Correct Answer: how immigration targets should be tied to housing
Passage Reference: I believe the federal government is right to ask whether its immigration targets match the number of homes actually being built.
Why this is correct: The columnist says the government is right to ask whether immigration targets match homes being built. Every view in the column is about how the two should be linked.
Tips: For a question about the whole column, read the first two sentences. Every speaker then talks about the same two things and how they connect.
Why the other options are wrong:
- how to train more young Canadians in the trades: Fekete says young Canadians cannot fill trade jobs fast enough, but the column never discusses how to train them.
- how cities can build apartments more quickly: Pelland mentions new zoning rules, but the column is about immigration targets, not how to build faster.
- why meat plants are moving to smaller cities: Meat plants come up only as places some mid-sized cities must staff. Nobody says they are moving.
Correct Answer: Zinnia Pelland
Passage Reference: stresses that the country is not one housing market
Why this is correct: Zinnia Pelland stresses that the country is not one housing market: some cities need more newcomers while others need slower arrivals. So one rule should not fit everywhere.
Tips: Read how each speaker would set the rules. Ask who wants different answers for different places, not different answers for different jobs.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Xenia Fekete: Xenia Fekete wants temporary programs adjusted by sector, not by region. Her point is about jobs, not different places.
- Bjorn Vezina: Bjorn Vezina wants national targets published beside national housing counts, which is one measure for the whole country.
- Taavi Goulet: Taavi Goulet wants a separate labour scoreboard, but the argument that the country is not one market comes from Pelland.
Correct Answer: data showing completions falling behind arrivals
Passage Reference: every annual target should be published beside a count of homes actually completed, not homes merely announced
Why this is correct: Vezina wants every target published beside a count of homes actually completed and wants the two numbers to move together. Data showing completed homes falling behind arrivals would support him.
Tips: Vezina wants two numbers published side by side. The right choice is evidence that the two numbers are not moving together now.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a study of retirements in care work: Retirements emptying care jobs would support Fekete’s case for keeping immigration high, not Vezina’s housing concern.
- cities with rentals ready to build: Communities with rentals ready to build would support Pelland’s idea of giving them more nominee spots.
- employers who lost workers after sudden cuts: Employers hurt by sudden cuts would support Goulet’s warning, not Vezina’s call to match targets to completed homes.
Correct Answer: labour shortages would be tracked apart from housing
Passage Reference: insists that labour shortages be tracked on a separate scoreboard rather than buried inside a housing rule
Why this is correct: Goulet backs the housing numbers. But Goulet insists that labour shortages be tracked on a separate scoreboard rather than buried inside a housing rule.
Tips: Goulet agrees with one idea and then “insists” on another. The blank matches the part after “insists”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- housing numbers would stay out of public view: Goulet backs Vezina’s published housing numbers, so they would be public.
- labour shortages would be folded into the housing rule: Goulet insists the labour count must not be buried inside a housing rule, which is the opposite.
- care and food streams would be cut in stages: Goulet warns that cutting these streams would cost employers shifts. Goulet never proposes cutting them, even slowly.
Correct Answer: supportive of the goal but not the method
Passage Reference: I believe the federal government is right to ask ... I also believe it is about to answer that question with the wrong tool.
Why this is correct: The writer says the government is right to ask whether targets match homes, but is about to answer with the wrong tool. That supports the goal while rejecting the national ceiling as the method.
Tips: The first paragraph gives the writer’s view in two sentences. Read both, because the second one changes the first.
Why the other options are wrong:
- fully in favour of it as written: In the first paragraph, the ceiling is called the wrong tool and a mistake. So the writer is not in favour of it as written.
- opposed to linking immigration and housing at all: The writer says the government is right to ask the question. The writer also wants housing and labour numbers published together, so they support some link.
- undecided until more homes are finished: You can see a clear position: the writer prefers Pelland’s place-based approach, so they are not undecided.
Correct Answer: three straight years
Passage Reference: openings for licensed electricians and personal support workers have stayed high for three straight years
Why this is correct: Fekete points to surveys showing that openings for licensed electricians and personal support workers have stayed high for three straight years.
Tips: The comment repeats Fekete’s evidence about electricians and support workers. Find her vacancy surveys and read how long the openings have lasted.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a single winter: The surveys cover three straight years, not one winter.
- about six months: Six months is far shorter than the three years Fekete cites.
- more than a decade: Fekete cites three straight years, not more than ten.
Correct Answer: move together over several years
Passage Reference: He is not against high immigration, but he wants the two numbers to move together over several years.
Why this is correct: Vezina is not against high immigration, but he wants the two numbers, targets and completed homes, to move together over several years.
Tips: Vezina says he is not against high immigration, “but” he wants something. Read what he wants the two numbers to do.
Why the other options are wrong:
- be set by each city council: Vezina wants national targets published beside home counts. He never gives city councils the power to set them.
- be frozen for five years: Vezina wants the numbers to move together, not to be frozen.
- be reviewed by the Senate: No Senate review is mentioned. Vezina gave a speech to city councillors.
Correct Answer: cancel shifts within a few months
Passage Reference: says any abrupt reduction in those streams would force employers to cancel shifts within a few months
Why this is correct: Goulet is the employers’ spokesperson. Goulet says an abrupt reduction in care-home and food-processing streams would force employers to cancel shifts within a few months.
Tips: The comment calls this person “the employers’ spokesperson”. Find what an abrupt reduction would force employers to do, and how soon.
Why the other options are wrong:
- raise wages in every sector: Goulet never talks about wages. The warning is about cancelled shifts.
- empty the nominee programs: Nominee programs are Pelland’s subject. Goulet does not say cuts would empty them.
- slow down credential checks: Credential checks come up only in Fekete’s view, not in Goulet’s warning.
Correct Answer: six weekends in a row
Passage Reference: Two years ago I spent six weekends in a row bidding against strangers for a one-bedroom apartment
Why this is correct: Look at the last paragraph. Two years ago, the writer spent six weekends in a row bidding against strangers for a one-bedroom apartment.
Tips: The comment speaks to the writer about the apartment search. Find that story and do not mix up how long ago it was with how long it lasted.
Why the other options are wrong:
- two full years: Two years is how long ago the search happened, not how long the bidding lasted.
- every evening for a month: The writer bid on weekends, not every evening.
- one long weekend: The bidding went on for six weekends, not one.
Correct Answer: months rather than years
Passage Reference: she wants foreign credentials recognized in months rather than years
Why this is correct: Fekete wants foreign credentials recognized in months rather than years.
Tips: Fekete’s second wish is about foreign credentials. Read the end of that sentence to see how long she thinks recognition should take.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a single day: Fekete asks for months, not a single day.
- five years or more: Fekete wants recognition to take months rather than years, so five years is the opposite.
- the worker’s home country: Fekete talks about how long recognition takes, not where it happens.