[kEiThZ]

Look at this story:

Demand doubles at food bank in Oromocto, N.B., driven in part by Canadian Forces members - New Brunswick | Globalnews.ca

Demand has doubled at a food bank in Oromocto, N.B., its executive director says. Members of the Canadian Forces and more seniors needing support are part of the increase.

globalnews.ca

I think it's getting obvious that the underlying problem in all these stories are housing costs. Offering school lunch programs (a goal I broadly support) is a bandaid on the sucking chest wound that is housing costs.

 

[kEiThZ]

Perhaps in larger urban areas. I doubt they exist in smaller rural communities, certainly not at the scale that could support a school on a daily basis. Any program would have to work in every place where a school exists.

My point here was that the private sector is already building the infrastructure and meeting demand without much government support. These kind of programs are actually lucrative for the business sector. They'll set up the giant central kitchens and run them if they have guaranteed demand.

For really small communities with small schools? Local restaurants will happily fill the role. I think we'd be surprised too at what kinds of solutions emerge. I could see some restaurant owner in a small town building a kitchen to service both school lunch programs and a restaurant out front. Could let them service other demands, from nursing homes to any industrial employment (like say a slaughterhouse with hundreds of workers).

 

[Brands]

I know we have to add supply, however isn't the best way to do that is the Bank of Canada cutting interest rates?

 

[Brands]

* 1B over 5 years.

I don't have the details/rollout plan, so it may be one that ramps up (back loaded) but its def. not 1B per year.




I quite like this program, myself.



I agree this would be a problem.



Totally get ya on this.

I don't think taking the CCB away from the lowest income families would work, as many need it pay for housing.

However, removing CCB or phasing it down to a lower sum for higher income households in favour of a quality lunch program with a modest co-pay might be workable. I'd need more financial data points to assess the number.

*****

On the school lunch side, I'll use Ontario's numbers, because the number of school days is slightly variable across the country.

There are about 2.1M students in Ontario (elementary and secondary) and 194 school days in the elementary calendar (less for HS).

Using the elementary number, feeding every kid, every day, would equal 407M meals per year, and if the budget were, for argument's sake $6 per meal from the state + co-pay of $2 from parents you would have an annualized cost in Ontario of 2.44B per year (scaling that nationally, its ~6B annually)

A program exactly on par with France, with no copays ( straight exchange rate) would mean a budget of $10.65 per student per meal and that would equate to 10.8B per annum. Big number!

Many Provinces already have some form of a school food program. The Federal program is intended to compliment exists programs. The cost will not be as high.

 

[Northern Light]

Many Provinces already have some form of a school food program. The Federal program is intended to compliment exists programs. The cost will not be as high.

The federal press release clearly identifies the numbers of students to be assisted, which is clearly 8% of current elementary and high school enrollment.

Even a 50% cost-share, of a program at the proposed federal per student, per meal rate that was anywhere near universal would involve 10x the level of spending. There's really no way around that.

 

[afransen]

It's a shame, as a LNG terminal piping from Alberta out of Churchill, MB would give real economic benefits to the north, and give Canada a place in the game as every other arctic nation is opening up trade routes.

Western Energy Corridor — Home Page

www.westernenergycorridor.ca

Honestly, LNG seems like a stranded asset. Let the private sector take the risk. I see no value in the government subsidizing this.

It's incredibly wasteful to transport gas between continents.

 

[afransen]

I didn't either until I talked to a mortgage agent a few weeks ago. She pointed out that the amount is not insignificant for families with lower incomes and they know that anything that reduces CCB will basically reduce risk (because higher income), so they count it. At a macro level though, this is terrible for housing. All it will do is give families more room to bid up prices.



Don't need any of that. There are already caterers that provide various school lunch services of various kinds. School kitchens like France are actually rather inefficient. Much easier to have larger industrial kitchens and simply deliver food carts to each school. There's a good video from a Canadian who lives in Japan explaining how school lunches work for kids there. It's a high quality, low cost, plant forward, seasonal menu, served family style in class by students, to each other. And it's made in school or centralized kitchens (location dependent) daily. Highly recommend watching this:

Example of a centralized Japanese school lunch kitchen servicing a whole bunch of schools:

Here's an Indian kitchen that feeds 75 000 kids per day:

And this is an example of a Korean megakitchen that produces 10 000 meals for office workers at 7000 won (about CA$7) each:

Japan and Korea are not low wage, low cost countries. What they have in common is that they industrialize the process, focus on seasonal ingredients and limit expensive proteins like meat and cheese. What they produce is not only cheaper, but healthier and tastier. These kitchens also creates high quality employment for cooks and chefs normally working in hard-driven restaurant environments.

