I doubt that. You underestimate the influence Carney wields over many of my fellow baby boomers. I pay attention to them. They do not merely support his policies, they tend to treat his judgment as self-validating. If they have even noticed he has restricted immigration while they are busy flapping their elbows and if he reopens immigration, I expect those now applauding his restrictions to recast expansion as a brilliant economic strategy. Whatever position Carney adopts, they will find a way to insist that he is right.
Maybe because, like me, they respect his intelligence and experience. I don't agree with everything he's done, but I have enough respect for him to give him the latitude because of his proven abilities, and the fact that I know I don't have all the info he does.
I guess that depends on what experience you’re talking about. It amazes me that we’ve handed the country over to people who cut their teeth at Goldman Sachs and somehow regard that as reassurance.
And don’t get me wrong. I recognize my own baby boomer privilege. Carney hasn’t even mentioned OAS reform yet. I might start taking him seriously if he did. Why I gave up on Morneau after he drank the koolaid. With the right planning and help from someone like me, a 75-year-old couple can retain some OAS on a combined income of $370,000. Perhaps our generation’s enthusiasm deserves a little scrutiny.
That may not be your motivation, but don’t mistake greed for respect. Some of us have very good financial reasons to applaud the status quo. That doesn’t make it good policy for the generations coming after us.
“With the right planning and help from someone like me, a 75-year-old couple can retain some OAS on a combined income of $370,000.”
That's a good trick. My wife and I are boomers whose combined dividend income ensures we never receive a dollar of OAS. That doesn't bother us: our financial security is beyond threatening without this superfluous bonus. Why would we begrudge 'our' OAS entitlement being allocated to seniors who actually need it, when we already have enough to have gotten both our daughters and their families into houses of their own, with no impact on mom and dad's lifestyle whatsoever? 'Someone like you'—what are you, a tax evasion specialist? How far ahead of the game do the financially fortunate have to be before they feel 'secure?' Your post leaves it unclear in which direction you envision OAS 'reform' ideally going.
I dislike the status quo just as much as you, and for the same reasons apparently.
Yes, he cut his teeth at Goldman Sachs, not necessarily an auspicious place to work given their role in the 2008 meltdown, but he left five years before that. It's more his careers at the Banks of Canada and England. You don't get jobs like that by being a lightweight.
I have 51 years lived experience with bankers. Two ridiculous situations going on right now. I don't hold them in the same regard as many other people and have the receipts. I guess we will see what comes of all of this. Given that OAS reform has to be done, he could at least give it a passing mention unless of course he knows exactly what he is doing. Catering to his base at the expense of everyone else.
I think carney will likely get a couple years grace. One, increased immigration effects take time to show up. Two, as long as Trump is in office it’s difficult to imagine another party taking control of parliament in an election.
But I am in the camp of those Opposed to an increase in immigration. However, on a practical level, the woke policies in schools have created generations of kids not having their own kids and not getting married. As long as that’s happening, then immigration is necessary not only for limited growth, but for even maintaining the current population. That makes the immigration topic complicated because multigenerational Canadians find themselves in a position of becoming a minority, largely because of the decisions they’ve made and the things their own children have been taught. And that is an issue.
But I don’t think maintaining our population via immigration is the answer. I think it’s less fear around climate change and humans killing the planet. More values continuing to be shared around family and the value of children. We’ve stopped valuing children in the same way. I know some will agree with me, but take a look at birth rates and see where population actually grows. It’s immigration more than Canadian births. I view that as a problem.
Creating an environment where young people are discouraged and prevented from forming families and having children is perhaps the most destructive cruelty perpetrated by our current society. Most young Canadians still theoretically want their own children, many of them are just at a loss as to how to make it happen, or how to manage it financially and psychologically.
> However, on a practical level, the woke policies in schools have created generations of kids not having their own kids and not getting married.
While I'd agree those policies have negative effects, that's not what's causing drops in fertility. (We know this because you see it in other places).
But you know what's common to all those places? Higher costs on marriage age people and higher costs of raising kids. And that fits with my experience... most people I know say "expensive" when the subject of kids comes up. And surveys continuously show that people have fewer kids then they say they want to have.
If you make something expensive, people have less of it.
