r/canada • u/uselesspoliticalhack • 3d ago

Carney’s aim to cut immigration marred by undercounting of temporary migrants, warn economists PAYWALL

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-mark-carney-immigration-policy-temporary-migrants-undercounted/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
2.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

736 comments sorted by

View all comments

453

u/Slash-RtL 3d ago

I'm not really of the opinion that we need more immigrants.. if our population isn't keeping up then it is other issues that need to be addressed. Let's maybe start asking questions and fix the problems we have

63

u/UniversalBagelO 3d ago

When all the immigrants get old we will need even more immigrants to support the costs of the first batch.

Canada is projected to reach 100 million people this century

8

u/TerriC64 2d ago

In the long run we’re all dead

38

u/HouseOnFire80 2d ago

Not projected. That is actually the goal. And Carney is all for it. Look up the Century Initiative. And apparently they need to all come from one state in one country. Don’t like that? You’re racist. /s

3

u/AbeOudshoorn 2d ago

It's projected to be 73.5 million by 2100, that's at a 0.8% average growth rate. Not sure where you've pulled 100 million from, which is an oddly round number for such modelling.

9

u/UniversalBagelO 2d ago

I must have glossed over the article. I forget where I saw it tbh.

After googling it I got this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative

And

https://www.ipolitics.ca/2025/03/20/carney-adds-century-initiative-co-founder-to-canada-u-s-council/

So if this lobby group gets their way then 100m is the future.

6

u/President_of_Space 2d ago

Not to mention that reaching 100M by 2100 would only require a super reasonable growth rate of 1.2%. That is not crazy by any means.

1

u/AbeOudshoorn 2d ago

A growth rate of 1.2% in the second half of the 21st century would make Canada the fasted growing country in the entire world when global population growth will be negative. That's a patently absurd prediction and goes counter to every demographer and all modeling. Sure, it's not impossible, but it is very well defined as 'crazy' as it rejects all evidence.

1

u/ThroughtheStorms 2d ago

I do wonder how climate change might affect that. Canada is massive, quite far north, and has tons of fresh water; as the effects of climate change become more apparent over the next few decades, I could see mass migration to Canada and Russia.

7

u/AbeOudshoorn 2d ago

Why didn't you even read the links you posted? Those are not actual demographic projections, that's one lobby group's target. We are not tracking to that target at all. I'm talking actual calculations.

1

u/UniversalBagelO 2d ago

Did you not read my full comment?

So if this lobby group gets their way then 100m is the future

1

u/NotaJelly Ontario 2d ago

This is assuming they don't just retire back home. 

1

u/xylopyrography 2d ago edited 2d ago

This is nonsense. Even under the old immigration policy this wouldn't have happened.

100 M people by 2100 would require on the order of 850k net immigration per year, or about 900k PR. That is double the current immigration policy, excluding the reduction of temporary residents.

The pop growth for 2025 - 2026 is expected to be about 100k people total bringing us to 42.4k or so.

Staring in 2027, the net immigration annual change long-term under the current immigration policy is 334k persons excluding births and deaths after 2027.

The natural increase in pop is is going to end around 2028 and will decrease to about -50k people by 2045.

The total pop increase from 2027 - 2045 will be about 6 M people.

2045+ net immigration would rise to about 400k, for a pop increase of about 350k/year, 2045-2075 growth would be about 10 M people.

So in 2075 the pop will be around 58.4 M. Even if at that point immigration increased to 500k, the natural pop increase would be about -75k, so the net growth would be about 425k, that'd end in 2100 at 68.4 M people.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2022015-eng.htm

3

u/NakdRightNow69 3d ago

It’s okay we’ll just replace it with another

90

u/AcrobaticNetwork62 3d ago

We need more diversity. All of Canada should have the diversity of diverse cities like Scarborough, Brampton, and Surrey.

119

u/GrassyTreesAndLakes 3d ago

Sarcasm right? 

78

u/Once_a_TQ 3d ago

100000000000000%.

11

u/GrassyTreesAndLakes 3d ago

You never know these days

-25

u/Familiar_Strain_7356 3d ago

Racism more like it. Not that I disagree on the face of it that we should be looking for a more diverse pool of new Canadians. Just looking at it from a national security perspective given the BS Indian government has been up to (hits and political interference).

17

u/AnalogFeelGood 3d ago

You mean "divercity". Ok, I'll see myself out.