Was going to post that LWIF video if you hadn't already. I like that, and having the kids clean the school each day as well. I don't think it would fly culturally here in Canada, as our kids are precious little prince(sse)s, and acts of service are beneath them rather than opportunities to build character.

 

[jje1000]

Who’d thunk?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775203860442661226

 

[Richard White]

Who’d thunk?

View attachment 553118

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775203860442661226

He is trying to save face in a way that will allow him to curtail immigration levels even further.

 

[Northern Light]

Who’d thunk?

View attachment 553118

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775203860442661226

I listened to the whole statement.

Notable:

1) He states that this 'temporary immigration has gotten out of control' (as if this wasn't the result of government policy choices); but then cites a novel statistic....

He notes than in 2017 Canada's workforce was comprised of 2% TFW/Foreign Students; today that number is 7.5% This is novel, because the numbers we usually here are TFW + Foreign Students are part of the overall population, as opposed to the workforce.

2) He expressly admits this has had the impact of lowering wages in some sectors.

****

Full points for belated honesty; though - points for the omission of owning up to making the choices that caused the problem.

But also omitted was any clear target of what percent the government would consider acceptable on a go-forward basis. To date, the immigration minister has suggested lowering the percentage of the population that is temporary from 6% to 5% over three years.

Far too little, and too slowly to boot.

We need a credible and viable target, I would argue for 4% in 2 years, and back to 2% within 4 years.

 

[tiffer24]

"Axe the tax! Axe the tax!" LOL

Five farm tractors caused a multi-vehicle collision en route to a carbon tax protest site in the Crowsnest Pass on Monday, RCMP said.

In a release sent Tuesday, police said 50 vehicles were at an approved protest site in the Crowsnest Pass but the tractor drivers refused to stop when officers were attempting a traffic check. The Mounties say the investigation into the incident is ongoing.

"This incident serves as a reminder that protesting on a public highway is not safe," the RCMP said in a news release. "We do not take enforcement action lightly, but the safety of motorists, protesters and a traveller's right to use a public highway must be maintained. It is extremely unsafe to stand or impede traffic on a public roadway."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...rm-tractor-collision-crowsnest-pass-1.7161335

 

[Admiral Beez]

I listened to the whole statement.

Notable:

1) He states that this 'temporary immigration has gotten out of control' (as if this wasn't the result of government policy choices); but then cites a novel statistic....

He notes than in 2017 Canada's workforce was comprised of 2% TFW/Foreign Students; today that number is 7.5% This is novel, because the numbers we usually here are TFW + Foreign Students are part of the overall population, as opposed to the workforce.

2) He expressly admits this has had the impact of lowering wages in some sectors.

****

Full points for belated honesty; though - points for the omission of owning up to making the choices that caused the problem.

But also omitted was any clear target of what percent the government would consider acceptable on a go-forward basis. To date, the immigration minister has suggested lowering the percentage of the population that is temporary from 6% to 5% over three years.

Far too little, and too slowly to boot.

We need a credible and viable target, I would argue for 4% in 2 years, and back to 2% within 4 years.

Foreign students should have no path to immigration. If I go to France to get my Masters at INSEAD, for example, at the end of my studies I’m not staying in France, but coming home. My friend went to the Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine in St. Kitt's, not because they wanted to emigrate to St. Kitt’s, but to get an accessible education and then come home to Canada to work. When I was at University in the early 1990s I had many friends who were international students, including several from India studying journalism and engineering, and all of them returned home after graduation. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

 

[kEiThZ]

Foreign students should have no path to immigration. If I go to France to get my Masters at INSEAD, for example, at the end of my studies I’m not staying in France, but coming home. My friend went to the Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine in St. Kitt's, not because they wanted to emigrate to St. Kitt’s, but to get an accessible education and then come home to Canada to work. When I was at University in the early 1990s I had many friends who were international students, including several from India studying journalism and engineering, and all of them returned home after graduation. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

Disagree. Students make the best immigrants. No hassles about foreign qualifications or language. Time to acculturate with others their age. And time to develop a social network essential to succeeding. And we get them at the start of their tax paying careers after another country has born the cost of raising them.

The problem here is our management of the policy. Instead of giving preference to multi-year college programs or graduate degrees in critical areas like healthcare, construction, engineering, manufacturing, IT, etc., we gave work permits to kids completing one year marketing diplomas at career colleges in strip malls. That's our own incompetence.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Disagree. Students make the best immigrants. No hassles about foreign qualifications or language.

