Immigration to rise again, promises Liberals

[Harry Lime]

This story is being somewhat buried by Canadian media, but is being picked up by outside sources, which was probably the point. The G20 is being held in China next, and this feels like a classic 'suck up' move to make the hosts like us.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/john...ages-1.3718831

If Immigration Minister John McCallum gets his way, Canada will significantly increase immigration beyond its current record level as a way to fill the country's labour needs.

Good for the CBC for allowing comments on a story on which the feedback is almost entirely negative. This is a difficult topic, as the kneejerk reaction is to start shouting 'racism' at any criticism.

http://www.asianpacificpost.com/arti...on-levels.html

Canada's Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, John McCallum is touting Canada as the go to place for Asians, especially Filipinos and Chinese nationals, saying the country needs them.

Pointing to an aging population and looming labour shortages, McCallum made the pitch in Manila during a speech to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, the CBC and Manila media reported.

The aging population argument has always bugged me. There is a lower birthrate in Canada, as there is in many first world countries, but the people arriving in Canada don't have that cultural issue, and the existence of babies being born into the country is never used to offset the aging of Babyboomers.

Could we use our own 9% unemployment rate (and higher jobless rate) to fill some of the looming labour shortage?

I'm not going to be around a computer for much of the day, but would be interested in reading any discussion, if there is interest. Is there anyone on the 'pro increased immigration' side who would like to jump in to give perspective?

[oilyfan]

My perspective is that we are in a cycle, and its the down part of it. We will not continue to be at 9% forever (its not everywhere, Ontario is 6.4%), and we are only 2 years removed from labour shortages in Alberta. I think we still need immigrants, well qualified ones, but I don't agree with dramatically increasing immigration.

[Looch City]

They're not brown guys, it's okay, no fears.

[Fuzz]

The problem, as I see it, is that our global economic system is based around growth. Nobody seams interested in asking if this is actually a good thing. Growth means needing more resources, people etc. A stagnating economy is seen as a really bad thing. But at some point, global population growth is going to stop, and possibly reverse. We are not prepared for that, as our system demands growth.

Personally, I'm happy with the population of Canada, and Calgary. I'd actually prefer a few hundred thousand fewer around here, as getting to the mountains sucks these days...Really what is Canada's optimum population? Are we working toward a target, or just keeping the machine running with no thought or long term plan as to what our goals are?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

They're not brown guys, it's okay, no fears.

No fears, just smells. (Probably not NSFW)

Spoiler!

Probably don't need to find the poop stories too.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...bate-1.1337883

[CaptainCrunch]

Aren't we already having trouble with the Syrian refugees in terms of the groups that helped complaining that not enough help and dollars is coming from the government for things like education, health care and mental health care?

Right now if the reasoning is we need more labor, I don't get that either, unless Trudeau is going to blast open the pipelines.

[corporatejay]

Need more information about the 9% unemployment rate though. Let's be honest, most natural born citizens believe they are above entry level jobs that immigrants are willing to do in order to gain entry in the country and make a better life for their kids.

If we do in fact have a labour shortage in the unskilled sector, immigration is probably the only way to fill that void.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Need more information about the 9% unemployment rate though. Let's be honest, most natural born citizens believe they are above entry level jobs that immigrants are willing to do in order to gain entry in the country and make a better life for their kids.

If we do in fact have a labour shortage in the unskilled sector, immigration is probably the only way to fill that void.

or raising minimum wage

*ducks*

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Need more information about the 9% unemployment rate though. Let's be honest, most natural born citizens believe they are above entry level jobs that immigrants are willing to do in order to gain entry in the country and make a better life for their kids.

If we do in fact have a labour shortage in the unskilled sector, immigration is probably the only way to fill that void.

I was born in Canada and had no problem doing entry level jobs, including cleaning, construction, and labor jobs.

I do see what you are saying though. I am a son of immigrants and that contributed to my willingness to work. I suppose if I was the son of someone who was part of a country club, I likely wouldn't be interested in drywalling.

[cam_wmh]

Curious, has anyone seen data that shows total number of landed immigrants per year, by nation?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Need more information about the 9% unemployment rate though.

I BELIEVE (could be wrong though I know they used this method) that unemployment is calculated based on a sample size where the question is simply "Do you have a job, if no, are you looking."