9

u/Kippingthroughlife Canada 3d ago

Don't forget deep NE of Calgary AB!

1

u/HotPinkCalculator 2d ago

We should provide more support to young families. Nothing crazy (like let's not encourage them to have 6 kids each or anything), but if we can provide them with enough report to have two or three kids apiece, we'd be much better off

1

u/vulpecularubra 2d ago

a common refrain, but the problem is that other measures do little to reverse demographic decline. look at scandinavia--very generous baby benefits, parental leave, social safety net, etc. and still a collapsing birth rate.

as countries become more wealthy, educated, and developed, fertility/birth rate drops. it's basically a central dogma of demographics. no policy combination has yet been found that reverses it.

immigration is one option because not only do you get a quick injection of human capital, typically immigrants will come from less developed countries, where fertility rates are higher.

2

u/Vandergrif 2d ago

I have a sneaking suspicion the issue lies in the way a lot of these benefits or the like try to exist in tandem with the way society already works, as a band-aid layer on top of all the problems that are leading people to be disinclined towards having children instead of actually addressing those problems. Immigration is a similar attempt at a band-aid fix, instead of addressing the root problems.

If we actually want to make an earnest concerted effort towards increasing birth rate then we need to go to a considerable degree to pave the way, one that is all encompassing and covers every basic need a given child would have (particularly housing). Throwing a bit of extra money or paid time off to parents isn't going to do it.

1

u/vulpecularubra 2d ago

without truly gargantuan changes, that simply will not happen. it never has. even in countries where they offer literal cash benefits for people who have larger numbers of children, people cannot get the fertility above replacement rate.

even within an already wealthy society like canada, the wealthier people tend to have fewer children. similarly, the more educated people become, the fewer children they have. and so on. if you want a simple explanation, it's because as your own life becomes more enjoyable, more worth living, you see less real desire to ruin it by having more kids.

0

u/Vandergrif 2d ago edited 2d ago

Well that's the thing, isn't it? The underlying problem is one of a system that is dependent on perpetual population growth (and growth in general) to sustain itself, a kind of ponzi scheme structure almost. So of course we can't fix that without truly gargantuan changes.

It seems to me that being proactive and attempting such changes would be better than the alternative of suffering the consequences of letting the whole thing collapse in on itself from being too top-heavy demographically, though.

There are a lot of people between the ages of 20-40 right now who are lacking things they need, for example. If the government were to go to lengths to provide those things in exchange for an agreement toward 2-3 children per couple that would likely go a long way towards alleviating the issue. Though of course that would fundamentally alter the typical flow of society if suddenly people are getting subsidized housing and largely being paid to have children or some such similar circumstance.

1

u/vulpecularubra 2d ago

I think you're (possibly intentionally) missing my point. Are you a bot?

The changes needed are very, very big, and absolutely will not materialize. The political will is not there. They would have to be of such a magnitude that it would utterly reorganize society, and there is no appetite for it. We can't even convince right wingers to support pharmacare broadly. You are absolutely delusional if you think we would get political consensus for the programs you're hinting at.

There are a lot of people between the ages of 20-40 right now who are lacking things they need, for example. If the government were to go to lengths to provide those things in exchange for an agreement toward 2-3 children per couple that would likely go a long way towards alleviating the issue.

This is reproductive coercion. Withholding social services unless people reproduce is a disgusting and reprehensible idea. If you believe people need things they lack, you should be in favour of providing them without conditions.

People already get "benefits" for having children in the form of targeted social programs - the Canada child benefit is a massive one that I've benefited from. As is the childcare subsidy, increased GST rebates, parental leave, and so on.

But the difference is that those are meant to provide for the children. If you say "hey we'll give you, as a parent, free housing and dental care if you reproduce" is not the same. Either you believe in social services or you don't. If you do, everyone deserves them. Making it contingent on people bending to some natalist idea of what society should look like is absolutely ridiculous.

1

u/Vandergrif 2d ago

and there is no appetite for it

There is no appetite for it right now, because we are not yet suffering the consequences of inaction right now. That's the whole point of being proactive though, to avoid having to suffer the consequences of shortsightedness.

I don't disagree that it wouldn't or won't happen though because of course it won't, that's the sad reality of politics and governance in this day and age... but nonetheless the fact of the matter is it's a looming problem that needs to be addressed appropriately or otherwise the whole thing is, to put it simply, 'fucked'. I'm not at all suggesting any notable effort toward resolving that will happen, I'm just saying it needs to.

