Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

And prohibition has been a success for the last previous 90 or so years? Prohibition was, is and always will be a failure. There is no magical solution but the best policy by far that doesn't corrode society or lead to the deaths of thousands of people a year and that is consistent with freedom is to legalize and regulate illicit drugs.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian and murderous.

Yes, you're right, there are only two conceivable approaches to dealing with drug use. Either you're going full-on Reagan-era DEA and busting down crackhouses, or you have an unchecked proliferation of legal drug use beyond what even the likes of Portugal and Netherlands have allowed. There couldn't possibly be anything in between.

All of the problems people associate with illicit drugs, correctly or not, exist where drugs haven't been decriminalized: homeless camps, street crime, rising deaths from unsafe drugs, it's just that the media doesn't report on it anywhere near as much. In Canada, this 'decriminalization leads to these harms in Vancouver/British Columbia' is one of the worst cases of media pushing a (false) narrative that I've seen in a long time.

I don't know what you mean by 'unchecked proliferation,' if you think that there will be a large increase in the use of heroin or cocaine if it's legalized and regulated, you're a fearmonger afraid of your fellow citizens.

But, if you have something that might actually work and not some pie in the sky nonsense in between drugs being illegal and drugs being legal (and I never just said 'legal' I said 'legal and regulated.') I'd love to hear the plan. That's kind of what decriminalization is supposed to be.

Certainly this notion of mandatory forced treatment but not jail for drug addicts is pie in the sky nonsense. In addition to it being a massive new very expensive social program (or large increase) there are neither the qualified workers available nor the facilities. Beyond that, involuntary treatment of drug addicts has been demonstrated to mostly not work.

I certainly see a lot of evidence though that the owners of existing drug treatment centers are a major player behind this false narrative of the supposed harms caused by decriminalization (as opposed to the reality that the harms are mostly caused by drugs being illegal.)

[Upper Canada Tory]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

And prohibition has been a success for the last previous 90 or so years? Prohibition was, is and always will be a failure. There is no magical solution but the best policy by far that doesn't corrode society or lead to the deaths of thousands of people a year and that is consistent with freedom is to legalize and regulate illicit drugs.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian and murderous.

Yes, you're right, there are only two conceivable approaches to dealing with drug use. Either you're going full-on Reagan-era DEA and busting down crackhouses, or you have an unchecked proliferation of legal drug use beyond what even the likes of Portugal and Netherlands have allowed. There couldn't possibly be anything in between.

All of the problems people associate with illicit drugs, correctly or not, exist where drugs haven't been decriminalized: homeless camps, street crime, rising deaths from unsafe drugs, it's just that the media doesn't report on it anywhere near as much. In Canada, this 'decriminalization leads to these harms in Vancouver/British Columbia' is one of the worst cases of media pushing a (false) narrative that I've seen in a long time.

I don't know what you mean by 'unchecked proliferation,' if you think that there will be a large increase in the use of heroin or cocaine if it's legalized and regulated, you're a fearmonger afraid of your fellow citizens.

But, if you have something that might actually work and not some pie in the sky nonsense in between drugs being illegal and drugs being legal (and I never just said 'legal' I said 'legal and regulated.') I'd love to hear the plan. That's kind of what decriminalization is supposed to be.

Certainly this notion of mandatory forced treatment but not jail for drug addicts is pie in the sky nonsense. In addition to it being a massive new very expensive social program (or large increase) there are neither the qualified workers available nor the facilities. Beyond that, involuntary treatment of drug addicts has been demonstrated to mostly not work.

I certainly see a lot of evidence though that the owners of existing drug treatment centers are a major player behind this false narrative of the supposed harms caused by decriminalization (as opposed to the reality that the harms are mostly caused by drugs being illegal.)

Why is there no money for treatment but plenty of money for handing out so-called 'safe supply'?

I think you're right that involuntary treatment is ill-advised and a violation of civil liberties, but the money being used on so-called safe injection sites could instead be used funding treatment for those who seek it voluntarily. Sure, not every addict will seek treatment or is ready for it, which is fine, but why does the government need to hand out drugs to people? The stated purpose of the supervised injection sites was to reduce overdoses - 'decriminalization' has been in place for a year and that hasn't happened. Overdoses have increased.

One other important point - while treatment is costly, so is substance abuse. It costs the taxpayer $46 billion annually in terms of things like healthcare costs and lost productivity. A part or this cost includes abuse of alcohol and tobacco, but even if you exclude those I imagine that a large part of that cost would be illicit drugs. Yes funding treatment for people would cost money but it would save money in other ways.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

And prohibition has been a success for the last previous 90 or so years? Prohibition was, is and always will be a failure. There is no magical solution but the best policy by far that doesn't corrode society or lead to the deaths of thousands of people a year and that is consistent with freedom is to legalize and regulate illicit drugs.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian and murderous.

Yes, you're right, there are only two conceivable approaches to dealing with drug use. Either you're going full-on Reagan-era DEA and busting down crackhouses, or you have an unchecked proliferation of legal drug use beyond what even the likes of Portugal and Netherlands have allowed. There couldn't possibly be anything in between.