It's completely unreliable, and doesn't consider at all things like:

- looking but only in one field
- looking but avoiding all lower paying jobs
- looking but being generally selective

It doesn't count people who aren't looking for a job (stay at home parents, etc).

Either way, the type of labour needed cannot be filled by simply looking at the unemployment. A lot of those people still don't want those jobs.

[GGG]

Our immigration target should be such that our population has smooth demographics and slow but postive growth of about 1%.

It should not consider macro or micro economic conditions.

[Cappy]

I read a book a couple years ago called Exodus, by Paul Collier.

The book goes through the effects immigration has on each segment of the spectrum - the new country, the old country, and the immigrants themselves.

It was a very good read, and it was interesting to see the authors mind somewhat change as he moves through the different levels of analysis. He starts off very liberal in his mindset but, as the book progresses, he begins to change his own mind a bit.

Well worth a read if any of you wish to look deeper into the issue.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Aren't we already having trouble with the Syrian refugees in terms of the groups that helped complaining that not enough help and dollars is coming from the government for things like education, health care and mental health care?

No.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The aging population argument has always bugged me. There is a lower birthrate in Canada, as there is in many first world countries, but the people arriving in Canada don't have that cultural issue, and the existence of babies being born into the country is never used to offset the aging of Babyboomers.

Whether it bugs you or not, it's a huge issue. The ratio of young, taxpaying citizens versus older, retired citizens who no longer pay income tax and are very costly in terms of health care has a huge impact on public finances and services.

Back in the 50s to 80s, when Canada (and most Western countries) had very young populations, we saw a huge expansion of public infrastructure and services. Schools, roads, hospitals. We also laid the foundation for our pension systems, and set up generous salaries and guaranteed pensions for public servants. As Fuzz says, it's a system built on the assumption of growth. Which was fine, as long as we still had a high ratio of young taxpayers to older citizens.

The decreased birth rate and ever-increasing life-spans have shrunk that ratio dramatically. The taxbase is stagnating at a time when public costs are rising steeply. The status quo in spending is not sustainable. Something has to give.

Canada and other Western countries have several options.

* Substantially increase the population of young, taxpaying citizens through immigration.
* Substantially increase taxes.
* Substantially cut spending.

It will be up to each country to determine what combination of the above it pursues. Of course, many citizens want their government to do none of the above. And governments that don't have the courage to take painful measures are only going to delay the reckoning. I expect the finances of several Western countries will collapse within the next 20 years.

Here's a sobering example. In 1956, there were 9 working teachers for each retired teacher. In 1986, that ratio was 5:1. It's now about 1.5:1, and expected to reach parity shortly. How do you think that ratio affects teacher's pensions? The head of the fund that manages the Ontario Teachers' Pension fund has warned that a system where teachers work for 30 years and then retires for 30+ is not sustainable. That's a glimpse of how changing demographics are putting tremendous pressure on balance sheets.

[Red]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Aren't we already having trouble with the Syrian refugees in terms of the groups that helped complaining that not enough help and dollars is coming from the government for things like education, health care and mental health care?

Right now if the reasoning is we need more labor, I don't get that either, unless Trudeau is going to blast open the pipelines.

Most immigrants are not refugees. I believe even most Syrian refugees that came to Canada were privately sponsored too. Of course rebel media types ignored that when they went on their tirades on social media etc.

The big difference is that a privately sponsored immigrant costs the government a lot less than someone born here because they don't need the healthcare and education from birth to adulthood.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I read a book a couple years ago called Exodus, by Paul Collier.

The book goes through the effects immigration has on each segment of the spectrum - the new country, the old country, and the immigrants themselves.

It was a very good read, and it was interesting to see the authors mind somewhat change as he moves through the different levels of analysis. He starts off very liberal in his mindset but, as the book progresses, he begins to change his own mind a bit.

Well worth a read if any of you wish to look deeper into the issue.

Thanks. Just ordered the hardcover off amazon. 5 bucks!

[GGG]

Instead of immigration you could just pay people to have kids. However this would be far more expensive of a proposition.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

Instead of immigration you could just pay people to have kids. However this would be far more expensive of a proposition.

would we have to take responsibility for them?

[Bill Bumface]

If our birthrate is a concern, government provided childcare would make a huge difference. How many women have to leave the workforce because childcare costs more than their income? How many families stop at 1 or 2 kids because it's not feasible to pay $3000+ per month in child care alone?