Tories to increase immigration levels for election year

[Argus]

What do you mean by common fallacy? Where are YOUR stats? YOUR research disproving that we do not need immigrants?

It's generally a bad idea to make such demands without having actually read the topic. You tend to look really dumb to other readers, the ones who HAVE read the topic. Maybe you should go back to the last page where I posted cites and have a look at that. Maybe you should also try and find a post where I said we didn't need any immigrants while you're at it.

I'm not sure how you're calculating all of this in your head. Bringing in 250K+ a year of immigrants will not result in losing your cultural cohesion. What absolute nonsense.

While you're reading the cites I posted and looking for where I said we shouldn't have any immigrants you can also read where I pointed out that we would lose social cohesion if we raised the immigrant level to the levels necessary to offset an aging population. You'll also find a cite to that effect.

Or is all that too hard on you?

While you're doing that, do explain how a city which goes from being nearly all Canadian to being 70% foreign born doesn't wind up with a huge shift in culture.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Argus

[eyeball]

While you're doing that, do explain how a city which goes from being nearly all Canadian to being 70% foreign born doesn't wind up with a huge shift in culture.

How cares? Explain why that is so important, in this day and age? I get along just fine with people from everywhere - like my grand-daughter's other grandparents from Hong Kong. They opted for living in a democracy instead of a dictatorship. You can't get more Canadian than that or so I've been led to believe.

I agree Canada doesn't need cheap labour so I think we should be putting an emphasis on recruiting skilled immigrants with a strong belief in unions.

Social cohesion has a hell of a lot more to do with things like economic and ecological justice and democratic transparent governance than the colour of your skin, the flavour of your food or the sound of your music etc etc.

Edited November 6, 2014 by eyeball

[Argus]

How cares?

Uhm, a lot of people.

Social cohesion has a hell of a lot more to do with things like economic and ecological justice and democratic transparent governance than the colour of your skin, the flavour of your food or the sound of your music etc etc.

No, it has nothing to do with any of that. It has to do with subscribing to a social construct with an agreed upon behaviour pattern we all learn when we're growing up (or damn near all). It's why things here are largely free of corruption, why women can move around freely without being constantly assaulted and harassed like women in Egypt, why there's so little violence between individuals, why people complain to the authorities about things instead of grabbing their rifle, hell, it's why our drivers are as well-behaved as they are instead of acting like drivers in India or Mexico.

And this social construct is not the same one foreigners were raised in. So yes, it matters to a lot of people.

Now you'll say we have laws to enforce our social construct and you're right. But the different sets of values and beliefs of foreigners rise in many different ways during social interaction (or the lack) with others, and it's simply unreasonable to assume everyone is or even should be comfortable in being immersed in that. It's not like anyone ever asked them, after all. It's not like back in 1970 Trudeau announced he was going start an immigration program which would make 50% of Toronto foreign born within a generation.

And if he had how long do you think he would have stayed in power? There wouldn't even have been an election. His own party would have repudiated him within a day.

[marcus]

It's generally a bad idea to make such demands without having actually read the topic. You tend to look really dumb to other readers, the ones who HAVE read the topic. Maybe you should go back to the last page where I posted cites and have a look at that. Maybe you should also try and find a post where I said we didn't need any immigrants while you're at it.

While you're reading the cites I posted and looking for where I said we shouldn't have any immigrants you can also read where I pointed out that we would lose social cohesion if we raised the immigrant level to the levels necessary to offset an aging population. You'll also find a cite to that effect.

Or is all that too hard on you?

While you're doing that, do explain how a city which goes from being nearly all Canadian to being 70% foreign born doesn't wind up with a huge shift in culture.

You are posting so-called research done by Fraser Institute. Two of the links are to the same article from 2009 and the other to a 2003 article. Fraser Institute is an organization described as conservative and rightwing libertarian. An organization which has received funding from oil companies and right wing organizations like ones owned by the Koch brothers. If you want an agenda, there you go.