Our economy now has two sectors: people who work at useful jobs and people whose income comes from liquidating and selling assets, private or public. Mass immigration suppresses wages and so harms the first group while benefiting the latter by reducing their cost of living.
The latter group are Carney's voters: boomers and broad public sector employees.
The only way immigration harms Carney is if outrage among those harmed builds to the point that the beneficiaries are carried along against their financial interests.
The second sector fits my economics prof’s definition of the “service economy” - people who earn a living from taking in each other’s washing. And let’s not forget entitlement hounds In Carney’s voter classes.
They mostly aren't even doing that. Given large deficits, most govt beneficiaries are simply being paid by rapidly increasing govt debt, and their "work", if any, is of little value. Retirees are doing nothing useful by definition.
“It’s not quite so simple, but it’s true enough to note that Carney has both distanced himself from, and even dismantled, much of Justin Trudeau’s legacy. And in doing so, he has reaped political benefit.”
This statement is demonstrably false.
Canadians let Mark Carney change the filter, without changing the oil .
The immigration level was not decreased at all, compared to previous levels over a longer term.
Canadians have been misled again, and will reward the same miscreant politicians by electing them again, and again, and again.
So, the entire premise of the essay is incorrect; the immigration levels have never returned to previous levels, so the Great Economic Savant- The Dithering Darling of Davos- cannot claim to be enhancing immigration numbers as they have never truly been reduced to a significant extent.
"The poll shows 52 per cent of Canadians in favour of the country accepting fewer people with 35 per cent content with the current level. That’s very few leftover to fall in the “controlled increase” camp."
The controlled increase Carney spoke of was population. You're conflating it with a controlled increase to immigration levels. Note that the 35% refers to "maintain current immigration levels", not current population.
Call me a radical but I would rather the government focus on more housing to enable younger people to be able to afford a home instead of increasing the number of competitors to those homes.
I think this is spot on. I like Jen's "we don't talk about Truuudough", but the man's actions still have consequences, one of which is killing any chance of a successor using immigration as a policy lever safely.
There are exceptions... it would probably be a safe move if every one of them was a family doctor starting a family practice clinic close to your home or workplace... but that's about it. Actions have consequences and the LPC trashed immigration... likely for a long time. And it was the LPC, not just Mr. unnamable, Mr. Carney's current crop of MPs all went along with it.
It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
If the LPC wants to revive an immigration consensus, they probably need to put a tighter focus on language and cultural issues. And yes, that probably does mean a lot less "we'll coddle your lack of our languages" and more "you are not eligible unless you're already perfectly fluent". Think about it.. we provide voting assistance in more than two dozen languages other than English, French & indigenous languages... We gave voting rights to people who cannot even speak our common tongues.. how can you be part of our society if you can't even communicate with your fellow citizens properly?
It's bizarre.
And yes, it might also involve a lot more careful scrutiny of immigrants who come from parts of the world with completely incompatible social values. And yes, it might also mean inserting a delay between the right to live and work in Canada and put down roots and becoming a citizen. Currently the minimum time is three years. Is that enough time to assimilate someone into our culture? I mean.. I like a lot of countries, but truly integrating would take a lot longer than three years for any of them.
These are the consequences of the LPC getting so deeply, deeply unserious. They broke our trust on immigration and rebuilding that takes time and difficult actions.
I agree with most of Carney’s work. So far. Immigration — thanks to JT and his helpers — has become a problem instead of a help. The current partial pause needs to be raised slowly and carefully. Anyone with eyes can see the overload on provincial responsibilities that it has caused — in health care, education, accommodation. With no consultation by the Feds with the provinces prior or during the huge increase in numbers. As well, the responsible minister was not so responsible because he and his helpers actually lost track of these large numbers.
We need to reset immigration policies backed up by capabilities to handle whatever numbers are deemed plausible within our limits.
If immigration has caused overload like you say, and I agree it has, why increase the population at all? We can make exceptions for individuals like doctors and nurses in high demand fields and just otherwise close the doors until the overload eases.
We need a pause on immigration growth since we are still in the process of absorbing the numbers from the Trudeau years; in the meantime, we need a transparent and fact-based public process that engages the provinces and the general public.
