Immigration targets appear to be well in-excess of demographic replacement, and population growth is the highest in the G7. There hasn’t been a valid case made for the targets, particularly the tripling of family reunification targets - its arbitrary and runs contrary to our efforts to offset an aging population.

My case isn’t to make some arbitrary drop in immigration, but rather to take a more measured, gradual approach to it that aligns with our ability to shelter them.

Again; what if municipalities don’t quickly or easily solve their zoning issues to adjust for the 200,000 annual shortfall in housing to accommodate?

I don’t think the solution is to keep rates as high as Canadians will tolerate, while housing languishes far behind.

Perhaps a better question is; why does Canada need double the immigration targets from Australia, or other G7 countries? They face similar demographic challenges, yet have a much more reasonable approach to it.