carepov

I am a big fan of the saying "if it ain't broke..." As a percentage of household income, food has never been cheaper in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/06/f-food-prices.html For everyone saying comparing food prices in Canada are higher than in the US because of Supply Management - I call bullshit. Most products are cheaper in the US (cars, books, clothing, etc...) Overall I am a big proponent of the free-market, deregulation, free-trade, however in this case I think that the risks of making major changes (i.e. pull the plug on supply management) to our food supply system outweigh the rewards. Small gradual changes in consultation with all interested parties would be more rational. I say that the governments should look to get out of mangling other industries like cell phones. Also, there are bigger issues such as Health Care, aboriginal issues, education...

Hi Canuckistani, IMO, you are overstating the costs and understating the benefits: Costs: -"huge stress on infrastructure" - The way I see it is that new immigrants make our infrastructure more efficient, mainly because they tend to increase population density therefore existing infrastructure is used by more people. I am thinking water, sewer, roads public transit, utilities... Also, building/renewing infrastructure is a benefit to all Canadians. -wage depression: my feeling is that immigration is a minor/negligible factor amongst all the factors that affect wages. -immigrants taking more in govt services than they pay in taxes: The Fraser report really surprised me - but I do not agree with its findings. There is no doubt that new immigrants are a net cost, however, my gut tells me that over the lifetime of the average immigrant he/she will no more of a burden than the average Canadian. I would live to see study on this issue. -Housing shortage is at least as much a benefit as it is a cost (similar to infrastructure) Benefits: -an extra 1% in GDP growth is huge. I would think that the main driver of this growth is the extra demand for goods and services, this helps Canadian businesses and employees -business class immigrants create jobs directly -Canada’s ethnic diversity is a huge global advantage for driving exports thereby creating jobs for Canadians -Each Canadian’s share of our national debt is reduced with every new immigrant -Reduce labour shortages -Other economic benefits, (perhaps increased tourism) -Cultural benefits for all Canadians (food, entertainment, etc…) -Other fluffy benefits such as knowing that we are “making the world a better place”

A good question by Michael and a very good answer that I generally agree with. You are right, the Government is addressing most of these issues and in fact, Changes in Immigration Policy is one of the few initiatives that I agree with. If it were up to you, what quota (or range) would you set for 2013?

OK, let's try again. You are right I failed the "test". What I should have said was: please provide data or a reference to objective evidence that supports the position that "multiculturalism has failed" or that similar like "Canada's immigration policy has made life worse for the average Canadian". Did I pas the new "test"? What do you think about the claims that I made? Manny's "data" was: *** "We found that one in four people are finding it difficult to make friends in Vancouver and one in three people are lonely," Vancouver Foundation chief executive Faye Wightman told CBC News. The study, done in April and May, also found that despite Metro Vancouver's celebrated ethnic diversity, almost two-thirds of those interviewed did not have any close friends from another ethnic group. And 65 per cent said they preferred to spend their time with people who are like them. *** Maybe it's me and I just don't get, if so someone please educate me: how does the above support the claim that "multiculturalism has failed"? Was it easier to make friends and was the average Canadian less lonely before multiculturalism? Is the goal of multiculturalism to ensure that everyone has at least one close friend from another ethnic group?

To everyone that in claiming that "multiculturalism has failed" or similar: please present some data to support this claim. I say our immigration and multiculturalism policies are a big part of what have made Canada the great place it is today. -Canada ranks #5 in the world in Life Satisfaction as measured by the UN I would also say that new immigrants overall are as good citizens or better than the average Canadian. -One measurement of this would be knowledge of Canadian history and Canadian government. The average Canadian fails the citizenship test miserably. -Another measurement would be voter turn out, I would bet that it is higher with recent immigrants - does anyone have this data? -Visible minorities are under-represented in the prison population I would also argue that our policies have benefitted the Canadian economy. -The Canadian economy has outperformed almost all OECD countries in the last 40 years in many measurements

