organisation). It was of PP being asked if he would withdraw from the Paris accord and turn his back on UN sponsored treaties to address climate change.

He (PP) said no he would not. He would promote carbon capture and work in removing barriers to clean energy production. He clearly understood the need to transition off oil and gas.

I was pleasantly surprised. While carbon capture is a bit of shell game, it did sound like he has a clear understanding of the challenges our society faces.

With a degree of distrust, I will say that his position on this topic is marginally acceptable.

"X" for doubt. It's a caucus and base of petrosexuals. I doubt they will have a single person who even thinks about the economic implications of energy transition (even setting aside climate policy). I fully expect them to go to war with Ontario and Quebec over battery and EV manufacturing. I would rather be pessimistic and pleasantly surprised than optimistic and crushed with the inevitable.

As for not withdrawing from climate forums. That's a rather low bar. Even Saudi Arabia meets that bar.

[Marshsparrow]

I have finally subscribed to the Pierre rage narrative...

- having a hard time booking a hotel - Justin has not built enough hotel rooms
- can't get a reservation to the hip new restaurant - Justin has not built enough restaurants
- unable to secure affordable Taylor Swift tickets - Canada is broken, immigration is broken, Rogers Centre is not big enough - all the Liberals fault

When did Canada become a country of individualistic narcissists who have no clue about civics fed/prov/mun responsibilities?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Here's a CBC article, but the basic idea is it's for protecting existing affordable rentals, providing money via contributions and loans to non-profit organizations to acquire affordable rental units. This would help non-profits keep affordable rental units on the market, instead of having them sold to investors for redevelopment.

We're not talking about the same program, I distinctly heard $15B, yours has the decimal point in the wrong position

Thanks for the CBC link though, I easily found a link to the right JT announcement:

Trudeau announces $15B more for apartment construction loans

And as I forecasted, it indeed seems to have good milking potential:

Originally Posted by CBC Article

"Trudeau's out-of-touch housing strategy is dominated by loans to for-profit developers that don't help Canadians who need homes they can afford," Kwan said in a statement provided to CBC News. "Today, the Liberals announced $15 billion for a program where 97 per cent of the units produced are not affordable."

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

I have finally subscribed to the Pierre rage narrative...

- having a hard time booking a hotel - Justin has not built enough hotel rooms
- can't get a reservation to the hip new restaurant - Justin has not built enough restaurants
- unable to secure affordable Taylor Swift tickets - Canada is broken, immigration is broken, Rogers Centre is not big enough - all the Liberals fault

When did Canada become a country of individualistic narcissists who have no clue about civics fed/prov/mun responsibilities?

The people who have the least clues of all about the division of responsibilities in this federation, judging by their recent flurry of provincial-jurisdiction electoral candy announcements, are the Federal Liberals