carepov

Sure some acts of altruism have nothing to do with faith. I am referring to ones inspired by a belief/faith in a specific certain cause/mission/purpose.

Yes love can be a biological emotion based on attachment - bit it can be more than that. I continue to argue that some kinds of love are rooted in faith. -Most obviously love of God. -The love of one's country to the point of enlisting and dying for -The love of humanity where people make major sacrifices to help others even strangers on the other side of the planet

I get your point and we can both agree that we humans make most of our decisions not based on reason. I disagree however that this has nothing to do with faith - sometimes when make decisions based on no evidence (or even overwhelming evidence that contradict the decision), and "trust our gut feeling" - I see it as taking a leap of faith. Examples of non-religious possible leaps of faith: -Getting married -Starting a business -Determining what the point in life is -Being certain of extraterrestrial life is a leap of faith -Many ideological beliefs (invisible hand, human rights, nationalism, communism)

It's Pandora's box... how do you determine what makes you happy? To what degree can you choose to be happy? What sort of evidence can you gather to determine the right person (if any) for you in 5, 10, 15, 30 years? My point is that there are limits to the usefulness of reason/evidence. Saying that one's life is guided uniquely by reason/evidence is unreasonable.

If it ain't broke.... Seriously, if there was a nation-wide referendum on an alternative voting system, what would the turnout be? I would guess 30-40 %. This is a dead-end, let's focus on improvements that actually have a chance at success...

Is love a type of "faith"? Certainly is is not reasonable?

OK let me clarify, I agree with you: in the vast majority of people conscious-evidence-based-decision-making is way under rated. The way that the OP, is written: "proof is important in every thing we do" conscious-evidence-based-decision-making is over rated. We need to recognize the limits of reason. With respect to causing immeasurable misery and suffering, i'm not sure, perhaps you can explain. I tend to thing that reason/lack of reason is amoral - unrelated to most misery and suffering.

Proof is certainly not important in the vast majority of decision that we make. Most decisions are made within seconds. Some "decisions" are in fact random impulses that we might later try to justify. The existence of the advertising industry supports this point of view. How about life's biggest decisions? How would one use "evidence" to decide on weather or not to have a "life partner", if yes, what partner and weather or not to have kids? Yes evidence is important, but yes it is overrated.

Yes, the failure to pass the tests is a sure sign of immigrants adapting to Canadian society. a) who are we at war with? by "many" do you mean like a few dozen (including some white Canadians) You are considering a different rules for different Canadians and are making a simple issue complex. Simply put: a Canadian is a Canadian. Having a dual citizenship gives an individual more opportunities to travel, study, work and do business abroad. Better opportunities for individuals means better opportunities for Canada. I really don't understand your concerns with living abroad for 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 years - what's the big deal? So would you choose your family or your country?

You are right, it is not possible to draw and significant conclusions when comparing such different countries as Japan and Canada. Canada's growth in the last 20 years was double that of Japan, I think that immigration helped but cannot prove it. Here are some studies that support the Advisory Council's proposal to increase growth with increased economic immigration: “… a large body of research that provides theoretical and empirical support for other benefits of immigration beyond fiscal costs/benefits. For instance, a comprehensive study done by a panel of experts in National Research Council 15 (National Research Council, 1997) to assess the effects of immigration on US economy, using a basic economic model and plausible assumptions, suggests that “immigration produces net economic gains for domestic residents, for several reasons.” At the most basic level, immigration facilitates the production of new goods and services through increasing the labour supply. This will generate a gain for domestic workers as a whole since immigrant workers are paid less than the total value of these new goods and services. Immigration also increases the productivity of domestic workers by enabling specialization in producing goods and services in which they are relatively more efficient. Immigration also generates specialization in consumption, and similar to the effect of international trade, breaks the link between domestic production and domestic consumption. This study estimates the domestic gains from immigration to be between $1 billion to $10 billion a year for the US economy. Immigration could also increase the total welfare of all Canadians as a result of cheaper price of goods and services produced by immigrants with lower wages. Another comprehensive study done by the World Bank (Ratha et al. 2011) summarizes some of the findings regarding gains from immigration: “Even though quantitative estimates of the direct gains from migration are difficult to obtain, economic simulations suggest that an increase in South-North migration would produce substantial income gains in the long-run; these income gains could exceed those from comprehensive trade liberalization; and the destination countries in the North would capture one fifth the overall benefits of increased immigration (World Bank 2006, Winters et al. 2003, Anderson & Winters 2008, van der Mensbrugghe & Roland-Holst 2009). Documented welfare gains from South-North migration work primarily through the increase in the available labor force. Ortega and Peri (2009) found that immigration increases employment in the destination countries in the North one for one, implying no crowding-out of natives. This result implies that immigration increases the total GDP of the receiving country without affecting average wages or labor productivity. Immigration has also been observed to boost productivity through innovation and specialization. Data from the United States show that one percent increase in the share of migrant university graduates increase the number of patent applications and grants issued per capita (Chellaraj et al. 2008, Hunt & Gauthier-Loiselle 2008). However, burdensome regulatory requirements and 16 procedures that foreign doctors, engineers, architects and accountants have to meet in order to practice in the destination country can impose significant financial and other costs on these highly skilled immigrants (Mattoo and Mishra 2009). Also the less-educated immigrants increase labor productivity as they complement the uneducated local labor force that, based on their knowledge of the local language and institutions, will be better able to specialize in more productive complementary tasks (Peri & Spaber 2009). Furthermore, immigrants are often willing to do jobs that locals no longer are interested in, such as care for the elderly (UNDP 2009, p. 85). Also, the availability of low-cost childcare by the immigrants can enable young local women to go back to work (Kremer & Watt 2006) thus boosting economic development further.” Countries could also benefit from immigration through its effect on international trade. An important channel through which immigrants influence international trade is the knowledge they have of their home economies, as well as expertise, linguistic skills and personal connections with their home country which facilitates the international trade. International Trade accounts for 36% of the Canadian GDP and plays an important role in Canadian economy. A study by Head and Ries (1998) suggest that “immigration has a significant positive relationship with Canadian bilateral trade.”” http://www.sfu.ca/~pendakur/Fiscal%20Effects%20of%20Immigration_V5.pdf

