Tories seeking balance on immigration

[guyser]

Regardless of which aspects of our screwed up policies are responsible, we ought to simply fix them rather than bringing in foreigners to fill the holes. In terms of doctors, I would think people would realize that we would be more responsible world citizens to train our own doctors and nurses rather than poaching the medical care workers so desperately needed in third world countries.

Ok but lets point the finger not at the Govt entirely, but at the CMA and the Univ's. The govt could direct the institutions somewhat since they almost all recieve aid, but the Univs have to close the out of country spots and open them up to our kids.

[jdobbin]

Ok but lets point the finger not at the Govt entirely, but at the CMA and the Univ's. The govt could direct the institutions somewhat since they almost all recieve aid, but the Univs have to close the out of country spots and open them up to our kids.

There has been an effort in many provinces to train additional doctors and nurses. They've increased the intake for doctors in Manitoba every year for the last fives years. Still, it will take six years or more to see the first results of this and it runs smack dab right into the fact that doctors are reaching an average age close to retirement.

In fact, it isn't the only profession. Stats Canada this month released figures showing profession after profession where the average age is now mid-40s.

The right wing is taking two stands recently. The first is that Canada should not be taking in ill-trained, no English or French workers because they cannot fit into Canada's make-up. The second stand is that Canada should not take well trained, English or French speaking people because they will hurt the countries they are leaving.

The ADQ this week said that Quebecers need to have many more children. There has been a small boost there. It won't be enough though to bring the average age down of workers.

[Sean Hayward]

OK lots to respond to here. Let me first say that I think you are terribly mistaken to say that people of non-European ethnic origin have inherently incompatible and different values than Canadians. People's values are shaped by the society they live in and so immigrant groups will naturally adopt Canadian values over time. Will there ever be a few "bad apples"? Of course. As to the issue of why is immigration socially desirable, immigrants are desirable because they want to work hard and contribute to Canada, and one day they or their descendants will be as Canadian as those whose families have been here much longer. As to the language issue, I already said in an earlier post that we should impose more strict requirements for immigrants to have a working knowledge of English or French before they immigrate.

Yes, bringing in skilled workers is a short-term solution, but until we have a long-term solution ready, it's the best solution we've got. I agree we should invest in training Canadians to meet our long-term needs in various professions, but you have to realize that we will never have enough skilled workers in all professions, there will always be shortages of one kind or another.

You say that the federal government is notoriously unable to effectively deal with skills shortages. I would suggest that is because this area and its related areas, such as education, healthcare and labour, are primarily provincial responsibilities. I believe we should provide a greater role for the provincial governments in immigration policy. Let them tell the federal government what skills they need in their province.

[Argus]

There has been an effort in many provinces to train additional doctors and nurses. They've increased the intake for doctors in Manitoba every year for the last fives years. Still, it will take six years or more to see the first results of this and it runs smack dab right into the fact that doctors are reaching an average age close to retirement.

In fact, it isn't the only profession. Stats Canada this month released figures showing profession after profession where the average age is now mid-40s.

Which means they have decades of work left in them.

The right wing is taking two stands recently. The first is that Canada should not be taking in ill-trained, no English or French workers because they cannot fit into Canada's make-up. The second stand is that Canada should not take well trained, English or French speaking people because they will hurt the countries they are leaving.

Are you saying either of those statements is incorrect? If so please defend your position. If not, stop blowing air.

The ADQ this week said that Quebecers need to have many more children. There has been a small boost there. It won't be enough though to bring the average age down of workers.

The average age of immigrants is almost the same as that of native born citizens. This is a product of bringing in uncles, aunts, parents, and grandparents under the family reunification program.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

OK lots to respond to here. Let me first say that I think you are terribly mistaken to say that people of non-European ethnic origin have inherently incompatible and different values than Canadians. People's values are shaped by the society they live in and so immigrant groups will naturally adopt Canadian values over time.