All of the problems people associate with illicit drugs, correctly or not, exist where drugs haven't been decriminalized: homeless camps, street crime, rising deaths from unsafe drugs, it's just that the media doesn't report on it anywhere near as much. In Canada, this 'decriminalization leads to these harms in Vancouver/British Columbia' is one of the worst cases of media pushing a (false) narrative that I've seen in a long time.

I don't know what you mean by 'unchecked proliferation,' if you think that there will be a large increase in the use of heroin or cocaine if it's legalized and regulated, you're a fearmonger afraid of your fellow citizens.

But, if you have something that might actually work and not some pie in the sky nonsense in between drugs being illegal and drugs being legal (and I never just said 'legal' I said 'legal and regulated.') I'd love to hear the plan. That's kind of what decriminalization is supposed to be.

Certainly this notion of mandatory forced treatment but not jail for drug addicts is pie in the sky nonsense. In addition to it being a massive new very expensive social program (or large increase) there are neither the qualified workers available nor the facilities. Beyond that, involuntary treatment of drug addicts has been demonstrated to mostly not work.

I certainly see a lot of evidence though that the owners of existing drug treatment centers are a major player behind this false narrative of the supposed harms caused by decriminalization (as opposed to the reality that the harms are mostly caused by drugs being illegal.)

Why is there no money for treatment but plenty of money for handing out so-called 'safe supply'?

I think you're right that involuntary treatment is ill-advised and a violation of civil liberties, but the money being used on so-called safe injection sites could instead be used funding treatment for those who seek it voluntarily. Sure, not every addict will seek treatment or is ready for it, which is fine, but why does the government need to hand out drugs to people? The stated purpose of the supervised injection sites was to reduce overdoses - 'decriminalization' has been in place for a year and that hasn't happened. Overdoses have increased.

One other important point - while treatment is costly, so is substance abuse. It costs the taxpayer $46 billion annually in terms of things like healthcare costs and lost productivity. A part or this cost includes abuse of alcohol and tobacco, but even if you exclude those I imagine that a large part of that cost would be illicit drugs. Yes funding treatment for people would cost money but it would save money in other ways.

1.The actual cost of the drugs themselves is pennies and the supply chain is straightforward. Safe supply is far cheaper than treatment, if the concern is cost.

2.Overdose deaths have increased everywhere. This is what I meant by media narratives promoting falsehoods. The only published study showed that drug decriminalization in Oregon did not lead to increased deaths relative to other areas. This study was never promoted by the media and nor is the increase in deaths in all the places that haven't engaged in decriminalization.
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/09/27/oregon-drug-decriminalization-measure-110-overdose-deaths/

Danielle Smith in Alberta even deliberately lied about the number of death to promote her false claim that Alberta's drug treatment programs work.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2023/06/29/Drug-Deaths-Discredit-Alberta-Model/

3.Some people morally don't like the idea of the government being a 'drug dealer' I don't like the government, in my name, killing people through policies that Defacto promote unsafe illicit drugs and I don't like these same policies Defacto promoting criminal gangs.

It's a fairly obvious point in economics that when something is illegal, only the worst people will engage in the activity on the supply side such as these gangs and, for instance, when it was illegal to compete against the monopoly taxi cartels. Uber was run by some of the worst people alive and they were all let go when their business was legalized (or around the same time.)

Of course, government as the 'drug dealer' is only the case where drugs remain illegal, legalize and regulate drugs and they'd operate as any other market, such as with cannabis, cigarettes....
So, I agree with you, get government out of the way, and there is no need (or a much smaller need) for the government to provide 'safe supply.' As with other regulated industries, the cost of the regulations are paid for through the taxes paid by the industry.

3.Voluntary drug treatment can work and can be promoted as well, but keeping people alive, especially when it's government policy that is causing the illicit unsafe supply, should be the priority.

4.As to the cost of illicit drugs. Wow, we need to make drugs illegal to stop this...oh wait, drugs already are illegal and governments can't prevent people from making them or selling them and other people using them. The alleged savings from drug treatment in terms of cost might be possible but is another example of 'government spending pays for itself' which this federal Liberal government has become so fond of claiming.

On the effectiveness of drug prohibition, another Thomas Sowell quote unironically:
“Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”

Milton Friedman explained all the reasons prohibitions can never work, except to increase prices of illicit substances, which is usually a bad thing in itself and is usually welcomed by the illicit gangs.

Of course, Friedman might have been referring only to relatively free societies like the United States, because prohibition is claimed to be effective in authoritarian states like Singapore. However, certainly it's impossible to simply pick and choose what policies Singapore uses to supposedly achieve this. You might not need to do everything Singapore does to claim to be 'drug free' but the citizens certainly need to have the mindset that authoritarian policy is worth the cost.

This is an article written by Friedman that summarizes (some of) his arguments:
https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/214093/full

Oddly, left out is probably the most important argument in all this: drug dealing is not a crime like theft because both parties in the deal want the deal. This is where the term 'victimless crime' comes from. Even those who disagree with that term need to recognize that because of this, only authoritarian measures can prevent the sale of drugs, such as widespread use of cameras, searches of bank records and police warrantless 'stop and frisk.'

It certainly seems to be the case that most people who claim to support 'the war on drugs' generally balk at doing the things necessary to actually prosecute it.

