turningrite

Well, Stats Can now informs us that due to our massive immigration program Canada's population grew by 1.4 percent (by about 500 thousand) during the period July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Yippee! Our population growth is approaching levels more commonly experienced these days in developing rather than Western countries. But are we better off? As a column published during that growth spurt (written by a former immigration official) notes, much of the logic underlying Canada's current approach to immigration is grounded in mythology rather than reality. Where is this leading us and is there any prospect that we will in the near future examine and adjust our policies to reflect the needs and interests of the existing Canadian population? https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180927/dq180927c-eng.htm https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul

According to a Huffpost article last year (link below), the immigration-driven Toronto and Vancouver housing markets are now more expensive than is New York's. So, if you're worried about money, New York is probably your better choice. If you're a professional, your income potential is probably much better in New York as well as Canada's government has long promoted a wage suppression scheme in this country. And all the theatre and great inexpensive restaurants add to New York's lifestyle allure. It seems to me that there's little contest in this comparison. Avoid Canada's big cities, except perhaps Montreal. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/01/24/toronto-nyc-affordability-house-prices_n_14344230.html

I think experience is a great qualification. The problem faced by younger workers, however, is qualifications inflation, whereby entry to many fields now requires proof of educational attainment far beyond the practical requirements for these positions. Decades ago, I started my career in the financial services field in accounts administration and later forensic auditing and while I held a degree when I got hired many of my co-workers did not, which in general didn't make them less proficient at completing the tasks assigned to them, although I got promoted more quickly than others. However, it's almost inconceivable that younger workers today could get into many such fields without first holding post-secondary qualifications. These young people didn't create the problem. But as a society we're all paying for it.

I'm not sure why we've promoted the notion that having a university degree is a right of sorts. A BA has become the modern version of the high school graduation diploma of old. Decades ago, when I attended university and roughly 20 percent in the workforce held a degree or degrees, having a BA actually implied that one was reasonably well-educated. Now, not having one implies that one is virtually unemployable other than for service industry positions or manual labour. Why this change, other than to justify the existence of a massive and very expensive university system? Germany doesn't produce as many university graduates with 4-year degrees on a per capita basis as do we and yet it's a global economic and intellectual powerhouse. I think our priorities have become skewed and that we should adjust our education system to produce graduates trained in fields that are of value to the economy. Several comparative studies indicate that Canada is considered the most educated country in the world based on the number of years Canadians spend to acquire post-secondary education, yet our largely derivative and productivity and innovation challenged economy is in decline relative to many other countries. Obviously, something's not working.

Then don't demand that others read the links you post. Quid pro quo. Got it? By the way, I suspect you won't read the Fraser Institute material because doing so would force you to challenge your preconceived views. If you looked at the document, you'd realize that it consists of a compilation of several credible academic analyses. Interestingly, Australia's recent comprehensive study of its immigration program reached conclusions that in several aspects largely mirror the Fraser Institute's analyses. Two Western countries with large-scale immigration programs that are generating similar issues and problems... Hmmm.... It seems there's a trend. There must be something to it, right?

Yup, TV viewing choices would change significantly were the U.S. to disappear. In any case, why would we want to "destroy" America? Most Canadians do not feel oppressed by the presence of the U.S., although we sometimes get irritated by the imperious behavior of its government. On top of our economic and often familial links, English-speaking Canadians share a language and in many respects a culture with our American neighbors. What advantage could we possibly gain by obliterating that reality? As an Australian I met in Europe several years ago told me, the one thing many Australians envy about Canada is its proximity to the U.S., a perspective we might take the time to ponder.

Gradually increasing the minimum wage to reach a reasonable target would have been a better approach, for sure. Wynne's conversion to crusader for workers' interests and rights was too little, too late. It was an election ploy. Her government never really believed in it or it would have instituted these changes earlier and they would have been difficult to role back once in effect.

Where do you come up with this stuff? While it's not correct that 90 percent of Canada's immigrants enter something other than skilled immigrants, it's also not true that a majority of Canada's immigrants enter as skilled immigrants. If you want a good overview of some of the big problems with Canada's immigration system, perhaps you might read the Fraser Institute document linked below. (Actually, please read the document and respond on a point-by-point basis, as you apparently demand others do where your citations are concerned.) We operate in this country under misapprehensions about immigration that are grounded more in politics than economic logic. For instance, as the Fraser Institute document points out, and contrary to government and business posturing, immigration cannot realistically solve Canada's demographic concerns arising from falling fertility rates. A major Australian study of that country's large-scale immigration program reached the same conclusion. Meanwhile, large-scale immigration is creating many social and economic distortions that are generating and will in the future generate serious and potentially negative consequences for Canadian society. For the sake of the country's future, we need to be objective and truthful about these matters. We all have a stake in this. I believe that immigration advocates and big business (which has its own agenda) have had too much power over immigration policy in this country while ordinary Canadians have been afforded too little input. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/EffectsofMassImmigration.pdf

