>> Steve: CANADA'S POPULATION GREW BY MORE THAN 1 MILLION LAST YEAR, ALMOST ALL OF THAT THANKS TO IMMIGRATION. A MILLION PEOPLE. HALF OF THEM CHOSE TO SETTLE IN ONTARIO. BUT AMID HOUSING SHORTAGES AND A STRAINED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, IS THIS THE DESTINATION THEY'RE EXPECTING? AND ARE WE DOING ENOUGH OF THE RIGHT THINGS TO MAKE THIS WORK -- FOR THEM, AND FOR THOSE ALREADY HERE? LET'S ASK: ALFRED LAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRE FOR IMMIGRANT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND BOARD CHAIR FOR OCASI, THE ONTARIO COUNCIL OF AGENCIES SERVING IMMIGRANTS; DEENA LADD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WORKERS' ACTION CENTRE; MIKE MOFFATT, SENIOR DIRECTOR AT THE SMART PROSPERITY THINK TANK AND AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT WESTERN UNIVERSITY'S IVEY BUSINESS SCHOOL; AND MIKAL SKUTERUD, ECONOMICS PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO AND DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN LABOUR ECONOMICS FORUM. IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU FOUR HERE IN OUR STUDIO FOR THIS DISCUSSION. MIKE, TO YOU FIRST. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS ITS GOAL IS TO INCREASE IMMIGRATION TO A HALF A MILLION PEOPLE PER YEAR WITHIN A COUPLE OF YEARS. WE HAD A MILLION PEOPLE COME TO CANADA LAST YEAR. SO WHO ARE THE OTHER MORE THAN HALF A MILLION PEOPLE WHO JOINED US LAST YEAR? >> Mike: YEAH, SO WE HAVE BOTH PERMANENT RESIDENTS, WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, CLASSIC SORT OF IMMIGRATION. BUT WE HAVE A VARIETY OF NON-PERMANENT RESIDENTS. SO THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN CANADA ON SOME FORM OF TIME-EXPIRED VISA. SO THIS COULD BE THINGS LIKE -- PEOPLE LIKE TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS, REFUGEES, INCLUDING REFUGEES FROM UKRAINE. THE BIGGEST COHORT THESE DAYS TEND TO BE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS. SO THEY'RE CONSIDERED NON-PERMANENT RESIDENTS. BUT THAT'S A BIT OF A MISNOMER BECAUSE THEY WILL OFTEN STAY IN CANADA AND EVENTUALLY IMMIGRATE TO CANADA. I LIKE TO THINK OF THEM AS MORE PRE-PERMANENT THAN NON-PERMANENT. >> Steve: GOTCHA. WE KNOW WE HAVE TARGETS FOR IMMIGRATION. DO WE HAVE TARGETS FOR THIS OTHER COHORT OF PEOPLE? >> Mike: FOR GROUPS LIKE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, WE DON'T. LARGELY THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY THE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, SO THEY CAN DECIDE HOW MANY THEY WANT TO BRING IN. SO IT'S A DIFFERENT SYSTEM THAN IMMIGRATION. >> Steve: I WANT TO ASK THE THREE OF YOU A VERY NEUTRAL, LEAN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION THAT GOES RIGHT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES, OKAY? DEENA, START US OFF. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE IN BRINGING IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA? >> Deena: WELL, I MEAN, I THINK IT DEPENDS IF IT'S VOLUNTARY OR NOT. I MEAN, I THINK THAT CANADA HAS A HISTORY OF QUITE RACIST IMMIGRATION POLICIES, RIGHT, THAT HAVE BEEN RACE-BASED, THAT HAVE EXCLUDED CERTAIN TYPES OF IMMIGRANTS. WE CAN JUST EVEN REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHINESE COMMUNITY DURING THE BUILDING OF THE RAILWAY AND ALL OF THE OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE. AND DECADE AFTER DECADE, WE'VE SEEN AN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM BASED IN THIS COUNTRY THAT HAS EXCLUDED MANY, MANY RACES COMING IN AND HAD UNFAIR PROCESSES. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IMMIGRATION IS MEANT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WANTING TO MOVE INTO A COUNTRY AND MAKE A BETTER LIFE. IT COULD BE ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES: ECONOMIC, IT COULD BE HUMANITARIAN. BUT THE THING IS THAT WE NEED IMMIGRATION, AS MOST COUNTRIES DO, TO BUILD THE COUNTRIES THAT WE'RE LIVING IN AND WORKING IN. >> Steve: LET ME GET ALFRED TO PICK UP THE STORY THERE. AGAIN, IN YOUR VIEW, WHY DO WE BRING IMMIGRANTS HERE? >> Alfred: STEVE, I THINK WHEN IT COMES TO IMMIGRATION, IT MATTERS THROUGH LENS IN WHICH WE LOOK AT THE ISSUES, RIGHT? FOR MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS AT LEAST RECENTLY IT'S VERY NATURAL FOR US TO DEFAULT TO THE ECONOMIC LENS, RIGHT? WE NEED POPULATION GROWTH. WE NEED YOU TO FILL GAPS IN THE LABOUR MARKET AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO WE NEED IMMIGRANTS. THERE'S ANOTHER LENS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO LEARN TO LOOK THROUGH AND WE SOMETIMES DON'T AND THAT IS THROUGH THE HUMAN RIGHTS LENS. IF CANADA IS SERIOUS ABOUT BEING A COUNTRY THAT IS BUILDING OURSELVES ON IMMIGRATION, THEN WE NEED TO LEARN SOME FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS. FOR INSTANCE, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT A PERSON'S HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT A FUNCTION OF HIS OR HER IMMIGRATION STATUS, RIGHT? SO WHETHER SOMEONE IS AN ASYLUM SEEKER OR INTERNATIONAL STUDENT OR PERMANENT RESIDENT, THEY HAVE INALIENABLE AND FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS. AND FOR US, LEARNING TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT BECOMES A FOUNDATION THROUGH WHICH