carepov

I also hope that one day we will act like Earthlings. I am hopeful that we are progressing in that direction, especially when you think about Europe of the last 100 years. Today however, simply opening up the Canadian border would create chaos and be counterproductive. Free trade and foreign investment is driving globalization and bringing us closer to the "one world utopia". "I think the prime directive for us at this time is "stop breeding."" Then a more specific prime directive should be "educate women".

Just off the top of my head without researching: BCE Telus Loblaws All five Banks Power Financial Tim Hortons Canadian Tire Bobmardier Air Canada CN Maple Leaf Surely some oil and mining companies

Regarding the question of “is life better in Canada now compared to the good ole days?” I think that on way we can measure “better” is through Life Satisfaction surveys: I cannot find data from more than 10 years ago but it is hard to imagine that we could have been more satisfied with life than we are today. “In 2008, 91.4% of Canadians aged 12 or older reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with life. This figure was almost unchanged from 2003.” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2010001/article/11106-eng.htm Also, “Canadians have a new reason to smile: Canada is the fifth-happiest country in the world, according to the first World Happiness Report.” http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/03/canada-fifth-happiest-country-report Also, the claim that immigration lead to higher crime seems to be refuted by the fact that crime rates are dropping big time – including Vancouver: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.htm I disagree with your opinions on Unions versus employers. I think that it is exactly this type of Us vs. Them mentality (from both sides) that 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…

Your proposal does have some merit; however we may be closing the door to some highly skilled immigrants: professionals, entrepreneurs... By the way, are you saying that Canada circa 1984 was a better compared to Canada 2012?

"opened and closed our doors according to the needs of Canada" is easier said than done. We need to open/close the door today to meet the needs of Canada 5,10, 20+ years from now.

Here is where I originally read it: http://www.darpanmagazine.com/2011/05/refuting-immigrant-report-by-the-fraser-institute/ Actually the immigration door is shut now to parents and grandparents, but the new 10 year super-visa is open. I am assuming that there are no taxpayer benefits paid to visitors: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/index.asp To this seems to be a good move by the government.

Hi Canuckistani, Thanks for sharing your point of view. Immigration is a big part of what made Canada what it is today. I would be very careful in making any changes to the system. I am sure we will meet up on a different topic.

Hi Cannuckistani, Thank you for the links. The Frasier Institute study does strongly support your position; I am swayed but not convinced. This link is a brief refutation of the study's main point: http://www.burnabynow.com/Burnaby+economists+dispute+Fraser+Institute+immigration+cost+numbers/5162945/story.html My main issue is with the importance given to income levels of recent immigrants. Of course upon arrival, they make less money than the average Canadian over time they catch up (> 20 years). Immigration is an invenstment for the long term. I do not think it is right to assume that over time immigrants draw the same benefits as the average Canadian especially when sponsored parents and grandparents ere exempt from many benefits for 10 years. We can both agree that there is room for improvement - ensure that the immigrants that arrive have the best chance of earning high incomes and the least chance of drawing excessive benefits. I would start with the system and numbers we have now. What would you propose?

I think that you are dead wrong. The only poor people that Canada would allow are refugees, perhaps you are mixing refugees with immigrants. Many immigrants bring lots of money into Canada, invest and create jobs. I would argue that over the average lifetime of the average immigrant they will pay more in taxes than what they draw in services - can anyone provide a link that studied this question?

First of all, I never said that it is being managed properly. However I think that we can assume that the immigration system is doing OK - but I am sure that we could being doing a better job. a) Canada's immigration levels have been stable for many years (> 220,000 since 2000) despite changing governments. To me this means that the current numbers are reasonable. The goal of the Government of Canada is to work in the best interest of Canadians, if immigration were bad for the economy it would be an easy and populist fix to cut immigration. I personally do not have evidence or studies to support my claim that immigration is a benefit to the Canadian economy, however, there is no doubt that Canada takes in much more immigrants than any OPEC countries and our economy has kicked everyone's ass. Therefore wouldn't the burden of proof be on your side?

A reasonable number is the number we have today 250,000 immigrants per year. Immigration, when managed properly, is a net benefit to the economy. My opinion is that we should gradually increase immigration through programs that would encourage immigration to sparsely populated areas with low unemployment rates, for example Manitoba's Provincial Nominee Program for Skilled Workers.