Maybe you just don't read very much? In any case, here are my responses to your bizarre insults and assertions: 1.) See Argus's comment on this. 2.) Duh? Where do you live? Read the G&M article cited below. The success of Chinese and South Asian students in North American school systems is so widely documented that it's simply impossible to dispute. Stats Can data is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the real income or wealth of Chinese Canadians. Reportedly, even Stats Can has indicated that self-reported declarations of low or zero income aren't reliable indicators of poverty in certain immigrant-dominated locales. Many of the Vancouver area's toniest neighbourhoods, characterized by upscale housing, show up in self-reported data as low-income enclaves. See the Vancouver Sun article below about this apparently distorting phenomenon. 3.) Who said that? Not me. You seem to be creating things to criticize. 4.) Huh? From where did that whopper of an analogy/question emerge? 5.) Huh? From where did that whopper of an analogy/demand emerge? 6.) It's a pretty well-understood reality, actually. Do some reading. Maybe re-read the G&M article, below. 7.) Again, see Argus's comment on this and maybe leave your apparent pretension and ideological perspective at the door - at least if you're interested in constructive and rational debate. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/study-stretches-past-tiger-mom-theory-to-probe-student-success-among-ethnic-groups/article17923536/ https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/thousands-of-metro-vancouver-mansion-owners-avoiding-taxes

The Libs are being disingenuous when promising to return to taxpayers in the affected provinces the carbon taxes they will pay directly. Substantially more will be paid indirectly in the form of carbon taxes paid by service providers and businesses that are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices that will not be recouped by taxpayers. Rather, the Trudeau scheme will primarily operate as a tax and redistribute enterprise, giving the current governing party the opportunity to engage in the kind of social engineering and vote buying machinations it prefers. The entrenched subsidy class will no doubt benefit while middle class taxpayers will very likely end up paying the freight in terms of reduced living standards, as usual. The promised rebate cheques are a shiny distraction intended to get Trudeau through next year's election. As for the revenue neutrality, there was a good article in yesterday's Financial Post (link below) about how Trudeau's scheme varies significantly from the approach favoured by economists that achieves revenue neutrality by reducing damaging forms of taxation that stifle productivity and competitiveness. But why try to be constructive when you can play political Santa Claus? Trudeau does love to dress up for an audience so I wonder if he's got his red suit and long white beard ready? https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/kevin-libin-trudeaus-carbon-plan-is-so-much-worse-than-just-a-tax

And Trudeau's carbon tax, which focuses on taxing Canadian consumers, fixes this problem how? Reportedly, the 100 largest polluters in Canada are responsible for 71 percent of this country's emissions but many of them, and particularly those that rely on export markets, will be given exemptions under Trudeau's plan. So, his scheme, which seems intended to pick Canadians' pockets, won't have much if any impact on emissions that result from consumption elsewhere. From a climate change perspective, it's smoke and mirrors mixed with a little redistributive ideology, which as I said previously in this string is a Liberal favorite. Or, as Thomas Walkom put it in his column in today's Toronto Star, the tax and rebate scheme "...isn't exactly a sleight of hard. But it's close."

Technically speaking, Ford's government is simply cancelling a minimum wage increase that was scheduled to come into effect in the new year. The initial increase to $14/hr. is being maintained. It's rolling back other labour law reforms, presumably at the behest of business interests that viewed these changes as problematic, particularly for small business operators. My concern here is that the Ford government is now accused of being callous on this front when the provincial Liberals sat on their hands on labour rights and minimum wage reform for almost 15 years before belatedly addressing these matters near the end of Wynne's majority term and then future-dating many of the changes. That's not exactly indicative of much commitment on their part. Governments, in Ontario and elsewhere across the country, are heavily influenced and lobbied by business interests. I doubt this equation will change much under Ford.