WE CAN THEN BUILD FOR THE LONG TERM. >> Steve: IT'S PART OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CANADIAN, IN YOUR VIEW? >> Alfred: ABSOLUTELY. >> Steve: MIKAL, WHAT WOULD YOU ADD? >> Mikal: I GUESS MY PERSPECTIVE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, STEVE. THE CANADIAN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM ACTUALLY HAS THREE ARMS. IT HAS HUMANITARIAN CLASS PROGRAMS, IT HAS FAMILY CLASS PROGRAMS, AND IT HAS ECONOMIC CLASS PROGRAMS. AND EACH ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES. SO THE REALITY OF THE CANADIAN SYSTEM IS THERE IS NO SINGLE OBJECTIVE. AND SO I ALWAYS THOUGHT PEOPLE -- WHEN WE MAKE ANY NORMATIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT IMMIGRATION, WHAT WE SHOULD DO, WHAT WE SHOULDN'T DO, WHAT WE'RE DOING TOO MUCH OF, TOO LITTLE OF, WE'VE GOT TO DEFINE WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS FIRST. WHAT THE OPTIMAL POLICY IS DEPENDS ON WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS. FOR ECONOMIC CLASS IMMIGRATION, THAT COMPRISES ABOUT 60% OF OUR TOTAL IMMIGRATION NOW. IT'S BEEN INCREASING OVER TIME. HUMANITARIAN IMMIGRATION IS LESS THAN 20%, AND UNDER THIS GOVERNMENT'S TARGETS, THE MOST RECENT TARGETS THEY'VE ANNOUNCED, IT'S DECLINING. SO MY VIEW IS, IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HUMANITARIAN OBJECTIVES, THEN THAT SHOULD BE THE HUMANITARIAN PROGRAMS. BUT THE PROBLEM IS NOW WE'RE SORT OF TRYING TO ACHIEVE ALL THESE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES WITHIN EACH ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS AND THEN YOU END UP DOING NOTHING WELL. >> Steve: MIKE, HOW WOULD YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION? >> Mike: YEAH, I WOULD ANSWER IT BASICALLY THE SAME WAY. THAT WE HAVE COMPETING AND CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES. A LOT OF, AS MIKAL POINTS OUT, A LOT OF THE IMMIGRATION THAT HAS BEEN FOCUSED MORE ON THE ECONOMIC SIDE AND WE'VE HAD SOME REAL FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES TO -- ON THE ECONOMIC SIDE OVER THE LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS THAT, YOU KNOW, TRADITIONALLY, ECONOMIC CLASS IMMIGRANTS TEND TO BE ABOUT 28 OR 29 AND THEY MAKE THE DECISION TO COME OVER HERE WHEN THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY. AND THERE'S SOME CHALLENGES WITH THAT. SOME OF THE CHALLENGES ARE WITH CREDENTIALS RECOGNITION, IF THEY WENT TO SCHOOL OVERSEAS OR WITH, YOU KNOW, CULTURE, ADAPTING TO A NEW CULTURE. SO WE'VE MADE -- THE HARPER GOVERNMENT MADE SOME DECISIONS OVER TIME TO HAVE PEOPLE COME OVER AT 18 AND 19, GET THEIR DEGREE OR DIPLOMA HERE, AND THEN GET PERMANENT RESIDENCY, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO GET PAST THOSE THINGS. AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THESE COMPETING OBJECTIVES, AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS CLEAR WHAT THIS GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. >> Steve: OKAY. LET'S TRY THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY. DOES INCREASING IMMIGRATION INHERENTLY IMPROVE THE ECONOMY? >> Mikal: THAT'S THE NICE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, STEVE. BECAUSE IF WE HAVE ECONOMIC CLASS PROGRAMS, THEN WE'VE GOT TO DEFINE WHAT THE ECONOMIC OBJECTIVE IS. IF YOU'VE DONE ANY STRATEGIC PLANNING OR SCIENCES, YOU KNOW THAT THE WAY YOU DO THAT IS YOU SET AN OBJECTIVE BUT THEN YOU ALSO SAY, HOW ARE WE GOING TO MEASURE THIS THING? HOW ARE WE GOING TO EVALUATE WHETHER WE'RE BEING SUCCESSFUL. THAT REALLY PUTS YOU IN A CORNER BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DEFINE CLEARLY WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC OBJECTIVE AND THERE ISN'T A SINGLE ECONOMIC OBJECTIVE. FOR ECONOMISTS, AND I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT, I'VE WORKED IN THIS AREA FOR TWO DECADES, THE OBJECTIVE THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE IS THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO LEVERAGE IMMIGRATION TO RAISE GDP PER CAPITA. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE AVERAGE ECONOMIC LIVING STANDARDS IN THE POPULATION. SO THE QUESTION IS: CAN WE DO THAT? AND I CAN TALK ABOUT THIS FOR HOURS, STEVE. I DON'T WANT TO BORE YOUR VIEWERS. BUT I THINK THE SIMPLEST WAY TO THINK ABOUT THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF OUTPUT GDP DEPENDS ON TWO THINGS MAINLY: YOUR LABOUR INPUT IN THE ECONOMY AND THE CAPITAL INPUT. THE CAPITAL INPUT INCLUDES ALL KINDS OF THINGS: MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, THE FACTORIES, ALL THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, EVEN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING, IT INCLUDES ALL OF THAT STUFF. WE KNOW THAT IF WE DOUBLE THE POPULATION AND WE DOUBLE THE CAPITAL, OUR OUTPUT WILL ROUGHLY DOUBLE. THEN GDP PER CAPITA STAYS EXACTLY THE SAME. SO MOSTLY IMMIGRATION DOESN'T DO MUCH TO GDP PER CAPITA. THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN INCREASE IT. BUT THE PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING NOW IS WHAT WE TEND TO DO IS WE TEND TO INCREASE IMMIGRATION BUT THE CAPITAL STOCK DOES NOT INCREASE COMMENSURATELY AND THAT PUTS DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON GDP PER CAPITA. >> Steve: DEENA? >> Deena: SO, I WASN'T SURE IF I ACTUALLY REALLY UNDERSTOOD ANY OF THAT, TO BE HONEST. [LAUGHTER] >> Deena: BUT WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE, RIGHT? I MEAN, I THINK THAT REGARDLESS OF OBJECTIVES, REGARDLESS OF THE PURPOSES OF DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY COME INTO THIS COUNTRY. AND RIGHT NOW WHAT WE HAVE IS -- AND WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF PAST IMMIGRATION POLICIES TO LOOK AT. THAT'S NOT LOOKING AT OBJECTIVES; THAT'S LOOKING AT WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY'VE COME INTO THIS COUNTRY. AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE HISTORY AND ALL THE APOLOGIES THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE GIVEN OVER THE YEARS, WHAT WE HAVE IS A SYSTEMATIC LEGACY OF IMMIGRATION POLICY THAT IS QUITE RACIST, THAT IS BASED ON EXCLUDING CERTAIN GROUPS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT DESIRABLE OR PALATABLE TO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY -- >> Steve: FOR INSTANCE? >> Deena: SO I THINK WE CAN SEE HOW THE JAPANESE COMMUNITY, HOW THE CHINESE COMMUNITY, HOW THE SOUTH ASIAN COMMUNITY WAS BROUGHT IN ONLY THROUGH INDENTURED PROGRAMS. WE SEE THE SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS PROGRAM WHERE WE, FOR OVER 50 YEARS WE HAVE FARM WORKERS COMING INTO THE COUNTRY, YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR NOT ABLE TO GET CITIZENSHIP AND TIED TO THEIR EMPLOYERS. WE SEE THE SAME THING WITH CARE WORKERS. AND SO WE HAVE AN IMMIGRATION POLICY THAT'S BASED ON BRINGING ALMOST 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE INTO THIS COUNTRY EVERY YEAR ON TEMPORARY PERMITS, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, THE INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY PROGRAM. WE HAVE WORKERS COMING IN THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PROGRAM, THE TFW PROGRAM -- >> Steve: TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS. >> Deena: YEAH. WHAT WE'RE SAYING, THOUGH, IS THAT OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE BASED ON FAIRNESS, JUSTICE, ON ALLOWING PEOPLE TO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY TO PROSPER, TO BE ABLE TO GET PERMANENT RESIDENCY ON ARRIVAL SO THAT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO THE KINDS OF ECONOMIC AND EXPLOITIVE CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE SEEING EVERY, EVERY DAY. >> Steve: AND IT'S NOT AS COLOUR BLIND AS YOU WISH IT WERE. >> Deena: IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT COLOUR BLIND AND THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT. >> Steve: MIKE, YOU WANTED TO REACT TO MIKAL'S COMMENT? >> Mike: NO. I THINK WE'RE IN VIOLENT AGREEMENT ON THIS ONE. YOU KNOW, ON IMMIGRATION, YOU WILL TEND TO RAISE GDP, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE. BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY RAISE GDP PER CAPITA. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S MORE TO LIFE THAN THAT. THE ECONOMIC SIDE OF IT IS IMPORTANT, BUT I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH ALFRED. WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE HUMANITARIAN SIDE OF IMMIGRATION. >> Alfred: IF I CAN ADD TO THAT? >> Steve: PLEASE. >> Alfred: PART OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT PURELY THROUGH AN ECONOMIC LENS YOU REDUCE THE PROBLEM TO A MATH PROBLEM. I NEED X NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO FILL X NUMBER OF SPOTS. SO I BRING IN X NUMBER OF PEOPLE. BUT GOING BACK TO WHAT DEENA JUST SAID, IT'S NOT JUST HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU BRING IN, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER THOSE PEOPLE EXPERIENCE LIFE THE WAY THEY SHOULD ONCE THEY ENTER THE COUNTRY. SO WE TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE, ARE WE MAKING IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO GET THEIR FOREIGN CREDENTIALS RECOGNIZED IN A FAIR AND JUST WAY? ARE WE STILL -- WE ARE STILL SEEING A VERY SIGNIFICANT EARNINGS GAP, RIGHT, THAT IMMIGRANTS ARE EXPERIENCING, RIGHT? SO THE SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES CANNOT BE DIVORCED FROM THE ECONOMIC ISSUES BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE THAT NARRATIVE FURTHER, THEN IT BECOMES A BREEDING GROUND FOR A MINDSET THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE BRING CERTAIN PEOPLE IN BECAUSE THEY ARE USEFUL TO US. WE NEED CERTAIN THINGS DONE SO WE BRING THEM IN TO DO IT. AND THAT'S A MINDSET THAT EASILY BREEDS INTO THINGS LIKE DISCRIMINATION AND RACISM THAT WE'RE SEEING RAMPANT STILL IN OUR COMMUNITIES. >> Steve: MIKE, DO YOU THINK IMMIGRATION NUMBERS ARE GOING UP IN PART BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS AN INTEREST IN KEEPING WORKERS' WAGES DOWN? >> Mike: THERE'S CERTAINLY THAT CONSPIRACY THEORY OUT THERE, AND YOU DO SEE THE BUSINESS LOBBY BEING ONE OF THE MORE VOCAL LOBBIES TO KEEP THOSE NUMBERS UP. BUT THE EFFECT OF IMMIGRATION ON WAGES IS COMPLICATED BECAUSE THERE'S BOTH A DEMAND AND SUPPLY ELEMENT TO IT THAT, YES, YOU ARE RAISING THE NUMBER OF WORKERS, BUT YOU'RE ALSO RAISING THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS. SO THAT, YOU KNOW, FIRMS CAN PRODUCE MORE, SO THEN THEY NEED TO HIRE MORE. SO THAT RELATIONSHIP IS NOT ONE TO ONE AND IT REALLY DEPENDS ON, YOU KNOW, THE TYPES OF SKILLS, THE DECISIONS THAT COMPANIES MAKE BUT, YEAH, YOU DO OFTEN HEAR THAT ROBUST IMMIGRATION TARGETS ARE USED TO TAMP DOWN ON WAGES -- YOU'VE GOT IT PARTLY RIGHT, BUT IT'S NOT ENTIRELY WRONG EITHER. >> Steve: IF YOU'RE CALLING IT A CONSPIRACY THEORY, THAT MAKES ME THINK YOU DON'T THINK IT'S ALL THAT COOL A THEORY. