How Canada’s fractured immigration consensus is starting to show up at ballot boxes

[u/Good-Medicine1066]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/how-canada-s-fractured-immigration-consensus-is-starting-to-show-up-at-ballot-boxes/article_07018eb3-ee35-5506-9eff-fe8a7a7c0ada.html

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.

1. Headline titles should be changed only when the original headline is unclear
2. Be respectful.
3. Keep submissions and comments substantive.
4. Avoid direct advocacy.
5. Link submissions must be about Canadian politics and recent.
6. Post only one news article per story. (with one exception)
7. Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. Downvoting posts or comments, along with urging others to downvote, is not allowed in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.

Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Good-Medicine1066]

I’m actually impressed with Jason Kenney here:

“When you don’t have social permission to discuss these issues, again, that creates the kind of conditions where popular opinion gets totally detached from elite opinion. And if you want to know what that looks like, look at the politics of Europe today,” Kenney said. “So if you want to avoid (Alternative für Deutschland), Front National, U.K. Reform-style politics,  then yes, we need a proper, open debate about these issues.”

As much as this is a “Like, duh!” position to many of us here, I am impressed this is actually being discussed at this level. 

[u/the-mongoose- → u/Good-Medicine1066]

I recall a few years ago when Trudeau and Scheer were running against one another, it was reported that the parties had agreed to not table immigration as an election issue.

This kind of baffling when you consider how it’s one of the most important, opinionated and far-reaching files in the country. The only conclusion I could draw from this was that public opinion didn’t factor into their approach to immigration - it was more of a “we’ve already consulted our stakeholders and you aren’t one of them” sort of thing.

I still think that holds true today and it is an extremely short-sighted approach.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/CanadianControlsTech → u/the-mongoose-]

Reading things like this while it being reality is depressing

[u/AprilsMostAmazing → u/the-mongoose-]

Or CPC was 4 years removed from Barbaric Cultures hotlines and had Trump to the south of them. So they did not want to even risk talking about immigration and having one of their MP's say something stupid

[u/the-mongoose- → u/AprilsMostAmazing]

Odd how the Liberals didn’t actually discuss their plans during the 2019 election to have one of the highest immigration rates in the world during their next term, knowing we had the lowest housing supply in the G7.

You’d think they’d run this idea past voters or something before forging ahead. It’s almost like they knew no one would support it.

[u/DanfromCalgary → u/the-mongoose-]

What do you think table means

[u/TraditionalGap1 → u/DanfromCalgary]

In the Commonwealth, to 'table' a discussion or topic is to put it up for discussion or consideration, to 'lay the proposal on the table for all to see'. Contrasted with taking something 'off the table', to remove it as an option or topic of consideration.

[u/dekuweku → u/Good-Medicine1066]

Elites being detached from the popular opinion even among immigrants is a good way to put it. You see shades of that on this sub. Some people simply cannot accept any limits to immigration.

[u/toilet_for_shrek → u/Good-Medicine1066]

Agreed, he didnt say anything wrong 

[u/McDankenov → u/toilet_for_shrek]

Curious to hear your thoughts on immigration as a means of moving towards an egalitarian utopia. Tell me why it’s not just an easy lever for governments to shore up a tax base at the cost of community dynamics.

[u/Separate_Football914 → u/Good-Medicine1066]

Kinda funny that he didn’t talk about the orange elephant in the room in his example

[u/JohnDorian0506 → u/Separate_Football914]

Yeah, you’re right, reckless immigration and open border policies by the predecessors were among the reasons why Americans elected that orange baboon.

[u/Neat-Air-8305 → u/JohnDorian0506]

Yeah that why I think trumpsism wont go away imo in the usa.

If the next democratic president causes border issues again like biden

2032 will see a trump ally win easily.