The establishment has spoken. The great saviour saved a lot of wealthy insiders' bacon. The opposition made promises too far outside the desires of the managed state, would have made too many changes that would hurt established interests, so were successfully cast through a relentless propaganda campaign as an unacceptable choice, beyond the pale.
Those who screech this or that nitpick are just admitting that they swallowed it. Truth is, there shouldn't even BE a Liberal Party after what Trudeau did.
But we don't get to choose in this country, the choice is made for us. He might very well get the Nobel Prize. The establishment rewards their own.
Carney's greatest weakness is his endless pandering to leftist empathies , while the rational element of brain acts with economic rationality, for the most part. ( "elbows up" notwithstanding).
I think this offers a great opportunity to realign immigration policy. Deport surplus immigrants from places like Alberta to those who want them like Doug Ford’s Ontario. Quebec is already expelling any immigrant who doesn’t become fluent in French after 6 months. (I wonder where they go - possibly Toronto and Ottawa?)
The fact that the pundit class is pearl clutching at things they assert Carney might do based on reading things into his comments that he did not expressly say, suggests to me that Carney may not have much to worry about.
There are concrete things to be concerned about with Carney's leadership, but I guess privacy concerns in new legislation, continued consolidation of power into the office of the PM, and no clear indication as to how new projects are going to address the rights of Indigenous peoples aren't as sexy as "immigration bad".
I doubt that. You underestimate the influence Carney wields over many of my fellow baby boomers. I pay attention to them. They do not merely support his policies, they tend to treat his judgment as self-validating. If they have even noticed he has restricted immigration while they are busy flapping their elbows and if he reopens immigration, I expect those now applauding his restrictions to recast expansion as a brilliant economic strategy. Whatever position Carney adopts, they will find a way to insist that he is right.
Maybe because, like me, they respect his intelligence and experience. I don't agree with everything he's done, but I have enough respect for him to give him the latitude because of his proven abilities, and the fact that I know I don't have all the info he does.
I guess that depends on what experience you’re talking about. It amazes me that we’ve handed the country over to people who cut their teeth at Goldman Sachs and somehow regard that as reassurance.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-195229/
And don’t get me wrong. I recognize my own baby boomer privilege. Carney hasn’t even mentioned OAS reform yet. I might start taking him seriously if he did. Why I gave up on Morneau after he drank the koolaid. With the right planning and help from someone like me, a 75-year-old couple can retain some OAS on a combined income of $370,000. Perhaps our generation’s enthusiasm deserves a little scrutiny.
That may not be your motivation, but don’t mistake greed for respect. Some of us have very good financial reasons to applaud the status quo. That doesn’t make it good policy for the generations coming after us.
“With the right planning and help from someone like me, a 75-year-old couple can retain some OAS on a combined income of $370,000.”
That's a good trick. My wife and I are boomers whose combined dividend income ensures we never receive a dollar of OAS. That doesn't bother us: our financial security is beyond threatening without this superfluous bonus. Why would we begrudge 'our' OAS entitlement being allocated to seniors who actually need it, when we already have enough to have gotten both our daughters and their families into houses of their own, with no impact on mom and dad's lifestyle whatsoever? 'Someone like you'—what are you, a tax evasion specialist? How far ahead of the game do the financially fortunate have to be before they feel 'secure?' Your post leaves it unclear in which direction you envision OAS 'reform' ideally going.
I dislike the status quo just as much as you, and for the same reasons apparently.
Yes, he cut his teeth at Goldman Sachs, not necessarily an auspicious place to work given their role in the 2008 meltdown, but he left five years before that. It's more his careers at the Banks of Canada and England. You don't get jobs like that by being a lightweight.
I have 51 years lived experience with bankers. Two ridiculous situations going on right now. I don't hold them in the same regard as many other people and have the receipts. I guess we will see what comes of all of this. Given that OAS reform has to be done, he could at least give it a passing mention unless of course he knows exactly what he is doing. Catering to his base at the expense of everyone else.
Well, yes, your point about bankers in general is a good one ... but at least they're not lawyers! ;)
I assume there's a point to that last comment......sorry, I don't get it.
