Tories to increase immigration levels for election year

[Hudson Jones]

Argus - I know you're a little cranky on this issue but those researchers you speak of said that 1% would not have any noticeable impact and that the necessary larger percentages are not politically palatable. Funny how the debate is going on this thread. One of the themes of the eco-nuts is that the planet has too many people - yet Western-style cultural evolution (Education and a decent living standard) has led to lower birth rates and a potentially shrinking population. We can only hope that the third-world can start to participate in their own version of the West's "success". Wishful thinking perhaps but who knows what the next 50 years might bring.

But our issue in Canada is not so much is it good or bad to have immigrants and/or a growing/shrinking population - it's about the ability to support an aging population over the next 20-30 years.

We need a combination of different methods to respond to the issue. The Fraser Institute and Argus may not be fond of "them immigrants", but the reality is that immigration is part of the solution. As Dre pointed out: Economic Council of Canada, the first detailed analysis of Canadian policy. It called for immigration to be increased

Here is what Canada is doing as far as immigration to respond to the needs.

280K permanent residents + 218K temporary workers + 104K international students

There should also be an increase in the incentives that families receive for having children. Whether it's more tax benefits so that at least a parent can stay home with the children and the burden of costs does not prevent people from having more children, and/or subsidizing childcare.

[Argus]

The evidence is that its already happening. Immigration rates have resulted in mild population increase year to year. Without immigration the population would have shrunk.

No, actually, it would not have.

Another of Canada’s best known demographers, Roderic Beaujot of the University of Western Ontario, also counseled against the sense of urgency and even panic engendered by the prime minister and others when he pointed out that, even with a further decline in the birth rate and substantially reduced immigration levels, we can expect projected population growth through to 2029, and with natural increase alone (i.e., without immigration) we will still keep growing for more than a dozen years (Kerr and Beaujot, 2002

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/labour_shortage_census-resp1.pdf

[Argus]

Argus - I know you're a little cranky on this issue

No, I'm not. I do, however get impatient with people who make statements of fact with nothing to back them up, and who then go on to ignore the facts and cites I post and instead call me names.

but those researchers you speak of said that 1% would not have any noticeable impact and that the necessary larger percentages are not politically palatable.

Okay, and what's your point?

But our issue in Canada is not so much is it good or bad to have immigrants and/or a growing/shrinking population - it's about the ability to support an aging population over the next 20-30 years.

Do you know why we still have a largely resource based economy? Because it's there. Since it's there, it's easy to use it as a crutch, particularly when you're lazy or incompetent (as most of our government's are). For the last some decades government has used immigration as a crutch. It's used it as a crutch to support popularity instead of simply developing proper policies which would encourage everyone to vote for them. And it's used it as a crutch to avoid drawing up and bringing in intelligent skills training and development programs. Now it's using it as a crutch as well so it doesn't have to try to figure out how to encourage people to have more kids.

Unfortunately, crutches don't help you walk very well, or very fast. And in this case, as the demographics and statisticians have baldly stated, immigration is not going to be a solution to this problem. And again, I point out if the government seriously thought it would be it would be doing everything it could to encourage younger immigrants and discourage older ones. It's not. The government has never defined how much growth it wants our population to have and never done any economic studies on the impact of immigration, pro or con. It just makes mouth pleasing sounding mouth noises.

The Fraser Institute, on the other hand, has pegged the cost to Canada of our immigration program at $23 billion per year. Does this all make sense to you?

[Argus]

Youre hanging your hat one one decades old report, and ignoring the fact that the pressure to increase immigration is coming from "chamber of commerce" organizations, banks, etc... All across the west.

I'm sorry, have I shown a great fondness for the desires and well being of bankers and corporate types of late? Have you? Are you going to sit there and tell me that if this is what big business wants it must be the right thing to do!?

Let me quote your own quote back at you.

While it found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large.

So the economic benefits TO CANADA are quite small, for all the tremendous cost, social upheaval, massively increased pollution and crowding, the benefits TO FOREIGNERS we let come here is large.

Again, I believe I've made it crystal clear in earlier posts that I believe our immigration system, cost pegged at $23 billion annually, should be designed to maximize gains to Canada, not be some sort of international charity program to help foreigners.