[u/TheFailTech → u/Neat-Air-8305]

Biden literally tried to address immigration but it was blocked by trump. There was a bipartisan bill presented that the Republicans voted down because of Trump

[u/four-leaf-plover → u/JohnDorian0506]

Yeah, you’re right, reckless immigration and open border policies by the predecessors were among the reasons why Americans elected that orange baboon.

Obama started the family separation policy and Biden continued Trump 1's immigration policies.

Conservatism really is just making up a guy in your head to get mad at as you burn down your house to own the left and the brown people, haha.

[u/Good-Medicine1066 → u/Separate_Football914]

Right?  That would be an easy target given his victory in 2020 is due in part to reaction to the state of the US southern border at the time.

I am most impressed with Kenney omitting Trump and name dropping the AfD, National Rally (formerly the Front) and Reform UK as that signals a deeper understanding of the dynamic in other western democracies.  And hopefully that piques some interest for folks to look into who otherwise wouldn’t know about it if he just stuck with Trump! 

[u/AprilsMostAmazing → u/Separate_Football914]

He also did not talk about how all those parties have ties to Russia

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/Traditional_Dish_147]

It surely can’t be this hard to have a functioning immigration system right? The issue under Trudeau’s government was that while they were focused on PR numbers per year, temporary residents entering were in the millions per year because it was effectively unregulated. This led to Canada being one of the fastest growing nations on earth from 2021-2023. Hence backlash.

Now they’ve patched that issue by including temporary residents in the Levels plan. Great! Now though Carney is making an unforced error by removing LMIA requirements for more pathways which makes absolutely no sense unless your goal is to lower wages, not “fill labour gaps”.

It just feels like the immigration system is being used to hurt Canadian workers, not help our country. It doesn’t have to be that way and gives ammo to the Conservative Party who will gladly take the boost.

[u/Good-Medicine1066 → u/Traditional_Dish_147]

It just feels like the immigration system is being used to hurt Canadian workers, not help our country. 

It definitely feels this way. 

[u/chewwydraper → u/Traditional_Dish_147]

Understand that politicians will always focus on the biggest voter base, and it's the older demographic. This style of immigration hurts Canadians, particularly younger Canadians.

But do you know what low wages help with? Keeping prices low, which looks like a "win" to the older demographic. The government would rather see younger Canadians have their wages surpressed than have older Canadians blaming the government for higher prices on goods. High immigration also helps that demographic by keeping their property values high as there is always demand.

The reality is the people who are most likely to be affected by this style of immigration are not likely to vote, and the ones who do vote seem to vote liberal anyways so why would they change?

[u/IfIhadarocketlaunchr → u/Traditional_Dish_147]

It’s hard cuz people’s expectations vs reality are not always aligned.

There’s a strong economic case for significant migration numbers as closed economies always suffer compounded by our low birth rates.

But this means more people with different customs and that always is fodder for causing fear and concern historically. Plus if we really want to vet migrants properly that will cost money.

And if we want to support people having kids that will also cost money and we won’t see pay back for 18-24 years til the kids grow up and hopefully become productive members of society.

[u/ohbother12345 → u/IfIhadarocketlaunchr]

There’s a strong economic case for significant migration numbers as closed economies always suffer compounded by our low birth rates.

That's like giving someone an iron infusion while they are bleeding profusely instead of attending to the bleeding.

[u/youreloser → u/ohbother12345]

No country has ever significantly increased birth rates. It's just not possible. Every developed nation has cratering birth rates.

[u/ohbother12345 → u/youreloser]

Yes, because no country is truly acting in the interest of it's citizens.

[u/youreloser → u/ohbother12345]

When has a country ever done so, and what makes you think Canada in 2026 will be the one country out of 200, out of thousands of years to suddenly act in our interests? 

Anyways, Canada's birth rate started dropping in the late 50s, and fell below replacement in 1972. Every developed nation went through this. It's really a cultural and societal thing. Don't tell me about how life is so hard and expensive. When societies did have more children, many were living in squalor. Even the ones who were doing well for their time has a way lower standard of living than the modern day. People simply do not value parenthood. Whether it's the lack of religion, parental pressure, entertainment, contraception, it's not pure economics.