I think carney will likely get a couple years grace. One, increased immigration effects take time to show up. Two, as long as Trump is in office it’s difficult to imagine another party taking control of parliament in an election.
But I am in the camp of those Opposed to an increase in immigration. However, on a practical level, the woke policies in schools have created generations of kids not having their own kids and not getting married. As long as that’s happening, then immigration is necessary not only for limited growth, but for even maintaining the current population. That makes the immigration topic complicated because multigenerational Canadians find themselves in a position of becoming a minority, largely because of the decisions they’ve made and the things their own children have been taught. And that is an issue.
But I don’t think maintaining our population via immigration is the answer. I think it’s less fear around climate change and humans killing the planet. More values continuing to be shared around family and the value of children. We’ve stopped valuing children in the same way. I know some will agree with me, but take a look at birth rates and see where population actually grows. It’s immigration more than Canadian births. I view that as a problem.
Creating an environment where young people are discouraged and prevented from forming families and having children is perhaps the most destructive cruelty perpetrated by our current society. Most young Canadians still theoretically want their own children, many of them are just at a loss as to how to make it happen, or how to manage it financially and psychologically.
> However, on a practical level, the woke policies in schools have created generations of kids not having their own kids and not getting married.
While I'd agree those policies have negative effects, that's not what's causing drops in fertility. (We know this because you see it in other places).
But you know what's common to all those places? Higher costs on marriage age people and higher costs of raising kids. And that fits with my experience... most people I know say "expensive" when the subject of kids comes up. And surveys continuously show that people have fewer kids then they say they want to have.
If you make something expensive, people have less of it.
Our economy now has two sectors: people who work at useful jobs and people whose income comes from liquidating and selling assets, private or public. Mass immigration suppresses wages and so harms the first group while benefiting the latter by reducing their cost of living.
The latter group are Carney's voters: boomers and broad public sector employees.
The only way immigration harms Carney is if outrage among those harmed builds to the point that the beneficiaries are carried along against their financial interests.
The second sector fits my economics prof’s definition of the “service economy” - people who earn a living from taking in each other’s washing. And let’s not forget entitlement hounds In Carney’s voter classes.
They mostly aren't even doing that. Given large deficits, most govt beneficiaries are simply being paid by rapidly increasing govt debt, and their "work", if any, is of little value. Retirees are doing nothing useful by definition.
“It’s not quite so simple, but it’s true enough to note that Carney has both distanced himself from, and even dismantled, much of Justin Trudeau’s legacy. And in doing so, he has reaped political benefit.”
This statement is demonstrably false.
Canadians let Mark Carney change the filter, without changing the oil .
The vehicle is still a wreck.
Most commentators repeat the adage that government must be changed gradually, not radically.
Not a sentiment I agree with, but I think it undermines what Carney can do quickly.
The greatest impediment to change with the current Government, is the current Government.
Mark, I understand what you are saying. Yes, change is hard.
But this Government is slow-walking real, demonstrative change because 1/2 to 2/3 of the caucus is opposed to the changes being discussed.
“In 2015, Canada admitted 271,845 permanent residents.”
Last year, the number was 380,000.
The immigration level was not decreased at all, compared to previous levels over a longer term.
Canadians have been misled again, and will reward the same miscreant politicians by electing them again, and again, and again.
So, the entire premise of the essay is incorrect; the immigration levels have never returned to previous levels, so the Great Economic Savant- The Dithering Darling of Davos- cannot claim to be enhancing immigration numbers as they have never truly been reduced to a significant extent.
But the numbers are down from "catastrophic apocalyptic what-the-hell-are-they-doing!?" levels of 2021 to 2024 so we should be very very grateful.
"The poll shows 52 per cent of Canadians in favour of the country accepting fewer people with 35 per cent content with the current level. That’s very few leftover to fall in the “controlled increase” camp."
The controlled increase Carney spoke of was population. You're conflating it with a controlled increase to immigration levels. Note that the 35% refers to "maintain current immigration levels", not current population.
Call me a radical but I would rather the government focus on more housing to enable younger people to be able to afford a home instead of increasing the number of competitors to those homes.
I think this is spot on. I like Jen's "we don't talk about Truuudough", but the man's actions still have consequences, one of which is killing any chance of a successor using immigration as a policy lever safely.