[Argus]

If only there were a way to link to it here.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/11/11/canada_should_offer_haven_to_more_caught_in_global_refugee_crisis_editorial.html

This is about refugees, not our immigration system. However, I'd like to point out that what you basically get with refugees today are unskilled, third world people with little or no ability to work in our high tech, high refined communications society. At best, after lots of language lessons, while they and their families are on welfare, they'll probably get very low skilled service jobs, thus not contributing to our tax base, but instead consuming tax dollars.

I'm not saying we should close down the refugee program, but many of our so-called refugees are not real refugees anyway. Most are economic migrants, not people with genuine fears of their lives.

[dre]

I'm sorry, have I shown a great fondness for the desires and well being of bankers and corporate types of late? Have you? Are you going to sit there and tell me that if this is what big business wants it must be the right thing to do!?

I never said I thought it was the right thing to do. Your argument though is that immigration is driven by politics, but its much moreso driven by economics and the rules of our economic and monetary systems. Economic growth is created by monetary expansion, and monetary expansion is the result of borrowing/debt. So the government/banks basically only have two choices... try to get the current batch of borrowers to borrow more (thats why interest rates are so low), or try to add new borrowers.

Im not necessarily an advocate for ANY of this.... Im just explaining why its happening, and why its an absolute inevitability that it will continue to happen for quite some time.

[jacee]

If you think the feminist movement is in love with Stay at Home Moms or Real Women of Canada - then good for you.

No need to be rude.You don't qualify to speak for any of them.

But my point stands - we are not going back to Leave to Beaver days.

A point worth making, without the derogatory comments.

.

[jacee]

Argus, on 12 Nov 2014 - 4:01 PM, said:I'm sorry, have I shown a great fondness for the desires and well being of bankers and corporate types of late? Have you? Are you going to sit there and tell me that if this is what big business wants it must be the right thing to do!?

I never said I thought it was the right thing to do. Your argument though is that immigration is driven by politics, but its much moreso driven by economics and the rules of our economic and monetary systems. Economic growth is created by monetary expansion, and monetary expansion is the result of borrowing/debt. So the government/banks basically only have two choices... try to get the current batch of borrowers to borrow more (thats why interest rates are so low), or try to add new borrowers.

Im not necessarily an advocate for ANY of this.... Im just explaining why its happening, and why its an absolute inevitability that it will continue to happen for quite some time.

Yes, and how the hell can it possibly matter so much to any but the white nationalist extremist nazi wannabes.

It can't.

And many of us have a hard time letting extremist bigotted comments stand on a board clearly identifiable as Canadian.

Two friggen threads on some version of the "we don't like non-white immigrants" theme at any given time.

:-/

.

Edited November 13, 2014 by jacee

[WestCoastRunner]

Two friggen threads on some version of the "we don't like non-white immigrants" theme at any given time.

:-/

.

Are you sure there are only two threads. I swear, I have read many more, but perhaps under the guise of different topics.

[marcus]

Argus: Have you figured out the changes in the immigration programs which have become quite selective and restrictive?

For example, here are some of the changes to the Federal Skilled Worker Program:

- Minimum English/French language requirement

- Must have experience under one of the 50 eligible occupation which Canada is in dire need of

- Maximum of 1000 applicants per occupation

- Must have sufficient settlement funds

- One of the factors in the point system is Age. For every year above 35, the applicant loses 1 point.

- Education credentials must be assessed to see if they are at the same standard of Canada's

I bet you didn't know these rules and restrictions exist. Rules and restrictions that did not exist when your 2003 and 2007 articles were published by the Fraser Institute.

You see; These changes were made in order to allow immigrants adjust and settle easier in Canada. The changes are a direct response to the problems immigrants have had in the past.

[Argus]

One of the issues one runs into when attempting to hold political discussions on the internet is that not everyone is really capable of taking part in any sort of equitable fashion. As has been noted by others not everyone is very smart. Not everyone is even of average intelligence. That doesn't stop them from holding passionate beliefs and opinions on varied topics, however lacking in logic those opinions might be. So it enrages them when they find themselves unable to rationally debate those topics they feel so strongly about.