For the most part, people's values are shaped by the society they were raised in. If you were raised in a society which says gay people are so inherently disgusting and evil they ought to be killed, then you are most unlikely to ever reform to the point one might term "mainstream" in Canada. Likewise, if you spent the first twenty five or thirty years believing women are inherently inferior, should have no rights and must cover themselves with black clothes then you are very unlikely to significantly alter that believe in your life. This is especially true if, in Canada, you spend most of your time with people from the old country, read newspapers from the old country, watch satellite TV and movies from the old country, and go to mosques where all the religious leaders are from the old country.

Will there ever be a few "bad apples"? Of course.

I don't think 40% of British Muslims saying they wanted Britain to be ruled by Sharia law can be accurately described as "a few bad apples". Rather, it is an indication of the depth of their religious fervor and their desire to live under the laws designed for them by Allah.

As to the issue of why is immigration socially desirable, immigrants are desirable because they want to work hard and contribute to Canada, and one day they or their descendants will be as Canadian as those whose families have been here much longer.

That's not a reason why it's socially desirable, it's you saying, in effect "It'll get better - eventually".

Yes, bringing in skilled workers is a short-term solution, but until we have a long-term solution ready, it's the best solution we've got.

That would only be acceptable if we were actually looking for a long-term solution. So far I don't even see an acceptance that there NEEDS to be a long-term solution. All I see is people saying "well, just increase immigration more".

I agree we should invest in training Canadians to meet our long-term needs in various professions, but you have to realize that we will never have enough skilled workers in all professions, there will always be shortages of one kind or another.

Perhaps, but small ones, and short term, to be filled by carefully chosen immigrants.

You say that the federal government is notoriously unable to effectively deal with skills shortages. I would suggest that is because this area and its related areas, such as education, healthcare and labour, are primarily provincial responsibilities. I believe we should provide a greater role for the provincial governments in immigration policy. Let them tell the federal government what skills they need in their province.

Unfortunately, the provinces don't seem to be very good at it either.

[jdobbin]

Which means they have decades of work left in them.

If they are mid-40s, the average age of retirement in a lot of professions is not 65. It isn't going to be decades for them. Pilots, doctors, nurses and teachers are taking early retirement between 55 and 60 according to the Statscan reports that the Globe and National Post published a week ago. Police are often done by 55 and that is why forces across Canada are trying to recruit heavily. Fire departments are also trying to fill positions with average ages getting close to their maximum early retirement age.

Are you saying either of those statements is incorrect? If so please defend your position. If not, stop blowing air.

I'm saying that the right wing is against immigration. Period. If not, stop blowing hot air.

The average age of immigrants is almost the same as that of native born citizens. This is a product of bringing in uncles, aunts, parents, and grandparents under the family reunification program.

I have no problems with trying to recruit younger or ensuring that new immigrants are ready to support themselves and acclimatize to Canadian living. However, the right wing is against immigration in general as witnessed by the reaction of people in these forums.

The average age of immigrants is also higher because they often have years of training and education. The professional class of immigrant has a higher education than the Canadian average. That generally means they are older as a result.

[scribblet]

JDobbin says: "I'm saying that the right wing is against immigration. Period. If not, stop blowing hot air."

Nonsense, that is a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact;, right wingers and any other sensible people only want skilled immigrants, or people who will add and contribute to our economy. It is about what is best for Canada, not what is best for the immigrant.

[Leafless]

Which is the way they have always counted unemployed people.

Oh, I see.

Those unemployed Canadians not receiving EI benefits are not unemployed.

Has nothing to do with immigrants.

Unemployed immigrants and others who are not receiving EI benefits would substantially add to the unemployment statistics, if their numbers were included.

[jdobbin]

Nonsense, that is a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact;, right wingers and any other sensible people only want skilled immigrants, or people who will add and contribute to our economy. It is about what is best for Canada, not what is best for the immigrant.

We just heard a contrary view from a right winger who said that it hurts other countries when we take their skilled workers. In other words, Canada should reduce immigration for that reason.

[noahbody]

We just heard a contrary view from a right winger who said that it hurts other countries when we take their skilled workers. In other words, Canada should reduce immigration for that reason.

You heard "a contrary view" so all right wingers are against immigration. Yup that's ridiculous.