Your outdated, mostly opinion based articles, show concerns in immigration which have already been addressed by Immigration Canada. For example, citizenship and the type of immigrants we bring into Canada. For example, the Federal Skilled Worker program, which is the most popular immigration program, allows people who have work experience in one of 50 eligible occupations that Canadian companies are in desperate need of filling. Mostly engineering jobs and jobs in the health industry. Also, every permanent residency program, except for family sponsorship, require a minimum level of English. You see, we have a very strict and selective immigration program. Yet, you're running around like chicken little and screaming the immigrants are coming!

What I posted was information from the Harper government. Yes, The Harper government. I also posted statistics from Statistics Canada. All of this shows that Canada is in danger.

You obviously failed to address anything that I posted, so here, I will post again:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the highest levels of the public service are immersed in a flurry of closed-door talks aimed at tackling the rising costs of health care and retirement benefits in the face of a shrinking number of working-age taxpayers available to foot the bill.

Internal government documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show Canada’s aging population is no longer a problem on the horizon, but rather one that will impact the federal government this year. It's a challenge Ottawa is now discussing more openly and with added urgency.

...

Canada, currently the 27th oldest country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, is on track to become the 11th oldest within 20 years. It’s a challenge that will spark debate over Canada’s retirement age, fertility rates and immigration, while risking generational tension between a growing population of older voters and a shrinking pool of younger taxpayers.

...

“The oldest baby boomers start to turn 65 in 2011, meaning the dependency ratio will start to increase significantly in a matter of months,” states the draft report, which was obtained in redacted form by The Globe under Access to Information.

Prepared by officials at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and Finance Canada, the report is full of alarming statistics. It also lays out several measures the government could take to limit the impact, including incentives to boost fertility rates, bring in younger immigrants and encourage Canadians to work longer.

“A Canada where seniors outnumber children is uncharted territory,” the report states.

Globe and Mail - 2011

Let me know how Canada will be tackling the fact that we will have more seniors than children. Let me know how we will be paying for health care and everything else that working taxpayers are supposed to pay for. Considering that even 280k immigrants will not address the issue.

Edited November 6, 2014 by marcus

[eyeball]

Uhm, a lot of people.

Really? I've been dealing with thousands of people of many different ethnicities in close quarters on boats for years now and not one has ever requested seating arrangements that keeps them separate or complained about people's different values. All I've seen is people politely getting along and having fun together.

No, it has nothing to do with any of that. It has to do with subscribing to a social construct with an agreed upon behaviour pattern we all learn when we're growing up (or damn near all).

Yes that's right and damn near all of us have it figured out by the time we graduate kindergarten. When you see the happy faces of immigrant parents and grandparents as they watch a multicultural pile of happy kids doing their thing in a playground you can see what really matters to people.

Now you'll say we have laws to enforce our social construct and you're right. But the different sets of values and beliefs of foreigners rise in many different ways during social interaction (or the lack) with others, and it's simply unreasonable to assume everyone is or even should be comfortable in being immersed in that. It's not like anyone ever asked them, after all. It's not like back in 1970 Trudeau announced he was going start an immigration program which would make 50% of Toronto foreign born within a generation.

You have evidence that proves that's what he intended would happen?

And if he had how long do you think he would have stayed in power? There wouldn't even have been an election. His own party would have repudiated him within a day.

I have no idea. How well do you think the Cons would have fared if they'd announced they were going to ramp up a program that resulted in Canadians being paid less and even replaced with cheap foreign labour? Seems to me a lot of the usual suspects actually cheered when that's what happened.

[Argus]

You are posting so-called research

It's not 'so called' just because you disagree with its conclusions. It's also FAR more than you've posted. Find me a study by demographics or statisticians which counter what the three cites I've posted say.

Your outdated, mostly opinion based articles,

No they're actually academic studies and quoting academic studies.

show concerns in immigration which have already been addressed by Immigration Canada.

No, they have not. The question here, the only question you've addressed was the one where I posted these cites in opposition to someone saying we needed immigrants to offset an aging population. No one has countered that.

For example, the Federal Skilled Worker program, which is the most popular immigration program, allows people who have work experience in one of 50 eligible occupations that Canadian companies are in desperate need of filling.