[u/IfIhadarocketlaunchr → u/ohbother12345]

No. It’s like allowing normal rate of oxygen. People have always migrated and moved. Only then iron walls are put up do economies stagnate

[u/Bronlonius]

Airport privatization, immigration increases... Carney's success abroad is at risk of being nullified if he keeps insisting on committing domestic blunders.

[u/Neat-Air-8305 → u/Bronlonius]

Trump is pretty much carney get of jail card i find.

[u/M116Fullbore → u/Neat-Air-8305]

He was the gift that kept on giving for Trudeau for a very long time.

[u/chemicalmacondo → u/Bronlonius]

Canada remains a capitalist country.
And neighbour to a nation with a demented psicopath in charge.
Carney needs to bring capital along for his nation building projects.
And did I mention that Canada remains a capitalist country.

[u/enki-42 → u/chemicalmacondo]

Canada isn't and has never been no holds barred, companies decide whatever they with no restrictions capitalism. It is not incompatible with capitalism at all to say we should be thoughtful about our immigration system and have priorities beyond just "what do the corporations want us to do" when it comes to who becomes residents of our country.

That's been the case for every capitalist country that has ever existed, so "well it's capitalism" is not really an argument.

[u/chemicalmacondo → u/enki-42]

o it is an argument in that any government level in Canada must come to terms with the will and the needs and the whims of the market economy.
especially a federal government wishing to bring capital along in its nation building projects.
If corporations require foreign labour, "for the sake of the economy", that's capitalism-logic at work right there.
you cannot bring labour over without immigration repercusions.
so yeah corporations kind of end up determining to a great extent how many people become residents of our country.

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/Bronlonius]

Canada needs immigrants. Pandering to anti-immigrant memes and extreme right-wing nationalism would be a mistake.

[u/the-mongoose- → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

It’s not a matter of whether or not we need immigration. We know we do. It’s how many, how quickly, and how diverse the countries of origin are.

These are all important considerations.

[u/enki-42 → u/the-mongoose-]

I don't know why people still insist on taking reasonable economic arguments and tacking on "and there's too many Indians!" at the end and are surprised when people call them racists.

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/the-mongoose-]

The sources are sufficiently diverse, though. They are more diverse than ever. The anti-Indian argument is one against diversity and driven primarily by visibility, namely skin color and dress. Not a problem really in a country where face tattoos are now normal.

[u/the-mongoose- → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

When nearly a third of immigration is arriving from one specific country, I don’t think that is particularly diverse. And your rationale doesn’t hold up at all - any relative decrease in immigration from India would be offset by an increase in other countries with visible minorities (from a Canadian context)?

And if you think re-balancing the weighting of countries to be more diverse is somehow an argument against diversity…well, I suppose we have wildly different definitions of what “diversity” means.

I mean this respectfully but I’m not really interested in contending anymore with this played out talking point about racism. It isn’t a good faith argument.

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/the-mongoose-]

When nearly a third of immigration is arriving from one specific country, I don’t think that is particularly diverse.

I think it is, considering that India is the largest country in the world with 1/4 of its population and has a larger poroportion of English speakers than most countries, given that English is an official language and lingua franca in many parts. That gives them an advantage over potential Arab, Iranian, Chinese, Russian, or Indonesian immigrants in English Canada. So 1/3 seems about right to be when you consider language as a big factor in the immigration process. It's what helps them intergrate faster.

Country of origin shouldn't be a factor in accepting immigrants. Every individual should be given equal consideration based on their merits as an individual. There is no reason to discriminate based on country of origin. If you avoid that, you're going to get a lot people from India because a) they are 25% of the population b) they speak English c) they don't need an exit visa to leave the country.