[Storr]

Family Receives Wrong Body After Cuban Authorities Send Canadian Man's Body to Russia

"Faraj Allah Jarjour, a Canadian man who died in Cuba in March, was buried in a Russian town north of Moscow after Cuban government workers mistakenly switched two bodies before repatriating them to the wrong countries, according to his family.

The Jarjour family, who are originally from Syria and now live in Laval north of Montreal, were vacationing in Varadero, Cuba, when Faraj Jarjour, 68, died suddenly while swimming in the ocean March 22."

[Meclazine for Israel]

Arguably Australia's greatest ever Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, gives advice on how a candidate can win the next Canadian election.

Pierre Poilievre

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6NlEgbtpwq/

[CumbrianLefty]

That claim is indeed "arguable".

Very arguable indeed, in fact

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Not even Tony himself would agree with that! The idea that his 2 years of misrule somehow compare to Menzies is hysterical to even the most loyal Abbottite.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Ontario to ban use of cellphones in school classrooms starting in September

The Ontario government does something good? I didn't think it was possible.

[Electric Circus]

Ontario to ban use of cellphones in school classrooms starting in September

The Ontario government does something good? I didn't think it was possible.

Vermont's legislature attempted to pass a law to this effect in this past session, bu t it died in committee after our health commissioner, of all people, went public with his skepticism. (We are pouring state tax dollars into lawsuits against social media companies for exploiting children - interesting that school boards in Ontario are doing this as well - but can't take the most minimal step to protect classrooms, apparently.) There are a few other US states considering similar laws (e.g. Ohio). It's an outrageous symptom of social decay that teachers and principals can't do this of their own accord in so many places.

[mileslunn]

On Budget, I feel government stuck too much in 2015 thus not getting bounce they wanted.  At this point I don't think big spending has popularity it once had.  This tends to go in cycles and many felt Harper was too cautious so were happy to see a looser fiscal policy.  But with inflation above 2% and higher interest rates hurting people, many worry big spending will just make it tougher to reduce interest rates which is key to Liberals recovering.

On Capital gains, I think Trudeau is trying to playing class warfare as in 2015 his promise to tax top 1% more worked well.  However that was in background of Occupy Wall Street when taxing the rich was more popular.  It is still popular today but I don't think it alone is enough to help party recover.  And with low productivity some will question whether it makes that worse.  There are strong arguments for and against raising capital gains, but I think in bigger picture people may notionally want to tax rich more but is only top issue for a subset of progressives who are in NDP or Liberal column anyways.   Most for higher taxes on the rich won't necessarily vote Liberal over this unless they see personal benefits.  People vote on who will help make my life better, not on high level philosophical questions.

I think Liberals were hoping Poilievre would take bait which he hasn't.  But had they followed provincial premiers, most Conservative ones have not reversed top rate hikes done by previous administrations so unlike GOP in US where cutting taxes for rich is still a major policy, not sure that is case in Canada.  Conservatives are for lower taxes, but I suspect emphasis will be on that for lower and middle income earners.  Poilievre probably does believe top rates are too high, but doubt it is a top priority for him.  After all Ford and Smith have both left top rate hikes Notley & Wynne brought in, in place.  Much like in 2015, I feel Trudeau focusing too much on what is happening south of border not here where income inequality is a much bigger issue and where GOP still very much is about cutting taxes for the rich.  Big reason for difference comes to campaign finance as most conservative tax cuts to rich came before corporate donations banned and personal were not limited.  Ever since campaign donation limits brought in and corporate banned, tax cuts for high earners have been a lot less common.  US doesn't have those so have to keep donors happy.

Bigger problem with capital gains hike is more opposition from doctors and also fear may hit some cottage owners.  I get impression this was very much aimed at millennials and Gen Z where few will be impacted, but at end of day not sure how easily they can win back that cohort.  While Liberals trailing amongst all age groups, they are strongest amongst boomers not Gen Z and millennials.  I think latter is less loyal to any party and gets impatient a lot quicker so when they decide they've had enough pretty tough to win them back.  Off course Conservatives could discover to this group will turn on them pretty quickly if things don't improve.

[Agafin]

So based on latest polls, the conservative lead is actually now surging into the 20%+ range. This is downright terrible for liberals. A party polling as well as the conservatives so far away from an election always run the risk of "peaking" too early. But given that the conservatives' lead has only risen since it surged past the liberals, this might actually be a situation similar to the Ontario liberals in 2018: people are just sick of them no matter what happens. Almost as embarassing is the failure of the NDP to capitalize on the drop of the liberals. The ABC vote is dead.

[Oryxslayer]

So based on latest polls, the conservative lead is actually now surging into the 20%+ range. This is downright terrible for liberals. A party polling as well as the conservatives so far away from an election always run the risk of "peaking" too early. But given that the conservatives' lead has only risen since it surged past the liberals, this might actually be a situation similar to the Ontario liberals in 2018: people are just sick of them no matter what happens. Almost as embarassing is the failure of the NDP to capitalize on the drop of the liberals. The ABC vote is dead.

The comparison many people have made is to UK Labout. Both countries governing parties fumbled publicly when people were wary about them, and that pushed everyone over the edge. And in both situations,  time isn't helping the government,  it just looks like they continue to delay the inevitable as new issues come up they lack answers for.

