[Northern Light]

I fail to see how it would be a bad thing. Tech is an export business, even if it is a branch plant for one of the big US tech companies, it is bringing wealth into the country from these large multinationals that otherwise tend to direct revenues from Canada back to the US. Building a larger tech workforce will only help increase the supply of startups that can become the feedstock for VC. Some of those startups will decamp for the US but some remain in Canada (like Shopify, Open Text, etc.). If the US is not interested in retaining this talent, and Canada can provide a convenient platform for many of them to land, I don't see how this is a bad thing. If the US is unhappy with this, they need to fix their own immigration system. These folks clearly have a first preference to be in the US, but are being turfed due to their dysfunctional immigration system.

Fair points.

I think for me, my negatives are that I think we're an insurance policy/plan B instead of a first choice; and that this has some benefit, but not the greatest benefit, relative to yet more goosing of our housing market too.

I just want to see the time and effort put into best possible outcomes. I'm not so much opposed to this as lacking enthusiasm, I feel like there are better things we could be doing.

 

[afransen]

Fair points.

I think for me, my negatives are that I think we're an insurance policy/plan B instead of a first choice; and that this has some benefit, but not the greatest benefit, relative to yet more goosing of our housing market too.

I just want to see the time and effort put into best possible outcomes. I'm not so much opposed to this as lacking enthusiasm, I feel like there are better things we could be doing.

I would look at it as these are much better immigration candidates than yet more student visa to diploma mill Tim Hortons workers.

 

[Northern Light]

I would look at it as these are much better immigration candidates than yet more student visa to diploma mill Tim Hortons workers.

100% agreement there, without reservation.

 

[kEiThZ]

Fair points.

I think for me, my negatives are that I think we're an insurance policy/plan B instead of a first choice; and that this has some benefit, but not the greatest benefit, relative to yet more goosing of our housing market too.

I just want to see the time and effort put into best possible outcomes. I'm not so much opposed to this as lacking enthusiasm, I feel like there are better things we could be doing.

You must not have talked to many Indian immigrants in the last 20 years. Canada has been seen as stepping stone and Plan B to the US for a long time now. Heck, I'd argue Australia and New Zealand is preferred to Canada. Climate and proximity to India with those. Canada's only real appeal to somebody willing to move that far, is proximity to the US. Lately, there's also a growing consideration that Canada might be safer.

This plan is, like many other immigration schemes today, good for Canadian industry (talent supply) and terrible for Canadian workers (wage suppression from competition).

On the politics of it, I've given up on this government doing anything real for the average Canadian, especially those under 40. The disdain for young people in Canada is palpable.

 

[Northern Light]

You must not have talked to many Indian immigrants in the last 20 years. Canada has always been seen as stepping stone and Plan B to the US for a long time.

I'm fully aware of this, and, again, disagree with it as a strategic choice.

This plan is, like many other immigration schemes today, good for Canadian industry (talent supply) and terrible for Canadian workers (wage suppression from competition).

I agree w/the above.

I'm just not sure if serves our longer term interests if we can't create, attract and retain the best.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm fully aware of this, and, again, disagree with it as a strategic choice.

There's no way to screen out those who might be using Canada as a gateway to the US. And there's also likely to be substantial overlap between this group and the ones who are most skilled and most ambitious. Ironically, the best way to keep them in Canada would be to create the same kind of opportunity and quality of life that the US offers. And all kinds of Canadian policy all but ensures this will never happen.

I'm just not sure if serves our longer term interests if we can't create, attract and retain the best.

Beggars can't be choosers.

Not to be harsh. But a rather low skilled economy built around a real estate bubble and resource extraction doesn't exactly offer a ton of opportunity. It's only attractive if you're born less than upper middle class in the global south and you're not valuable enough to even qualify for an H-1B.

Heck, I have some extremely skilled relatives in my family (IIT grads) who have even chosen not to leave India, despite getting head hunted by Wall St and Silicon Valley. The West is not seen as the land of milk and honey anymore. And Canada is viewed as the bottom feeder of anglosphere immigration. "All the guys that couldn't get head hunted from my class went to Canada."