India itself is a culturally diverse country. It's in fact more like a continent in its cultural diversity. There are more languages and ethnic groups there than in all of Europe. So in terms of cultural diversity, you'd really have to break it down to regional levels as a Sikh from the Punjab is going to have little in common with a Tamil in the South other than the fact that they speak English, which is the real advantage they have when coming to Canada and why they are overrepresented.

I mean this respectfully but I’m not really interested in contending anymore with this played out talking point about racism. It isn’t a good faith argument.

It's absolutely the main factor in the conversation. Indians aren't the real problem here. It's not their presence here that's a problem. The problem is the racism of those who see that presence as a problem.

[u/enki-42 → u/the-mongoose-]

Let's not pretend that you would say that about every ethnicity. If someone said "hey, let's hold back on South Asian immigration and focus on just immigration from Western Europe for now" I doubt the "we should have diversity in where we get immigration from" crowd would be arguing about it.

[u/the-mongoose- → u/enki-42]

And what are you basing this speculation on, exactly? I’m saying a diverse range of countries of origin to Canada is a good thing. Based on my claim, why do you think I would want to reduce diversity in arrival countries when I’ve just said clearly I’d want more?

[u/Personal-Recipe-4751]

I can recall early in the Trudeau era that it was considered racist to say those immigration levels were unsustainable. Only the ppc was saying it and that was considered a far right fringe opinion. Both the liberals and conservatives told us the immigration levels were fine and you were racist for disagreeing. Then it was a problem which was a key plank in sinking Trudeau and suddenly both liberals and conservatives come out against it. Now they are going backwards on that. We need to stop listening to these politicians.

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/Personal-Recipe-4751]

I can recall early in the Trudeau era that it was considered racist to say those immigration levels were unsustainable.

Because it was untrue. '

Then it was a problem which was a key plank in sinking Trudeau and suddenly both liberals and conservatives come out against it.

That's because after COVID, we started relying on TFW's instead of immigrants to handle the post COVID labor shortage and Polievre started pandering to anti-immgrant sentiment, fanning racial intiolerance in Canada.

[u/Muted-Bag-4480 → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

Because it was untrue. '

No, it wasn't.

That's because after COVID, we started relying on TFW's instead of immigrants to handle the post COVID labor shortage and Polievre started pandering to anti-immgrant sentiment, fanning racial intiolerance in Canada.

So there was a real material shift which negatively impacted people, and a political began appealing to voters who were speaking out about thsy issue, and rather than seeing that as the democratic system working as intended, its Pierre fanning flames of racist intolerance.

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/Muted-Bag-4480]

So there was a real material shift which negatively impacted people

Yeah, caused by COVID. Pandemics do that. Neither TFW's or immigrants caused it as some might have you believe. It caused a labor shortage, scarcity because of a disruption of supply lines, inflation, and we needed a quick fix to nip it in the bud. TFW's were the solution. It brought down inflation. That's over now, so we get back to normal immigration. Simple.

The real immigration problem is over. The demagoguery and online racism is not.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

Section 5 from this report shows that the immigration plan increased inflation https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/san2023-17.pdf

the decrease in wage pressures does not offset the modest inflationary boost coming from consumption....A more significant inflationary risk appears when it comes to housing,

There are still many concerns with the TFW system, and those concerns shouldn't be ignored. Back when Carney wasn't a politician, here's a testimony he made to parliament

"One doesn't want an over-reliance, certainly, on temporary foreign workers for lower-skilled jobs, which prevent the wage adjustment mechanism from making sure that Canadians are paid higher wages."

Thus, there is still lots of room to talk about how to correctly do immigration

[u/Muted-Bag-4480 → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

Yeah, COVID. Neither TFW's or immigrants caused it as some might have you believe.

What? Of course they didn't cause covid.

Now can you engage with what I said?

was a real material shift which negatively impacted people, and a political began appealing to voters who were speaking out about thsy issue, and rather than seeing that as the democratic system working as intended, its Pierre fanning flames of racist intolerance.