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? >> Mike: WELL, I DON'T THINK THE BUSINESS GROUPS ADVOCATING FOR IT NECESSARILY SEE IT THAT WAY. I THINK THEY'RE MORE SEEING IT AS A WAY TO FILL IN SPOTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THEY'RE NOT THAT CYNICAL BUT I CAN'T READ PEOPLE'S MINDS TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM. >> Deena: BUT WAGES GET SUPPRESSED AND CONDITIONS GET WORSE FOR WORKERS IF THEY'RE TIED TO THEIR EMPLOYERS, RIGHT? I THINK THE SYSTEM OF BRINGING WORKERS INTO THE COUNTRY, WHERE WORKERS -- THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE A VOICE, THEIR ABILITY TO SPEAK OUT, THEIR ABILITY TO SAY SOMETHING, AND THEIR ABILITY TO STAY IN THE COUNTRY AND THEIR HOUSING IS DEPENDENT ON THE EMPLOYER, THAT IS WHAT'S PROBLEMATIC. AND SO THE THING IS THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE, MIGRANTS, COME INTO THE COUNTRY NOT TIED TO A SECTOR, NOT TIED TO AN EMPLOYER, AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT MAKE IT INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO SPEAK OUT. WE ALSO HAVE LEGISLATION, THOUGH, THAT IS PASSED IN THIS PROVINCE THAT KEEPS THE CONDITIONS REALLY BAD. YOU KNOW, IT IS COMPLETELY LEGAL TO PAY A FARM WORKER LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE, TO NOT HAVE DAILY REST PERIODS, TO WORK THEM WORK 90 HOURS A WEEK. WE HAVE LABOUR POLICIES AND IMMIGRATION POLICIES THAT ARE SUPPRESSING WAGES AND NOT ALLOWING WORKERS TO BE ABLE TO ORGANIZE. AND THOSE CAN BE FIXED. THOSE CAN BE FIXED TO RAISE WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS. >> Steve: WELL, MIKAL, LET'S TRY THIS. WE KNOW -- WE'VE SEEN LOTS OF STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT WE NEED MORE PSWS, PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS, HERE IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. WE NEED MORE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS AS WELL. THESE TEND TO BE RELATIVELY LOW-PAID FEMALE-DOMINATED POSITIONS. IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO BRING IN PEOPLE TO FILL THOSE JOBS, WOULDN'T THEY BE FILLED IF WE -- I SHOULDN'T -- I SHOULDN'T ASK THE LEADING QUESTION. I SHOULD KEEP IT MORE NEUTRAL. WOULD THOSE JOBS BE FILLED IF WE SIMPLY PAID PEOPLE MORE TO OCCUPY THEM WHO ARE ALREADY HERE? >> Mikal: IT'S NOT ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, WORKING IN THESE AREAS. THE WAGES THAT ARE OFFERED IN PARTICULAR OCCUPATIONS AFFECTS PEOPLE'S CHOICES ABOUT WHAT KIND OF OCCUPATIONS -- YOU KNOW, YOUNG PEOPLE, WHEN THEY MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO GO TO A COLLEGE PROGRAM TO BECOME A SOCIAL WORKER OR PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKER, THEY LOOK AT THOSE -- THOUGH KNOW WHAT THOSE WAGES ARE, STEVE. THEY KNOW WHAT THE INCREASES ARE. THAT AFFECTS PEOPLE'S CHOICES ABOUT THE SKILLS THEY INVEST IN. SO, YEAH, LETTING MARKETS DO WHAT THEY'RE GOOD AT -- MARKETS ARE NOT GOOD AT EVERYTHING, BUT COMPETITIVE MARKETS ARE GOOD AT SOME THINGS. I THINK WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WAGE SUPPRESSION OF IMMIGRANTS, WE CONFUSE OURSELVES WHEN WE THINK THAT PEOPLE'S NOMINAL ACTUALLY HOURLY WAGE RATES ARE GETTING PUSHED DOWN. IT ISN'T ABOUT THAT. IT'S ABOUT WHAT WOULD -- DO THEY GROW IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAN THEY WOULD HAVE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME IMMIGRATION INFLOWS? AND NOT ALL WORKERS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED. THE WORKERS THAT ARE MOST ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS COMPETITION ARE GOING TO BE WORKERS WHO ARE COMPETING FOR THE SAME TYPE OF SUBSTITUTE WORKERS, RIGHT? VERY OFTEN THOSE ARE ACTUALLY OTHER IMMIGRANTS. SO THE NEW IMMIGRANTS ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE AFFECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR JOBS, SEARCHING FOR HOUSING IN THE SAME COMMUNITIES AND THE SAME LABOUR MARKETS. THOSE ARE THE FOLKS WHO ARE USUALLY MOST ADVERSELY AFFECTED. >> Steve: I SHOULD ASK YOU, DEENA, THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT WHICH IS PRESUMABLY WE WOULDN'T BE BRINGING IN AS MANY IMMIGRANTS TO FILL THESE PSW JOBS AND SO ON IF THERE WERE CANADIANS WHO ARE ALREADY HERE WHO WANTED THEM IN THE NUMBERS IN WHICH WE NEED THEM. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? >> Deena: THE THING IS THERE ARE MANY MIGRANT WORKERS WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED WHO ARE DOING THOSE PSW JOBS AND WORKING THROUGH RECRUITER AGENCIES RIGHT NOW AND ARE ACTUALLY BEING PAID TERRIBLE WAGES AND BEING TREATED TERRIBLY BECAUSE WE ARE WAITING STILL FOR THE REGULARIZATION PROGRAM THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ANNOUNCING TO PROVIDE PR FOR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS. WE HAVE ABOUT HALF A MILLION WORKERS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT NEED TO GET THAT PROTECTION RIGHT NOW. AND SO THE THING IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A SYSTEM -- LIKE, WE HAVE HAD -- THE RISE OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL WORKERS OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS HAS BEEN ASTRONOMICAL. WE'VE SEEN AN INCREASE IN PART-TIME JOBS, TEMPORARY JOBS. WE'VE SEEN THE RISE OF TEMPORARY AGENCIES. WE'VE SEEN WAGES DETERIORATE FOR A LOT OF LOW-WAGE WORKERS. RIGHT NOW THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT JUST GOT RID OF PAID SICK DAYS. SO THE KINDS OF CONDITIONS -- >> Steve: THEY ALSO INCREASED THE MINIMUM WAGE, THOUGH? >> Deena: IF YOU ARE A PSW AND YOU ARE SICK, DO YOU WANT THAT PERSON TO BE STAYING AT HOME? I THINK SO. RIGHT? YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO BE GOING INTO SOMEONE'S HOME SICK AND NOT BEING ABLE TO TAKE A DAY OFF BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET PAID. THE THING IS IT'S ABOUT LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PICTURE AND I THINK WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT THE RISE OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT, THE KINDS OF IMMIGRATION RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE STOPPING WORKERS FROM HAVING A VOICE AT WORK AND NOT GIVING PR UPON ARRIVAL IS MAKING A SITUATION THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT. AT MY CENTRE, I'M RECEIVING ABOUT 100 TO 150 CALLS EVERY WEEK OF UNPAID WAGES, OF WAGE THEFT, OF DISCRIMINATION, OF POOR WORKING CONDITIONS, OF VIOLATIONS. ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? I DON'T THINK SO. >> Steve: NOBODY IS OKAY WITH THAT. >> Deena: WE'RE NOT OKAY WITH THAT. AND SO WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE AND NOT DEFINE THINGS BY GDP AND ECONOMICS AND THIS, BUT LOOK AT ACTUALLY WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE GROUND. AND I WOULD SAY, COME ON OUR EMERGENCY HOTLINES ON A DAILY BASIS AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE CALLS THAT WE GET, AND I THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE JOINING WITH ME IN THIS CALL FOR STATUS UPON ARRIVAL. >> Steve: OKAY. LET'S TALK SOME HOUSING HERE, SHALL WE? SHELDON, WOULD YOU MIND PLAYING THE CLIP OF FEDERAL FINANCE MINISTER CHRYSTIA FREELAND? THANKS. >> Hon. Chrystia Freeland: THE CORE PROBLEM WITH HOUSING IN CANADA IS, WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING. IT'S JUST A MATHEMATICAL THING. CANADA HAS THE FASTEST GROWING POPULATION IN THE G-7. THAT IS FANTASTIC. THAT IS ACTUALLY A HUGE DRIVER OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND IT IS ONE OF CANADA'S COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES. BUT WE CANNOT HAVE THE FASTEST GROWING POPULATION IN THE G-7 WITHOUT ALSO HAVING THE FASTEST GROWING HOUSING STOCK IN THE G-7. AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF HOMES. >> Steve: LET'S TACKLE THIS FROM THIS ANGLE. ALFRED, IS IT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO SAY, WE WANT A HALF A MILLION NEW PEOPLE COMING TO THIS COUNTRY EVERY YEAR WITHIN A COUPLE OF YEARS EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY HAVE HOMES FOR THEM? IS THAT RESPONSIBLE? >> Alfred: I FIND IT INTERESTING AND I THINK THE HOUSING CONVERSATION IS A REFLECTION OF THAT. QUITE OFTEN WHEN WE LOOK AT IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRANTS ARE EITHER LOOKED UPON AS AN EASY SOLUTION TO A DEEP-ROOTED PROBLEM WE HAVE, OR SOMETIMES THEY ARE TARGETED AS A PROBLEM THAT IS REALLY -- GOES MUCH MORE, YOU KNOW, DEEPER AND MORE SYSTEMIC THAN THAT. I THINK THE HOUSING SITUATION IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, EVEN IF YOU SHUT DOWN IMMIGRATION TOMORROW, WE WILL STILL HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS. >> Deena: ABSOLUTELY. >> Alfred: AND THE CLEAREST EVIDENCE OF THAT IS THROUGHOUT THE PANDEMIC YEARS BECAUSE OF BORDER CLOSURES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, INCOMING IMMIGRATION HAS DRASTICALLY REDUCED. WE STILL HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS. SO I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS RESPONSIBLE OR FAIR FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SAY THAT, I LIKE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT ANGLE, IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO BE COMMITTED TO BRINGING IN IMMIGRANTS FOR ECONOMIC REASONS, POPULATION GROWTH REASONS, MARKET REASONS. SO THAT'S NOT A SHOULD WE OR SHOULD WE NOT? WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. AND THE POINT NOW IS, OKAY, WE NEED TO DO THIS, BUT WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU BRING IN, RIGHT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SYSTEMIC SUPPORTS, LIKE HOUSING BEING ONE OF THEM. THE HOUSING SITUATION, ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, IT'S A SUPPLY-DEMAND ISSUE, RIGHT? SO OFTEN WE BLAME THE IMMIGRANT PART OF THE EQUATION AS RAISING THE DEMAND, BUT THE REALITY IS THERE ARE SYSTEMIC, HISTORIC POLITICAL REASONS THAT CREATED THIS IMMENSE SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY THAT WE'RE SEEING. >> Steve: NOT TO MENTION INFLATION, SHORTAGE OF WORKERS, INTEREST RATES -- >> Deena: LACK OF RENT CONTROL. LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING BUILT BY ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. >> Steve: RIGHT. >> Deena: AND SO, I MEAN, EVERYONE IS HAVING A CRISIS IN HOUSING AND I THINK THAT WHAT I GET WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT WHEN WE START LOOKING AT THE SO-CALLED BURDENS ON SERVICES OR THE BURDEN ON HOUSING, THAT THEN IMMIGRANTS GET BROUGHT INTO THE PICTURE, RIGHT? AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE GROUND, WE'VE SEEN A HUGE INCREASE IN ANTI-ASIAN RACISM AROUND THE PANDEMIC, WE'RE SEEING RISING ISLAMOPHOBIA -- >> Steve: OKAY, DEENA, I TAKE YOUR POINT BUT I WANT TO GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION -- AND, MIKE, YOU TACKLE THIS. HOW RESPONSIBLE IS IT TO BRING LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE OVER HERE IF YOU HAVEN'T GOT PLACES FOR THEM TO STAY? >> Mike: I THINK IT'S HOW WE'RE DOING IT. SO THE FACT THAT WE ANNOUNCED -- THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES THESE TARGETS WITH ALMOST NO NOTICE, RIGHT? THAT IF YOU'RE A CITY, YOU ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT YOUR PLANNING, YOUR ZONING, YOUR LAND USE BASED ON POPULATION PROJECTIONS. WELL, THAT'S HARD TO DO WHEN FIRST OF ALL THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES THESE CHANGES IN TARGETS WITH VERY LITTLE NOTICE. SECOND OF ALL, THERE'S NO SORT OF COORDINATION WITH THE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. SO IF I'M MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY STUDENTS A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY IS GOING TO BRING IN, SO I CAN'T PLAN THAT. AND THIRD, IF I'M THE MAYOR AND I'M LOOKING AT POPULATION FORECASTS BY THE FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN UPDATED THEIR OWN FORECAST WITH THOSE IMMIGRATION TARGETS. SO WE CALLED IT -- WE HAD A REPORT AT SPI CALLED "FORECAST FOR FAILURE" WHERE WE ARE MAKING THESE ONE DECISIONS ON THE IMMIGRATION SIDE AND THEN THESE OTHER DECISIONS ON THE PLANNING SIDE, AND THEY DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER, THEY DON'T INTERFACE WITH EACH OTHER, AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO COORDINATION. AND IT'S A CLASSIC CANADIAN PROBLEM. WE HAVE THAT PROBLEM IN HEALTH CARE AND OTHER AREAS AS WELL WHERE ONE HAND DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER HAND IS DOING. >> Steve: I WOULD HAVE ASSUMED, MIKAL, AT SOME POINT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE PUT ALL OF THEIR SMART PEOPLE IN A ROOM, DONE ALL THE NUMBER-CRUNCHING, AND LANDED ON THE $500,000 NUMBER -- 500,000 NUMBER, EXCUSE ME MORE, IT'S MORE THAN $500,000, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE SAID GIVEN THAT INPUT AND THAT INPUT AND THAT INPUT AND THAT INPUT, 500,000 IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. DO THEY DO THAT? >> Mikal: THEY DID THAT. >> Steve: THAT'S WHY IT'S HALF A MILLION. >> Mikal: THAT WAS TRUDEAU'S ECONOMIC COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, RIGHT? HIS ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC GROWTH WAS LED BY DOMINIC BARTON AND HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON IT. HAD ONE ECONOMIST ON IT, CHRIS REAGAN FROM McGILL. I WASN'T SITTING IN THAT ROOM, STEVE, BUT I QUESTIONED WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS. AND FROM WHAT I HEARD IN SOME OF THE TESTIMONY RECENTLY FROM DOMINIC BARTON, THERE WAS SOME PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T ENTIRELY COMFORTABLE WITH THE TARGETS -- >> Steve: YOU TALK ABOUT WHO WAS IN THE ROOM, WHO WASN'T. THE ONTARIO MINISTER OF HOUSING WASN'T IN THE ROOM AND YET HE'S SUPPOSED TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO BUILD 1.5 MILLION HOMES BY THE END OF THE DECADE. >> Mikal: PRECISELY. SO THERE WASN'T -- I'M COMPLETELY WITH MIKE. THERE WAS NOT ADEQUATE PLANNING FOR THIS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT BLAMING IMMIGRANTS. ABSOLUTELY NOT. BUT WHEN YOU INCREASE -- THEY'RE PLANNING -- THE WAY THAT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THESE NUMBERS, STEVE, IS I'D AVOID THE HALF A MILLION. THESE NUMBERS ARE KIND OF HARD TO GET A SENSE OF AND COMPARING IT OVER TIME, IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT IMMIGRATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE EXISTING POPULATION. SO THAT NUMBER FOR MANY YEARS, FOR ABOUT TWO DECADES WAS 0.8%. AND WE WERE DOING WELL. THAT WAS CHUGGING ALONG IN THE BACKGROUND. YOU DON'T WANT IMMIGRATION TO BE CONTROVERSIAL. YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE IN THE HEADLINES. AND IT WAS DOING QUITE WELL. THEY'RE INCREASING FROM 0.8% TO 1.2% OVER A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THAT'S GOING TO PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE ON THE ENTIRE CAPITAL STOCK. NOT JUST HOUSING BUT ALL THE MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT PER WORKER IN CANADA IS FALLING RIGHT NOW. SO I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH PLANNING AND THERE WASN'T ENOUGH ECONOMISTS IN THE ROOM, IN MY VIEW. >> Steve: ALFRED? >> Alfred: AND I THINK THE HOUSING CONVERSATION IS DEMONSTRATIVE OR A GOOD EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING VERY FUNDAMENTAL THAT WE STRUGGLE WITH, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, HOUSING IS NOT THE KIND OF PROBLEM