[scribblet]

We just heard a contrary view from a right winger who said that it hurts other countries when we take their skilled workers. In other words, Canada should reduce immigration for that reason.

Actually it does, developing countries are especially damaged from the loss of skilled workers, they lose their brightest and the best. That doesn't translate into all right wingers are against immigration. It's not hard to figure out that if we have high unemployment at home, that it might be best to concentrate on upgrading our own unemployed first, and cut back on immigration for a while. Even at that, it is really the family re-unification program that needs to be cut back.

Not to mention letting in people with HIV and the drain on our health system.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03...058141-sun.html

Canada welcomes HIV immigrants

Sun learns thousands who have the virus causing AIDS allowed to come to Canada

By BILL KAUFMANN, SUN MEDIA

The Calgary Sun

Thousands of immigrants who tested positive for HIV before entering Canada have been allowed into the country, the Sun has learned.

Of 2,567 immigration hopefuls who tested positive for the disease that leads to AIDS from January 2002 -- when Ottawa first began screening -- to December 2006, only 126 were refused, said Lorraine Lavallee, spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

For the most part, such applicants aren't considered a public health risk nor an excessive burden on the medical system, she said.

"It's not passed by casual contact," said Lavallee, adding the medical cost considered during a five to 10-year period generally isn't considered untoward. cont...

[jdobbin]

Actually it does, developing countries are especially damaged from the loss of skilled workers, they lose their brightest and the best. That doesn't translate into all right wingers are against immigration. It's not hard to figure out that if we have high unemployment at home, that it might be best to concentrate on upgrading our own unemployed first, and cut back on immigration for a while. Even at that, it is really the family re-unification program that needs to be cut back.

Since we don't have high unemployment problem in Canada, it is hard to justify the claim that bringing in immigrants takes jobs away from the jobless here. So the right wing argument pretty much goes down in flames.

I have no problem making changes to the immigration act to suit Canadian needs. However, we continue to have an aging population and employers are looking to fill position in a wide variety of areas.

Skilled workers will go from place to place even without Canada's immigration system. South African doctors who don't want to work in South Africa are going to leave regardless. It will be hard to justify not letting a South African doctor emigrate to Weyburn, Saskatchewan if he will leave South Africa anyway. I'd rather have that well trained doctor in Saskatchewan, thank you very much. It is probably why Saskatchewan was reported to have the fewest doctors not accepting new patients this past week. Their overseas recruiting program paid off.

If we want to help foreign countries retain workers, we should invest in those countries both privately and through foreign aid. I don't think somehow closing the doors to skilled workers is the answer although the right wing seems to think so.

As far as family re-unification goes, I have no problem tightening it up.

The Tories will have to tread carefully with immigration. Many businesses and communities need flexibility in getting skilled workers into the country. Many immigrants are going to be looking at whether they are going to be affected by changes to the immigration act. If they try to do this unilaterally, they are going to lose support. They should consult with provinces, cities and Parliament before they try to make a political decision that bites them squarely on their hindquarters.

[Sean Hayward]

The argument that we should not accept skilled workers from the third world is ridiculous. Like others have said, if we close our doors, they will simply go elsewhere. People who are looking for a better life will not just give up if Canada closes it's doors.

I agree that certain older immigrants may have certain un-Canadian values that they acquired in their home country. But their Canadian-born children will likely not adopt these values and will instead turn to the values of mainstream Canadian society. For those immigrants who do have values incompatible with those of Canadian society, they will just have to deal with it and understand that, as Ezra Levant said, "they aren't in Saudi Arabia anymore". I don't think the Canadian public would accept any accomodation for people who feel that homosexuals should be killed or that women are inferior to men.

I agree with cutting the levels of family re-unification immigration. It is ridiculous and abusive to Canada to force us to let in someone's entire extended family just because the one person qualified. It should be limited to immediate family only.

Immigration is socially desirable and I cannot offer any statistics or quantifiable proof for this. It is just my opinion that diversity is something to be sought in a dynamic society, and that Canada will remain great and become greater if we seek growth not only in economic terms but also in social terms, just as we have for many years.