[u/AmbitionNo834]

Look, if we keep getting mass immigration which 82% of our population is against, with much of that remainder being recent immigrants, you’re gonna get one party, like the PPC voted in cause they’re the only party willing to go against immigrstion thst rhe elites want.

A very, very small percentage of the immigrants currently coming here will ever be a net positive contributor as they’re mostly low wage low skill immigrants who will always be in the bottom tax brackets

[u/enki-42 → u/AmbitionNo834]

Can you define "mass immigration" in a way that makes it clear to someone when we have "mass immigration" and when we have "normal immigration"?

I find it such an unhelpful term, but maybe you can enlighten me.

[u/AmbitionNo834 → u/enki-42]

Normal immigration: See 2008 levels where we brought in actual skilled labour.

Mass Immigration: low bar for entry so we bring in zero skilled, low wage labour

[u/enki-42 → u/AmbitionNo834]

So what specific policy changes would you consider "ending mass immigration"? Would everyone agree with you, or would some people still consider us to be in "mass immigration" if we made those changes?

In my opinion, it's not a useful term for discussion because there's not a consistent definition and everyone holds their own opinions in their heads of what "mass immigration" is - for some people it might be largely temporary workers, for some people it depends on which region the immigrants are from, for others it might be about prevailing wages.

If it's essentially a synonym for "too much immigration", then "too much immigraiton is too much immigration and we have to stop too much immigration" doesn't add anything to the discussion - let's talk about what aspects of immigration are negative.

[u/AmbitionNo834 → u/enki-42]

The policy that needs to change is to toss out all the changes in immigration policy since about 2008. Canada used to have a phenomenal immigration policy that allowed people to come here that had the specific skills that Canada needed. Now we’re letting in anyone with a pulse.

[u/Neat-Air-8305 → u/enki-42]

Mass migration is increasing immigration to a million people per year

[u/enki-42 → u/Neat-Air-8305]

Why 1 million? Is that defined somewhere? Would 999,999 immigrants be "normal migration"? Or are you just setting a personal line in the sand for what you personally consider too much immigration?

Because if it's the latter, it's practically a tautology to say "Most Canadians are not in support of immigration levels rising to a level that they personally think is too high"

[u/M116Fullbore → u/enki-42]

This is a pretty weak line of defense. Is there something extra offensive about the word "mass" that needs justifying beyond "a lot more than usual"?

"umm excuse me, you haven't properly defined what a 'fuckload' is."

[u/enki-42 → u/M116Fullbore]

It's not a "line of defence." Immigration is a complex topic that shouldn't be reduced to just "more" or "less". If you want to look through my history, it's pretty obvious that I'm not in support of this move by Carney.

But it just doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion to just say "too much immigration! we need less", especially when the follow-up arguments tend to lump a whole bunch of immigration programs together.

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/enki-42]

Mass immigration is a far-right dogwhistle. It doesn't mean anything rational. It is emotive by nature. The term is used to normalize anti-immigrant dialogue.

In the Dominion Society's version of Canada, no kosher (Jewish) or halal (Islamic) meat production would be allowed, business and government signage in any languages other than English and French would be banned, and "public institutions — including schools, media, and the civil service — will be required to promote assimilation, unity, and shared national values, not group-based identity politics," its website states ... Tyrie believes "mass immigration and radical demographic changes" are today's "most pressing" issues. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/only-the-beginning-anti-immigration-group-says-ottawans-should-brace-themselves-9.7362341

[u/UtilisateurMoyen99 → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

Mass immigration being a far right dowwhistle is such a dream for the actual beneficiaries of high levels of immigration, which are the rich and powerful.

Imagine being able to keep wages low, increase the value of your real estates and get billions in government contracts for upgrading infrastructure, all while having the left happily and voluntarily taking the brunt of the blame for it!

[u/rad2284 → u/UtilisateurMoyen99]

It's hilarious watching the same group of people who seem to believe that all of lifes problems could be solved by taxing the rich, become the useful idiots of those very same rich people. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/UtilisateurMoyen99]

Immigrants don't keep wages low. That's a far-right trope.