THAT YOU CAN SOLVE IN A YEAR, RIGHT? AND IT TAKES MULTIPLE PLAYERS WORKING TOGETHER. PART OF OUR STRUGGLE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE THREE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES, WELL, IS IT YOUR PROBLEM? IS IT MY PROBLEM? OR IS IT HIS PROBLEM? WHEN AN IMMIGRANT COMES INTO THE COUNTRY, THAT'S ONE OF THEIR STRUGGLES, FIGURING OUT WHO TO GO TO FOR WHAT AND WHO DOES WHAT? SO I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE WE'RE FACING NOW, I MEAN, EVEN WITH, YOU KNOW, A SITUATION WHERE WE BRING IN NEWCOMERS FROM UKRAINE GIVEN THE RECENT CRISIS, RIGHT? FIGURING OUT WHO IS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR THE BILLS FOR THE HOTEL ROOMS, RIGHT? IS IT A MUNICIPAL ISSUE? IS IT A PROVINCIAL ISSUE? SHOULD IT COME FROM THE FEDS? SO IT BECOMES THIS ISSUE THAT GETS BOUNCED BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH, AND SO THIS LACK OF COHESIVE PLANNING THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO SOLVE, YOU KNOW -- AND BY THE WAY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IMMIGRATION AND HOUSING, ON AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, IN CANADA'S MAJOR CITIES, IMMIGRANTS -- LESS THAN 40% OF HOME OWNERS ARE IMMIGRANTS. SO IT'S DEFINITELY NOT AN IMMIGRANT-DRIVEN SOLELY PROBLEM. >> Steve: HERE'S WHY IT'S A PROBLEM AND, SHELDON, I'M ON THE TOP OF PAGE 4 HERE. CAN YOU BRING THIS UP? THIS IS NATIONAL POST COLUMNIST TRISTAN HOPPER WHO QUOTED THE FOLLOWING RECENTLY. HE SAID CANADA IS THE MOST SINGULARLY PRO IMMIGRATION COUNTRY ON EARTH. IT'S EASILY OUR MOST ADMIRABLE NATIONAL TRAIT. BUT IF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT WAS ACTIVELY TRYING TO AWAKEN CANADIAN ANTI-IMMIGRATION SENTIMENT, IT'S HARD TO SEE WHAT THEY WOULD BE DOING DIFFERENT." ARE YOU CONCERNED WE ARE RISKING ANTI-IMMIGRATION BACKLASHES HERE BECAUSE WE'RE INCREASING THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WE'RE ALLOWING IN, WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE SERVICES AND/OR THE HOUSING THAT'S WAITING FOR THEM WHEN THEY GET HERE? >> Deena: WE'VE BEEN EXPERIENCING AN ANTI-IMMIGRANT BACKLASH FOR DECADES. WE HAVE SEEN THE RISE OF A LOT OF HATE GROUPS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE SEEING ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WE HAVE REPORT AFTER REPORT THAT SHOWS THAT ANTI-HATE -- AND ANTI-RACIST ATTACKS HAVE INCREASED ON OUR COMMUNITIES -- >> Steve: DEENA, THE POLLS ALSO SHOW THAT THERE'S A HIGH ACCEPTANCE OF IMMIGRATION IN THIS COUNTRY, HIGHER THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. >> Deena: YES, AND THAT'S GREAT. BUT THE THING IS, HOW ARE WE BRINGING PEOPLE INTO THE COUNTRY? ARE WE BRINGING IN PEOPLE WITH THE SAME RIGHTS AS REGULAR FOLKS WHO ARE LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY? NO, WE'RE NOT. WE'RE BRINGING PEOPLE IN TIED TO EMPLOYERS. AND SO THE ISSUE FOR ME IS, HOW ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE GET TO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY AND ACTUALLY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS? HAVE THE FREEDOM OF MOBILITY. HAVE THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND VOICE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO DO THE WORK THAT THEY WANT TO DO. AND SO OUR IMMIGRATION POLICIES ARE NOT MATCHING UP WITH THE PRO-IMMIGRANT SENTIMENT, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD THING. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE ALSO NEED TO REALIZE THAT OUR COMMUNITIES ON THE GROUND ARE ALSO EXPERIENCING A LOT OF ATTACKS. AND I THINK WE COULD JUST -- I COULD JUST NAME A WHOLE BUNCH OF ATTACKS WHERE WE'RE SEEING -- >> Steve: PEOPLE READ THE PAPERS. WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, YEAH. >> Deena: YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. SO IT DOESN'T FEEL THAT WAY TO A LOT OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SEE THE TYPES OF JOBS THAT MIGRANTS ARE DOING AND BEING FORCED INTO LOW WAGE WORK. >> Steve: MIKAL, LET ME GET YOU ON THAT. I MEAN, THE TWEET RAISES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT OUR POLICIES ARE RISKING THE GENERALLY PRO-IMMIGRATION CONSENSUS WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY. WHAT ARE YOU SEEING? >> Mikal: I THINK FOR ME, MY WORRY IS THAT IT'S ABSOLUTE NUMBERS BUT IT'S ACTUALLY MORE THAN THAT, STEVE. IT'S ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE INFLOW. SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING THIS GOVERNMENT DOING IS VERY CLEARLY MOVING AWAY FROM PRIORITIZING HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS TO PLUGGING HOLES IN THE LABOUR MARKET WITH LOWER SKILLED WORKERS. WHAT TENDS TO HAPPEN IN AN ECONOMY IS WHEN YOU INCREASE LOW SKILLED IMMIGRATION, IT PUTS PRESSURE IF ANYTHING ON WAGES AT THE BOTTOM. THAT TENDS TO INCREASE INEQUALITY. I THINK A HUGE PART OF THE SUCCESS OF THE CANADIAN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IS THAT WE'VE HISTORICALLY HAD THE LUXURY, BECAUSE WE KIND OF HAVE CLOSED BORDERS AND WE CAN PICK AND CHOOSE WHO WE WANT. THERE'S FAR MORE PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE THAN WE KIND OF ALLOW. WE TARGET THE HIGHEST SKILLED IMMIGRANTS. IF ANYTHING, THAT PUTS PRESSURE AT THE TOP END OF THE LABOUR MARKET. AND