CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:55 pm
 


Quote:
Former federal Liberal cabinet minister Robert Kaplan recently proposed that Canada increase its population to 100 million through increased immigration in order that we become more influential on the world stage. While some may find this visionary in its scope, it totally fails to take into account the realities of today's Canada. Many of our larger cities are already groaning under the weight of high immigration intake that is increasing congestion, house prices and costs to taxpayers. A recent paper by Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady estimated that newcomers cost Canadians between $16 and $23 billion a year because of what they receive in government benefits over what they pay in taxes.

Added to this is concern over the increasing concentrations of immigrants who come from cultures and traditions that are very different from those of most Canadians. An example of this is the controversy over Muslim prayer sessions at the Valley Park middle school in Toronto, where 80 to 90 per cent of the students are Muslims. Such problems can be expected to occur more frequently even at current levels of immigration.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is quite right when he questions whether Canadians are ready to accept higher immigration levels. He recently told the Vancouver Board of Trade that we do not have the resources or ability to integrate much larger numbers of immigrants every year and pointed out that we can't flood our taxpayer-funded services or put pressure on real estate markets.

While Kenney is the most effective immigration minister we've had in a long time, and is prepared to acknowledge and deal with some of the most difficult issues, even he would appear to be off-base in his belief that most Canadians accept intake current levels.

When Canadians say they are happy about immigration in general, this should not be interpreted as meaning they are satisfied with the numbers we are bringing in, particularly if this affects them (which is the case in larger cities, where most newcomers settle). An Ekos Research survey released in November, for example, found that, while 71 per cent of respondents said they felt immigration was good for Canada, this declined to 48 per cent when asked if they thought it was good for their neighbourhood.

A recent poll by Léger Marketing found 55 per cent of Calgarians thought their city was already too large and only 39 per cent thought it had the right number of people. This means 94 per cent didn't want it to get larger - which will be increasingly difficult to achieve unless we dramatically reduce immigration, as most of the population increase will be from this source.

Only five per cent of the people in Toronto and Vancouver wanted their numbers to increase. Yet Toronto is projected to grow by three million people and Vancouver by almost one million in the next two decades if current immigration levels are maintained.


That there is a gap between what our leaders think we want and what average Canadians want is not surprising. The Centre for Immigration Studies in Washington found that among opinion makers in the United States (politicians, leaders of church groups, business executives, union leaders, academics, etc.) only 18 per cent thought immigration should be reduced, compared to 55 per cent of the public. Although various reasons have been advanced for why Canada should continue with high immigration levels even if this causes problems for many Canadians, at least some fallacious arguments have been discarded.

The present government, for example, does not attempt to perpetrate the myth that immigration is a realistic way of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population. A more pervasive fiction, however, is that we must have large-scale immigration if we are to meet looming labour shortages and that Canada cannot prosper without a constant infusion of workers from abroad.

The fact is, most of our labour shortages can be met domestically if we make the best use of our existing workforce and educational and training facilities.

This point was made not only by the Economic Council of Canada 20 years ago, but has been reiterated and updated more recently by renowned labour economists such as Alan G. Green of Queen's University and David A. Green of the University of B.C. Green recently told a conference in Vancouver that using immigration to fill labour-force gaps carries pitfalls and that natural market responses to labour shortages, such as pay hikes, can be obstructed when immigration increases the supply of workers and thus reduces wages.


While Canada should remain an immigrant-friendly country and invite newcomers to come here in reasonable numbers, it is clear that not only would we be foolish to embark on a massive increase in population by means of immigration as suggested by Robert Kaplan, but that maintaining anywhere near current levels brings with it almost no benefit to most Canadians and, indeed, is very costly.

Martin Collacott served as Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East. He is a spokesman for the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform and lives in Vancouver.




Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/immigr ... z1VMRSkrb2


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:54 am
 


I sort of see the love affair with immigration that Canadians have as a social problem. For example in one compartment of their brain the economy is good while in another it is not good. So this has to be worked out a bit better. There's room for some immigration but driving the economy with new comers will produce economic problems, the jobs market is just not robust enough.


The Alberta oil patch, should growth return, could be used as an experiment about how to run immigration. They need tradesmen and oil workers but could do with limited less axillary workers. The economy should firm, produce better companies, rather than just fly by night marginal businesses dependent on oil money. It'd be an experiment targeted at Alberta's long term economy. The idea is to encourage more stable companies.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:05 am
 


It's interesting the Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady, who are PhDs are actually backward in regard to the economics of immigration. They claim immigrants are net subsidized by the nanny state and this is a problem with immigration. It's actually a function of the nanny state, that lowered people pay less taxes and the data doesn't tell us anything about what to do about economic growth that produces jobs that pay a variety of levels. In fact having immigrants take the less well paying jobs makes sense because that leaves the better paying jobs for the born here. To have the main immigration reform centre in Canada, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, mount such weak arguments mean nobody but Andy is going to pay attention to them. The alternative is to cut economic growth at the bottom.

