Rejected
- Introductory Statement
- WHEREAS housing prices have rapidly increased since the Liberal government has doubled immigration to 500,000 since 2015, plus the number of temporary foreign workers and students has also increased to an estimated 2.5 million. The impact of this rapid increase in population has been a combination of higher housing prices, as demand has far exceeded supply and this is likely to continue, and as well, GDP per capita has actually been declining (while in the US it is growing rapidly), meaning that household incomes are also stagnant or likely to decline further AND WHEREAS population growth has been an important Green/environmental issue since "Limits to Growth" in the 1970s AND WHEREAS Canada's population has been growing at double the rate of ny G7 country
- Emergency Motion Statement
- BEI IT RESOLVED that the Green Party adopt a policy of reducing the the number of non-permanent residents of 2.5 million to a level under 1 million AND BE IT RESOLVED the Green Party adopt a policy of moderate population growth such as a return to moderate immigration, at or below the Harper era levels of 250,000 people per year
- Type of Emergency Motion
- Public policy that the party would represent
- Benefit
- Benefits include: Lower housing prices Increasing GDP/capita and household incomes Reduced urban sprawl Reduced CO2 emissions Reduced congestion on roads and public transit
- Who does this motion impact?
- Impacts all Canadians
- Impact on exisiting GPC policy.
- New policy.
- Green Values
-
SustainabilityEcological Wisdom
- Supporting Evidence
- Various reports and studies on the impact of the high number of temporary residents and population growth on housing, including reports prepared by banks and economics, and as well the impact of high population growth on the economy and GDP/capita by economists such as from less capital per worker
- Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
- Yes
- Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
- English
This proposal has been rejected because:
This motion failed to meet the 66.6% threshold of support needed to be considered as an emergency motion. Therefore, this motion was not presented for consideration by membership.
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Reference: PVC-PROP-2024-02-5888
Version number 2 (of 2) see other versions
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Jean-Charles Pelland
How is this an emergency motion though? This could easily have been submitted last year, or on time this year. This does not seem to match the spirit of emergency motions. Normally, that spirit is related to something having happened between when motion submission closed and the GM (e.g. a war breaks out or the government does something).
Housing and immigration levels have become a major issue in the last few months, particularly the impact of non-permanent residents and students on housing, which is the top issue for many voters and the government is saying it will cut non-permanent resident admissions.
So it is a timely issue. A similar one was submitted through the regular process but it was only about permanent residents and growth and didn't specifically deal with non-permanent residents
This is a nativist motion. As already commented, far more constructive would be to deal with the underlying issues such as housing, etc. Many people around the world seek to come to Canada.
Nativist?
So, can immigration levels only go up, and never go down?
The US welcomes many immigrants, if we reduced immigration to US levels is that still "nativism"?
For example, in 2019, of the G7 countries, 2 lost population (Japan & Italy), 3 had moderate gains. The US grew by 0.7%, while Canada grew by 1.4% - go to https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-215-x/2019001/sec1-eng.htm and see Chart 1.2. This was when permanent immigration was 340,000.
Is return to the immigration levels from 1990 to 2015 "nativist"? What about the Pierre Trudeau level policies? We had under 90,000 in 1983 because we used to reduce immigration when unemployment went up.
Canada is an outlier - only Australia and New Zealand are close.
Read this Globe article https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canadas-next-wave-of-homebuyers-set-to-add-more-fuel-to-overheated/
Loading comments ...