Dan416
Senior Member
When all the other party leaders have seen the names but he hasn't, it's extremely suspicious, especially he says "tell us the names". He could easily find out the names himself if he got the clearance.
|
|
|
PM Justin Trudeau's Canada
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
picard102
Senior Member
Yeah PP is playing to his low information voter base, hoping they are not smart enough to put two and two together.
afransen
Senior Member
He's more of an actor than JT. He knows that the government won't release the names for the reasons Keith mentioned. He's engaging in theatre. He wants to criticize the government on the subject and have plausible deniability by not getting briefed. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Honestly, if I was Trudeau, I'd call his bluff. The PM has the right as the Chief Executive to declassify. The only thing he can't risk is Five Eyes sourcing. And possibly ongoing collection and counterintelligence efforts.
But let's be honest here. All three national parties have names on that list. Trudeau knows any release means all the names implicated. That includes Liberals and Dippers. No way Singh let's that go. It would precipitate an election immediately.
Also, it gets very complicated when using intelligence to effectively libel somebody. I have zero idea how that would work in court when a bunch of these MPs sue and then we need cleared judges and lawyers to view possibly caveated (that's beyond Top Secret) evidence to then determine if the accusations are sufficiently merited. There's a reason so much of the intelligence community has so many lawyers.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Paywall free: https://archive.is/uElqD
Here’s why we really blame the boomers for everything
It's because we always blame everybody for everything — except ourselves.www.thestar.com
Opinion piece to deflect? Kinda sad how so many can deny what are significant statistical trends at this point, even while they fret about their own kids and grandkids prospects.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Feds are making another modest, belated, incremental (But positive) change to the TFW program.
www.thestar.com
Currently, the rules in the high-wage stream allow companies to being in a TFW provided they pay them at least that province's median hourly wage. Which, in Ontario is $29 per hour.
As of November 8th, 2024, new/renewed permits will require that a wage 20% greater than the provincial median hourly number be paid to the TFW. Which in Ontario will bring that to ~$34 per hour.
****
Aside from omitting action on the low-wage stream, the above highlights the critical problem of the Toronto/Vancouver anomalies.
Toronto's hourly median wage is $37 per hour. So, after the change, companies will still be able to bring people in for less than the median hourly wage in this City.
I think if the program singled out the GTA, and then applied the same formula (median +20%) that would seem substantially more reasonable ($44.40 per hour)
Minimum wage to hire higher-paid temporary foreign workers set to increase
As with previous changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker program, the government’s goal is to encourage employers to hire more Canadian workers.
www.thestar.com
Currently, the rules in the high-wage stream allow companies to being in a TFW provided they pay them at least that province's median hourly wage. Which, in Ontario is $29 per hour.
As of November 8th, 2024, new/renewed permits will require that a wage 20% greater than the provincial median hourly number be paid to the TFW. Which in Ontario will bring that to ~$34 per hour.
****
Aside from omitting action on the low-wage stream, the above highlights the critical problem of the Toronto/Vancouver anomalies.
Toronto's hourly median wage is $37 per hour. So, after the change, companies will still be able to bring people in for less than the median hourly wage in this City.
I think if the program singled out the GTA, and then applied the same formula (median +20%) that would seem substantially more reasonable ($44.40 per hour)
Northern Light
Superstar
Tony Keller, whose published columns in the Globe and Mail were and are at the forefront of efforts to bust the Feds chops for a program run amok has another solid effort out:
www.theglobeandmail.com
In the column he basically argues that its good news that we're finally cutting back on foreign student VISAs with 45% fewer issued this September vs last.
But the program remains to illogical and too scattershot.
He argues that Canada wants to bring in foreign students for two reasons, money (cash) and immigration.
He elaborates on the latter first, noting that we have empirical studies showing that graduates of the University of Waterloo are among the country's highest earners and most entrepreneurial; yet Waterloo had a fairly low foreign student intake, while Congestoga College across town took in far more students for low-rent, run-of-the-mill programs for dime-a-dozen jobs.
From there, he points out, that as a country we also wanted immigrants to foot premium tuition bills that help subsidize our post-secondary system, and he compares the international student tuition of Waterloo to Congestoga and notes tuition at the former brought in 4x in cash what the latter did.........
He rightly ridicules the government for reverse-moneyballing, by which he means, they managed not merely not to follow the money, but to run away from it. Bringing in more immigrants to fill low-skill jobs with fictional labour shortages, paying the lowest possible tuition, instead of poaching 1/4 as many students at 4x the tuition, with vastly higher post-graduate earnings and letting that drive the country forward.
Spot on.
There was a win-win to be had here, and instead we achieved a lose-lose, whose sole beneficiary, other than immigration consultants and career colleges was the very narrow, short-term interest of exploitive, big business. But then let's add, its not even in their interest in the medium term, as this has resulted in deferred investments in productivity which adversely affect the long-term competitiveness of said operations.
Opinion: It’s time to Moneyball the immigration system
We need to make like the heroes of Michael Lewis’s 2003 book, who stopped managing by gut, and started rigorously following the data
www.theglobeandmail.com
In the column he basically argues that its good news that we're finally cutting back on foreign student VISAs with 45% fewer issued this September vs last.