The most typical response is to resort to spewing insults. I think they believe that if they can divert the topic from one for which they are ill equipped to participate, to simply flinging insults back and forth, they will feel more at home and more capable of holding their own. One has to feel sorry for them. It's probably how their lives are, as well, filled with bitterness and anger and resentment at their inferiority, insulting and blaming everyone around them. Still, I have to say that a well-moderated web site ought to be removing such people so that adult discussions can take place. It should not be neccessary to search for intelligent nuggets of discussion amidst the noxious diarhea they spew about.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

What is the purpose of our high rate of immigration?

We have had four basic goals from the government over the years.

To grow the economy.
To make up for a skills shortage.
To make up for an aging population.
To make up for a low birth rate.

Interestingly, the government has never, to my knowledge, supported those aims with any measurable criteria we can use to decide if they are being met. And that is normally an important part of every government program. Nor has the government ever supplied any detailed analyses of how these goals are to be furthered because of immigration, or because of a paricular amount of immigration. Again, this is an absolute must for government programs. When I was with the government we had to justify each and every one of our programs with detailed numbers as to their benefits and why they shouldn't be scrapped. But ... not this one. But let's look at the reasons they've given.

Growing the Economy
How much does immigration contribute to growing the economy? How much is it supposed to contribute? And how does that help us? No one really knows. There's no numbers available on this. A growing economy is all well and good, but as has been pointed out numerous times, a bigger pie doesn't mean more food for anyone there if more people are sitting down at the table to help eat it. There are more jobs, but then more people pursuing those jobs.

When Brian Mulroney decided to triple immigration in the 80s the Economic Council of Canada did a fairly detailed analyses and basically said there was no reason to expect it to be of any great help or hindrance one way or the other. Their conclusion was that if immigration was to be increased it would have to be on the basis of non-economic arguments. The House committee studying the issue recommended no increase. The government overrode that for, in my opinion, mainly political reasons. Most immigrants voted Liberal. The Tories wanted to change that. It was stated during the cabinet discussion that increasing immigration would help curry favor with ethnic groups, and that incoming immigrants would tend to vote for the Tories in gratitude, and this was what convinced them to agree to the increase.

To Make Up For a Skills Shortage
Really? How many years now have they been using this one? Shouldn't a shortage of skills be taken care of with skills training? I mean, it's been YEARS now, decades. We still have college graduates working as barristas and checkout girls. Lots of them. A skills shortage? Okay. But isn't that why we're bringing in hundreds of thousands of temporary workers? There's STILL a skills shortage? Then why does the government itself continue to say that the economic success of more recent immigrants is falling further and further behind their predecessors? Why are the more likely to be earning low wages or be on unemployment?

To make up for an aging population/low birth rate
This one has been thoroughly debunked by demographics experts and statisticians. You simply can't bring in enough people to have any measurable impact on either of these issues, not unless you increase it to ridiculous amounts and principally bring in younger people (which we are not doing).

There are costs to immigration: billions in additional spending, overcrowded cities with horrendous traffic problems and hideously expensive housing, growing pollution, the gobbling up of prime farmland and the cutting down of trees to make room for new subdivisions, as well as social upheaval. What justifies all that? None of the above, apparently.

[Argus]

I bet you didn't know these rules and restrictions exist. Rules and restrictions that did not exist when your 2003 and 2007 articles were published by the Fraser Institute.

I know quite a bit about immigration and yes I knew very well what changes had been made. But that doesn't mean they worked. As I have alread pointed out, immigration success continues to lag, and the issue of bringing in highly skilled immigrants with university degrees continues to be their lack of language skills. Being able to get by in English, as in what I could bluntly call 'taxi driver English' is fine for lower skilled jobs but entirely inadequate for the higher level jobs these individuals would be pursuing.

These are, to my knowledge, the most recently available statistics on immigrant participation in the labour force. Statistical analyses requires statistics, which in this sort of situation often means the census. Thus any study is going to be based on lagging numbers. You'll note, however, that immigrants continue to lag behind.

I would really like to see an updated version of the statistics I posted the other day on the earnings of immigrants from different geographical areas. I continue to believe that it is utterly sensible to focus our immigration, if we are to have it, on immigrants from parts of the world which the numbers say are going to be the most succesful.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-606-x/2012006/t035-eng.htm

[jacee]

There are reasons other than benefits to us, Argus.