On the issue of the right-wing and immigration, the current Conservative government should serve as proof that anti-immigration sentiments are not popular in the right-wing. I would consider myself a member of the right-wing, or at least centre-right, and I am apparently one of the most pro-immigration people on this forum.

[Argus]

If they are mid-40s, the average age of retirement in a lot of professions is not 65. It isn't going to be decades for them. Pilots, doctors, nurses and teachers are taking early retirement between 55 and 60 according to the Statscan reports that the Globe and National Post published a week ago. Police are often done by 55 and that is why forces across Canada are trying to recruit heavily. Fire departments are also trying to fill positions with average ages getting close to their maximum early retirement age.

Which is still meaningless given immigrant ages are really not much different than the average of Canadian born - and it doesn't take much time to train people in most professions, certainly not twenty years, or even ten.

I'm saying that the right wing is against immigration. Period. If not, stop blowing hot air.

The "right wing", whatever you imagine that to be, is not against immigration. In fact, the cliche of the right wing, ie, rich corporations and such, love immigration because it lowers wages and provides a large pool of workers who don't know their rights, will work like dogs for nothing, and won't complain no matter what is done to them. The ordinary, thinking conservative is against immigration as it has been run by the liberals over the past twenty five years - which is to the political benefit of those liberals and the detriment of Canada as a whole.

I note, btw, that you weaseled out of dealing with the question. I will continue to ask it in every post until you do.

Was I incorrect or was I not? If I was incorrect, have the balls to say it and defend your opinion instead of resorting to smarmy complaints about the "right wing" being "against immigration".

I have no problems with trying to recruit younger or ensuring that new immigrants are ready to support themselves and acclimatize to Canadian living. However, the right wing is against immigration in general as witnessed by the reaction of people in these forums.

Your statement is a lie, and I think you know it's a lie. Immigration as it currently stands is harmful to Canada because of how it caters to the fleeting, short-sighted needs of politicians rather than Canada. One of the reasons (there are so many) I despise the Liberal Party of Canada is its habit of always doing what it sees as being in its own narrow, short-term electoral insterests no matter how much damage a given policy does to Canada, it's finances, its economy or its culture. Not saying Liberals hate Canada exactly, just that what is in Canada's interests is very, very low on their scale of importance compared to what they think is good for THEM.

The average age of immigrants is also higher because they often have years of training and education.

Uhm, yes, my taxi driver the other day was telling me all about his engineering degree in photonics. It was kind of hard to understand him, though, as he didn't speak English very well.

[Argus]

We just heard a contrary view from a right winger who said that it hurts other countries when we take their skilled workers. In other words, Canada should reduce immigration for that reason.

Honesty is not your forte' is it?

But then, if you cared much about honesty you wouldn't have joined the Liberal Party.

[Argus]

Since we don't have high unemployment problem in Canada, it is hard to justify the claim that bringing in immigrants takes jobs away from the jobless here. So the right wing argument pretty much goes down in flames.

That's really cool how you make up a belief, attribute it to the "right wing" and then argue against it as if you hadn't just come up with it yourself. I bet it's really convincing to people who haven't yet graduated from junior high.

[jdobbin]

That's really cool how you make up a belief, attribute it to the "right wing" and then argue against it as if you hadn't just come up with it yourself. I bet it's really convincing to people who haven't yet graduated from junior high.

I'm sorry you feel you have to personally insult. It does seem to be the fallback position of some on the right wing.

[Keepitsimple]

No matter how you slice it, having 800,000 people waiting for as long as 6 years is not right. That's what this policy is trying to correct. Just goes to show - you can't please all of the people all of the time.

[Argus]

I'm sorry you feel you have to personally insult. It does seem to be the fallback position of some on the right wing.

I'm sorry you feel insulted by my pointing out that you're arguing with yourself instead of with others.

But honestly, I think most people had already noticed it.

By all means, though, continue inventing positions you can then argue against. It at least provides some amusement to others.

[jdobbin]

Which is still meaningless given immigrant ages are really not much different than the average of Canadian born - and it doesn't take much time to train people in most professions, certainly not twenty years, or even ten.