But the program remains to illogical and too scattershot.
He argues that Canada wants to bring in foreign students for two reasons, money (cash) and immigration.
He elaborates on the latter first, noting that we have empirical studies showing that graduates of the University of Waterloo are among the country's highest earners and most entrepreneurial; yet Waterloo had a fairly low foreign student intake, while Congestoga College across town took in far more students for low-rent, run-of-the-mill programs for dime-a-dozen jobs.
From there, he points out, that as a country we also wanted immigrants to foot premium tuition bills that help subsidize our post-secondary system, and he compares the international student tuition of Waterloo to Congestoga and notes tuition at the former brought in 4x in cash what the latter did.........
He rightly ridicules the government for reverse-moneyballing, by which he means, they managed not merely not to follow the money, but to run away from it. Bringing in more immigrants to fill low-skill jobs with fictional labour shortages, paying the lowest possible tuition, instead of poaching 1/4 as many students at 4x the tuition, with vastly higher post-graduate earnings and letting that drive the country forward.
Spot on.
There was a win-win to be had here, and instead we achieved a lose-lose, whose sole beneficiary, other than immigration consultants and career colleges was the very narrow, short-term interest of exploitive, big business. But then let's add, its not even in their interest in the medium term, as this has resulted in deferred investments in productivity which adversely affect the long-term competitiveness of said operations.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
This is insufficient. It's a still a recipe for wage suppression. The comparison should not be to local median wage. It should be to the wage in that industry or employment field. As it stands, this rule would allow companies to bring in Data Scientists and Aerospace Engineers to Ontario for $68k per year. And the Liberals wonder why they are down 20 points in the polls.
There's several underlying attitudes and causes in government that led to this outcome.
1) "All immigration is good." I'm not sure if the Liberals believed this deep down or it's something they told themselves to justify their policies. But it's something they espoused. And it is a viewpoint that basically ruled out any criticism of immigration policies.
2) "Growth is free." Not a surprise that a government full of Wynne and McGuinty acolytes who pushed the "Growth pays for growth" scam provincially would nationalize that idea with immigration. They didn't pay for sufficient infrastructure in Ontario. And they're basically doing the same thing nationally.
3) Ideology Uber Alles. They went from evidence based decision-making to ignoring the advice of the public service pretty quickly. Just like the Harper Conservatives. Once the bureaucrats started turning in reports saying immigration was too high, all of a sudden the Public Service was just giving opinions. Aside from not listening to advice, there was also a weird element of near-religiosity. A faith that their ideology would just work out irrespective of facts.
Northern Light
Superstar
On the heels of the above news comes a less expected move, actually cutting the target number of permanent immigrants in 2025, 2026 and 2027.
www.thestar.com
The target had been announced as 500,000 for each of 2025 and 2026.
The new targets are:
2025: 395,000
2026: 380,000
2027: 365,000
The first number is still 0.9% of population, above our long term growth trend of 0.7% for the last 2 decades or so.
By the time you get to the third year, the number will be dependent on how much we have cut the 'temporary' population of Canada.
For argument's sake, leaving that number alone, the number would drop to 0.85%
While the revised targets are considerable improved, they are not sufficient to control housing costs (and indeed lower them) without achieving an absolute reduction in the number of temporary residents, and I would suggest a reduction greater than the permanent growth, given the anemic state of current housing starts.
If we can manage that........the situation will approve materially, though not completely by any means, by end of 2027.
Canada will slash 2025 target for permanent residents by 21 per cent
The shocking move to be announced by Immigration Minister Marc Miller in his three-year plan follows years of increases.
www.thestar.com
The target had been announced as 500,000 for each of 2025 and 2026.
The new targets are:
2025: 395,000
2026: 380,000
2027: 365,000
The first number is still 0.9% of population, above our long term growth trend of 0.7% for the last 2 decades or so.
By the time you get to the third year, the number will be dependent on how much we have cut the 'temporary' population of Canada.
For argument's sake, leaving that number alone, the number would drop to 0.85%
While the revised targets are considerable improved, they are not sufficient to control housing costs (and indeed lower them) without achieving an absolute reduction in the number of temporary residents, and I would suggest a reduction greater than the permanent growth, given the anemic state of current housing starts.
If we can manage that........the situation will approve materially, though not completely by any means, by end of 2027.
picard102
Senior Member
Investors, not immigrants, are fuelling the housing crisis ⋆ The Breach
Poilievreâs rhetoric about immigrants causing Canadaâs housing crisis doesnât track
breachmedia.ca
Northern Light
Superstar
Investors, not immigrants, are fuelling the housing crisis ⋆ The Breach
Poilievreâs rhetoric about immigrants causing Canadaâs housing crisis doesnât track
While this piece is entirely correct that investor-ownership of real estate, particularly in the new condo market has a had a huge role in what gets built, at what price point, and has had an out-sized role in the construction of 'micro units' that most of us would consider unlivable..........