Like ... obligations to mitigate negative impacts of Canadian resource industry operations overseas - destruction of livelihoods and displacement of communities by Canadian mining operations:

http://www.miningwatch.ca/fr/node/6854

Notably, of the some 3 to 5 million internally displaced people in Colombia, the great majority [11] come from mineral and hydrocarbon rich areas. [12]

Furthermore, Peace Brigades International reports that of the 29 human rights defenders murdered in the first half of 2011, at least three had been speaking out against large scale mining, while another five lived in mining areas, another was also disappeared who had been implicated in such activities.

If Canada signs agreements that allow Canadian companies to displace people and destroy their livelihoods in other countries, then Canada has an obligation to accept economic refugees from those communities, imo.

Edited November 13, 2014 by jacee

[dre]

This one has been thoroughly debunked by demographics experts and statisticians.

No it hasnt. In the analysis you linked to the conclusion they made was political... it had nothing to do with statistics or math. They made a judgement that its not "politically palletable" to raise immigration rates enough keep the population stable or grow it. That has nothing to do with statistics or math.

How much does immigration contribute to growing the economy? How much is it supposed to contribute? And how does that help us? No one really knows. There's no numbers available on this. A growing economy is all well and good, but as has been pointed out numerous times, a bigger pie doesn't mean more food for anyone there if more people are sitting down at the table to help eat it. There are more jobs, but then more people pursuing those jobs.

Growth creates a different kind of economy. Go to a town where the population is falling or not rising.... it has a completely different kind of economy. Theres very little contruction going on, very little new infrastructure being built, very few new businesses starting up, and in most cases youll see a generally depressed standard of life.

Contrast that with a town where the population is increasing... New subdivisions are springing up, new infrastructure is being created, new businesses are springing up to cater to the new residents, hospitals, schools, etc - All of these activities creating employment and opportunity.

When Brian Mulroney decided to triple immigration in the 80s the Economic Council of Canada did a fairly detailed analyses and basically said there was no reason to expect it to be of any great help or hindrance one way or the other.

No the Economic Council Of Canada did that analysis in 91... And they recommended immigration be increased to raise Canadas population to 100 million.

How much is it supposed to contribute? And how does that help us? No one really knows.

A better question might be to ask how much a receding population and economic contraction would hurt us. The answer is, that at least for quite some time it would hurt Canadians quite a bit. Our economic and monetary systems are simply not designed to deal with it. The money supply would shrink, which would most likely result in a massive wave of bankruptcies and forclosures. Canadians would have trouble securing financing for everything from cars to homes, and government spending would increase at the same time as government revenues are decreasing... this would push up interest rates over time as the government struggled to finance spending by selling more paper..

This is more or less what we would be likely to see...

In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction. It is a general slowdown in economic activity.^[1][2]Macroeconomic indicators such as GDP (gross domestic product), investment spending, capacity utilization, household income, business profits, and inflation fall, while bankruptcies and the unemployment rate rise.

Recessions generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending (an adverse demand shock). This may be triggered by various events, such as a financial crisis, an external trade shock, an adverse supply shock or the bursting of an economic bubble. Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply, increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.

So it would hurt us quite a bit, and avoiding it helps us quite a bit in the short term. On the other hand, you could make a case that this result is inevitable anyways, and that trying to prop up monetary growth with immigration is short-sighted.

Its also worth mentioning that the long term macro-economic impact of a zero growth environment are not well understood. This has never really happened before in a modern nation over the long term, and theres only a few examples of it happening over the relatively short term (Japan, etc).

Edited November 13, 2014 by dre

[Argus]

There are reasons other than benefits to us, Argus.

Like ... obligations to mitigate negative impacts of Canadian resource industry operations overseas - destruction of livelihoods and displacement of communities by Canadian mining operations:

I don't buy this and never have. First, Canada is under _NO_ obligation to let people in simply because their own governments are not doing a good job in looking after them. The mining operations and other corporate entities you speak of don't belong to us. They're not "mine", they're not Canada's. They might have their main operations based here, but they are soulless, amoral entities held in check only by the government regulations and laws in the places they operate. If those independent nations you speak of don't choose to hold them in check that's their responsibility, not mine.