However,  there is one crucial difference.  Starmers isn't exactly popular: he's the most popular major politician in the country,  but still noticeablely underwater. This is part of the reason why every Tory puff peice talks about the shacky nature of his coalition.  The same situation persists in Canada, but PP is actually liked by his voters. In some surveys he's even net positive approval, something even Singh lacks these days. Even in those he is still net negative,  PP gets positive scores from from a similar percentage to those voting Tory, suggesting that coalition is sturdy when the alternatives are vehimently disliked.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Regarding immigration, I'm having doubts the extent to which the Trudeau government is actually trying to reduce immigration numbers, as they have claimed.

According to the federal government, student visas for this year have been capped to 350,000 and they want to reduce the temporary resident population from 6.2% to 5% - the temporary resident population is expected to fall by 600,000 by 2027.

Some of these measures are already in effect - student visas for this year are capped, and starting May 1st, the percentage of temporary foreign workers in several industries is expected to fall. However, if you look at Canada's population clock, Canada's current population (as of May 6, 2024) is 41,159,406. According to StatsCan, our population on January 1, 2024 was 40,769,890. If you subtract the January 1st figure from the May 6th figure, you get 389,516. If you subtract natural population growth, which is about 2% of our growth, you get a population increase of about 380,000 during the last 4 months. This means that our population growth for this year, with only the current measures in place should be about 1,140,000.

1.1 million people? With some restrictions on student visas and TFWs already in effect? That was the same the population growth in 2022 and 2023 without any restrictions! I know these are not all the measures and more will be coming up in the fall, but do the current restrictions have no effect at all? With that level of population growth, how is the federal government expecting to bring it down to 5 percent of the total population in 3 years? Moreover, if you look at how our daily population growth since midnight (so in the last nearly 24 hours, as I'm posting this at 11 PM), we have had a population increase of 3,776. 3,776 people in one day? At that rate the total population growth for this year will be over 1.3 million people! Obviously, one day could be an outlier, so I'll take it with a grain of salt...but still, that's not a good sign!

The targets for temporary resident reduction is expected to be finalized by the feds and the provinces in the fall, but until then, our population will seem to continue growing at this rate, so how will the government reduce it to 5% of the population by 2027 when they will have added close to another million people by the end of the year? Will all these people lose their temporary resident status and be deported, or gain permanent residency? (If all these people end up getting PR that would be beyond absurd)

I'm really dumbfounded at what the government is trying to do. The current restrictions don't seem to have reduced population growth to any significant degree so far. I've seen various sources claim that population growth is expected to fall to below 1% in the coming years, but how is this going to happen if the current government is still adding people at record numbers? What will they do with all these 3+million temporary residents? Why isn't population growth falling if they expect to reduce the number of temporary residents in such a short time frame?

Something is very fishy here. Either the Liberals lied about their targets, planned them poorly and incompetently, are planning to give them PR when no one notices, or are planning a mass deportation of at least one million people once the provincial targets are finalized in the fall. But we need more information.

[Independents for Nihilism]

Regarding immigration, I'm having doubts the extent to which the Trudeau government is actually trying to reduce immigration numbers, as they have claimed.

According to the federal government, student visas for this year have been capped to 350,000 and they want to reduce the temporary resident population from 6.2% to 5% - the temporary resident population is expected to fall by 600,000 by 2027.

Some of these measures are already in effect - student visas for this year are capped, and starting May 1st, the percentage of temporary foreign workers in several industries is expected to fall. However, if you look at Canada's population clock, Canada's current population (as of May 6, 2024) is 41,159,406. According to StatsCan, our population on January 1, 2024 was 40,769,890. If you subtract the January 1st figure from the May 6th figure, you get 389,516. If you subtract natural population growth, which is about 2% of our growth, you get a population increase of about 380,000 during the last 4 months. This means that our population growth for this year, with only the current measures in place should be about 1,140,000.

1.1 million people? With some restrictions on student visas and TFWs already in effect? That was the same the population growth in 2022 and 2023 without any restrictions! I know these are not all the measures and more will be coming up in the fall, but do the current restrictions have no effect at all? With that level of population growth, how is the federal government expecting to bring it down to 5 percent of the total population in 3 years? Moreover, if you look at how our daily population growth since midnight (so in the last nearly 24 hours, as I'm posting this at 11 PM), we have had a population increase of 3,776. 3,776 people in one day? At that rate the total population growth for this year will be over 1.3 million people! Obviously, one day could be an outlier, so I'll take it with a grain of salt...but still, that's not a good sign!

The targets for temporary resident reduction is expected to be finalized by the feds and the provinces in the fall, but until then, our population will seem to continue growing at this rate, so how will the government reduce it to 5% of the population by 2027 when they will have added close to another million people by the end of the year? Will all these people lose their temporary resident status and be deported, or gain permanent residency? (If all these people end up getting PR that would be beyond absurd)

I'm really dumbfounded at what the government is trying to do. The current restrictions don't seem to have reduced population growth to any significant degree so far. I've seen various sources claim that population growth is expected to fall to below 1% in the coming years, but how is this going to happen if the current government is still adding people at record numbers? What will they do with all these 3+million temporary residents? Why isn't population growth falling if they expect to reduce the number of temporary residents in such a short time frame?