 

[kEiThZ]

Canadians have this weird double standard with those who leave for the US. If it's a white kid raised in Hamilton, who went to Waterloo for Systems Engineering and gets head hunted by Tesla or Google or Apple? What a success! Young Indian immigrant who does 4 years here, gets citizenship and then gets headhunted by the same companies? What a sellout! So much for, "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian."

Nobody moves half a world away, leaving behind their family, friends and culture to go live in a place that is frozen half the year because they simply want to be like the other people who live in that frozen land. They move for a better life. And if another place offers them an even better life, they'll do what so many other Canadians have done and take that opportunity. If we want immigrants to stay, the prescription is the same as making highly skilled native born Canadians to stay.

 

[Northern Light]

Canadians have this weird double standard with those who leave for the US. If it's a white kid raised in Hamilton, who went to Waterloo for Systems Engineering and gets head hunted by Tesla or Google or Apple? What a success! Young Indian immigrant who does 4 years here, gets citizenship and then gets headhunted by the same companies? What a sellout! So much for, "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian."

Who said this?

I clearly advocated for retaining, all the best, no division based on place of birth.

 

[afransen]

I don't think we'll improve our chances of retaining the best and brightest in Canada by making it harder for foreign talent to immigrate to Canada. Large tech companies do a lot of R&D in Canada, the scale of those operations are a function of talent availability.

 

[kEiThZ]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/couchsurf-affordable-housing-1.6910383

Say what you will about Harper, I can't recall that many employed people living in their car in 2015.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't think we'll improve our chances of retaining the best and brightest in Canada by making it harder for foreign talent to immigrate to Canada. Large tech companies do a lot of R&D in Canada, the scale of those operations are a function of talent availability.

Lets back up a moment. I didn't suggest tightening normal immigration rules for high-skill, employable immigrants.

What I said was; I'm not completely taken by the notion of adding another 10,000, for whom Canada is a 'B' choice; particularly when unemployment in that sector is also currently up, and wages depressed.

I expressed a preference for a strategy in which we attract to Canada, and retain those who view Canada as an 'A' choice.

****

I think its important to look at different policy ideas in a context, rather than isolation.

Is the current outlook for the Canadian standard of living for the median or below-median worker positive? I would answer that with a 'no'.

To the extent you concur, we then need to come to the 'why' is that?.

I would argue excess low-skill immigration is certainly a key factor in suppressing entry level wages and driving housing costs.

But we also can't ignore where we're creating surplus labour in median and above-median wage jobs as well, with a wage-depressing effect.

If the argument is that we can only be competitive in the tech sector by having wages 1/3 lower than our American counterparts, I view that as a recipe for a low standard of living and being a 'B' choice economy.

How about we win by having the highest standard of living? The best infrastructure? The best education and training system? A great VC marketplace? etc.

The same way we ought to be competitive in manufacturing because we have tremendous access to raw materials and comparatively cheap electricity; if we combine that w/the right supply of skilled labour, and great market access we
should be able to do well.

Winning by being 'cheap' is just a very questionable strategy from my point of view.

But again, I'm not suggesting we shut down high-skill immigration, or anything like that. I'm not sure 'more is better' in the current circumstance.

 

[kEiThZ]

I expressed a preference for a strategy in which we attract to Canada, and retain those who view Canada as an 'A' choice.

I think the challenge here is that those who may say Canada is their A choice aren't the most talented. You know who is most likely to say Canada is their first choice? Those who already have family here and those who perceive Canada as easier to get into. That's not the best and brightest per se.

 

[Northern Light]

I think the challenge here is that those who may say Canada is their A choice aren't the most talented. You know who is most likely to say Canada is their first choice? Those who already have family here and those who perceive Canada as easier to get into. That's not the best and brightest per se.

Right, I agree that's where were at; now what strategy moves the needle?

Canada became a world leader in AI when U of T poached Prof. Hinton.

A lot of bright people came in behind him, to work for, and with him.

How can we do similar things in the broader tech sector and in other key economic sectors?

 

[kEiThZ]

Right, I agree that's where were at; now what strategy moves the needle?

