The first parts are easier for me.
We've not had limits on a lot of temporary migration pathways in the past. I think that's proven to have been a mistake. I think we should always have targets and limits because of this concern about absorptive capacity.
I would admit it's a notion that immigration economists have been talking about for decades, but it's not that well defined. To get at Professor Emery's point, there might be a different absorptive capacity in Halifax than there is in Toronto. It could well be a regional thing, especially if it's rents that we're concerned about.
I've been very critical of the government allowing the situation to expand to the point where, in July 2024, 7.27% of the population were temporary migrants. I mean, to put it in perspective, the foreign-born population of the United States is 14%. We have the equivalent, per capita, of half of the immigrant population of any age and any vintage of the U.S. that are now temporary residents of Canada.
I was responding to the changes in policy. They made sense. I think this is the direction we have to go. It's an unfortunate circumstance, but that's the situation.
Again, on the integrity of the system, I'm an economist. I'm not a public administration expert, so maybe I'll stop there and answer other questions.