Second, it is simply not possible for us to absorb more than a tiny fraction of the people of the third world is being disrupted by economics, war, or environmental difficulties. So if you really feel we are under some sort of moral obligation to assist the peoples there then it would far better be done through economic assistance where they now are. That would help the greatest number of people, as opposed to a tiny minority who can immigrate to Canada.

[Black Dog]

One of the issues one runs into when attempting to hold political discussions on the internet is that not everyone is really capable of taking part in any sort of equitable fashion. As has been noted by others not everyone is very smart. Not everyone is even of average intelligence. That doesn't stop them from holding passionate beliefs and opinions on varied topics, however lacking in logic those opinions might be. So it enrages them when they find themselves unable to rationally debate those topics they feel so strongly about.

The most typical response is to resort to spewing insults. I think they believe that if they can divert the topic from one for which they are ill equipped to participate, to simply flinging insults back and forth, they will feel more at home and more capable of holding their own. One has to feel sorry for them. It's probably how their lives are, as well, filled with bitterness and anger and resentment at their inferiority, insulting and blaming everyone around them. Still, I have to say that a well-moderated web site ought to be removing such people so that adult discussions can take place. It should not be neccessary to search for intelligent nuggets of discussion amidst the noxious diarhea they spew about.

Good thing you're above such things, eh wot.

[Argus]

No it hasnt. In the analysis you linked to the conclusion they made was political... it had nothing to do with statistics or math. They made a judgement that its not "politically palletable" to raise immigration rates enough keep the population stable or grow it. That has nothing to do with statistics or math.

They could also have added it simply was not practical. We have a great deal of difficulty absorbing the numbers we get now. You are speaking of increasing those numbers from 250,000 per year to over one million per year and keeping it at that level for decades. Do you really want small, drafty, leaky condos in Toronto to be selling for three million apiece? Do you want people having to spend two hours on the train each way to get to work? How much farmland do you want to see turned into new subdivisions with tiny homes crowded in cheek by jowl?

Further, the economic performance of immigrants is poor now, and deteriorating. If we are to bring in over a million a year we'd have to significantly lower standards, which means even poorer immigrants who speak no English (or French) fighting it out for minimum wage service jobs.

Growth creates a different kind of economy.

Sure, but as I said, a bigger pie with more eating it is no improvement to those already at the table. Where are the economic studies which show that if we bring in X number of immigrants this will produce X amount of economic growth, and how that would impact Canadians already here? There are none. the government doesn't bother with that stuff.

No the Economic Council Of Canada did that analysis in 91... And they recommended immigration be increased to raise Canadas population to 100 million.

That's flat out completely unrealistic. Remember that despite the apparent physical size of this country we almost all live in a narrow strip of land a hundred miles wide along the US border. And very few Canadians want to find all our cities looking like Tokyo or Calcutta. Toronto and Vancouver are already a mess, and the only reason Montreal isn't is because Quebec has control of its immigration and is very select in who and how many immigrants they let in.

A better question might be to ask how much a receding population and economic contraction would hurt us.

Yes, it would be good to ask that question. But it hasn't been asked, for some reason. Where are the economic studies on the impact? Why doesn't the government study that issue?

However, according to the demographics I posted earlier, even if we had NO immigrants, Canada's population would condinue to increase for decades, and then only very, very slowly begin to recede. And that presumes that the same cultural values and economic reasons which deter larger families now are still in existence some decades from now. They might well not be.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe that large inflows of immigration help lower natural birth rates. Going back through our past where immigration numbers rose and fell according to need, shows that when immigration is high, birth rates fall, and when immigration is lowered, birth rates rise.

Its also worth mentioning that the long term macro-economic impact of a zero growth environment are not well understood. This has never really happened before in a modern nation over the long term, and theres only a few examples of it happening over the relatively short term (Japan, etc).

Well we have some decades in which to study it, especially since most other western nations have lower birth rates than we do and very, very much less immigration to make up for it.

[Argus]

Good thing you're above such things, eh wot.

Yes, I am.

[Black Dog]

Yes, I am.

LOL.

If I had a quarter for every time I've had to scroll through threads of you slinging insults back and forth with somebody, instead of ignoring it, I could buy this forum. You simply can't let such things slide without getting your digs in.

I'm no better, of course, but then I'm not the one complaining about it...