So what? This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but in any event, given the government's own statistics and reports on the deteriorating economic performance of recent immigrants I'd say the skilled workers program hasn't been much of a success.

What I posted was information from the Harper government. Yes, The Harper government. I also posted statistics from Statistics Canada. All of this shows that Canada is in danger.

You haven't posted anything whatsoever which counters what the studies say about using immigration to counter an aging population.

[marcus]

You haven't posted anything whatsoever which counters what the studies say about using immigration to counter an aging population.

The outdated article uses Europe as an example to make their point. The problem is that a country like France does not have a selective and restrictive immigration system like Canada does. So you can't really compare their findings with Canada.

It's also mentioned in the article that an increase of 1% of immigration will not respond to the rapidly aging population and that 3% increase, which is needed to offset the workers and taxpayers we will be losing to retirement is unpalatable. Thanks for the opinion!

What the government has been doing since after the last article was published in 2009 is to make the immigration policy even more selective. Come January, there will be a new program where employers will be able to select immigration applicants, who have to meet certain age, education, financial and language criteria, from a database. So an oil company in desperate need of engineers will be able to get the help that it needs.

Don't be afraid of the immigrants so much Argus. They are a benefit to our country. A country that has been built by immigrants.

[Argus]

The outdated article uses Europe as an example to make their point.

And Quebec, and Canada. And I don't get your 'outdated' nonsense. Nothing has changed. Do you think that because they're a few years old what they said about the numbers required to replace an aging population no longer apply? Nor are these the only studies which have come out with the same conclusions.

It's also mentioned in the article that an increase of 1% of immigration will not respond to the rapidly aging population and that 3% increase, which is needed to offset the workers and taxpayers we will be losing to retirement is unpalatable. Thanks for the opinion!

A 3% yearly immigration number, and it would have to be for many years, would bring in a million immigrants a year. Given that we already know the existing immigrants are not faring well economically it would most certainly be 'unpalatable' to triple the number of immigrants. You're talking about bringing in almost a third again our population over the course of ten years. It's not doable.

What the government has been doing since after the last article was published in 2009 is to make the immigration policy even more selective.

And it hasn't been WORKING!

Since the early 1980s, immigrants have done less well than their Canada-born peers. Each year, they fall further behind.

Today's newcomers, despite being highly educated, take longer to become self-supporting than their predecessors. Some never do. What is even more worrisome is that their children are dropping out of school, creating an intergenerational cycle of poverty. "They're pulling the economy down," Drummond said. "I don't think people have really understood that."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2007/07/25/immigrant_dream_turning_sour.html

[Argus]

While searching I came across a link to this Globe and Mail article from many years ago, from the 1980s, in fact. It's an interesting read in the bald faced reasoning used to increase immigration, which was at 84,000 a year when the Progressive Conservatives took over, to 250,000 per year. There weren't any certain economic justifications for the move, so the argument basically rested on the fact that the PC's felt they would be able to get more immigrant votes if they increased immigration. So we see now that Harper's increase in an election year is being done for the same reason as immigration was so greatly expanded thirty years ago -- political gain for the Tories.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/1990/10/24/mcdougall-wins-battle-to-increase-immigration/

[marcus]

And Quebec, and Canada. And I don't get your 'outdated' nonsense. Nothing has changed. Do you think that because they're a few years old what they said about the numbers required to replace an aging population no longer apply? Nor are these the only studies which have come out with the same conclusions.

It's outdated because it points to an immigration program that no longer exists. Canadian immigration programs have changed drastically since the article was published.

A 3% yearly immigration number, and it would have to be for many years, would bring in a million immigrants a year. Given that we already know the existing immigrants are not faring well economically it would most certainly be 'unpalatable' to triple the number of immigrants. You're talking about bringing in almost a third again our population over the course of ten years. It's not doable.

In 15 years, population growth can only come from immigration. We are no longer having enough children to sustain this economy and to show any growth.

