Canada - how immigration policy changes under successive governments

Recent changes to Canadian citizenship laws show what a hot potato immigration issues have become. The European refugee crises seems to have shifted voters in western countries to polarisingly opposite positions - almost mirroring the socialist versus capitalist narrative that so often defines and dominates political debates.

While many citizens likely fall somewhere in between the opposing camps, those at the polar ends either see immigration as a self seeking policy tool - to encourage skills and cheap labour but protect the existing workforce - or as a tool of social justice - to be a haven and a beacon of hope for the disenfranchised and destitute.

immigration is seen either as a self seeking policy tool or as a tool of social justice

The sweeping and speedy reforms in Canadian policy are on the back of the current party making good on specific election campaign promises and show how the issue played a major role in the pysche of voters and therefore the political landscape.

It is as if citizens want the immigration and citizenship policy to reflect the heart and soul of the nation - much like a home with either a welcome mat in front of the door or a beware of the dog sign at the gate. As if the invitation you extend will define who you are as a people and how you react to international crises will mould you as a society into what values you want your children to stand for and fight for and pass on to their children.

It is as if citizens want the immigration and citizenship policy to reflect the heart and soul of the nation - much like a home with either a welcome mat in front of the door or a beware of the dog sign at the gate

Let's be honest, we all know anecdotal stories of border control staff that say so much about a country and before we even set foot within the place we often have a pre-conceived notion of what the residents will be like. Why? Because the border control staff are employed by the government to represent to outsiders what their policy represents. You are welcome here or beware of the dog. 

As I've said before, immigration policy is primarily designed for the benefit of the host nation and any benefit a new migrant receives is incidental to that primary purpose. The current Canadian government is shifting that somewhat and creating an image of an administration that is thinking outside of itself and beyond purely selfish gains to one where it selflessly wants to share some of its highly held val

ues with those who may not have more to give right now.

Some will view this as altruistic nobleness and others as a soft touch with likely damaging effects - either way the effects will be felt into the next generation for citizens and migrants alike. 

House prices in Auckland

Much is made in the media of the expensive housing costs in Auckland and some other parts of New Zealand which usually mirror many of the same stories in Australian media about Sydney and other large cities like Melbourne. This is a concern to many new migrants who travel across without bringing much capital to try buy property early on and many find themselves, along with locals, in a rental trap where rentals are so expensive they cannot save for the 20% deposit the Reserve Bank recently imposed for some crazy reason. 

This is sadly a common trend worldwide as can be viewed on this handy map of house prices to annual earnings index where you can see it is not limited to Auckland.  Having said this, I have two young married kids who have, in the last 2 years, managed to enter the Auckland housing market in a lovely area on the North Shore of Auckland. Prices in their area were a little below average due to a bit longer travel time in peak hour traffic but they work on the North Shore so have no issue. They are both within a 3 minute drive to a stunning beach and love the area.  

One good aspect about New Zealand is that salaries in some of the bigger cities outside Auckland are similar or only slightly below the Auckland ones whereas house prices can be significantly below Auckland. It is surprising that more businesses and migrants have not found their way outside of Auckland. Seek and Trade Me is a good web site to check for salaries in different fields and areas and Trade Me is also excellent for checking rentals and selling prices of houses. 

Australia media seems to be a bit more open about what all New Zealanders are talking about privately, namely allowing New Zealand to sell property unrestricted to foreigners who often have no intention of living here. Currently it is the Chinese who seem to be taking advantage of this and becoming major landlords. Interestingly, I doubt foreigners are as welcome in China to buy and own land and propertybut that seems to be conveniently dismissed by politicians and the press. For so long the kiwi mindset of a good life is the car, house, bach (beachside cottage) and boat. Owning one's own home and a rental or two has been a major part of the average kiwi pysche of a good retirement, so it is baffling that the powers that be have never moved to ensure that land and property remains largely in the hands of citizens and genuine permanent residents. In fact, the Reserve Bank of NZ (RBNZ) has increased the deposit required to 20% which makes it even more difficult for first time home buyers. Yet foreigners waltz in with cash from who knows where (lower offshore borrowings?) and buy up local property.

Another shift happening in Auckland is the unified Council which is essentially a redistribution of rates and taxes from affluent suburbs to very low docile areas. For many years New Zealand has managed to avoid major class distinction in property and hid council (NZ Housing) houses within normal middle class suburbs. The housing bubble has turned that strategy on its head with NZH houses now worth so much in areas that have grown in affluence that NZH cannot afford not to grab the cash on offer of the market prices it can achieve by offloading them. So along comes the poorer suburbs. The point is that property rates in those affluent areas have risen dramatically with no real added services to show for it. Again, the press makes a huge deal of this as though property owners will suffer except that landlords simply add the costs to rentals and up goes the rental market returns while rent locked tenants become more cash strapped.

If one wonders why more businesses and employees don't move out of Auckland, the answer lies in a very poor roading and rail infrastructure that has not kept pace with immigration and tourism growth, so that a trip that would take and hour and a half in other countries would likely take twice as long in NZ.  

New Zealand has also avoided capital gains taxes although it has recenty introduced a watered down version with rules that will tax investment properties if sold within a certain time frame. While I am not in favour of additional taxes, the result of this lack of CGT has been that there is more incentive for kiwis to leverage any equity in their existing property and buy more property than to invest in the stock market. This means that a limited stock of housing gets even less for new entrants who have no equity and their dream of home ownership floats even further away. In most countries a healthy stock market is vital to the economy encouraging industry and business and admittedly NZ has a very limited industrial / manufacturing sector so most of new equity investment will likely head off to Australia anwyay as has probably happened with KiwiSaver investment funds. The question remains though is that if investment rules and taxes favour houses, why open up this major source of retirement fund strategy to foreigners and drive prices up?


NZ authorities have also had a terrible record of controlling the quality of houses and the standard of builders. Houses are notoriously damp and cold and energy inefficient in a cold climate country. In an overly regulated country where homeowners are controlled and need plans for car ports and decks, the same authorities were unable to hold themselves or the building industry to account for a leaky home blight where houses were built but basically need to be rebuilt or demolished due to soggy materials. This was the result, so I'm told, of both a change in treatment of timber allowed in houses as well as to the structural design. Many, many people have lost fortunes but nobody was deemed to blame which is a strange outcome in a country obsessed with blaming. So as a double whammy kick-in-the-teeth to those who followed the crowd and invested in property believing all the crazy regulation was for their protection, they have been told to suck up the losses and lose their investment while the same authorities make it nice and easy for foreigners to coast in with wads of cash and drive prices up.