Hi Argus, Thank you for following up on the source I provided regarding visible minorities and crime and for continuing this discussion in such a respectable manner. Just to re-cap, the way I remember it, the reason crime came up is that you were saying that the crime rate in Canada was lower "back in the good ole days" and one of the causes is the recent wave of immigration from Asia and Africa. Is this in fact your position? My position is that the crime rate is declining and that increased immigration does not increase crime. - Police reported crime rates are declining and are at ~40 year low, this supports my position - Overall, visible minorities are under-represented in our prisons, this supports my position I agree that most crime is not reported and that it is correct to keep this in mind when using the police reported crime statistics. However, I still would say that the actual crime rate has been dropping even when considering unreported crime. Please consider these points: -Assuming that all homicides are reported, the homicide rate is at ~40 year low -I would argue that serious crimes such as: domestic violence, rape, and child abuse went unreported more often in the "good ole days" compared to today. Would you agree with this? -I would also say that since the days of 24/7 news and the internet, we have access to more news of crime and it would be quite normal to think that crime is alarmingly high now. Perhaps crime was worse in the "good ole days" but we did not hear about it. -Finally, I would argue that our society's tolerance for violence and crime has declined dramatically with every passing decade since WWII. What used to be acceptable/ignored/tolerated is now a crime, for example: a "pat on the but" versus sexual offence. A major influence on this idea came from an essay by Steven Pinker - "A History of Violence” - a very interesting read.

Because people are suffering and need our help. Why wouldn't we accept refugees from Somalia?

Hi Argus, The link you sent me was the exact same one I sent you. The main point I took from it was: People generally do not report small petty crime. "For household crimes, the greater the value of the stolen or damaged property, the more likely the crime was reported to the police. For close to 7 in 10 household incidents where the value of the stolen or damaged property exceeded $1,000 the incident was reported to the police. In comparison, a much smaller proportion (15%) of incidents was reported to police when the stolen or damaged property was valued at less than $100." "Victims of violent and household crime also had similar reasons for not reporting the incident to the police. The most common reasons were believing that the incident was not important enough (68%), followed by thinking there was nothing the police could do to help (59%)." "As in 2004, the majority of Canadians (93%) reported feeling satisfied with their personal safety in 2009." This is also supported by the fact that crime severity is decreasing as shown in the decline of the CSI (Crime Severity Index). Regarding your comments about crime and immigrants/visible minorities/their children.... I am dumbfounded on how anyone can think this way and make such comments with no supporting data. Here is my first hit from googling "canada crime visible minority", please check it out and let me know what you think. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r144/r144_e.pdf "In summary, visible minority offenders seem to be less “entrenched” in a criminal lifestyle than Caucasian offenders. They tend to have less extensive criminal histories, are incarcerated less often for offences against the person, and are lower in risk and need than Caucasian offenders. They also tend to have higher levels of education, less unemployment, and are less often single. These circumstances may help in rehabilitation. Among visible minority offenders, Black offenders tend to exhibit more problem areas than Asian or “other visible minority” offenders."

Hi Argus, First of all, I know that this discussion of crime is off topic since no one has suggested that increased immigration has caused an increase in crime rates. If anything, I would assume that recent immigrants are more law abiding than the average population. One way to measure this would be to ask: are recent immigrants under or over-represented in the prison population? Does anyone have an answer? That said, I am always interested in debating crime trends. I looked into the crime statistics and learned a few things. 1. Regarding unreported crime, the best source I found was: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm Nothing I found suggests that crimes are being reported less often - especially serious crimes 2. As I said, there is no question that overall crime rates are down, however there seems to be a negative trend in Level 2-3 assaults. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009004/article/10930-eng.htm Does anyone know why? Regarding Life Satisfaction (happiness) I agree that today’s scores >90% do not mean anything when looked at alone - I regret even bringing it up. However the fact that Canada rank #5 in the world is significant.

Yes. I am questioning the findings Fraser report.

This is fundamental - does anyone disagree with this statement?