No, my family's example are the best immigrants. 1976, I arrive in Canada with my Dad's transfer from JWT UK to JWT Canada, we all spoke English fluently, my Dad immediately began making a middle class income, bought a house and we seamlessly settled into Canadian life. Our sponsor was my uncle, who as an engineer arrived in Canada in 1972 with a job transfer from BP UK to BP Canada (later Petro Canada), who also settled into middle class Canadian life with ease. This was back when Canada was seen as the place for professional, educated and accredited (with accreditations automatically recognized as equivalent to Canadian) people living in first world/developed nations (though Britain was on the ropes in the 1970s) to emigrate to, rather than today where most of our newcomers seem to be low skilled from desperately poor or developing nations.

If Canada can now only appeal to the world's desperate economic migrants and those who are willing to live ten to a house and work in near sweatshop conditions or serving our Timmies and delivering our Doordash lunches, all while driving down the average Canadian's wage negotiating power, then I agree we'd better sweeten the incentives for anyone with an education and future potential through an improved student visa program.

I welcome all to Canada, but I wish we could appeal to the best educated and skilled through affordable housing, equivalency of accreditations and economic opportunities right out of the gate, without having to dangle the student visa incentives.

 

[kEiThZ]

No, my family's example are the best immigrants. 1976, I arrive in Canada with my Dad's transfer from JWT UK to JWT Canada, we all spoke English fluently, my Dad immediately began making a middle class income, bought a house and we seamlessly settled into Canadian life. Our sponsor was my uncle, who as an engineer arrived in Canada in 1972 with a job transfer from BP UK to BP Canada (later Petro Canada), who also settled into middle class Canadian life with ease.

The fact that your family needed a sponsor actually says their application wasn't strong enough to qualify on their own. My parents, by contrast, qualified by themselves, with no relatives in Canada to win them points. The reliance on family is actually a major feature of the American system. And there's real downsides to that. We actually have seen the Liberals increase family reunification, for example by re-instituting PR for parents. This is actually part of the diversion from the traditional merit based system. Personally, I do think the next government should go back to restricting family reunification and rely more on qualified migrants.

This was back when Canada was seen as the place for professional, educated and accredited (with accreditations automatically recognized as equivalent to Canadian) people living in first world/developed nations (though Britain was on the ropes in the 1970s) to emigrate to, rather than today where most of our newcomers seem to be low skilled from desperately poor or developing nations.

You seem to be thinking like Trump when he was wondering why the US couldn't get more Scandinavian immigrants. I think people forget that immigrants only come from places that are struggling and offer less opportunity. Somebody who has a great career and life in Europe, isn't going to leave.

Moreover, only countries that are growing have surplus bodies to spare. This isn't going to be Japan or Europe. Increasingly, this isn't even China. India has a young population bulge and so we get the majority of immigrants from there right now. Their birth rate has declined to replacement though and so in the 2030s, the majority source of immigrants will be Africa.

If Canada can now only appeal to the world's desperate economic migrants, and those who are willing to live ten to a house and work in near sweatshop conditions or serving our Timmies and delivering our Doordash lunches, then I agree we'd better sweeten the incentives for anyone with an education and future potential through an improved student visa program. I welcome all to Canada, but I wish we could appeal to the best educated and skilled through affordable housing, equivalency of accreditations and economic opportunities right out of the gate, without having to dangle the student visa incentives.

Canada can attract the best. Like I said earlier, it's our incompetence that we didn't. The government could have gone out and said we'll only source students in areas we need. Or we'll only give work permits to grad students. They could have gone out and targeted all those skilled immigrants the US takes on strenuous H1B visas and basically let the tech sector bring most of them here. They started to do that. But did too little of that and too late.

Let's be clear, if properly screened and educated, these students are valuable. If you put them into critical areas, you will address critical skills shortages immediately. Something that can take years to address with our native population (for example trying to get our youth interested in science and tech or hands-on work). The government deliberately chose to create a mockery of a system which allowed strip mall college and make-work 1 year diplomas at community colleges to bring in hundreds of thousands of low wage workers under the guise of economically needed immigration. There are still plenty of high skilled immigrants that come to Canada. It's just less obvious now because we take in as many of these faux students. Our incompetence at execution doesn't make the idea poor.

Lastly, the idea that students aren't economically valuable is nuts. But maybe that's just the techie in me. We live in a world where a substantial amount of new businesses are started by undergrad or grad students. That's exactly when we want them here. And attracting the best students and keeping them in the country, is a major part of why the US has been so successful at innovation. Educating them and sending them home to boost somebody else's economy would be nuts. It's no different that Waterloo grads fueling Silicon Valley. Does it really matter if that Waterloo grad is a Canadian or foreign student? Either way, it's a loss for us.