It regrettably includes complete and utter nonsense as well, which detracts from those legitimate arguments.
To wit:
Say what? There is no connection between demand and supply? None? Ok then......
****
If you follow the links in the article itself, highlighted in red above..........you actually go to other opinion pieces by the same media outlet. I'm going to put out there that citing yourself as a source is not good journalistic rigour.
But.... I did see a chart noting that immigration growth in several cities was low (Red Deer, AB, Saskatoon etc.) yet rent increases were high.
Funny thing though......I went and looked at the rental vacancy rates, and they've plummeted.
Unless there's a been a mass demolition of rental units, this is almost certainly the result of demand growth.
Lets took at Red Deer, where 'The Breach' suggests there was 'immigration' of 1.2% growth and yet rent spiked 35%.......
Ahem:
So the growth in population is 3x larger than implied by the author. That looks bad.......
****
Really a shame, there are absolutely legitimate points about the negative role of financialization of housing in the piece, as well as the need for for more social housing. But they will get demolished by anyone who cares to because the piece has seriously skewed the facts in a way that is misleading.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
As its a federal matter, I will note that The Star has piece out outlining a recent Tax Court ruling that if one regularly rents out their residence as a short-term rental, is subject to 13%HST payable by the owner on sale.
Note that a typical owner-occupied unit would be exempt.
www.thestar.com
By all accounts this is not a new rule, but one that may not have been clear to many and will now be clearer and perhaps discourage some owners from being regular short-term renters.
Note that a typical owner-occupied unit would be exempt.
Bob Aaron: Taxpayers who sell or who have sold Airbnb units are now on notice: The CRA is watching
A recent ruling serves as a warning to taxpayers to obtain sophisticated tax advice if they plan on changing property use from tax-exempt long-term rentals to taxable short-term rentals like
www.thestar.com
By all accounts this is not a new rule, but one that may not have been clear to many and will now be clearer and perhaps discourage some owners from being regular short-term renters.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
The Feds also out today announcing the previously leaked cut in immigration numbers and suggesting that this result in easing the housing crisis.....
So yeah, about that...............
Swell.
But.....the Minister is out suggesting that this renders unnecessary the construction of 670,000 housing units.............
Ahem.
To arrive at that number he is using a 'savings' from what would have been necessary had we continued on our previous pace of population growth.
The announced targets will, potentially reduce Canada's total population by 0.2% by the end of 2026/early 2027.
So, if you run that number, 0.2% of ~42 million people is 84,000 people, who on average would occupy ~34,000 units.......that does not reduce the need by 670,000!
It should, however, free up about 34,000 existing units, which is good news, and should have a suppressive effect on rents/ownership prices.
But to arrive at a workable number, we really need deeper cuts, that last longer.
A reduction in population of 1.5% over 5 years would likely bring the market somewhere close to balance.
That would mean 630,000 fewer of us, freeing up 250,000 homes.
To be clear, that's not enough to address the country's needs unless we also:
a) Boost incomes for low, lower-middle, and middle income earning households.
b) Goose the housing supply by close to 1M units over 5 years.
So yeah, about that...............
Swell.
But.....the Minister is out suggesting that this renders unnecessary the construction of 670,000 housing units.............
Ahem.
To arrive at that number he is using a 'savings' from what would have been necessary had we continued on our previous pace of population growth.
The announced targets will, potentially reduce Canada's total population by 0.2% by the end of 2026/early 2027.
So, if you run that number, 0.2% of ~42 million people is 84,000 people, who on average would occupy ~34,000 units.......that does not reduce the need by 670,000!
It should, however, free up about 34,000 existing units, which is good news, and should have a suppressive effect on rents/ownership prices.
But to arrive at a workable number, we really need deeper cuts, that last longer.
A reduction in population of 1.5% over 5 years would likely bring the market somewhere close to balance.
That would mean 630,000 fewer of us, freeing up 250,000 homes.
To be clear, that's not enough to address the country's needs unless we also:
a) Boost incomes for low, lower-middle, and middle income earning households.
b) Goose the housing supply by close to 1M units over 5 years.
Last edited:
christiesplits
Senior Member
I expect to see a lot of backlash from industry groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and Restaurants Canada.
Northern Light
Superstar
I believe the turn of phrase that comes to mind is ........'Cry me a River'
Canadian business is among the least innovative and productive in the OECD.
A function of being risk averse, coddled and saddled with oligopolies, too many internal trade barriers..........but above all else, too much cheap labour.
Nothing will drive someone who is well off to invest in productivity faster than seeing employee pay rise by 1/3.
*****
As I noted above, I don't feel we've gone far enough yet; I want the low-wage stream of TFWs shut down entirely outside of agriculture.
I frankly would love to do this in agriculture as well, but we face the unfortunate reality that our principle agricultural export market and competitor to the south widely uses 'illegal' labour in sometimes terrible conditions, which leaves us limited scope to do better in the near term.
Though I think we will be able to compete better as much of California and the U.S. south-west find that water scarcity and water price drive up their costs and drive down their output in the next few years.
Last edited: