Prime Minister Mark Carney plan for Canada Immigration
Canada Prime Minister Mark Carney and im Liberals party say e dey important to implement policies wey go address challenges wey di kontri dey face in terms of immigration.
Di Prime Minister say while dem go maintain di kontri as a welcoming nation, Canada no go allow make immigration levels overpower dia housing, healthcare and jobs.
Dem swear-in Mark Carney as Canada Prime Minister for March 2025, and during im campaign, e say di kontri gatz return back on track sake of how immigration increase under di former govment of Justin Trudeau.
Canada say immigration dey place pressure on dia social services, housing and healthcare and di Liberals party under Carney wan address dis issues while dem go also ensure say di system dey benefit Canada economy.
For im press conference on May 3, 2025, Canada Prime Minister say im govment dey take action to bring immigration to "sustainable levels" by 2027.
"As I dey warn for months, America want our land and resources. Neva. Dis no be threat, Trump dey try break so America fit get us, but dat no go happun," Carney tok for im address.
Carney say im go represent di interest of evri Canadians regardless of wia dem dey and who dem support.
How Canada wan address immigration
For 2024, Canada govment bin announce new immigration plan wey go reduce di number of international students and foreign workers. Dis na under di previous govment.
Howeva, one of di ways wey di Liberal Party under Carney dey look immigration policy na to stabilize how dem admit permanent resident (PR) into di kontri.
Dem wan keep permanent resident admission for less dan 1% of Canada population annually beyond 2027.
Dis na part of di current Immigration Levels Plan for 2025-2027, wey put permanent residents targets for 395,000 in 2025, 380,000 in 2026, and 365,000 in 2027.
For di next two years (2025-2027), Canada say dem wan see reduction for dia population, and to cut immigration na one of di ways.
For di immigration plan document, Canada say "we dey reduce from 500,000 permanent residents to 395,000 for 2025; reduce from 500,000 permanent residents to 380,000 for 2026 and set a target of 365,000 permanent residents for 2027."
Dis na policy wey di former Immigration Minister Marc Miller bin introduce for 2024 and di Carney govment intend to kontinue dis approach.
According to di Liberal party, di stability of annua immigration go create a system wey go reduce di pressure ontop public services by newcomers and long-term residents.
Canada temporary resident population don grow in recent years, and e don raise discussion. Dis temporary residents include international students, foreign workers, amongst odas.
Na last year di previous govment first announce to reduce temporary residents, but now, di Liberals Party under Prime Minister Carney don reinforce dem go reduce temporary residents for Canada.
As of January 2025, report according to Immigration News Canada say an estimate of 3.02 million temporary residents wey include international students, temporary foreign workers bin make up di about 7.25% of Canada population of 41.5 million pipo.
Di Liberal Party pledge to reduce dis proportion to less dan 5% by di end of 2027 and dem describe am as "sustainable levels."
How dem wan do dis na to do transition of temporary residents to permanent residency while Canada go also allow some residents to leave as dia permit dey expire.
Dis method of reduction include putting limit to study permit applications, to increase eligibility for Post-Graduation Work Permits (PGWPs), and stop Spousal Open Work Permits (SOWPs).
"Immigration caps go remain until we expand housing and understand di levels of immigration wey don happun for our kontri [during di pandemic]," Mark Carney say.
Dose wey alreadi for Canada as temporary residents, such as international students and workers, fit benefit from di process to become permanent residency.
Howeva, new applicants for study permits or work permits fit face more strict criteria and caps and make am more competitive to enta Canada.
For Canadians, di Liberals plan to address concerns about housing and public services to ensure say immigration levels dey in line wit infrastructure capacity.
Di reduction in temporary resident levels na to reduce pressure ontop Canada resources.
Carney say im govment go work wit evrione wey dey Canada and make oda parties put aside hatred as dem go do well to build.
"Dis na Canada and we go decide wetin go happun for here. We gatz build more houses using Canadian skilled workers and indigenous pipo," Carney tok.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
‘No Carbon' Carney has left us high and dry
A bit like a sort of unreliable boyfriend. This, rather brilliantly, was the description of the record of the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, by the Labour MP Pat McFadden, then a member of the Treasury select committee. That was in 2014, when the handsome Canadian, hailed as the 'George Clooney of central banking', was just a year into his tenure. McFadden was not talking about Carney's personal life: it was a metaphor for his policy of interest rate 'forward guidance', which was proving no sort of guidance at all. It was all over the place. In one respect, however, there was complete consistency in Carney's record over seven years as this country's most powerful unelected figure. He determinedly used his position to push Britain's banks into defunding the oil and gas industry, on the grounds that man-made climate change was of primary importance, and that financial institutions should base their investment decisions on the proposition that 80 per cent of the planet's hydrocarbon reserves were 'un-burnable'. His wise predecessor, Mervyn King, questioned the decision to make fighting climate change part of the Bank of England's remit, arguing that it made 'absolutely no sense' to add 'net zero' to its responsibilities, and that the Bank should stick to its knitting (interest rates and price stability) and leave environmental policies to the politicians. However, after leaving the Bank in 2020, Carney stuck to his mission. Under the auspices of the UN, he set up the Net Zero Banking Alliance, co-opting a large number of the world's biggest banks, representing $74 trillion in assets, into basing their lending on the mission to achieve 'net zero by 2050'. This, combined with the Labour government's policies under Ed Miliband, has meant that, as one British oil company executive put it to me, 'Not a single UK bank will lend to the North Sea industry'. The Net Zero Banking Alliance, more recently, has suffered an exodus of its American members, which have fallen in line with Donald Trump's agenda (summarised as 'Drill, baby, drill'). But surely, now that Carney has at last achieved his ambition of becoming Canadian prime minister, he is using all the power of that position to fight the good fight. Er, no. One reason Carney actually won the recent election was that he pledged to scrap the 'carbon tax' implemented by Justin Trudeau, for which he had previously proselytised. In office Carney has kept that promise — and in recent weeks gone much further in the opposite direction to everything he did when Bank of England governor. He appointed as energy minister a man who was an executive of an oil exploration and production company in Alberta, the heart of Canada's vast hydrocarbon reserves. These are known as the Alberta oil sands, covering an area the size of England and described some years ago by National Geographic (not a fan) as 'the world's largest industrial project … Especially north of Fort McMurray, where the boreal forest has been razed and bitumen is mined from the ground in immense open pits, the blot on the landscape is incomparable.' Carney has relaxed the emission restrictions that hampered this development (among others) and declared two weeks ago that he wanted Canada to be 'an energy superpower … in both clean and conventional energies. And, yes, that does mean oil and gas. It means using our oil and gas here in Canada to displace imports wherever possible, particularly from the United States. It makes no sense to be sending that money south of the border or across the ocean, so, yes, it also means more oil and gas exports, without question.' • The oil-rich Canadian cowboys who want their own Brexit What accounts for this remarkable transformation? Pure political expediency. Trudeau's policy had been profoundly unpopular, and the Conservative candidate, Pierre Poilievre, constantly referred to 'carbon tax Carney'. So, shamelessly disowning his own previous advocacy, Carney dumped it. Then there were the idiotic threats from Trump to annex Canada. While that will 'never happen' (to quote Carney), the prospect of Albertan secession was less improbable, as that province had been sorely provoked by the ecologically motivated threats to its hydrocarbon industry. Canada as a whole could not afford such a secession, and immediately after Carney's election win, the premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, introduced a bill to make a referendum on the matter much simpler to implement. She simultaneously called on Carney to make various concessions, which 'must include abandoning the unconstitutional oil and gas production cap'. He got the message. It was no coincidence that, as host of last week's G7 summit, Carney chose to hold it in Alberta. In the final communiqué, the topic of climate change was barely mentioned. To put it mildly, this has confused those who deeply admired Carney, not least in this country, for his previously passionate campaigning against oil and gas investment. But when I asked someone who worked closely with the man at the Bank of England what had happened to his old boss, he laughed and said: 'I must have told you before that Mark is fundamentally a trader, and therefore prepared to adapt principles to circumstances.' This was partly a reference to the fact that Carney's career before becoming a central banker was at Goldman Sachs. But what does this mean for the UK, still thoroughly enmeshed by the net zero policies in which Carney played such a central role? As Brendan Long, a Canadian energy analyst, told The Daily Telegraph last week: 'It means that while Canada's oil and gas industry is ramping up production under Carney, the UK remains aligned with the anti-oil and gas ideology he promoted when he was governor of the Bank of England.' Although Ed Miliband has now indicated a reversal of his opposition to the development of two North Sea fields, known as Rosebank and Jackdaw, the government is keeping its radical policy of banning all new exploration; across the median line, Norway has declared it will be boosting its North Sea exploration and production to the highest level since 2010. The crazy point, which fits in with the government's target but not the national interest, is that if we buy Norwegian gas, it does not come out of our 'carbon budget', as administered by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Similarly, when we've shut down our entire domestic oil and gas operation and are buying the Canadian hydrocarbons that Carney is now so keen to boost, we will make the (unelected) Climate Change Committee — charged with setting our carbon budgets and invigilating our progress to purity — happy. Not so much the British voters, I fear, come our own general election in a few years' time.
Scotsman
21 hours ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Exclusion isn't the only response to difficult pupils
A reader has a suggestion for the First Minister when it comes to dealing with difficult pupils Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Apparently First Minister John Swinney warns that 'Excluding disruptive pupils risks pushing them into organised crime' (19 June). That may be so, but there are other alternatives for those young people who, for whatever reason, find mainstream education challenging. For example, he could look at the opportunities provided by the Spartans Community Foundation in Pilton and their Alternative School for secondary school students, extending now to P6/P7 pupils. Fiona Garwood, Edinburgh John Swinney wants every Scottish pupil to have a good educational experience (Picture: Andrew Milligan - Pool/Getty Images) Deadly games Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad US President Donald Trump is taking a fortnight to consider whether to join Israel in attacking Iran. Good. It means internal advisers have got to him, perhaps even the Europeans, Canadians and UK. Such a move would be an act of folly. Remember the run-up to the Iraq war. Labour in power, Tony Blair gives early notice of his support for the 'special relationship'. They produce a 'dodgy dossier' speaking of 'weapons of mass destruction' which probably didn't exist. Blair struts around beside George Bush, looking macho. There is a 'victory', but long-term chaos descends on Iraq, certainly no democracy. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, and there will be greater chaos. Israel is the immediate major aggressor, and is a client state of the US, which is totally complicit. Meanwhile, Israel has reduced Gaza to ruins, and is starving its population, what remains of it, to death. At the same time, it is a land-grab, with more Israel settlers being facilitated. Crawford Mackie, Edinburgh Ban US bombs Earlier this week, Donald Trump demonstrated his grasp of diplomacy by making an offensive early exit from the G7 meeting in Calgary, presumably rushing home to plan a joint war with Israel against Iran. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Will Britain, in an echo of their actions in joining with the USA to wreck Iraq, now join with the US to wreck Iran? It would seem that this is the intention of our Prime Minister, not wishing to cross his big orange buddy. I sense that the great majority of Scots are not up for waging a new war in the Middle East, just as we do not support Israel in their obliteration of the Palestinians, but what can we do? Well, we might take journalist Neal Ascherson's advice, and act as if we are already an independent nation. The USAF regularly use Prestwick to refuel their flights to the Middle east. Might bunker buster bombs be part of the payload of USAF aircraft refuelling at Prestwick? The airport is owned by us, the Scottish people. Our Scottish Government should veto any USAF flights resupplying Israel's military, and should certainly veto any transit of bunker busters ultimately intended for Iran. This would very much displease Keir Starmer, but would be recognised by right-minded people, nationally and internationally, as a correct and moral action. Ken Gow, Bridge of Canny, Banchory What the X? So the SNP's Communication's Officer, David Mitchell, asks on X, 'why exactly is Scotland is paying for [HS2] when it doesn't even stop in Scotland?' And yet, the SNP government has stated that it has not contributed any funds to HS2. Indeed, Scotland will receive proportionate Barnett consequentials funding based on that (albeit flawed) investment. So it seems to me that part of Mitchell's role is to miscommunicate in an attempt to provoke groundless outrage amongst dyed-in-the-wool separatists. Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire Planning language Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Words fail me too (Letters, 19 June). The Government has taken its eye off the ball. There is a much more important language than Gaelic or Scots that must be made official so they can pursue their dream of covering Scotland with wind farms – planning language. I doubt SNP MSPs had any idea how, for example, the word 'localised' would be used when they passed National Planning Framework 4, based on the manifesto of the Scottish Greens, voted for by 8 per cent of the electorate. The Government voted for the two National Parks and National Scenic areas to be protected from wind farms but 'Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable.' It seems 'localised' in the dictionary means 'restrict or assign to a particular place'. Developer language 'for planning purposes' means you can insist the effect of 18, 180m high turbines along the Moorfoot Scarp in view of Midlothian, parts of East Lothian and South Edinburgh, including the castle, are localised. It is said significant effects of Torfichen wind farm would reach to Gorebridge 5.6km away, about three and a half miles! Locally three wind farms have already been refused on wider landscape grounds. Surely the opposite of localised is 'widespread', as used by Nature Scot in their representation 'widespread visibility of the turbines from many areas of East Lothian and Midlothian... and would result in adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Why should a minority party decide the shape of Scotland to come? Why no strategic plan instead of landowners deciding where wind farms should go? Now the pact has ceased, and the New National Park has been scrapped, this has to be looked at again. All governments make mistakes but, as we have seen lately, it is how and if they rectify them by which they are judged by the electorate. Celia Hobbs, Penicuik, Midlothian Green dreams Scotsman writer Paul Wilson will certainly not feature on the Green brigade's Christmas Card list ("Mighty growth from Scotland's Acorn could prove elusive', Perspective, 19 June). He strips away the green film to reveal hard, indisputable facts not the green fiction politicians and those of a green persuasion would have us believe. Soaring electricity costs are costing jobs and are not being replaced by the green jobs so beloved and promised by clueless politicians and their followers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So where is the cheap electricity we were promised? In the last year wind and solar could only provide 35.8 per cent of our electricity while gas was 29.9, nuclear 14, Drax using trees to produce electricity was 7.3, and imports from Europe totalling 11.5 per cent kept the lights on. The Scottish Government, keen to 'lead the world', said they would achieve net zero by 2045. Yes and pigs can fly. China has set its net zero target as 2060 and India 2070. Both huge maybes. As Paul Wilson says, the green jobs bonanza that politicians promised for decades has failed to materialise and the UK is shedding jobs by the thousands. At least the Scottish people can show their anger in May 2026 and throw out the green charlatan MSPs and their hoards of mega-expensive climate advisors. Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian Minimum brains It appears the SNP administration is still keen on introducing a minimum income guarantee payment of £11,500 to every Scot, whatever their status. This would cost £8 billion-plus. Maybe the nationalists think it a vote-winner. This in spite of every country that has ever tried to implement anything similar finding it to be unworkable and financially disastrous. An 'expert' group was commissioned by SNP ministers in 2021 to work it all out. That alone should send shivers down the Scottish spine. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Be afraid, be very afraid. This could make the ferry fiasco look like a drop in the ocean. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh The Never-Never Like Nessie, growth remains elusive for this government. The Bank of England has just prioritised control of inflation over any immediate interest rate reduction which could have stimulated growth. But worry not! Grand plans are in hand. Following on the heels of last week's Spending Review setting out the UK Government's priorities for the next four years or so, a £725 billion, ten-year infrastructure investment plan for the UK has just been announced. Moreover, the Government's much awaited Industrial Strategy is imminent. The devil is always in the detail of big plans and aspirations. Often overlooked, the devil here may lie in the detail of the approval process for capital projects in the public sector. The appraisal techniques that are used are set out in the Treasury's Green Book – the UK's Bible of 'best practice'. (Scotland has its own version which largely follows this.) The Chancellor announced that the Green Book is about to be revised and updated, making capital project approvals quicker and easier, so the taxpayer gets a bigger bang for their buck, especially for projects (eg new homes) in areas of deprivation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, it is unclear how this will work in practice. One concern relates to the level of analytical rigour required, which may prove over-challenging for parts of the public sector. If that's true, then, somewhat perversely, Green Book 'enhancements' could have the effect of slowing down approval rates, with knock-on effects for the speed at which any related growth impacts are realised. 'Never Never Land' is the fictional domain where children never grow up, or some other imaginary ideal. There is a fear here that despite good intentions, when facing increasingly fierce and uncertain macro-economic headwinds, and the micro-challenge of delivering growth-inducing capital projects on the ground, that the plans and aspirations of this government run the risk of being equally fanciful. Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns Write to The Scotsman
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Canada poised to pass infrastructure bill despite pushback from Indigenous people
Canada's Liberal government is poised to pass controversial legislation on Friday that aims to kick-start 'nation building' infrastructure projects but has received widespread pushback from Indigenous communities over fears it tramples on their constitutional rights. On its final day of sitting before breaking for summer, parliament is expected to vote on Bill C-5. The legislation promised by Mark Carney, the prime minister, during the federal election, is meant to strengthen Canada's economy amid a trade war launched by Donald Trump. The bill removes interprovincial trade barriers and aims to prioritize infrastructure projects, such as energy pipelines and mines deemed to be in the national interest. It is the latter portion of the bill that has caused concern among Indigenous communities over fears the government, granted broad powers, could speed up approvals for infrastructure and energy projects and override protest from Indigenous communities. Ahead of the vote, Carney defended the legislation, which was amended earlier this week to ease concerns from Indigenous leadership. 'At the heart of this legislation is… not just respect for, but full embrace of, free, prior and informed consent. It has to be seen in parallel with very major measures that this government is taking to not just support those partnerships, but also to finance equity ownership in these nation-building projects for Indigenous peoples, Indigenous groups, Indigenous rights holders,' said Carney. Under Canadian law, the crown has a 'duty to consult' Indigenous communities on projects that could adversely affect them. 'Consultation, co-operation, engagement, participation is at the heart of C-5 and that is how you build a nation. And that's very much how we've designed it,' Carney said. While the bill says the government must consult Indigenous communities in cases where their rights are affected by a fast-tracked project, it also allows the Liberal cabinet to overrule any parliament for major projects. The federal legislation comes as provinces also pass bills that speed up infrastructure projects. Ontario plans to create 'special economic zones' that would bypass all provincial laws, amid tensions between the premier and First Nations chiefs in areas slated for mining. Doug Ford, Ontario's premier, provoked criticism earlier this week criticized for saying First Nations communities 'keep coming hat in hand all the time to the government' for more money. He apologized the following day after meeting with chiefs from the Anishinabek Nation, which represents 39 of Ontario's 133 First Nations chiefs. 'I get pretty passionate. And I just want to say, I sincerely apologize for my words, not only if it hurt all the chiefs in that room, but all First Nations,' said Ford. 'I get passionate because I want prosperity for their communities.' Both the federal and provincial legislation reflect the friction between speedy resource and infrastructure development and the need to consult with affected communities that have been historically marginalized, both socially and economically. Earlier this week Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, the Assembly of First Nations national chief, warned the federal bill was being 'rammed through' parliament. 'First Nations are united,' she told CBC News. 'They want prosperity, but they don't want it at the expense of our rights.' Woodhouse Nepinak says she and other leaders across the country want the government to pause the bill for more study. But Carney is eager to pass the bill, fulfilling a campaign promise that his government would eliminate internal trade barriers by 1 July. Indigenous leaders have warned a failure to fully consult on the bill could lead to widespread national protests, akin to the Idle No More movement in 2012.