In the summary. Youth (ages 18 to 34). Muslim youth (who also tend to be second generation Canadians) stand out as being the most religiously observant generation in the Muslim community. They are most likely to visit mosques for prayer on a regular basis, wear the hijab, and support the right to pray in schools. Compared with older Muslims, they identify primarily as Muslim rather than as Canadian, and express a slightly weaker sense of belonging to the country. ... Women. The experiences and opinions within the Muslim community are generally similar across genders, but a few differences are apparent. Women are much less likely than men to visit mosques for prayers, but also are more likely to identify primarily as a Muslim rather than as a Canadian, and to express a weaker sense of belonging to Canada I see nothing wrong with people considering themselves Muslim first and Canadian second, or almost any other identity ordering. Especially considering: "Strong pride is the predominant sentiment across all groups, but increases east to west, young to old, low to high income, and (among immigrants) by length of time living in Canada. Canadian-born (that is, second generation) Muslims are among the most proud (91%), with this view less evident among those born in Africa (74%) and the Middle East/West Asia (75%). Strong pride is somewhat more widespread among those who identify primarily as Canadians (93%) compared with those who identify primarily as Muslim (84%), but it is the latter group that has shown the most growth since 2006 (up 17 points). This means that having a strong Muslim identity is increasingly associated with also having strong pride in being Canadian. "

Where do you find that? Here is the rest of the section: "Pride and belonging The vast majority of Muslims feel very proud to be Canadian, and this sentiment has strengthened since 2006, especially among Muslims in Quebec. The greatest sources of pride continue to be the country’s freedom and democracy, as well as its multiculturalism and diversity. PRIDE IN CANADA. Survey research evidence has long documented that immigrants to Canada are among the most loyal and proud citizens of their adopted country. This well applies to Muslims, with more than eight in ten (83%) saying they are very proud to be Canadian (with most of the remainder indicating they are “somewhat” proud), and this proportion has increased by 10 percentage points since 2006. This upward trend in strong pride is evident across most of the Muslim community, but is most significant in Quebec (where it has jumped 30 percentage points, to 77%), Strong pride is the predominant sentiment across all groups, but increases east to west, young to old, low to high income, and (among immigrants) by length of time living in Canada. Canadian-born (that is, second generation) Muslims are among the most proud (91%), with this view less evident among those born in Africa (74%) and the Middle East/West Asia (75%). Strong pride is somewhat more widespread among those who identify primarily as Canadians (93%) compared with those who identify primarily as Muslim (84%), but it is the latter group that has shown the most growth since 2006 (up 17 points). This means that having a strong Muslim identity is increasingly associated with also having strong pride in being Canadian. Across the general (non-Muslim) population, three-quarters (73%) say they are very proud to be Canadian, with another 19 percent indicating they are somewhat proud, and only four percent who are not very or not at all proud. These results are essentially unchanged from 2006, and the proportion that is very proud is now roughly equivalent across the country, with the notable exception of Quebec (where 47% are very proud, compared with 45% in 2006). Among non-Muslims, native born (74%) and immigrants (74%) are equally likely to express strong pride in their Canadian identity "

It has recently been toughened and I remember a story about how most old-stock Canadians would fail the old test. I am quite sure that new Canadians now know more about Canadian history than old-stock. This is a regressive idea. There are many advantages to dual citizenships and there is no downside to allowing them. Canada at war - seriously? For example (probably the most common), a person is born in the US to one or two Canadian citizens. Why would you deny that person the opportunities that dual citizenship allows. Many economic immigrants leave behind pensions that they can collect in their old age. Some establish business and trade with their homeland. In the same way that you can have a second, third or more child and still love your first child just as much; and you can love your community, city, province, country, and planet you can be loyal to more than one country.