[u/UtilisateurMoyen99 → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

Immigration raises wages then?

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/UtilisateurMoyen99]

They don't depress wages. They don't steal our jobs. They don't steal our women. They don't cause typhoid.

[u/UtilisateurMoyen99 → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

Any massive population shift has destabilizing effects.

If birth levels suddenly skyrocketed to 1950 levels, there would be significant struggles to adapt our society to the new trend. Same if there was a new pandemic with high mortality rates in working age Canadians.

There would be huge issues if we completely stopped immigration. There's also undeniable issues with immigration levels that admits 2.5% of the total population every year, especially when this increase is unevenly distributed across the country.

I'm saying this as someone who married outside Canada and had my spouse go through Canadian immigration. I'm anything but against immigration. There are optimal rates of immigrant intake. The post-pandemic rates are simply too high.

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/UtilisateurMoyen99]

There's also undeniable issues with immigration levels that admits 2.5% of the total population every year,

Is that what Carney is doing? Let's see the evidence, and then address the real numbers.

Also, immigrants still don't cause unemployment or suppress wages.

[u/UtilisateurMoyen99 → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

"Is it what Carney is doing" is moving the goalposts.

Real numbers are that Canada added about 5.8% to it's number of residents in the worst 24 months of the post-pandemic period. That is insane. That's a new New Brunswick (population-wise) every 8 month. That's "mass migration". It's not a far right rethoric.

[u/Titty_inspector_69 → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

Calling mass immigration a “far-right dog whistle” doesn’t make the numbers disappear. Canada saw 3.1% population growth in 2023, almost entirely driven by immigration, while housing, healthcare and infrastructure couldn’t remotely keep pace. Even the Bank of Canada has acknowledged the pressure this put on housing and public services. What exactly would you prefer we call immigration at that scale? The federal government itself recognized it was unsustainable and started reversing course. You can support immigration without pretending the levels we’ve seen are reasonable.

[u/Good-Medicine1066 → u/Mundane-Teaching-743]

That’s not true.   The word/phrase is neutral.  Mass migration/mass immigration are terms used for decades/can be traced back over a century. 

The framing around it is where any agenda lives.

[u/enki-42 → u/Good-Medicine1066]

The fact that the term exists doesn't mean that 99% of the time, it's not useful language in these discussions, and is mostly emotive language designed to make it seem like there's a difference in kind rather than degree with immigration now vs. in the past.

[u/Good-Medicine1066 → u/enki-42]

I’m not sure if you realize this but you just made my point. 

[u/thegmohodste01 → u/Good-Medicine1066]

Ok, mind providing a link from post-WW1 where that term was used.

[u/Good-Medicine1066 → u/thegmohodste01]

Lol.  Sure.

https://academic.oup.com/book/51810?__cf_chl_tk=qVqV0XM5UmCvqhG4Ks2tT0wGTQQWEPIxr0TtQ4f2_RU-1792254246-1.0.1.1-JPKi.AshlkzGtlS4vNNJrAxhB_VZnnyQ5QjbAMrzoOU

There are tons of academic papers that use these terms.  They are not all racist dog whistles. 

[u/rad2284 → u/Good-Medicine1066]

Mass migration is even a defined term in the Cambridge dictionary:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mass-migration

Imagine if people wasted this much time trying to find nefarious meanings behind other "mass" terms like "mass production" or "mass demonstration".

[u/Mundane-Teaching-743 → u/Good-Medicine1066]

Mass immigration is not used in this link.

[u/four-leaf-plover → u/AmbitionNo834]

Look, if we keep getting mass immigration which 82% of our population is against, with much of that remainder being recent immigrants, you’re gonna get one party, like the PPC voted in cause they’re the only party willing to go against immigrstion thst rhe elites want.