Canada is one of the largest countries in the world. It has a lot of land and a lot of potential. It's not like it's a small little, landlocked country. It has room to grow. Unless you and I are going to do our part to have 3 children to sustain the population, Canada is going to fail in many ways.

Stopping or slowing down immigration is not an option. Tweaking and making it better for Canada is.

And it hasn't been WORKING!

Since the early 1980s, immigrants have done less well than their Canada-born peers. Each year, they fall further behind.

Today's newcomers, despite being highly educated, take longer to become self-supporting than their predecessors. Some never do. What is even more worrisome is that their children are dropping out of school, creating an intergenerational cycle of poverty. "They're pulling the economy down," Drummond said. "I don't think people have really understood that."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2007/07/25/immigrant_dream_turning_sour.html

Thanks for another old article. This opinion peace is from 2007. Again, before the huge changes that happened in the immigration system and continue to happen. Take this for example, from your 2007 article:

Ottawa has revamped Canada's immigration system to attract highly educated foreigners, not skilled tradespeople. This has created a workforce that is out of sync with the country's labour needs. It has also stunted the careers of many well-qualified immigrants, who arrive only to find their academic and professional credentials aren't recognized here.

Guess what? Canadian Immigration has had a Federal Skilled Trades Program since 2012. Many of the rules and regulations for other programs have also been changed and tweaked. So this is why most of your outdated articles and opinion pieces are irrelevant.

Conclusion here is that you are screaming the sky is falling because your understanding of the immigration system is superficial. You also seem to have a bigoted view of those off-coloured foreigners. Without really understanding the situation and without learning to adapt to the always changing world, you're going to fail. Luckily, majority of Canadians don't hold your views.

[Argus]

It's outdated because it points to an immigration program that no longer exists. Canadian immigration programs have changed drastically since the article was published.

That's utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the immigration system is. The statistics on demograhics dealt with raw numbers. What our population is, how much it's aging, how many immigrants would have to be brought in, etc. Nothing about the immigration system could have any impact on those numbers.

In 15 years, population growth can only come from immigration. We are no longer having enough children to sustain this economy and to show any growth.

That does not mean the numbers of immigrants we are getting are what we need, nor even the type we need. For example, if we were seriously going to try to offset an aging population with immigrants we would be striving to bring in younger immigrants. We aren't. As it stands now the average age of immigrants really isn't that much younger than the average age of the Canadian population.

Canada is one of the largest countries in the world.

No it flat out is not. Most of our population lives in a narrow strip of land one hundred kilometers wide. Almost all immigrants settle in this same strip. Unless you have a plan to relocate people onto the Arctic tundra that's not going to change.

Thanks for another old article. This opinion peace is from 2007. Again, before the huge changes that happened in the immigration system and continue to happen.

The statistics it quotes can be found repeatedly through stats Canada. The economic performance of immigrants to Canada continues to deteriorate as compared to previous generations. We are bringing in highly educated immigrants whose third world credentials aren't respected and who lack the communications skills required of higher level positions. This makes them less employable than if we brought in tradesmen.

The gap between immigrants and Canadian-born workers is biggest for those with the most education. University graduates who've been in Canada five years or less are more than four times more likely to be unemployed than their Canadian counterparts.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1074811/immigrant-unemployment/

Conclusion here is that you are screaming the sky is falling because your understanding of the immigration system is superficial.

First of all, I am not screaming, merely pointing out truths. Second, you have fairly well demonstrated that you know nothing whatsoever about the immigration system and are adamantly opposed to learning.

You also seem to have a bigoted view of those off-coloured foreigners.

I've said nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that, and can only assume you're angry at being so ignorant on an issue you evidently feel very emotional about.

[hitops]

The statistics it quotes can be found repeatedly through stats Canada. The economic performance of immigrants to Canada continues to deteriorate as compared to previous generations.

I don't think there's a good way to separate that from the general increasing difficulty in entering the labor force today compared to previous generations. I think it would be relevant to compare new immigrants to young people completing high school. Both are coming with similar credentials in a way, but likely vastly different attitudes towards work and entitlement.

[Argus]

I don't think there's a good way to separate that from the general increasing difficulty in entering the labor force today compared to previous generations. I think it would be relevant to compare new immigrants to young people completing high school. Both are coming with similar credentials in a way, but likely vastly different attitudes towards work and entitlement.

Actally, one of my cites says newcomers with degrees have a harder time getting work than graduating Canadians with high school diplomas.

I posted another cite some time back from stats Canada which attributed much of the problem to immigrant literacy rates. We're in the communication era. If you want a leadership role, if you want to be in a job with complex responsibilities, you are expected to have a superior command of the language. We are recruiting people with masters degrees who have only a basic grasp of English and will find it extremely difficult to be hired for a high level position in most types of jobs (IT might be somewhat of an exception).

Edited November 10, 2014 by Argus

[hitops]

Actally, one of my cites says newcomers with degrees have a harder time getting work than graduating Canadians with high school diplomas.

I posted another cite some time back from stats Canada which attributed much of the problem to immigrant literacy rates. We're in the communication era. If you want a leadership role, if you want to be in a job with complex responsibilities, you are expected to have a superior command of the language. We are recruiting people with masters degrees who have only a basic grasp of English and will find it extremely difficult to be hired for a high level position in most types of jobs (IT might be somewhat of an exception).

In my position, there are about 17 people at my work force. This job takes approx 12 years of post-secondary education, I would argue it is probably the most educated profession. Of the 17, 2 are Canadian born, including myself.

I seriously doubt that immigrants have a harder time getting into entry-level jobs than local high school grads. Immigrants appear to hold a huge majority of all entry-level service jobs.

Value systems of the people coming here matter deeply. Philipinos do very well, statscan in fact reports that they do better than Canadian-born. I have seen their great attitudes, optimism and great work ethic firsthand many times and it is incredibly refreshing. A look at the religious makeup and historical influences of this country leaves this as no surprise. They don't come assuming the world is against them, the 'evil kaffir' is out to get them, or that whitey is getting them down, or anything else like that. They come willing to get it done, and they do.

Here is the statscan report on their above-average employment.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-606-x/2012006/part-partie1-eng.htm

Edited November 10, 2014 by hitops

[Argus]

In my position, there are about 17 people at my work force. This job takes approx 12 years of post-secondary education, I would argue it is probably the most educated profession. Of the 17, 2 are Canadian born, including myself.

So? What is this profession, btw?

I might point out that one of the reasons Fillipinos have a high employment rate is that their English language skills tend to be much superior to many other immigrant groups. On the other hand, Filipinos, while outperforming most other third world immigrants, still lag Eropean immigrants, and those from the US and Australia.

http://global-economics.ca/empin_immigrant_region.htm

I seriously doubt that immigrants have a harder time getting into entry-level jobs than local high school grads. Immigrants appear to hold a huge majority of all entry-level service jobs.

And is that a good thing given that the government has long announced it is bringing in highly skilled immigrants? Highly skilled immigrants should not be flooding into entry level service jobs.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Argus

[marcus]

That's utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what the immigration system is. The statistics on demograhics dealt with raw numbers. What our population is, how much it's aging, how many immigrants would have to be brought in, etc. Nothing about the immigration system could have any impact on those numbers.

It does matter what the immigration system is like.

The government has taken the issues with immigration into consideration and is trying to address them. Just because you know very little about the rules and regulations and the considerable changes that have been implemented after the article/research you have posted, it doesn't mean that they didn't happen and that they should not be considered.

You cannot expect for someone who immigrates to Canada to perform at the same rate that a Canadian who has been here a lifetime. It just doesn't work that way. So the few years it takes them to get adjusted and accustomed is understandable and should be expected and accepted.

I know your xenophobic and bigoted personality can't handle the reality, but this is Canada. Without immigration, Canada cannot survive and cannot move forward.

Immigration and the nurturing our workforce is the way to success and to respond to our aging work force. If you have a better solution to the major problem we have, then by all means, share it.

[Argus]

It does matter what the immigration system is like.

It does NOT matter with regard to addressing an aging population.

Your ignorant drek has no affect on basic arithmetic. It simply displays your complete inability to think.