I've communicated with the Fraser Institute's Martin Collacott for over five years without getting a piece of information in. They have no money, no time - that's how these activist groups work.

My own web site on immigration reform remains the most cogent in Canada and the United States, please see http://members.tripod.com/bruce_the_vii/immigration/

CKA posters aren't kids for the most part and they should know that economists, professionals in general, sometimes deal in generalizations or rationalizations. You have to vet what the experts say with a little common sense to weed out the quick and dirty studies and opinion.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:45 am
 


Bruce_the_vii wrote:
It's interesting the Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady, who are PhDs are actually backward in regard to the economics of immigration. They claim immigrants are net subsidized by the nanny state and this is a problem with immigration. It's actually a function of the nanny state, that lowered people pay less taxes and the data doesn't tell us anything about what to do about economic growth that produces jobs that pay a variety of levels. In fact having immigrants take the less well paying jobs makes sense because that leaves the better paying jobs for the born here. To have the main immigration reform centre in Canada, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, mount such weak arguments mean nobody but Andy is going to pay attention to them. The alternative is to cut economic growth at the bottom.



Quote:
The fact is, most of our labour shortages can be met domestically if we make the best use of our existing workforce and educational and training facilities.

This point was made not only by the Economic Council of Canada 20 years ago, but has been reiterated and updated more recently by renowned labour economists such as Alan G. Green of Queen's University and David A. Green of the University of B.C. Green recently told a conference in Vancouver that using immigration to fill labour-force gaps carries pitfalls and that natural market responses to labour shortages, such as pay hikes, can be obstructed when immigration increases the supply of workers and thus reduces wages.


Not just Gruebel and Grady it seems


Last edited by andyt on Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60581
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:00 am
 


Too much immigration is also known as colonization. Just ask the First Nations about that.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:16 am
 


I was struck by the part where most Canadians supported immigration, except in their own neighborhoods. Shows what kind of bullshit is involved here. As we've seen on this forum, people seem to think immigrants will somehow settle the north, when there's nothing up there for them.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:18 am
 


andyt wrote:
Bruce_the_vii wrote:
It's interesting the Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady, who are PhDs are actually backward in regard to the economics of immigration. They claim immigrants are net subsidized by the nanny state and this is a problem with immigration. It's actually a function of the nanny state, that lowered people pay less taxes and the data doesn't tell us anything about what to do about economic growth that produces jobs that pay a variety of levels. In fact having immigrants take the less well paying jobs makes sense because that leaves the better paying jobs for the born here. To have the main immigration reform centre in Canada, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, mount such weak arguments mean nobody but Andy is going to pay attention to them. The alternative is to cut economic growth at the bottom.



The fact is, most of our labour shortages can be met domestically if we make the best use of our existing workforce and educational and training facilities.

This point was made not only by the Economic Council of Canada 20 years ago, but has been reiterated and updated more recently by renowned labour economists such as Alan G. Green of Queen's University and David A. Green of the University of B.C. Green recently told a conference in Vancouver that using immigration to fill labour-force gaps carries pitfalls and that natural market responses to labour shortages, such as pay hikes, can be obstructed when immigration increases the supply of workers and thus reduces wages.

Not just Gruebel and Grady it seems



Economic growth without immigration means wage inflation. The issue is never addressed by immigration reform people. Without immigration you get shorter business cycles in theory, and maybe in practice in Canada. Inflation is a bit tricky but it's possible to have short, shallow recessions as an alternative to immigration growth. Alberta inflated prior to the world downturn and got ahead of the rest of Canada by about $3 an hour. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are a bit behind Canada on average wage and would maybe like to inflate a bit instead of immigrate. Statistics Canada has wage data for cities so you can actually look at how they are doing with immigration. The filling in in the market place is training and inflation.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20461
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:20 am
 


andyt wrote:
I was struck by the part where most Canadians supported immigration, except in their own neighborhoods. Shows what kind of bullshit is involved here. As we've seen on this forum, people seem to think immigrants will somehow settle the north, when there's nothing up there for them.


I have no problems with immigrants wanting to live in my neighbourhood. I know of several (a couple of Chinese families and a Muslim family). Frankly, I don't care who lives there as long as they maintain their property and don't do something to cause my property value to drop.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:32 am
 


He ment in your city. Only 5% of Torontians want more immigrants. The place is on the verge of becoming very large and people don't want that.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 60581
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:20 am
 


andyt wrote:
I was struck by the part where most Canadians supported immigration, except in their own neighborhoods. Shows what kind of bullshit is involved here. As we've seen on this forum, people seem to think immigrants will somehow settle the north, when there's nothing up there for them.


I know I have no problem with immigrants settling in your neighborhood. :wink:


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:50 am
 


That 95% think that Toronto is large enough is very interesting. That's a strong showing.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.