[kEiThZ]

I'm pretty okay with this. Current students will be able to finish out the academic year without major disruption, and the glut of domestic students entering the summer job market should cushion the blow for employers to a certain degree.

Employers should have been planning for the December 31 expiration. However, from what I'm hearing through the grapevine, many employers are finding the staffing challenges this will create greater than expected. This extra breathing room should help, at least for those organizations forward-thinking enough to tackle the issue.

Pretty hard to have sympathy for businesses who have designed their business model around cheap labour from foreign students. And it becomes exploitive broadly when we (as a country and society) design a system that requires them to pay up $30k in fees just to have access to a $15/hr job. If we need cheaper labour, the government should just be honest about it and bring in TFWs. But then the wage suppression game would become more obvious.

 

[afransen]

If they can't survive without offering sham programs for backdoor PRs, I am not sure those institutions were ever viable to begin with.

I'm not saying I think this is a bad thing. But withdrawing this source of funding is going to cause a lot of budgetary holes for post secondary institutions which have inflated into a bit of a bubble. There will need to be a shakeout of the education sector. Lots of administrators (good riddance) and instructors will be canned. This was basically a kind of export industry. Really a shameful state of affairs we have allowed to develop. And after inflating this bubble, the provincial government is going to be left holding the bag trying to keep the salvageable part of the sector afloat.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We're never gonna see that electoral reform right?

Or the balanced budgets promised by 2019.

 

[afransen]

Many immigrants I know either regret or are ambivalent about coming here; this is especially the case for homeowners and those with good jobs in the professions back home. They sell everything to raise enough money to come here, but have to start from scratch with respect to jobs and property.

This is often the case for people from the second world like the Eastern bloc. Sure, people from much poorer countries might be better off here, but we're not the world's charity.

Moreover, as NL stated, they're seen as cheap labour. I would also add as a cash cow to create more demand for goods and services, including housing. There's no incentive to recognize their credentials and experience. So they end up languishing in menial jobs, becoming resentful and creating a lose-lose situation for both the immigrants and Canada.


That's almost exactly the year Trudeau began the surge.

Moving my reply to the politics thread.

The paternalism is making the decision on behalf of immigrants that they are better off not coming here, rather than letting them exercise some agency in the matter. Those migrants who regret coming here can generally return home.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Moving my reply to the politics thread.

The paternalism is making the decision on behalf of immigrants that they are better off not coming here, rather than letting them exercise some agency in the matter. Those migrants who regret coming here can generally return home.

Well yes, but they’ve been actively mislead by DFAIT’s quota chasers on the Canadian dream.

 

[Northern Light]

Moving my reply to the politics thread.

The paternalism is making the decision on behalf of immigrants that they are better off not coming here, rather than letting them exercise some agency in the matter. Those migrants who regret coming here can generally return home.

At great expense, to them, their family, and our society.

I'm not sure why we should facilitate that.

You have yet to articulate a case why slave labour is good, and phony educations at exorbitant prices are wonderful for anyone.

You've merely lobbed on to the idea that not facilitating same is somehow paternalistic.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Moving my reply to the politics thread.

The paternalism is making the decision on behalf of immigrants that they are better off not coming here, rather than letting them exercise some agency in the matter. Those migrants who regret coming here can generally return home.

We are failing everyone - both our own people and newcomers - with our crazy housing market.

I'd argue our only obligation is to our existing citizens and residents (in that order) to create a better country, and immigration may or may not be a part of that, refugees aside (the only immigrants we actually might have any kind of obligation towards) . I feel - as a second generation immigrant - zero regret making the decision on behalf of prospective immigrants. Are we a sovereign nation or not?

 

[afransen]

At great expense, to them, their family, and our society.

I'm not sure why we should facilitate that.

You have yet to articulate a case why slave labour is good, and phony educations at exorbitant prices are wonderful for anyone.

You've merely lobbed on to the idea that not facilitating same is somehow paternalistic.

I think slave labour is hyperbole. The present situation is more akin to a roundabout head tax and indentured servitude. Neither are desirable per se. But Canada should be setting immigration policy with a clear-eyed view to what is best for its own interests, and not out of a potentially misguided view of what is in the best interest of the would-be migrants.

Similar arguments could be made that Canada should not allow foreign doctors, etc. to migrate to Canada because we are essentially depriving their home nations of the benefit of their services by enabling that brain drain.

 

[Northern Light]

I think slave labour is hyperbole.

12 foreign students, 1 basement, all sleeping on the floor, because that is all they can afford.

You can call that whatever you would like, I call it abhorrent.

But Canada should be setting immigration policy with a clear-eyed view to what is best for its own interests

I'm not arguing different. I am arguing there is no 'moral imperative' to let anyone into Canada. That doesn't mean I wouldn't, I am in fact pro-immigration broadly speaking, I just think the form and the volume the last few years have not served this country or the would be immigrants well.

The level of emigration (returning home, or going elsewhere) is somewhat suggestive of the problems; but equally I have admittedly anecdotal evidence from a young man who lives near me, with whom I struck up a chat.

He was a recent emigre, as a foreign student and what he found here was not what he was led to believe, and he regrets coming, but is bearing down, afraid to return home and bring shame to his family. (his words)

***

That said, I think the evidence of the housing crisis is clear enough as is low wage growth, as is low investment in productivity all of which have clear links to the existing policy; that Canada's interests are not and have not been served by the status quo.

 

[afransen]

I think it's important not to diminish literal slavery, which over 25 million people are subjected to currently. People coming to Canada of their own volition and feeling like they got a raw economic deal but are free to leave at any time are not slaves.

 

[Northern Light]

Details on the Federal Dental program are coming today:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-dental-insurance-program-phase-in-1.7054990

Benefits claims for some people will be possible starting in May:

The program will extend to all low and lower-middle income Canadians who lack dental coverage by sometime in 2025.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Details on the Federal Dental program are coming today:

How is this funded? I don't see how the Liberals will ever meet their 2015 promise to reach balanced budgets (by 2019) if we keep adding new spending.

 

[Richard White]

How is this funded? I don't see how the Liberals will ever meet their 2015 promise to reach balanced budgets (by 2019) if we keep adding new spending.

I suspect this is a pre-election cookie.

 

[Northern Light]

How is this funded?

The program is funded from general revenues, the way most programs are funded. That is to say, only programs like CPP and EI have segregated funding sources.

I don't see how the Liberals will ever meet their 2015 promise to reach balanced budgets (by 2019) if we keep adding new spending.

There is no current projection for budgetary balance. From the Fall '23 Economic Statement:

For clarity the budgetary balance is Billions of dollars CAD, the negative in front reflecting a deficit position.

****

The total extend of Federal Expenditure, as per the Fall Economic Statement:

The estimate costs of the Federal Dental Program, as per the Parliamentary Budget Office:

So, we're looking at net costs per annum in the 1.8B range at year 5

Based on the above, this program will represent ~0.3% of Federal expenditures.

****

So while I agree that balancing the budget is important, and should happen sooner rather than later, and that some spending restraint is in order, this program is comparatively inconsequential in that mix.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So while I agree that balancing the budget is important, and should happen sooner rather than later, and that some spending restraint is in order, this program is comparatively inconsequential in that mix.

I expect that in isolation most federal program are inconsequential. Adding a new program that is not in the top tier of spending can seem like peanuts. That's how death by a thousand cuts works.

Now, I support bringing dental care in to government covered healthcare. What I wanted to see was the increase in revenue to pay for it, either an increase in taxation or reductions elsewhere to free up existing revenues.