Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Jarnhamar]

The economy would not appreciate such a dramatic shift. Isn't it better to take a cautious approach to see how things pan out rather than just throwing the economy into a lurch?

I'd say it depends how productive the dead weight is and what they're contributing back into the economy.

 

[Altair]

I'd say it depends how productive the dead weight is and what they're contributing back into the economy.

Something we cannot know if we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Canada is actively shrinking, the housing market is flat (pity those who need the equity boost) the economy is already showing strain at this approach.

Going more aggressive at this will definately throw Canada into an actual recession, which I'm sure those supporting shrinking faster will be all so understanding of...

Bottom line, the USA GDP and overall economy is growing much faster and rapidly than ours.

Ours is contracting. or "technical recession". Remember when people here wanted to pretend it wasn't happening?

Ohhh, and those "increase jobs" in May/june? Mostly temp summer jobs and FIFA temp jobs.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Something we cannot know if we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Canada is actively shrinking, the housing market is flat (pity those who need the equity boost) the economy is already showing strain at this approach.

Going more aggressive at this will definately throw Canada into an actual recession, which I'm sure those supporting shrinking faster will be all so understanding of...

That assumes every reduction is equally harmful. My point is that if someone is consistently taking more from Canada's economy than they're contributing, reducing those numbers isn't the same as losing productive workers.

The question isn't more or fewer people, it's whether the people we're bringing in are creating a net benefit or a net cost.

 

[Altair]

That assumes every reduction is equally harmful. My point is that if someone is consistently taking more from Canada's economy than they're contributing, reducing those numbers isn't the same as losing productive workers.

The question isn't more or fewer people, it's whether the people we're bringing in are creating a net benefit or a net cost.

I kind of feel like thats getting into the minutia a little too much. What, are we going to set up productivity tribunals? What's the cost of checking the individual productivity of millions of people?

The Government sets up headlines numbers for permanent immigrants and temporary and lets the chips fall where they may.

Currently, we are shrinking. Good enough.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The question isn't more or fewer people, it's whether the people we're bringing in are creating a net benefit or a net cost.

Perhaps we should also be testing the productivity and willingnness to work of those that are born in Canada.

As an immigrant myself, I am very aware of the amount of courage and initiative it takes to move to another country in search of a better life. On the face of it, that requires a much greater will to succeed than perhaps those that were fortunate enough to be born in one of the best countries in the world. At the very least, immigrants are perhaps more likely to appreciate Canada as they have a comparator.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Perhaps we should also be testing the productivity and willingnness to work of those that are born in Canada.

That's the big cliffhanger around winning the lottery of where someone is born. How productive is someone born in Canada who's on welfare their whole life? Or disability?

I'd offer it comes down to birthright and what responsibility of care we owe someone lucky enough to be born in Canada vs someone born in a remote village from Africa (for example). Like it or not we're on the hook for someone born here. We can be (should be) more selective for who we bring to Canada.

At the very least, immigrants are perhaps more likely to appreciate Canada as they have a comparator.

That's been my experience with a lot of immigrants. They appreciate Canada more than many of us born here who haven't lived difficult lives.

As an immigrant myself, I am very aware of the amount of courage and initiative it takes to move to another country in search of a better life. On the face of it, that requires a much greater will to succeed than perhaps those that were fortunate enough to be born in one of the best countries in the world.

The darker side of this is the benefit shopping we know that happens with some. Criminal elements (or the criminal minded) also know they can come here, break our laws and take advantage of our system for years and years and years.

Higher end estimates say there's up to 500,000 people in Canada illegally. I bet we could lose a chunk of those and we wouldn't collapse. Include non-citizens committing any sort of crime. Save the room in prison, give them the boot and ban them from returning.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What, are we going to set up productivity tribunals?

Department Of Guest Efficiency


Edit - Post got cut off

Tightening up our asylum seeker process is a good start. We can maybe be a little more critical of giving asylum to men who say they have to stay in Canada because they're gay and if they go home to their wife and 7 kids they'll be killed by the government.

 

[Altair]

Department Of Guest Efficiency


Edit - Post got cut off

Tightening up our asylum seeker process is a good start. We can maybe be a little more critical of giving asylum to men who say they have to stay in Canada because they're gay and if they go home to their wife and 7 kids they'll be killed by the government.

Yeah, sure, maybe.