Something is very fishy here. Either the Liberals lied about their targets, planned them poorly and incompetently, are planning to give them PR when no one notices, or are planning a mass deportation of at least one million people once the provincial targets are finalized in the fall. But we need more information.

The easiest way for temporary population to be reduced relative to permanent population, is to increase the permanent population. I do not foresee a decrease in overall immigration, and just as you said, a chunk of that temporary population is likely to be fast-tracked to permanent residency too as a way to make the numbers look better.

Keep an eye out for a press release from IRCC on Friday. Marc Miller is meeting with all provincial immigration ministers to hash out a plan about immigration levels relative to labour market demand. It'll be curious to see what direction things go, or if the talks bear any fruit at all. Incidentally, Miller has also been called to testify before the HoC committee on immigration regarding LMIA fraud.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Regarding immigration, I'm having doubts the extent to which the Trudeau government is actually trying to reduce immigration numbers, as they have claimed.

According to the federal government, student visas for this year have been capped to 350,000 and they want to reduce the temporary resident population from 6.2% to 5% - the temporary resident population is expected to fall by 600,000 by 2027.

Some of these measures are already in effect - student visas for this year are capped, and starting May 1st, the percentage of temporary foreign workers in several industries is expected to fall. However, if you look at Canada's population clock, Canada's current population (as of May 6, 2024) is 41,159,406. According to StatsCan, our population on January 1, 2024 was 40,769,890. If you subtract the January 1st figure from the May 6th figure, you get 389,516. If you subtract natural population growth, which is about 2% of our growth, you get a population increase of about 380,000 during the last 4 months. This means that our population growth for this year, with only the current measures in place should be about 1,140,000.

1.1 million people? With some restrictions on student visas and TFWs already in effect? That was the same the population growth in 2022 and 2023 without any restrictions! I know these are not all the measures and more will be coming up in the fall, but do the current restrictions have no effect at all? With that level of population growth, how is the federal government expecting to bring it down to 5 percent of the total population in 3 years? Moreover, if you look at how our daily population growth since midnight (so in the last nearly 24 hours, as I'm posting this at 11 PM), we have had a population increase of 3,776. 3,776 people in one day? At that rate the total population growth for this year will be over 1.3 million people! Obviously, one day could be an outlier, so I'll take it with a grain of salt...but still, that's not a good sign!

The targets for temporary resident reduction is expected to be finalized by the feds and the provinces in the fall, but until then, our population will seem to continue growing at this rate, so how will the government reduce it to 5% of the population by 2027 when they will have added close to another million people by the end of the year? Will all these people lose their temporary resident status and be deported, or gain permanent residency? (If all these people end up getting PR that would be beyond absurd)

I'm really dumbfounded at what the government is trying to do. The current restrictions don't seem to have reduced population growth to any significant degree so far. I've seen various sources claim that population growth is expected to fall to below 1% in the coming years, but how is this going to happen if the current government is still adding people at record numbers? What will they do with all these 3+million temporary residents? Why isn't population growth falling if they expect to reduce the number of temporary residents in such a short time frame?

Something is very fishy here. Either the Liberals lied about their targets, planned them poorly and incompetently, are planning to give them PR when no one notices, or are planning a mass deportation of at least one million people once the provincial targets are finalized in the fall. But we need more information.

The easiest way for temporary population to be reduced relative to permanent population, is to increase the permanent population. I do not foresee a decrease in overall immigration, and just as you said, a chunk of that temporary population is likely to be fast-tracked to permanent residency too as a way to make the numbers look better.

Keep an eye out for a press release from IRCC on Friday. Marc Miller is meeting with all provincial immigration ministers to hash out a plan about immigration levels relative to labour market demand. It'll be curious to see what direction things go, or if the talks bear any fruit at all. Incidentally, Miller has also been called to testify before the HoC committee on immigration regarding LMIA fraud.

What percentage of them will be given permanent residency though?

If you look at past data, historically on 30 to 35 percent of temporary residents qualify for PR (it is a points system for PR so you do need some skills/qualifications and language ability, it's not just a free-for-all). We only have 500,000 spots for permanent residency per year, and not all of these are for people with temporary visas, so how are we going to give all these people PR? We have 2.7 million temporary residents, will the government just keep renewing their visas until they all qualify for PR? That would be insane and unfeasible.

[Upper Canada Tory]

The current immigration situation is very quickly turning into an emergency. Trudeau and his enablers the NDP think they can let in as many people as possible when no one's looking while trying to delay the reduction for as long as they can (which is why he is stalling until the fall to agree to the targets for the provinces).

Regardless of whether you are on the left or the right you should be concerned about this. With their immigration policy, the Liberals and the NDP are very quickly sowing the seeds in Canada for a permanent decline in living standards and long-term social tension and conflict. If they want to prevent this from happening, and boost their support in the polls at least to the extent that they still can, they have to reverse their immigration policy immediately. Not in a few months when they 'finalize the targets with the provinces' or whatever, but immediately. And when I say reverse immigration policy, I mean reduce both permanent and temporary residents to sustainable levels.