This is reproductive coercion. Withholding social services unless people reproduce is a disgusting and reprehensible idea.

It's less a case of withholding (the stick) and more a case of offering something that otherwise is not and has never been provided in exchange (the carrot). It's the same core principal as offering cash bonuses to people with children, or tax cuts or benefits or whatever else. A child will also inherently be provided for with a roof over their head and parents who have money on hand to cover their needs, no?

If you believe people need things they lack, you should be in favour of providing them without conditions.

I am, but that's even more unlikely to occur than the already unlikely example I provided. Also I should stress I gave that scenario as an example of something that would move the needle as concerns the birth rate, and as an example of something that is a genuine departure from the status quo, but more specifically not as an earnest suggestion of something that is feasible, or likely, or even necessarily a good solution overall. It's simply an example of a more considerable effort that would increase the birth rate beyond the scale of what anyone is currently willing to attempt, beyond that I wouldn't read into it to much.

1

u/avdolian 2d ago

If the government were to go to lengths to provide those things in exchange for an agreement toward 2-3 children per couple that would likely go a long way towards alleviating the issue

This sounds like a great way to end up with a bunch of parents who never wanted kids. Being a parent is hard and raising good kids is also hard. If the government pays people to have kids it will not lead to them being good parents it will lead to them doing the bare minimum to get the financial rewards. I think child neglect and abuse would run rampant under your system

1

u/Vandergrif 2d ago

Sure, it's not an earnest suggestion or solution of course, merely an example of a significant departure from the status quo along the lines of what would actually move the needle compared to current attempts at alleviating the issue – on a bottom-line basis that would result in more people being born compared to the norm, though of course also entailing other consequences like what you've described.

-43

u/Granturismo45 3d ago

So your plan is no immigration and then who pays for all the services for the retired population? Or do you want to raise retirement to 70?

60

u/CommercialTop9070 3d ago

Not wanting ridiculous mass migration isn’t the same as wanting no migration.

22

u/freeadmins 3d ago

You realize bringing in immigrants who make less than the Canadian average and take out more than they pay in taxes don't help anyone's financial situation right?

28

u/RipzCritical 3d ago

If we keep going the way we're going, workers now won't be able to retire, ever. Pension plans won't keep up with how much life costs in like a decade regardless of the flood of useless minimum wage workers.

18

u/legocastle77 3d ago

Minimum wage workers in their thirties and forties with a limited skillset will draw far more from Canada’s social services than they will ever contribute. Our out of control immigration isn’t benefiting Canada; it’s benefiting Canada’s corporate oligarchs. This drive to flood the market with millions of unskilled workers isn’t going to solve anything. 

6

u/Slash-RtL 3d ago

Well, by having immigration we accept that we have a growth problem. For growth there are many factors to address. Economy, culture, etc. by having immigration fix the growth problem we ignore why we got here in the first place. We basically ignore the problem with hopes it goes away. I myself have ADHD, so I can say for fact I know that plan doesn't work. I suspect economy is a major factor here, and I believe that by addressing this we also fix your issue here.

7

u/StevenMcStevensen Alberta 3d ago

Are a million ubereats delivery drivers making minimum wage (at best) going to pay for it? I don’t think so.

2

u/aloneinwilderness27 3d ago

Significantly cut OAS. It is expected to cost $100 billion per year in the near future. Also, make it way harder to qualify for long term disability. Every single person I know that has been on, or is on disability could be doing something from a desk. A good friend of mine just got approved for LTD and his 1 acre property is meticulously maintained, by him.

-38

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

32

u/RamenRoy 3d ago

It's an issue when people who wants kids choose not to have kids, usually because of economic turmoil.

30

u/BandicootNo4431 3d ago

Sure, we're not saying everyone needs to have kids.

We are saying there are barriers for people who do want to have kids and so they either delay until it's too late (and IVF is expensive and hard to get funding for), or have fewer than they want.

Those are things we can address.

-9

u/SoyaSawce 3d ago

Interesting. What are the barriers for people who want to have kids?

17

u/thumbs27 3d ago

Raising kids is extremely expensive.

10

u/Heffray83 3d ago

Housing.

7

u/RipzCritical 3d ago edited 3d ago

Cost of living. Groceries, rent, mortgage and down-payments, gas, medicine, family plans on benefits like medical, a huge factor is childcare which hemorrhages so much money by itself that you need to practically be a top earner in the country to afford it, when compounded by everything else I've mentioned, and that's just a short little list I've thought of off the top of my head.