You are probably right and I am being too optimistic/naive. I am however getting more bitter and cynical with evry passing year... I have little trust in elected officials, however for some reason I imagine that government civil servants are working towards the best interests of Canadians. I appreciate the Fraser report, learned from it and is has dampended my enthusiasm for immigration. However, in the long term (>20 years) immigrants catch up and I still think that the current level is reasonable. Also, I would like to see studies comparing social benefits collected by immagrants over their lifetime compared to the national average. The Fraser report assumes they are the same, I would expect them to be less.

Crime is dropping and is at a 40 year low. Life Satisfaction is > 90 % Canada ranks fifth in the world in Life Satisfaction Life expectancy is at a record high.

The sponsorship of parents has been suspended.

Hi Argus, 1984 was chosen because the poster claimed that our immigration issues started with Mulroney. My main thesis is that Canadians, on average, have never been better off than the present. This is supported by Life Satisfaction data I referenced earlier. I say: there were no "good ole days" and millions of immigrants have contributed to the collective success of Canada.

Again, I agree. However I am sure that corporate success is achievable with a union. How about this question: in the case of GM circa 2008-2009, who do you think bears the most responsibility for their near-collapse: Union, Management, Board, Government, Others?

On this point I misunderstood and the way you put it makes more sense. You may be right now that we lost our "low-dollar-crutch".

To paraphrase what I heard you say earlier was "cut labour costs and all our problems are solved, simple". Do you stand by this statement?

Are you saying that people are buying German and Japanese cars because they are cheaper than American cars? Also, these initiatives are never "done". That is why it is called continuous improvement.

To bring this back to "fix the bottom line or save workers' jobs at failing corporations." I say it is not 100% the Union's fault like I hear you and others saying, they negotiated, and just like you said above "it is what it is" based on the market conditions. I am 100 % against regulating any private sector salary. I take your point about me painting shareholders with the same brush. I just can't understand why the executives of failed/failing companies keep getting huge salaries + bonuses + perks; I am thinking Citibank, BofA, GM, Air Canada, Nortel, HP. If I was working on the floor for GM today facing a 20% cut while executives are padding their bonuses - I would be less likely to work with Management. My thesis is a major cause of non-competive companies is poor union-management relationship/teamwork. The absurd gap between executive and worker pay is a major cause of poor relationships.

Simple yes and simplistic. Again, don't ignore labour costs, but don't forget that labour is only a small portion (I am guessing 5%) of the total costs: -Compete on better design -Compete on better sourcing and supplier relations -Compete on reduced inventory and other waste reduction -Compete on energy efficiency -Compete on marketing -Compete on plant safety -Compete on establishing a better Union-Management relationship ....

I agree but up to a certain point. Multi-million dollar salaries + perks, why do shareholders swallow this? Also, you should not paint all unions with the same brush. There are good and bad unions/companies. Here is the main point that makes me think something is rotten in the world of Western Corporations. Many companies are terribly managed yet executives take in millions anyways! Again I agree with the principle, but the level we are at today is absurd. I can see executives making 10-40 times the average salary (this is my understanding of where the levels were historically and also in Japan) but > 100 X!

Thanks for replying to my question. My next question is: why do shareholders tolerate such exorbitant compensation for executives? Cost-wise this may not be directly responsible for making our companies less competitive but it is demoralizing and divisive to have such a wide gap between the regular workers (both hourly and salaried) and the executives. I am not sure what salary is appropriate but maybe around $500,000 including bonuses. Don't you think?

Do you think that executive salaries should be controlled/reduced to maximize shareholder value?

This entire Us vs. Them mentality (from both sides) has hindered growth and productivity gains in Canada. Management and unions need to work together to increase profits, productivity, employee involvement and satisfaction, safety, ensure fair wages, etc… Management is probably right in saying that wages and benefits are too high. For example an unskilled labourer should not make more than an experienced teacher. Do they still have spa benefits? Unions are definitely right when it comes to executive salaries and perks, private jets etc... Unions are right - labour is a small part of overall cost of the cars, Management is also right - all costs need to be controlled to stay competitive. I say settle on a fair wage (through arbitration if needed) and focus on safely making the best quality cars at the lowest overall costs.