I'm glad that Canada is not accepting entire counties but just individuals from these countries (many of them with values that are quite different than the majority in their home country). These new Canadians seem to be fitting in well: " Seven in ten Muslims living in Canada are immigrants, and as followers of a minority (i.e., non-Christian) religion, questions are sometimes raised about their attachment and even their loyalty to this country. As was documented in 2006, Muslims as a group are as connected to Canada, if not more so, than the non-Muslim population, and this bond has strengthened over the past decade. Pride and belonging The vast majority of Muslims feel very proud to be Canadian, and this sentiment has strengthened since 2006, especially among Muslims in Quebec. The greatest sources of pride continue to be the country’s freedom and democracy, as well as its multiculturalism and diversity. PRIDE IN CANADA. Survey research evidence has long documented that immigrants to Canada are among the most loyal and proud citizens of their adopted country. This well applies to Muslims, with more than eight in ten (83%) saying they are very proud to be Canadian (with most of the remainder indicating they are “somewhat” proud), and this proportion has increased by 10 percentage points since 2006. This upward trend in strong pride is evident across most of the Muslim community, but is most significant in Quebec (where it has jumped 30 percentage points, to 77%), " " GREATEST DISLIKE ABOUT CANADA. When Muslims are asked to name their least favourite thing about Canada, the top mention is once again the climate or cold weather " "Muslims tend to believe their community wants to integrate into Canadian society rather than remain distinct. Non-Muslims hold the opposite view, although less so than a decade ago. Muslims and nonMuslims generally agree on the values immigrants should adopt when moving to Canada." http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/survey of muslims in canada 2016 - final report.pdf

In 25 years from 1990 to 2015 Japan's GDP Per Capita (PPP) increased by ~$6000 (20 %) while Canada's grew by ~$12,000 (40 %). Do you consider this a "modest" difference? You seem to be erecting a couple of straw men. 1. Economic growth is definitely possible without population growth - no one has claimed otherwise. 2. No one is claiming that decreasing immigration will collapse the economy. The claim is that by increasing the number of economic immigrants, Canada's economy will experience stronger growth and Canadians' standard of living will increase. The effect is small, perhaps 0.5 % per year, however, especially now that we are entering a "low-growth" environment an extra 0.5 % per year is very significant. Here is some new food for thought: Fact 1: Overall, including new and old-stock Canadians, our Standard of living has been growing (see per capita GDP and income growth) Fact 2: The average immigrant/new Canadian has been earning less than the average Canadian even after 10 years and therefore has a lower standard of living (eg: see Fraser report) Therefore: The standard of living of old-stock Canadians has been growing even faster than the average!

Look again, the two graphs are on different and offset scales. Canada (right-hand scale) has been growing faster. Canadians' standard of living is also growing faster.

The best way to judge a ruler is based on the success/failure of of their decisions and implemented policy. Bad policy = Bad Rulers -Neville Chamberlain -Mao -George Bush II In my book, a ruler gets bonus points if they implemented a good but unpopular policy. For example: -Pierre Trudeau for abolishing capital punishment -Brian Mulroney for Free Trade (to too unpopular) and the GST (very unpopular) -Jean Chretien (and Paul Martin) for tough cuts and converting deficits into surpluses Here is an interesting article on the subject: http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ranking-canadas-best-and-worst-prime-ministers/

Disappointing news. Why bother forming an "Advisory Council on Economic Growth" then ignore their main recommendation?

The median age of economic immigrants (30.3 in 2010 and 30.2 in 2011)... the median age of Canadians in general (39.9 years) http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11787-eng.htm

The weighted average for skilled workers and their dependants is 87 % of an average Canadian's income. This is pretty good for young workers after only 1-6 years of arriving! What would it be for 5-10, 20-25 years? Other studies have shown that kids of immigrants do better than the Canadian average. Only healthy people are admitted as skilled workers - they will therefore use way less in health care. Also they tend to be more urban and I suspect that rural/remote health care costs are significantly higher. You are right about schooling costs, the marginal rate per student is lower than the average rate - but not by much. Overall, I bet that as long as newcomers make about 70 % of the average Canadian wage we would come out ahead (~$30,000 per year). Don't forget, unless we increase population growth via immigration then the percentage of Native Canadians will steadily increase - how do you feel about that?