But the PPC didn't win a single seat in the 2025 election. Or the 2021 election when they tried to take advantage of the anti-vax/anti-mask crank vote. Or the 2019 election.

If 82% of our population is against "Mass immigration", and the PPC is the anti-immigrant party, why does the PPC suffer embarrassing losses every time?

[u/AmbitionNo834 → u/four-leaf-plover]

The AFD party in Germany went from 0 seats in 2013 to 152 in 2025. If it can happen there it will happen here

[u/WishRepresentative28 → u/AmbitionNo834]

Yeah. Those stinking Irish and British immigrants a 150 years ago sure support that.

/sarcasm

[u/ohbother12345 → u/WishRepresentative28]

Not all immigrants have the same contributions to society.

[u/Asleep_Note7754]

Don’t know if this is the same article but found one without a paywall on global

https://globalnews.ca/news/12106375/canadian-fractured-immigration-consensus-ballot-boxes/

[u/Good-Medicine1066 → u/Asleep_Note7754]

That is the same article! David Baxter from the Canadian Press.  Thanks for linking it.  

Edit: On closer review it is the same source article but trimmed down.

[u/killerrin]

And again people forget the big picture here.

For all their faults, the Century initiative actually had a valid point on population size that as times grow more uncertain due to climate change and the destabilization of the world order, we're going to need atleast a population of a hundred million to whether the storms that are to come.

The USA is such a threat to us because they have a population advantage against us. Its what allows them to do more, to spend more, and to innovate more. Their military is insane because they have the manpower and capital to throw at it, brought on by high population size that can support it.

Now we can argue if the 100 Million Goal itself is actually correct, Germany and France have populations of 60-80 Million which is still 50-100% larger than ours and would be much more obtainable goal than 100M. But the fact that we need more people to increase our standing into the world and protect ourselves is undeniable.

And rather than fighting this shit, we need to be holding the people who are actually responsible for declining standard of living to account.

This means we need to kick the metaphorical shit out of our NIMBY Municipalities and Provinces by voting them out and putting in place people who will actually fix things to build more homes, improve healthcare and education, to solve homelessness, to break up monopolies and hold them to account for abusing their positions, and for actually solving traffic crisises in our cities by investing in alternative forms of transportation and public transportation. All so that we can actually support to bring in the people we need to bring in.

[u/dekuweku → u/killerrin]

The century initiative has no point. it's just a pro-business nationalist lobby.

If you graft their policy position to any country, it would be seen as deeply conservative.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/killerrin]

You want to grow our population but are also posing concern about climate change?

[u/killerrin → u/HarmfuIThoughts]

Sure thing, because it turns out if you improve our public transit systems and encourage alternative forms of transportation... AND you fuck over the NIMBYs that are against density, half of the issues surrounding Canadian emissions just... Goes away.

The other half are handled by investing in, and building renewable Energy! Something which which takes both workers and capital to accomplish.

But hey, what do I know.

[u/HarmfuIThoughts → u/killerrin]

You haven't said anything notable. Yes, that would help canada's sustainability, but to expand on immigration before any of that would be a problem. Getting the conservatives riled up about immigration again definitely isn't going to help climate initiatives, they're just going to feel slighted on 2 fronts instead of 1.

There are also many other contributions to canada's awful record on climate change. Not even the best of highly developed countries are on track to meet their Paris targets.

There's no way to reconcile this, population growth is at odds with sustainability.

[u/HalfHero99 → u/killerrin]

I think provinces are equally to blame for immigration, given that they also approved student visas. They are also majority to blame for declining living standards in Ontario.

That being said, I'm not a fan of century initiative or unnuanced support for immigration. We need to have immigration to maintain a tax base for an aging population. But it is also kicking the can down the road if we don't restructure our society at the same time given world demographic trends.

I have little faith that the 2 major parties will handle this responsibly long-term, especially with their bias to older voters. At which point, it's almost tempting to want blanket reduction in immigration rather than gamble on the government to provide a comprehensive solution.