If the immigration situation isn't solved like, now, Canada will quickly develop a reactionary, far-right anti-immigration movement that may dominate the country over time, and at some point it will be impossible to reverse that trend. I don't think anyone wants that, because for the most part there has been a consensus that immigration has been a net positive for the country (and it's true, it has), but by completely ruining Canada's immigration system within a short period of time, the Liberals and the NDP are basically handing over the narrative to the hardline anti-immigration crowd.

What's shocking to me is that lefties in Canada don't even seem to care that much what's happening with immigration. Instead they seem to spend all their time dunking on Poilievre while ignoring the reasons why the Liberals and NDP might have such low support in the first place (and are seriously damaging the country).

Canada used to do immigration mostly right until 3 to 5 years ago. Why can't we go back to the old-school points-based system immigration? Does no one on the left notice the difference between how immigration is impacting life in Canada and attitudes toward it compared to how it was 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago?

I'll be honest, I also have to hold Poilievre accountable here. As others like laddicus finch have mentioned, he does not do a good enough job holding the government to account for the immigration crisis. We're also supposed to take his word for it that 18 months from now when he takes office he will fix the immigration issue?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The current immigration situation is very quickly turning into an emergency. Trudeau and his enablers the NDP think they can let in as many people as possible when no one's looking while trying to delay the reduction for as long as they can (which is why he is stalling until the fall to agree to the targets for the provinces).

Regardless of whether you are on the left or the right you should be concerned about this. With their immigration policy, the Liberals and the NDP are very quickly sowing the seeds in Canada for a permanent decline in living standards and long-term social tension and conflict. If they want to prevent this from happening, and boost their support in the polls at least to the extent that they still can, they have to reverse their immigration policy immediately. Not in a few months when they 'finalize the targets with the provinces' or whatever, but immediately. And when I say reverse immigration policy, I mean reduce both permanent and temporary residents to sustainable levels.

If the immigration situation isn't solved like, now, Canada will quickly develop a reactionary, far-right anti-immigration movement that may dominate the country over time, and at some point it will be impossible to reverse that trend. I don't think anyone wants that, because for the most part there has been a consensus that immigration has been a net positive for the country (and it's true, it has), but by completely ruining Canada's immigration system within a short period of time, the Liberals and the NDP are basically handing over the narrative to the hardline anti-immigration crowd.

What's shocking to me is that lefties in Canada don't even seem to care that much what's happening with immigration. Instead they seem to spend all their time dunking on Poilievre while ignoring the reasons why the Liberals and NDP might have such low support in the first place (and are seriously damaging the country).

Canada used to do immigration mostly right until 3 to 5 years ago. Why can't we go back to the old-school points-based system immigration? Does no one on the left notice the difference between how immigration is impacting life in Canada and attitudes toward it compared to how it was 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago?

I'll be honest, I also have to hold Poilievre accountable here. As others like laddicus finch have mentioned, he does not do a good enough job holding the government to account for the immigration crisis. We're also supposed to take his word for it that 18 months from now when he takes office he will fix the immigration issue?

To be fair, Canada still has a points-based immigration system. That wasn't the only form of immigration under Harper (we still had family reunification, refugees, students, TFWs etc), and it's not like Trudeau has repealed the point system either. Although it's undeniable that there has been a shift away from the former to the latter.

Honestly, as far as the politics of it goes, it's all about numbers. Indian students have gotten the short end of this immigration debate (and not just the debate, I would argue outcomes have been worst for them too), but in reality I don't think it's so much about what kind of immigration, although perhaps it should be, it really is the numbers. People complain about them, sure, but if the government went back to 250k/year but with an immigration mix that's tilted towards students/TFWs/reunification/refugees rather than points-based, nobody would notice or care. It would still be bad, but outside of Conservative think tank types, it wouldn't be an issue. It's the fact that numbers are so high, and people notice just how high they are, that immigration is an issue.

Underlying this though is that I really think the patriotic myth (held by liberals) about the Canadian middle class being this lovely liberal group of people is unraveling. It is this class of people that massively supported a government that prioritized your typical centre-left priorities such as climate action, high immigration, drug decriminalization, and nebulous promises of more investment in public services. But clearly, all four of those priorities are now the root of a backlash by the very same group of people, because what underpins Canadian liberalism is that we're a stable, prosperous country with a strong market economy, where you don't have to be anything special in order to live a good life. When that economy falters, then we see all those priorities falling to the wayside, and people who voted for Trudeau just three years ago are now siding with a guy who wants to go scorched earth on the Liberal Party's legacy.

If the Liberals can refocus and convince the Canadian middle class that they'll (at least try to) restore their quality of life expectations, I don't think immigration will be a big issue anymore. Nor will the carbon tax, decriminalization, the budget deficit, or really any issue that is plaguing the Liberals. But it may be too late to re-establish that trust.

As for Poilievre and immigration, I've been critical of his softness before, but I've made peace with "we'll have immigration in line with our needs", with the understanding that if Poilievre doesn't reduce rates further than Trudeau has already scaled it back, his base will revolt.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

More generally though I wonder if the broad centre-left in the western world will start moderating on immigration rates because it's proving to be a real vote-loser. Sweden basically used to never have right-wing governments, for most of its postwar history it was governed by Social Democrats. At most you'd have a coalition led by a standard CDU-type conservative party, with its more conservative impulses moderated by centrist partners. This used to be a testament to the supposedly inherent progressivism of Swedes. But right now, Sweden is governed by a distinctly right-wing coalition that includes basically their PPC, which also happens to be the second largest party in parliament. And their rise was almost entirely to do with Sweden's high immigration rates.

Sweden is just one example, but you can take basically any European country and the same pattern emerges. In the states, I would argue that immigration is the #1 vote-winner for Trump, and should he win this November that will be why. Biden's hands are tied, even using the word "illegal" in his SOTU speech pissed off a lot of the Democrats' base. In the UK, of course, immigration was the main reason behind a Brexit vote that has objectively had awful outcomes for Britain. And in Canada, although Poilievre is significantly less anti-immigration compared to European right-wingers or Trump (it really isn't even a part of his pitch), there's no doubt that Liberal immigration policy has turned off a lot of former LPC voters.

So at some point, progressives will get the message, right? This is not a hill worth dying on. You don't have to go racist or full on close the borders like some right-wingers do, it's not one or the other. But why exactly must "high immigration" be such a key part of the modern left, when clearly all it does is give easy wins to the right?

[lfromnj]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/jamie-sarkonak-canadas-criminal-sentencing-discounts-for-non-citizens-are-unfair/ar-BB1lTuhF

Meanwhile in Canada.

Singh was found guilty of sexual assault at trial. But he wasn’t convicted. Instead, in January, he was given a discharge by Justice A. J. Brown. The judge explained that a conviction would automatically result in deportation without a right to appeal, while a discharge wouldn’t generate a permanent criminal record and would preserve Singh’s right to appeal his deportation.

The judge didn’t believe that a conviction was in the public interest, and, “in consideration of the devastating collateral immigration consequences to recording a conviction,” he concluded that Singh should be discharged with three years of probation.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Underlying this though is that I really think the patriotic myth (held by liberals) about the Canadian middle class being this lovely liberal group of people is unraveling. It is this class of people that massively supported a government that prioritized your typical centre-left priorities such as climate action, high immigration, drug decriminalization, and nebulous promises of more investment in public services. But clearly, all four of those priorities are now the root of a backlash by the very same group of people, because what underpins Canadian liberalism is that we're a stable, prosperous country with a strong market economy, where you don't have to be anything special in order to live a good life. When that economy falters, then we see all those priorities falling to the wayside, and people who voted for Trudeau just three years ago are now siding with a guy who wants to go scorched earth on the Liberal Party's legacy.

I agree with this point, but I also don't think the Canadian middle class was ever particularly that liberal. It was probably moderately liberal on average, but had a mix of different views and stances.

The 'super liberal' Canadian middle class also elected Harper, who was probably the closest thing the Western world had to a 'harsh neoconservative' between 2009 and 2015 (since Obama was in charge of the US at the time and many countries in Europe either had much more moderate conservatives like Cameron and Merkel or outright leftists like Hollande). I actually think Canadian middle class voters are cross between moderate liberals and swing voters.

However, you're right that Trudeau's 2015 election victory promoted the idea that Canadians were these uniquely progressive people. With that said I think that was a short-lived misconception, because that perception fell apart over time as the electorate began to get more and more angry with Trudeau. However, most recently, due to the faltering economy, as you said, that misconception has fallen apart completely, at the seams.

[Upper Canada Tory]

The current immigration situation is very quickly turning into an emergency. Trudeau and his enablers the NDP think they can let in as many people as possible when no one's looking while trying to delay the reduction for as long as they can (which is why he is stalling until the fall to agree to the targets for the provinces).

Regardless of whether you are on the left or the right you should be concerned about this. With their immigration policy, the Liberals and the NDP are very quickly sowing the seeds in Canada for a permanent decline in living standards and long-term social tension and conflict. If they want to prevent this from happening, and boost their support in the polls at least to the extent that they still can, they have to reverse their immigration policy immediately. Not in a few months when they 'finalize the targets with the provinces' or whatever, but immediately. And when I say reverse immigration policy, I mean reduce both permanent and temporary residents to sustainable levels.

If the immigration situation isn't solved like, now, Canada will quickly develop a reactionary, far-right anti-immigration movement that may dominate the country over time, and at some point it will be impossible to reverse that trend. I don't think anyone wants that, because for the most part there has been a consensus that immigration has been a net positive for the country (and it's true, it has), but by completely ruining Canada's immigration system within a short period of time, the Liberals and the NDP are basically handing over the narrative to the hardline anti-immigration crowd.

What's shocking to me is that lefties in Canada don't even seem to care that much what's happening with immigration. Instead they seem to spend all their time dunking on Poilievre while ignoring the reasons why the Liberals and NDP might have such low support in the first place (and are seriously damaging the country).

Canada used to do immigration mostly right until 3 to 5 years ago. Why can't we go back to the old-school points-based system immigration? Does no one on the left notice the difference between how immigration is impacting life in Canada and attitudes toward it compared to how it was 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago?

I'll be honest, I also have to hold Poilievre accountable here. As others like laddicus finch have mentioned, he does not do a good enough job holding the government to account for the immigration crisis. We're also supposed to take his word for it that 18 months from now when he takes office he will fix the immigration issue?

To be fair, Canada still has a points-based immigration system. That wasn't the only form of immigration under Harper (we still had family reunification, refugees, students, TFWs etc), and it's not like Trudeau has repealed the point system either. Although it's undeniable that there has been a shift away from the former to the latter.

Honestly, as far as the politics of it goes, it's all about numbers. Indian students have gotten the short end of this immigration debate (and not just the debate, I would argue outcomes have been worst for them too), but in reality I don't think it's so much about what kind of immigration, although perhaps it should be, it really is the numbers. People complain about them, sure, but if the government went back to 250k/year but with an immigration mix that's tilted towards students/TFWs/reunification/refugees rather than points-based, nobody would notice or care. It would still be bad, but outside of Conservative think tank types, it wouldn't be an issue. It's the fact that numbers are so high, and people notice just how high they are, that immigration is an issue.

Underlying this though is that I really think the patriotic myth (held by liberals) about the Canadian middle class being this lovely liberal group of people is unraveling. It is this class of people that massively supported a government that prioritized your typical centre-left priorities such as climate action, high immigration, drug decriminalization, and nebulous promises of more investment in public services. But clearly, all four of those priorities are now the root of a backlash by the very same group of people, because what underpins Canadian liberalism is that we're a stable, prosperous country with a strong market economy, where you don't have to be anything special in order to live a good life. When that economy falters, then we see all those priorities falling to the wayside, and people who voted for Trudeau just three years ago are now siding with a guy who wants to go scorched earth on the Liberal Party's legacy.

If the Liberals can refocus and convince the Canadian middle class that they'll (at least try to) restore their quality of life expectations, I don't think immigration will be a big issue anymore. Nor will the carbon tax, decriminalization, the budget deficit, or really any issue that is plaguing the Liberals. But it may be too late to re-establish that trust.

As for Poilievre and immigration, I've been critical of his softness before, but I've made peace with "we'll have immigration in line with our needs", with the understanding that if Poilievre doesn't reduce rates further than Trudeau has already scaled it back, his base will revolt.

Firstly, Canada still has points-based immigration, but if you look at the CRS score for draws since 2015, the standards for new prospective permanent residents has declined. Secondly, we also have nearly 3 million temporary residents. Canada's foreign-born population was 8 million in 2021, and 50% to 70% of those people came through the points system, so the temporary residents will soon outnumber the high skilled workers in the country. I think many of the temporary residents won't be deported, so a good percentage of them will probably get permanent residency, and this likely means that there will be detrimental social and economic effects for the country. The Liberals or the future Poilievre government could pleasantly surprise me and deport most of them while only keeping the high-skilled ones - but to be honest, I doubt it.

I disagree that nobody would care if we reduced numbers to 250k but it was tfws and students. Back when we had much lower numbers than now, we still had one of the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. Yet, immigration was less controversial in Canada than in other places. That's because of the points system. This also shows up in polls - people want to continue taking in high skilled workers but reduce the number of tfws/student visas.

Either way, regardless of if they're skilled workers, student visas, tfws or family reunification, 1 million people immigrating to the country is still unsustainable for obvious reasons. The Trudeau government has postponed making official targets until September, which means we're getting 800k new residents minimum this year, and that's the best-case scenario. Will our faltering economy and overwhelmed infrastructure/social services be able to handle that? I don't think so.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Justin Trudeau needs to resign. Over many things, but especially the student visa/immigration issue. This is unacceptable. It's time for some accountability.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Justin Trudeau needs to resign. Over many things, but especially the student visa/immigration issue. This is unacceptable. It's time for some accountability.

Who would take over? Every Liberal M.P is ultimately complicit. If the Liberals are going to lose over this (or whatever else) it should be with the guy who *was* (edit) in charge the whole time.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Justin Trudeau needs to resign. Over many things, but especially the student visa/immigration issue. This is unacceptable. It's time for some accountability.

Who would take over? Every Liberal M.P is ultimately complicit. If the Liberals are going to lose over this (or whatever else) it should be with the guy who in charge the whole time.

Literally anyone who is competent enough to fix the immigration system.

Or we should have an election to elect a new government.

Either way this cannot go on any longer.

[Upper Canada Tory]

At this point, the issue with letting it go that the Trudeau government messed up immigration so badly is simply the fact of how important immigration is to Canada's social fabric.

We aren't some European country that takes in neglible amounts of immigrants per year - our government wants Canada to take in relatively large numbers of immigrants, in theory to meet economic needs. Now, this is fine on its own, but if you want a country to take in large numbers of immigrants annually, you need to make sure you have a top-notch immigration system, or else there will be problems. We used to have a top-notch immigration system until Justin Trudeau's government ruined the entire damn thing.

Trudeau's government can't have it both ways. He can't say he wants immigration to be an important part of Canada's social fabric and then mismanage the policy to collosal proportions.

This isn't just about political calculations and whether or not the Liberals lose the next election - it's about whether the Canadian government, regardless of party, has any credibility on the immigration file in the future.

Hopefully there is a potential Liberal leader that can properly manage immigration (and other issues) that can replace Trudeau until the next election. If not, let's have an election now. We are doomed if we have another year of this level of immigration mismanagement.

Who will be the million people allowed into the country this year? How many will defraud their way into a visa? How many will end up killing one of our citizens? Nobody knows.