[guyser]

And very few Canadians want to find all our cities looking like Tokyo or Calcutta.

Considering we arent even 1/100th of the way there I imagine anyone living in these cities isnt worried.

Toronto and Vancouver are already a mess, and the only reason Montreal isn't is because Quebec has control of its immigration and is very select in who and how many immigrants they let in.

I have no idea what cities you are talking about.

Montreal is in the worst shape of the three, and getting worse (still a great city)

Unemployment? 8.5% vs 6.3 for the other two

GDP? 37% vs 59% of the other two

[Argus]

LOL.

If I had a quarter for every time I've had to scroll through threads of you slinging insults back and forth with somebody, instead of ignoring it, I could buy this forum. You simply can't let such things slide without getting your digs in.

But that wasn't what I said. I'd be a fool to suggest I don't insult people. I do try hard to not insult people. I admit it, if only to avoid being suspended. I might even take the occasional one line shot at something someone posts which I regard as amazingly dumb, and unworthy of anything more serious. What I don't do is angrily snipe and whine and call people names on a topic, on ANY topic, without seriously addressing the topic at hand. I am quite capable of undressing someone's paper mache argument of nonsensical logic, and enjoy doing so. And if, while addressing that topic, I'm being insulting, it's invariably in response to the snide, snotty and insulting manner I'm dealing with from the other side.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Considering we arent even 1/100th of the way there I imagine anyone living in these cities isnt worried.

I was responding to the suggestion we increase our population to 100 million.

Montreal is in the worst shape of the three, and getting worse (still a great city)

Unemployment? 8.5% vs 6.3 for the other two

GDP? 37% vs 59% of the other two

Montreal, and Quebec, have both been badly mismanaged for many years, that's in large part why their economic performance has lagged.

Toronto and Vancouver are horribly overcrowded, overpriced, and getting worse. Too many people, not enough infrastructure, highways, roads, public transit or room. I know you don't care that a shitty bungalow in Vancouver goes for two million bucks but it's supremely unhelpful to the vast majority of the people who live there.

So now triple their population and imagine how lovely life would be there.

[dre]

Toronto and Vancouver are horribly overcrowded, overpriced, and getting worse. Too many people, not enough infrastructure, highways, roads, public transit or room. I know you don't care that a shitty bungalow in Vancouver goes for two million bucks but it's supremely unhelpful to the vast majority of the people who live there.

So now triple their population and imagine how lovely life would be there.

These two cities were recently rated the 2nd and 3rd best cities to live in, in the entire world. Is it possible that you just have different urban tastes than the rest of the human race?

[jacee]

I don't buy this and never have. First, Canada is under _NO_ obligation to let people in simply because their own governments are not doing a good job in looking after them. The mining operations and other corporate entities you speak of don't belong to us. They're not "mine", they're not Canada's. They might have their main operations based here, but they are soulless, amoral entities held in check only by the government regulations and laws in the places they operate. If those independent nations you speak of don't choose to hold them in check that's their responsibility, not mine.

Second, it is simply not possible for us to absorb more than a tiny fraction of the people of the third world is being disrupted by economics, war, or environmental difficulties. So if you really feel we are under some sort of moral obligation to assist the peoples there then it would far better be done through economic assistance where they now are. That would help the greatest number of people, as opposed to a tiny minority who can immigrate to Canada.

I disagree. If our government is paving the way legally, and providing considerable support to mining operations by Canadian companies that destroy livelihoods and displace people, immigrating to Canada should be an option.

canada-accused-of-failing-to-prevent-overseas-mining-abuses/

Canada, which has one of the largest mining sectors in the world, is estimated to have some 1,500 projects in Latin America more than 40 percent of the mining companies operating in the region. According to the new report, and these overseas operations receive a high degree of active support from the Canadian government.

Were aware of a great deal of conflict, Shin Imai, a lawyer with the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project, a Canadian civil society initiative, said Tuesday.

"Our preliminary count shows that at least 50 people have been killed and some 300 wounded in connection with mining conflicts involving Canadian companies in recent years, for which there has been little to no accountability.

These allegations include deaths, injuries, rapes and other abuses attributed to security personnel working for Canadian mining companies. They also include policy-related problems related to long-term environmental damage, illegal community displacement and subverting democratic processes.