THAT TENDS TO REDUCE INEQUALITY. SO LOWER SKILLED WORKERS THAT ARE HERE AND ARE VOTERS DON'T LOOK AT IMMIGRANTS AND SAY, "WELL, THESE PEOPLE ARE COMPETING WITH ME." THEY LOOK AT THEM AND SAY, "THESE ARE MY DOCTORS, THESE ARE MY SCIENTISTS, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MY LIFE BETTER." AND THAT'S A HUGE PART OF THE SUCCESS OF THIS SYSTEM IN CANADA. AND THERE IS VERY STRONG PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR IMMIGRATION IN CANADA OVERALL. >> Steve: ALFRED? >> Alfred: A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO THE CONFERENCE BOARD OF CANADA DID A STUDY WITH MCGILL UNIVERSITY AND THE STUDY IS CALLED "ARE WE GOOD OR ARE WE LUCKY?" AND IT CHALLENGES THIS PUBLIC NOTION THAT THERE'S HUGE PRO-IMMIGRATION SENTIMENT WITHIN THE CANADIAN POPULATION. THE SHOCKING THING THE STUDY FOUND WAS THAT THE ANTI-IMMIGRANT SENTIMENT IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE AND WELL. THE SURVEY ASKS QUESTIONS LIKE: WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOUR OF GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY SHUTTING DOWN IMMIGRATION? AND ALMOST HALF THE SAMPLE THAT WAS SURVEYED RESPONDED POSITIVELY TO A STATEMENT LIKE THAT. SO I THINK GOING BACK TO WHAT DEENA WAS SAYING EARLIER, THOSE SENTIMENTS ALWAYS EXIST AND IT'S LOOKING FOR THESE SORT OF FLASH POINTS TO SET IT OFF. COVID BECAME A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THAT. GOING BACK TO WHAT MIKAL IS SAYING, I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS THAT WHEN WE BRING IN PEOPLE, WE ATTACK IT OR WE LOOK AT THE SITUATION AT A SYSTEMIC LEVEL. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT PLUCKING NUMBERS, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT A MATH EQUATION, I NEED X NUMBER OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, I BRING IN X NUMBER OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THAT TWEET, IT'S HERE, RIGHT? WE ARE A COMPASSIONATE NATION. WE ARE A WELCOMING NATION. ALL THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE. BUT LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES. THAT TYPE OF SENTIMENT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED, IT EXISTS, AND EVERY TIME WE SEE A SITUATION THAT COULD BECOME A SETTING OFF, A FLASH POINT, WE SEE THAT COMING UP TO THE SURFACE. >> Steve: YOU HAVE NICELY ENCAPSULATED WHAT THE WHOLE DEBATE IS ABOUT, WHICH IS GREAT, BECAUSE WE'RE OUT OF TIME. THAT'S ALFRED LAM AND MIKE MOFFATT ON THAT SIDE OF THE TABLE, MIKAL SKUTERUD AND DEENA LADD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE. AND WE'RE GRATEFUL TO ALL FOUR OF YOU FOR COMING IN TO TVO TONIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS FOR HAVING US.
It’s not the immigrants fault . They’ve done nothing wrong and are just chasing their dreams .
But we do need to stop importing 400k-500k new people a year and crushing our lack of infrastructure just to give more low wage workers to corporations and more rent to landlords who can rent An apartment to 8 men .
We also need to close the education loophole to come here as a student - get a work visa and wind up a citizen in exchange for funnelling money into colleges and universities.
We absolutely need immigration , but it needs to be at reasonable levels .
I like how the dude with glasses said something along the lines of Canada always being an immigration friendly country and there was no problem when immigration was quietly moving along in the background at a sustainable level. The increase puts a target on the immigrants back because people may blame them and it may make life harder for immigrants and residents
Canada is doing immigration very right for the Trudeaus, Westons, and Irvings of the country, and for foreign investors.
Times have never been better for the wealthy. First the unprecedented Covid-19 wealth transfer paid for by an inflation tax on the poors, and then massive immigration to increase the price of capital relative to labor.
2023 is an absolutely amazing time to be an oligarch in Canada, things have never been better! #blessed
Canada is the best at sucking blood from immigrants with fake dream. aka Vampire Capitalism.
You can't bring millions of people into the country during a housing crisis and not make people wonder what jobs they're getting and how they can afford a place to live.
Yessss!
https://youtu.be/3hqMH5367bA
This is to do with international students. Interesting how there's a blind eye on this issue...
It’s wild in the Canada Immigration subs. I’m a PR from the US (spousal sponsorship). Came here in 2019, did a masters at UofT post-PR, and now in the process of attaining citizenship.
I’m in the sub to share my timelines with people and answer questions. I would say like 30% of the posts on there are basically people shamelessly asking how to cheat the system. It’s really annoying. (Example: “I came I to Canada on a student visa and now have my COPR approved. Can I quit school now or do I have ti wait?” Or “I’m in Canada on a vision visa and work full time for an American company, can I also work for a Canadian company?”
Yeesh.
If immigrants are coming here to fill jobs and a better life, doesn’t that imply that even if they are exploited to a minor extent they have a better life here than where they came from?