It has already become a problem for some businesses. They want to recruit younger workers and some are having success at it. The government has to give communities and business the opportunity to go after these people wherever they are.

The "right wing", whatever you imagine that to be, is not against immigration. In fact, the cliche of the right wing, ie, rich corporations and such, love immigration because it lowers wages and provides a large pool of workers who don't know their rights, will work like dogs for nothing, and won't complain no matter what is done to them. The ordinary, thinking conservative is against immigration as it has been run by the liberals over the past twenty five years - which is to the political benefit of those liberals and the detriment of Canada as a whole.

I think we have seen how some of the right wing reacts to immigration. And it isn't just about how it is run. It is about letting people in at all.

Was I incorrect or was I not? If I was incorrect, have the balls to say it and defend your opinion instead of resorting to smarmy complaints about the "right wing" being "against immigration".

You are incorrect. I can't remember a time when you were ever correct.

Your statement is a lie, and I think you know it's a lie. Immigration as it currently stands is harmful to Canada because of how it caters to the fleeting, short-sighted needs of politicians rather than Canada. One of the reasons (there are so many) I despise the Liberal Party of Canada is its habit of always doing what it sees as being in its own narrow, short-term electoral insterests no matter how much damage a given policy does to Canada, it's finances, its economy or its culture. Not saying Liberals hate Canada exactly, just that what is in Canada's interests is very, very low on their scale of importance compared to what they think is good for THEM.

What a load of hoey.

Uhm, yes, my taxi driver the other day was telling me all about his engineering degree in photonics. It was kind of hard to understand him, though, as he didn't speak English very well.

I'm sure many on the right wing would have problem with him even if he did speak perfect English.

[jdobbin]

I'm sorry you feel insulted by my pointing out that you're arguing with yourself instead of with others.

But honestly, I think most people had already noticed it.

By all means, though, continue inventing positions you can then argue against. It at least provides some amusement to others.

Thanks. I'm sure it has contributed to the impression that the right wing is anti-immigration.

[jdobbin]

No matter how you slice it, having 800,000 people waiting for as long as 6 years is not right. That's what this policy is trying to correct. Just goes to show - you can't please all of the people all of the time.

That wait increased exponentially with the Tories who left positions open in government that were to speed this along. This has been pointed out in the Globe and the National Post before about how fast the wait list has grown since 2006.

Edited March 20, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Honesty is not your forte' is it?

But then, if you cared much about honesty you wouldn't have joined the Liberal Party.

The Tory strategy of saying the entire Liberal party is dishonest certainly has worked in the past. It is too bad that so many people now think Harper himself is dishonest.

[Leafless]

Since we don't have high unemployment problem in Canada

What makes you assume we do not have a high unemployment rate in Canada when I just finished posting information that would rebut what you are saying.

Again, unemployment statistics are based on those who are actively receiving EI benefits.

Any persons unemployed whose benefits have been exhausted or are classified long term discouraged workers, are not included in any unemployment statistics.

No one really knows what the TRUE unemployment rate is in Canada, as once you are off of EI benefits, you are no longer a statistic.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Leafless

[jdobbin]

What makes you assume we do not have a high unemployment rate in Canada when I just finished posting information that would rebut what you are saying.

I don't think those are the people we are talking about when we are talked about skilled workers like doctors and nurses.

I do believe that areas like Newfoundland, the north and aboriginals have systemic unemployment that needs to be dealt with. It won't be solved by cutting immigration. It has to be worked on by training and sadly, relocation. Total employment is not going to be an easy thing for an isolated community with little industry around it

Again, unemployment statistics are based on those who are actively receiving EI benefits.

Any persons unemployed whose benefits have been exhausted or are classified long term discouraged workers, are not included in any unemployment statistics.

No one really knows what the TRUE unemployment rate is in Canada, as once you are off of EI benefits, you are no longer a statistic.

And I don't think you can show that immigration is the cause of the systemic unemployment you speak of. Do you have evidence that an immigrant keeps a Newfoundland cod fisherman who has been out of work for years from getting a job?