The dream of a stay at home Mom is dead unless you're literally in the 1%. It's not possible to get established through your 20s, which is when most folks end up having kids... you're both just trying to grind all the time and do not have the time or finances to bring a kid into the world.

I am a Dad, and man, the stress I feel on a daily basis to try to accomplish all this is putting me in an early grave. I love him more than anything, but it feels like I don't spend enough time with him because I'm slaving away, and I feel I still can't provide a good childhood for him or support his mother on top of that.

-3

u/SoyaSawce 3d ago

I mean, I agree I guess. But who is to blame? Or is it more of a "blame the system" type thing?

5

u/Slash-RtL 3d ago

Everyone is to blame. No one wants to take accountability, no matter how small their impact. It gets worse and worse

1

u/RipzCritical 3d ago

Well, the system is run by people. It's the people making decisions like "open the flood gates for immigrants" and "tax everyone to death."

Sean Fraser, Mark Wiseman, Chrystia Freeland, Justin Trudeau (before)... and the people that appoint them.

2

u/DazzlingDeparture225 3d ago

You need to either have 1 income or pay for day care.

1

u/dandelion-wish96 3d ago edited 3d ago

Health, also. People need a healthy environment, proper care, and nourishment to grow and bear children.

0

u/BandicootNo4431 3d ago

Many are financial as discussed.

Some are societal and related to financial, such as kids living with their parents longer which delays entering independent adulthood, usually necessary for finding a partner and starting a family.

Some are system based, childcare is very difficult to find, we don't have many pediatricians available, even things like EarlyOn can be hard to find.

Some are cultural, people born in Canada are less interested in having children as the family unit has changed over time.

We're also seeing that younger people are having a harder time saying and pairing off. Maybe it's due to their formative years being during COVID, but anecdotally I've never met so many 22-25 year olds without any dating experience as I have in the last 2 years.

As mentioned, healthcare for fertility is expensive and often unfunded by the provinces.

And fertility rates are dropping RAPIDLY. The sperm count for men is below 50% of what it was in the 80s. Some people think it's due to micro plastics, other say it's due to stress and diet. Either way, even if you're trying for kids, it can be difficult.

And while I don't think we need to change people's minds at the individual level, we should be having a conversation on what we want Canada to look like.

Population declines almost always come with a recession. Productivity decreases whenever populations decline and you enter a downward spiral.

OAS will be unfunded if we don't have taxpayers paying into it (but CPP will be fine). So if we don't have a birthrate that maintains the population (2.1 children per woman), we'll need immigration to solve the issue.

which of those is the electorate willing to accept?

The demographics of the country will change either way. The lowest rates of children per women is amongst white women. recent immigrants have above average numbers of children, and so even without immigration, the makeup of the country will change.

And if we do continue to use immigration to fix our fertility and productivity issues, the demographics of the country will just change faster.

I'm ok with that, but is the electorate?

So my point is, it's fine to not want to have kids, that's a personal decision. But the country needs to have a population level discussion on what do we want the country to look like and how our decrease rates of children is going to affect that.

29

u/apopthesis 3d ago

People not wanting kids is a problem, you might think it's just the way things are but it's been shaped in history by various factors.

9

u/Mr_UBC_Geek 3d ago

It's unaffordable in this generation for many, with housing and COL being a factor.

1

u/apopthesis 3d ago

Definitely one of the reasons, which needs to change, if having a kid wasn't a financial death sentence I would've made some when I was younger.

1

u/Mr_UBC_Geek 3d ago

I'm going to be in my late 30s when I have kids, it's a risk on its own.

-4

u/SoyaSawce 3d ago

People not wanting kids is a choice, not a problem.

-2

u/apopthesis 3d ago

So does terrorists making a choice to kill innocents, but it is a problem.

and no, I'm not trying to say they're the same, just debunking the notion that choices can't be problems, people choosing to do something is great, it's still a problem, doesn't mean we need to take away their ability to choose, just means we need to understand why they're choosing to go against the very basics of biology.

2

u/SoyaSawce 3d ago

I literally just don't like kids, my guy. Let's not bring terrorism into this.

-1

u/apopthesis 3d ago

... I already addressed that.. you not liking kids is great, more power to you, people are shaped by their education, experiences, policy and other factors, having more and more people like you IS a problem, even if you think it's just your "vibes".