I feel like thats a very small subset of all of those coming to Canada under asylum status, never mind all the other immigration streams.

In a big picture versus small picture, i always want the feds to be focused on the big picture, not on those seeking to game the system for one reason or another.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yeah, sure, maybe.

I feel like thats a very small subset of all of those coming to Canada under asylum status, never mind all the other immigration streams.

In a big picture versus small picture, i always want the feds to be focused on the big picture, not on those seeking to game the system for one reason or another.

That's exactly part of the big picture. If your asylum system isn't effectively screening out fraudulent claims, it undermines public confidence, ties up resources, and delays protection for people with legitimate claims. Big G fixing abuse and managing overall immigration aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Altair]

That's exactly part of the big picture. If your asylum system isn't effectively screening out fraudulent claims, it undermines public confidence, ties up resources, and delays protection for people with legitimate claims. Big G fixing abuse and managing overall immigration aren't mutually exclusive.

So you want the government to focus on the subset of refugee claimants who do this, as opposed to the larger temp, student, permanent resident immigration streams?

Im not saying the government cannot walk and chew gum but... screw that, nevermind. They cant.

Again, focusing on the bigger picture that deals with 99 percent immigrants coming into Canada rather than virtue signalling , thank you kindly.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So you want the government to focus on the subset of refugee claimants who do this, as opposed to the larger temp, student, permanent resident immigration streams?

Im not saying the government cannot walk and chew gum but... screw that, nevermind. They cant.

Again, focusing on the bigger picture that deals with 99 percent immigrants coming into Canada rather than virtue signalling , thank you kindly.

If the system is demonstrably being gamed in any subset, it’s not virtue signalling to address it. I would call that basic integrity of the process. You can focus on the big picture streams and still tighten the smaller points (or pressure points) where abuse is concentrated.

Enough of the "it's just a rounding error" excuse when it comes to wrong doing.

Now, at least on Ontario, young adults are going to have to get to work.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-rejects-ottawa-temporary-foreign-worker-cap-increase-9.7250679

 

[YZT580]

The Government sets up headlines numbers for permanent immigrants and temporary and lets the chips fall where they may.

We have significantly exceeded their immigrant numbers for several years running. So we have far more people here at the moment than has been planned. Folks have been bitching about staffing requirements, wringing their hands and forecasting stuff sitting in boxes, on shelves and in hangars because their is no one to use it. The reverse also happens. During WW2 the Russians would send 1 rifle forward with X number of people who picked it up as the carrier fell. We don't have the resources to accomodate all the immigrants; hence the housing crisis, so why is everybody getting upset because people are leaving and reducing the pressure. Unless of course it is the contributors who are leaving in which case Houston, we have a problem.

 

[Altair]

If the system is demonstrably being gamed in any subset, it’s not virtue signalling to address it. I would call that basic integrity of the process. You can focus on the big picture streams and still tighten the smaller points (or pressure points) where abuse is concentrated.

Enough of the "it's just a rounding error" excuse when it comes to wrong doing.

Now, at least on Ontario, young adults are going to have to get to work.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-rejects-ottawa-temporary-foreign-worker-cap-increase-9.7250679

Permanent Residents
Economic Class 232,150
Family Reunification 94,500
Refugee & Humanitarian 68,350
Temporary Residents
International Students 305,900
International Mobility (IMP)285,750
Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWP)82,000

So by far the smallest class, asylum seekers.

Of that...80 percent of asylum claims are accepted, 20 percent are rejected.

so 68,350 X 0.2=13,670

Out of 1068650 people entering Canada in a given year, lets focus on the 13,670...

1.2 Percent.

Virtue signaling is the public expression of moral values or beliefs intended primarily to enhance one's social standing or self-image, rather than to drive genuine change. The term is typically used to criticize gestures that are perceived as superficial, performative, or insincere.

Yup, checks out.

 

[Altair]

We have significantly exceeded their immigrant numbers for several years running. So we have far more people here at the moment than has been planned. Folks have been bitching about staffing requirements, wringing their hands and forecasting stuff sitting in boxes, on shelves and in hangars because their is no one to use it. The reverse also happens. During WW2 the Russians would send 1 rifle forward with X number of people who picked it up as the carrier fell. We don't have the resources to accomodate all the immigrants; hence the housing crisis, so why is everybody getting upset because people are leaving and reducing the pressure. Unless of course it is the contributors who are leaving in which case Houston, we have a problem.