Very interesting link that proves my point - increasing skilled workers is very different than increasing other classes. I disagree with the conclusion: " More new immigrants may increase aggregate GDP, but they will decrease the living standards of existing Canadian residents unless they are able to earn at least as much as other Canadians and thereby pay their pro rata share of the social programs to which they become entitled as Canadians. This is the basic fact that Canadians need to recognize. " First, there is a great deal of spending that is not strongly linked to the size of our population, therefore bringing in more immigrants will not increase these costs: -Servicing of existing debt -Military spending -Foreign Aid -Aboriginal spending -Science and Research -Repairing existing infrastructure -Old age pensions -Costs of running the governement (senate expenses...) Second, skilled workers and their families will use significantly less than the average Canadian of the following services: -Health Care -EI -Police and correctional services And finally, many services have marginal costs that are significantly lower costs compared to their per capita costs. For example Canada does not need to build and operate new schools and universities just hire more teachers. For these reasons, the fiscal break-even point is significantly lower than 100 %. And finally, how much of this disparity between income is due to the fact that overall Canadian wages are increasing?

The Wikipedia page is a good summary of these economic issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada Costs are certainly a valid reason for limiting immigration. IMO, the Fraser Institute purposefully inflated the "fiscal burden" of immigration to drive their ideology. The report by Javdani and Pendakur is more accurate and objective. What I find disturbing is the fact that the costs of all classes of immigrants (economic, family and refugees) are lumped together. If we are considering a new policy of increasing economic (skilled) immigrants, why should we be factoring in the costs of refugees? http://www.sfu.ca/~pendakur/Fiscal Effects of Immigration_V5.pdf https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/immigration-and-the-canadian-welfare-state-2011.pdf Conventional wisdom is that immigration increases per-capita growth in the long term. The fact that our per-capita GDP has been growing strong relative to other OECD countries supports this claim. Increased labour supply does create downward pressure on wages. IMO, for Canada this is a good thing. First of all, Canadian wages are increasing for all 5 quintiles (see Stats Can). Labour shortages can also hamper investment and growth (reduce per capita GDP). No matter where they come from, immigrants will almost certainly be arriving from a place with a higher population density than Canada and more immigrants will increase our population density which is good for the environment and the efficiency of infrastructure. The only significant social/cultural problems in Canada are native issues.

It is too early to judge the economic success of immigrants arriving in the last 10 years - it is a long term investment. In most studies that I've seen refugees are lumped in with economic immigrants greatly skewing the data. My understanding is that economic immigrants need to save up tens of thousands of dollars in order to be eligible. Many Canadians are unable to save that much! Also, they tend to me more entrepreneurial than the average Canadian and I would also argue that they appreciate the freedom and opportunities more than the average Canadian that tend more to take our good fortune for granted. Also, economic immigrants will certainly be healthier than the average Canadian and therefore use less of our health care dollars.

You brought up left/right and I am more than happy to drop it. If properly managed, increased immigration will help our economy long term. "Increasing immigration flows by 150,000 per year would add 0.3 percentage points to population growth in Canada, bringing annual population growth to 1.2 percent. This proposed increase in population growth is moderate when compared with immigration policy trends in other advanced economies... The boost in population growth from increasing Canada’s annual immigration levels by 150,000 would reduce the old age dependency ratio (the ratio of seniors to working-age Canadians) by 1.6 percentage points below where it is projected to be in 2030 (specifically, from the forecasted ratio of 37.3 percent to 35.7 percent), reducing fiscal strain on the system and the need for tax increases or benefit cuts." http://www.budget.gc.ca/aceg-ccce/pdf/immigration-eng.pdf The plan is to increase skilled immigrants that will benefit our economy: "For increased economic immigration to add to average living standards, new entrants should have the qualities that determine successful economic integration. Education, age, skills, and language proficiency are all important determinants. With the ultimate goal of increasing economic growth in Canada, the recommendation is for a targeted increase in permanent economic immigration specifically. The subsequent two sections outline ways to accomplish such a targeted increase – first, among top talent and specialized roles, and second, among young and educated international students. Recommendation 2: Facilitate entry for top talent and high-demand roles Canada has a strong culture of entrepreneurship, ranking 2nd among the Group of Seven in strength of entrepreneurship climate.10 However, this country faces restrictive talent gaps which inhibit small and medium sized companies from successfully scaling, cause some companies to move their headquarters out of Canada, and prevent larger companies from innovating in certain areas where talent in Canada is lacking. For example, three quarters of owners of high-growth firms in Canada say the most important impediment to growth is a lack of managerial talent.11 " Here is an example: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lululemon-temporary-foreign-worker-pressure-on-growth-1.3814436

If I understand you correctly, you are looking for "right", non-business, non-academic statisticians and demographers and you've ruled out "lefties", business people and academics? I have no reason to suspect that this group: http://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-031-eng.asp#notes does not have the best interests of Canada in mind when making their recommendations.