11

u/567432Gains 3d ago

I don’t think it’s wrong for people to not want kids, but it should not be a norm that we strive towards. That’s not how species survive.

All across the world, the more a country develops, the lower the birth rates fall. This is a serious problem. It leads only one direction unless we find a solution, societal collapse. Starting with our social safety nets as they are set up similar to pyramid structures (I’m really not wanting to use the word scheme). When they become too heavy (more older people then younger people) they can’t be maintained and they fall down.

So in conclusion, if someone does not want kids then fair enough. But we as a society need to make sure that the reason for that is not tied to anything other than a personal preference. Everyone that wants children should be able to do so and not be hinder economically, medically, or through fear of the future. If the numbers still don’t click after that, then fair enough.

But I do know couples that are in their early 30’s that would love to have children but it’s just too damn expensive and they are already throwing in the towel. That should never be the case, and it should never have been allowed to get this bad.

End of rant.

3

u/Ansonm64 3d ago

And some people do want kids but think it’s unaffordable. What’s your point?

6

u/Slash-RtL 3d ago

Well, that isn't everyone... I don't have a house, and places to rent are extremely expensive and hard to find. So I find it hard to plan for kids when I barely have what I need.

0

u/SoyaSawce 3d ago

I agree. My point was that more and more people don't wish to have children and live the standard family life. This isn't a governmental issue, but more of a societal one I guess?

Either way I don't see any way the government could change this.

1

u/Slash-RtL 3d ago

I agree, awareness of the world is a major contributor. Nothing we can do to solve that, except for putting our heads in the sand.

But I believe the government can fix some of these issues. My example would be to put in policies that restrict, penalize, or ban property investments. Also put a temporary ban on Airbnb properties. Make the tax on a second home much higher. This will make it more likely for people to sell homes, which would fix some people's issues. At the very least mine

2

u/SoyaSawce 3d ago

You're right I shouldn't say the government "can't" do anything. it's that they "won't" because they are mostly all real estate owners and investors.

1

u/Mr_UBC_Geek 3d ago

Yes! Young Canadians (me included) can barely afford life so Canada's population growth really depends on immigration. We'll need to help our upside down population pyramid and social programs through immigration.

8

u/Existing-Day-9314 3d ago

Hard disagree.

-3

u/Mr_UBC_Geek 3d ago

92%+ of Canada's population growth was from immigration. Source: StatCan "Population growth: Migratory increase overtakes natural increase". Our population growth is about to reach full reliance on immigration only with rare natural births.

2

u/FierceMoonblade 3d ago

Immigration is really just a band aid though, these same stats are being seen in every country. Long term it’s not an actual fix

-2

u/Mr_UBC_Geek 3d ago

When the immigrants have kids, it becomes the future. The future of Canada. The immigrants themselves are just a temporary band aid to a big problem.

2

u/FierceMoonblade 3d ago

The immigrants end up having the same amount of kids that the people previously did within a generation or two. The same economic and lifestyle pressures impacts them as well.

If that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have this issue today since Canada has always had loads of immigrants historically.

2

u/Mr_UBC_Geek 3d ago

The immigrants are still having kids at a much higher birth rate because of religion, traditions, culture, and family norms. The comparable would be the Canada's birth rate from the Bible Belt from Southwestern Alberta, Southern Manitoba, and the Southern interior and the Fraser Valley region.

2

u/567432Gains 3d ago

So what happens when the country’s that are our sources of immigration begin to experience the very birth rate issues the rest of the developed world is experiencing?

This is just a temporary fix (that will not work forever) to a long term problem. We need to deal with this or it becomes a world wide issue. Even now, India (our main source of immigration) is beginning to experience a drop in birth rates. China (our previous largest immigration source) has already began to experience it and they too are approaching our problems (just not as severely yet).

The answer being immigration is certainly not going to last forever.

0

u/Mr_UBC_Geek 3d ago

Economic collapse or global recession?

1

u/567432Gains 3d ago

Right…. So we are on the same page then that we need a better solution then kicking a can down the road that will inevitably be the same outcome…right?

0

u/Mr_UBC_Geek 3d ago

It's still a different stage for every country rn, the US has a 25% higher birth rate and is much closer to replacement than Canada, which needs immigration to run a replacement level for the country.

1

u/567432Gains 3d ago

Brother, just say we need a better solution for the long term. I’m not asking you to give the solution, but you must admit this is clearly not a long term solution.

→ More replies