Housing is flat. You don't want housing dropping unless your goal is to hammer those who are just getting into houses right now. When their mortgage term is up, watch them get screwed when their LTV rates go in the wrong direction.

Again, we ran into issues by ramping up immigration to levels we couldn't manage. Don't think for a second we wouldn't run into problems if we did the same thing in reverse.

 

[Jarnhamar]

lets focus on the 13,670...

For someone who thinks the government should go with 2 new fighter fleets I'm surprised you don't seem confident in their ability at multitasking.

Hoisting virtue signalling up the flag pole doesn’t actually engage with the argument; it just assigns intent instead of addressing substance.

If the concern is system integrity and incentives across immigration pathways (which mine is), that applies regardless of whether a category is 1% or 30% of intake. The relevant question is impact and abuse potential. Not just the proportional share. "It’s just a rounding error" incentivizes abuse; haven't we had enough rounding errors in the last 11 years?

 

[Good2Golf]

My challenge to you and others, is when, when do you start raising the bar of expectations for PM MC and his brand of Liberals.

Well, if you had actually listened to what many of us have been saying about Carney, is that many of us still hold judgement on him regarding the proximal influence of China, particularly ongoing foreign interference, the likes of CCP’s United Fromt Work Department activity in Canada, including local Chinese national supported ‘Police Stations’ and the significant influence of Triad criminality particularly with money laundering and casinos in key Chinese diaspora-laden regions. It would seem you’re so upset which anyone who dare question the purported awesomeness of Poilievre, that you’re blind to the criticism of Carney by those who you accuse of being blind Carney shills.

Or Carney does EVERYTHING he promised.

Ridiculous, naive expectation. What other Canadian politician has done EVERYTHING they promised?

I have barely touched on what Pierre puts out pubicly. And the MSM/CPAC covers him frequently. Up to you.

Irrelevant. Blah, blah, blah, VerbtheNoun, blah, blah, blah.

We’ll never know what Poilievre’s word are worth until he’s PM, then we can apply the phrase Facta Non Verba. Until then it’s just Verba Inania.

I am out for real now.

See you back soon!

 

[MilEME09]

Imagine if the LotO was moved out of Stornaway to make room for the PM while the repairs were being conducted.

This was actually offered to harper in 2008

 

[Altair]

For someone who thinks the government should go with 2 new fighter fleets I'm surprised you don't seem confident in their ability at multitasking.

I trust the RCAF to figure it out.

Hoisting virtue signalling up the flag pole doesn’t actually engage with the argument; it just assigns intent instead of addressing substance.

1.2 percent. And that's me generously assigning every one of those 13K to your scenario of the dad with 7 kids.

If the concern is system integrity and incentives across immigration pathways (which mine is), that applies regardless of whether a category is 1% or 30% of intake. The relevant question is impact and abuse potential. Not just the proportional share. "It’s just a rounding error" incentivizes abuse; haven't we had enough rounding errors in the last 11 years?

We didn't see rounding errors, we got systemic errors the post covid years.

Again, if you think it's that big a deal, power to you. I think it's such a micro issue in the face of a more pertinent macro issue.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Again, if you think it's that big a deal, power to you. I think it's such a micro issue in the face of a more pertinent macro issue.

Here's some good numbers from our CBSA friends.

CBSA removes 81 individuals linked to extortion from Canada since August 2025 - Surrey Now-Leader

46 individuals were removed in the Pacific region

surreynowleader.com

In 2025, the CBSA removed 23,160 people from Canada for various reasons. Over 1,000 of those were deemed inadmissible for “serious criminality,” which included national security, war crimes or human rights violations, organized crime, and criminality.

Around 400 people are removed from Canada each week after being deemed inadmissible.

2.4 people per hour, not bad. I'm sure we can put a little more horsepower into this without our whole society collapsing eh?

 

[Altair]

Here's some good numbers from our CBSA friends.

CBSA removes 81 individuals linked to extortion from Canada since August 2025 - Surrey Now-Leader

46 individuals were removed in the Pacific region

surreynowleader.com

2.4 people per hour, not bad. I'm sure we can put a little more horsepower into this without our whole society collapsing eh?

In the grand scheme of th crux of the issue, Army rick talking about out of control migration, I seriously think 2.4 people per hour is such small potatoes when talking about 3000 people a day.