There are exceptions... it would probably be a safe move if every one of them was a family doctor starting a family practice clinic close to your home or workplace... but that's about it. Actions have consequences and the LPC trashed immigration... likely for a long time. And it was the LPC, not just Mr. unnamable, Mr. Carney's current crop of MPs all went along with it.
It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
If the LPC wants to revive an immigration consensus, they probably need to put a tighter focus on language and cultural issues. And yes, that probably does mean a lot less "we'll coddle your lack of our languages" and more "you are not eligible unless you're already perfectly fluent". Think about it.. we provide voting assistance in more than two dozen languages other than English, French & indigenous languages... We gave voting rights to people who cannot even speak our common tongues.. how can you be part of our society if you can't even communicate with your fellow citizens properly?
It's bizarre.
And yes, it might also involve a lot more careful scrutiny of immigrants who come from parts of the world with completely incompatible social values. And yes, it might also mean inserting a delay between the right to live and work in Canada and put down roots and becoming a citizen. Currently the minimum time is three years. Is that enough time to assimilate someone into our culture? I mean.. I like a lot of countries, but truly integrating would take a lot longer than three years for any of them.
These are the consequences of the LPC getting so deeply, deeply unserious. They broke our trust on immigration and rebuilding that takes time and difficult actions.
Excellent points.
Very few will entertain a discussion about why multiculturalism doesn't work with cultures whose basic beliefs are antithetical to our own.
I agree with most of Carney’s work. So far. Immigration — thanks to JT and his helpers — has become a problem instead of a help. The current partial pause needs to be raised slowly and carefully. Anyone with eyes can see the overload on provincial responsibilities that it has caused — in health care, education, accommodation. With no consultation by the Feds with the provinces prior or during the huge increase in numbers. As well, the responsible minister was not so responsible because he and his helpers actually lost track of these large numbers.
We need to reset immigration policies backed up by capabilities to handle whatever numbers are deemed plausible within our limits.
There has been no pause in immigration.
Immigration levels are still higher than ten years ago.
Nor has there been a pause with Mr. Carney’s tenuous relationship with the truth.
If immigration has caused overload like you say, and I agree it has, why increase the population at all? We can make exceptions for individuals like doctors and nurses in high demand fields and just otherwise close the doors until the overload eases.
We need a pause on immigration growth since we are still in the process of absorbing the numbers from the Trudeau years; in the meantime, we need a transparent and fact-based public process that engages the provinces and the general public.
I dislike coronated political leaders. If Carney wins a Nobel, a lot of heads will immediately blow up.
You must accept the wisdom of your betters.
The establishment has spoken. The great saviour saved a lot of wealthy insiders' bacon. The opposition made promises too far outside the desires of the managed state, would have made too many changes that would hurt established interests, so were successfully cast through a relentless propaganda campaign as an unacceptable choice, beyond the pale.
Those who screech this or that nitpick are just admitting that they swallowed it. Truth is, there shouldn't even BE a Liberal Party after what Trudeau did.
But we don't get to choose in this country, the choice is made for us. He might very well get the Nobel Prize. The establishment rewards their own.
Another in a long sequence of stellar posts, Mr. M.
Glad someone appreciates my frustrated ramblings. Cheers :)
And why would he do "open borders"?
No rational reason for it.
Carney's greatest weakness is his endless pandering to leftist empathies , while the rational element of brain acts with economic rationality, for the most part. ( "elbows up" notwithstanding).
I think this offers a great opportunity to realign immigration policy. Deport surplus immigrants from places like Alberta to those who want them like Doug Ford’s Ontario. Quebec is already expelling any immigrant who doesn’t become fluent in French after 6 months. (I wonder where they go - possibly Toronto and Ottawa?)
Man proposes, God disposes!
The fact that the pundit class is pearl clutching at things they assert Carney might do based on reading things into his comments that he did not expressly say, suggests to me that Carney may not have much to worry about.
There are concrete things to be concerned about with Carney's leadership, but I guess privacy concerns in new legislation, continued consolidation of power into the office of the PM, and no clear indication as to how new projects are going to address the rights of Indigenous peoples aren't as sexy as "immigration bad".