The equity argument is largely a crock. The Chinese and many South Asians excel in our school system and economy. Even black activists now argue that the problem isn't really systemic racism per se but instead is "anti-black" racism, which is supposedly grounded in specifically prejudicial attitudes that lead to undue discrimination against this population. The systemic discrimination argument doesn't work, I guess, when it's clear that some visible minority populations have comparatively less trouble succeeding both professionally and economically than do others, particularly beyond the first generation of immigrants. As the NP article on visible minority representation in academia - which I cited earlier in this thread - illustrates, some minority groups are now over-represented while others remain underrepresented. And this is in an environment where widespread "equity" hiring practices have been operative for quite some time. So even within a supposedly equity-based program, where the majority population is effectively excluded, outcomes are demonstrably unequal. Interesting, right? There's a strong argument to be made that success in our society is based more on the strength of families as well as the inherent cultural values, particularly the emphasis they place on education, they impart to their kids. Race, or at least minority racial status, may well be a much less relevant determinant of success than many activists seem willing to contemplate or admit. As for the multiple citations in your previous post, please provide context for each and explain how it supports you argument(s). I think you're making an awful lot of assumptions that may not hold up in the real world and may not be applicable to Canada at all.

It's my understanding that the rebate scheme, which will no doubt end up being another redistributive measure (the Trudeau crowd loves those), only intends to return to some taxpayers roughly the amount of the carbon tax they will pay directly - oh, and some will reportedly get more, presumably meaning those who pay the least in taxes in the first place. Yippee! But the tax will also increase the costs of many products and services and these now costs will be passed on to consumers as a form of indirect taxation. In this regard, few taxpayers are likely to recoup their true losses. Were all the revenue generated by this tax to be applied to income tax reduction, perhaps by significantly increasing the basic non-refundable tax credit applicable to actual taxable income, it might be fair. I won't hold my breath waiting, though, as the Lib government's usual approach is to design such programs to achieve political gain. Buying votes with other peoples' money has been a big hit on their playlist so why change things up?

If the world is relying on the already carbon reducing countries of the West to solve the climate change problem we're all toast. Western countries could probably bring their carbon emissions to net zero by 2030 but given unrelenting carbon emission increases in the developing world there would be no improvement. So, the carbon pricing fixation of "progressives" like Trudeau is largely a charade, and a costly one at that as our ability to compete further declines. Oh well, who needs jobs or incomes? Another big issue for me is that our feckless federal government now appears intent on exploiting climate change to further expand the income redistribution and vote buying scheme it loves to play. According to reports today, it now plans to offer carbon "rebates" next year that will supposedly compensate most for costs incurred as a result of the carbon tax it now plans to levy in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and NB. And Alberta may well join that list by sometime next year. Great! My guess is that taxpaying middle class Canadians will end up getting screwed, as always, even if some get a little break next year - which happens to be an election year. Coincidence? I think not. Hold on to your hats folks and get ready to be pickpocketed again. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-most-families-will-get-rebates-from-new-carbon-tax-trudeau-says/

Over the weekend I read about a poll that pegged federal NDP support at something like 15 percent. Given that NDP has abandoned the notion of representing the interests of Canadian workers in favor of replicating the diversity ideology espoused and practiced by Trudeau's party, is there anywhere left on the ideological spectrum for the NDP? Of course, for those of us who don't want to see the Libs reelected next year, NDP voters likely siphon some "progressive" (if it can be called that) support to the detriment of Lib hopes. But in as much as I try to figure any other useful role for the current iteration of the federal NDP I come up empty.

I don't think it particularly problematic for individuals to understand their own ancestry. However, I think it very problematic for a democratic state to participate in the promotion of collective ethno-racial and/or religious identities. The problem with so doing, which our feckless leaders seem unwilling to contemplate, is that when you weaponize identity for the sake of satisfying some you essentially grant license to all self-defined identity groups to similarly seek the promotion of their own interests. This creates an atomized society where groups are pitted against one another in the quest for advantage. Our leaders are either daft or disingenuous if they can't comprehend the relationship between promoting identity politics and the emergence of, say, white nationalism. The latter is logically related to and justified by the former.

The operative word in your post is "should." Our current system, or at least the version of it featured in Ontario, doesn't function on the basis of universal access to necessary medical care. Rather, care is rationed and some kinds of necessary care (i.e. for rare diseases) basically aren't funded at all. Essentially, you take your chances in the genetic lottery and hope to come up with a winning ticket. Otherwise, you're toast. If that's how our "universal" system works, shouldn't health care consumers be offered other choices? Is a lottery-based program either sufficient or humane?

Jayberrd: I'm not sure why you've started this topic under the "Local Politics" category, however I believe the point you raise is valid. A couple days ago the G&M cited lagging wage growth, which isn't keeping up with inflation, as a concern, particularly given that the relatively low (official) unemployment rate suggests that wage growth should be more robust. Neoclassical economic theory appears to apply no longer in the globalized era where workers, at least in Canada, are exposed to external competition for jobs on Canadian soil. One G&M column (link below) lists a number of factors that are or may be contributing to the problem, including high immigration levels, global competition and demographic changes in the labour force. One thing that's relatively clear, however,. is that Canada is not, except in a few fields, experiencing real labour shortages. Were acute labour shortages actually present, wages would be rising much more quickly. Essentially, public policy in this country has for the past few decades sponsored a competition scheme that undermines the interests of Canadian workers. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canada-needs-to-address-a-weak-wage-growth-conundrum/

1.) Huh? The purpose of this forum is not to permit others to question the validity of the experiences of those who post here. If we're referencing studies or statistics we have an obligation to reference our sources. Logically, however, our own experiences are self-validating and any assertion that they're not is entirely presumptuous. 2.) Really? 3.) I don't feel comfortable about going into "specifics" as I've raised some of these myself with the health care providers and institutions with which I've had to deal. In one case, the institution responded that it was aware of the issues underlying some of my concerns, however no solution or remedy was proposed. In other instances, I've obtained apologies from medical providers. The problems are so deeply ingrained in the system that it's difficult to imagine that anything other than a complete overhaul will help. 4.) Cancer care seems to be one area, in particular, where politicians have responded to public concerns, perhaps because due to an ageing population cancer has become a pervasive health issue. Even so, a friend of mine who died last year, who was happy with his cancer care for the most part, also had significant criticisms. And at the end he chose assisted death over returning to hospital or entering institutional palliative care because he felt he'd lose control and dignity were he to choose either option.

Interestingly, the Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki says much the same thing. He notes that immigration to the West often scoops the best and brightest from the developing world, which hardly helps those living in poor countries. It's also been pointed out that every migrant from the developing world to the West contributes to climate change as Western countries tend to have cooler climates and more energy-dependent lifestyles, thus generating substantially higher per capita GHG emissions. The "progressive" view on immigration somehow seems to ignore such factors. Go figure.

I believe you're correct Argus. However, those who defend the racialist construct (i.e. 'You're either with us or you're an unrepentant bigot!') that seemingly permeates progressive thought believe that reducing the debate to absurd extremes somehow proves their point. Generally, they appear not to be interested in rational debate. Just because their perspective is extreme doesn't mean that those who disagree with them are.

I think these fears are vastly overblown. According to UN projections, the world's population growth curve is set to flatten considerably, particularly after 2050. Sure, there will be places that experience varying degrees of environmental stress, particularly due to rising seas as well as food scarcity. However, virtually all countries immediately south of Canada, with the exception of the U.S. itself, are expected to experience natural population decline between 2050 and 2100. Between 2050 and 2100, Brazil's population is project to decline by almost 30 million and Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, Colombia and Peru are all expected to experience population decline. There will be little or no population stress in the Western Hemisphere, with the possible exception of a few countries in Central America like Guatemala and Honduras. Africa, especially Nigeria and the DR of the Congo, and some countries in southern and western Asia will continue to experience population growth, but how likely is it that the most vulnerable from these countries will reach our shores? Not very, I suspect. Meanwhile, population giants like China and, later, India will experience population decline (considerable in China's case) by the end of this century.

Can one reasonably claim indigenous ancestry on the basis of 1/1024th genetic link, as reportedly Sen. Elizabeth Warren has done? If so, are all of us of mainly European ancestry (and many Asians as well) not definitionally Neanderthal as it's estimated that 1.8 to 2.4 percent of our dna is Neanderthal? Has the diversity craze led us led us down a rabbit hole where advantage is gained by claiming exotic (well, minority) credibility? I'm not particularly concerned about whether Sen. Warren is or is not Indian/aboriginal/indigenous. Rather, I wonder why any of this is important at all and whether it suggests that we've attached artificial virtue to essentially meaningless ideas about ethnicity, race and diversity? In this country we permit those of Middle Eastern ethnicity to essentially self-declare racial minority status even when in many cases the "visible" minority designation doesn't objectively apply. The Americans, at least, don't permit this. Mexico, with a racially-blended population characterized by a substantial indigenous component, doesn't permit the collection of racial or ethnic data. Should we not move in the same direction before the silliness gets out of hand?

Actually, population growth will take care of itself except for a few areas in the world where cultural factors promote the retention of high birth rates. I believe the UN estimates that after 2050 about half the world's countries will experience population decline due to declining birth rates. The only Western countries that won't do so are those with high immigration rates. Perhaps limiting immigration to the West might encourage more responsible family planning elsewhere, where it's really necessary. Our goal in Canada, where due to our climate we're high level GHG emitters on a per capita basis, should be population stability rather than population growth.