Canada became a world leader in AI when U of T poached Prof. Hinton.

A lot of bright people came in behind him, to work for, and with him.

How can we do similar things in the broader tech sector and in other key economic sectors.

Remember when I argued that AUKUS was important to stay at the bleeding edge? It's the cumulative effect of deals like that. Poaching one prof isn't enough. And will Hinton stay when Canada has to compete against a funding pool of AUKUS combined? We have underfunded research for a very long time. And now we're facing the possibility of getting cut out of foreign pools we used to access, just as those pools get even wider and deeper. That is only going to make things worse for Canada.

And that's just research. We aren't even talking about commercialization where the lack of capital absolutely kills scaling anything in Canada. I even have personal experience on this: I was part of a MaRS startup competition team that won (side gig with friends). We didn't get a single funding offer from Canada. Only from the US. Ultimately, we folded up, because we didn't think it was worth uprooting our lives for. Easier to get a half million dollar mortgage on a $100k income than a $50k business loan in Canada. In Silicon Valley, some angel investor will just drive by and drop a cheque for $50k and a standard series agreement on your desk.

But even this discussion is pointless because it's obvious this government has given up on quality for the most part. They are hoping that the sheer virtue of numbers yields results. And broadly, I think their primary goal is to sink debt/GDP by getting GDP up at any cost. Even if that means lower productivity and GDP per capita. So while you're talking about getting AI experts, the government is focused on getting as many foreign students who will work at Tim's, as possible. This way, they can brag at the next election about how they lowered the deficit. And of course, when the conservatives inevitably form government, we'll go back to relying on resource extraction instead of real estate pumped up by human QE.

If the LPC had done what they actually promised in 2015, small deficits of $10B to fund infrastructure, we wouldn't be in this mess. Or at least be in less of it. Now they don't know what else to do. And I don't even disagree with them. There aren't a lot of options here.

 

[Northern Light]

Poaching one prof isn't enough. And will Hinton stay when Canada has to compete against a funding pool of AUKUS combined?

Hinton is moving towards retirement/emeritus status, probably next year.

We have underfunded research for a very long time.

No disagreement.

****

Pause - Without going down the AUKUS rabbit hole again; what other steps can we/should be be taking.

Clearly, we need more funds for research; but how much more, targeted where? What else do we need to be doing?

And that's just research. We aren't even talking about commercialization where the lack of capital absolutely kills scaling anything in Canada. I even have personal experience on this: I was part of a MaRS startup competition team that won (side gig with friends). We didn't get a single funding offer from Canada. Only from the US. Ultimately, we folded up, because we didn't think it was worth uprooting our lives for. Easier to get a half million dollar mortgage on a $100k income than a $50k business loan in Canada. In Silicon Valley, some angel investor will just drive by and drop a cheque for $50k and a standard series agreement on your desk.

Also agree this is a problem. How do we address it? MARS and the like were suppose to help, and arguably have; but not enough. How do we bolster a more robust VC market here?

But even this discussion is pointless because it's obvious this government has given up on quality for the most part. They are hoping that the sheer virtue of numbers yields results. And broadly, I think their primary goal is to sink debt/GDP by getting GDP up at any cost. Even if that means lower productivity and GDP per capita. So while you're talking about getting AI experts, the government is focused on getting as many foreign students who will work at Tim's, as possible. This way, they can brag at the next election about how they lowered the deficit. And of course, when the conservatives inevitably form government, we'll go back to relying on resource extraction instead of real estate pumped up by human QE.

We agree that's what the government is doing, we agree we need to demand better of them, and/or another party.

If the LPC had done what they actually promised in 2015, small deficits of $10B to fund infrastructure, we wouldn't be in this mess. Or at least be in less of it. Now they don't know what else to do. And I don't even disagree with them. There aren't a lot of options here.

The thing is, this is essentially a strategy to inflate your way out of debt; but you can do the exact same thing by promoting high wage growth, which they've been doing everything to clamp down on instead.

We could talk about the limitations of inflating one's way out of debt; but if that was the chosen strategy, I think the details here are a problem. This is the least desirable way to achieve that goal.