[Keepitsimple]

Not sure but it appears so

It does NOT matter with regard to addressing an aging population.

Your ignorant drek has no affect on basic arithmetic. It simply displays your complete inability to think.

Not quite sure but it appears you are arguing against immigration - or at least the levels that have been fairly consistent over the past 15 years or so. The "replacement rate" for births is about 2.1 births per woman over their lifetime. If that average is not sustained, Canada's population will eventually drop. We've been averaging about 1.6 births consistently for quite a few years. Here's some stats that bolster the need for sizable immigration:

Natural Increase

Natural increase is the change in population between two points in time, calculated by subtracting the number of deaths from the number of births.

Between 2001 and 2012, there were 4,262,454 births and 2,795,940 deaths in Canada, resulting in a natural increase of 1,466,514.[1]

Natural increase largely depends on fertility, which is the number of births in relation to the number of women of childbearing age. The most frequently used indicator for measuring fertility is the total fertility rate (TFR).[2] Over the past 50 years, the total fertility rate has dropped significantly in Canada. From a high of 3.93 children per woman in 1959, the TFR underwent a sharp decline in the 1960s and then continued to drop until it reached a historic low of 1.49 children per woman in 2000. After that, the rate increased to reach 1.6 children per woman in 2011. The highest TFR value seen in Canada in 2011 was recorded in Nunavut (3.0). In contrast, British Columbia, in 2011, had the lowest value, namely 1.4 children per woman.[3]

The replacement fertility rate, or average number of children that the women of one generation would need to have to result - solely through natural increase - in a generation of the same size, is estimated at 2.1 children per woman for developed countries like Canada. However, it should be noted that very few developed countries reach this level, as indicated by the fact that in 2010, no G8 member had a total fertility rate reaching the replacement rate.[4]

Link to Government of Canada article: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=35

Link to StatsCan birth rate by province: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth85b-eng.htm

[Argus]

Not sure but it appears so

Not quite sure but it appears you are arguing against immigration - or at least the levels that have been fairly consistent over the past 15 years or so.

Yes, immigration was tripled by Mulroney in order to curry favour with immigrants. See the Globe and Mail story on that from the 80s.

Note that there was no actual certainty whether it would be good or bad for Canada in economic terms. They did it for votes.

The "replacement rate" for births is about 2.1 births per woman over their lifetime. If that average is not sustained, Canada's population will eventually drop. We've been averaging about 1.6 births consistently for quite a few years. Here's some stats that bolster the need for sizable

Please go back and read post #43 which discusses the value of immigration to combat an aging population and diminishing birthrate.

And note, I haven't said no immigration. I've said we are taking in too many and the wrong kind of immigrants.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Argus

[Keepitsimple]

Please go back and read post #43 which discusses the value of immigration to combat an aging population and diminishing birthrate.

And note, I haven't said no immigration. I've said we are taking in too many and the wrong kind of immigrants.

I did - and now I'm even more confused about your argument. Your own article says that 1% immigration is not nearly enough - and yet the government target of 280,000 is far below 1% of population which would put the number at 350,000. Putting "the wrong type of immigrant" aside, what IS your argument? From your article:

Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio.

[Argus]

I did - and now I'm even more confused about your argument. Your own article says that 1% immigration is not nearly enough - and yet the government target of 280,000 is far below 1% of population which would put the number at 350,000. Putting "the wrong type of immigrant" aside, what IS your argument? From your article:

I would have thought it was fairly simple. We are spending enormous amounts of money and changing the makeup of this country supposedly to counter an aging population and low birth rate even though the experts say that immigration isn't going to even come close to doing that. If you want to do something about a low birth rate then you need to do something to encourage people to have children. Simply raising immigration is not going to do it. It's not even going to help, really, except to a tiny degree.

As in the cite I posted earlier, immigration was tripled in the 80s entirely for selfish political reasons by the Mulroney government. It is being raised again next year in an election year entirely for selfish political reasons by Harper. The excuse that this is being done because of a low birth rate is total crap.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Argus

[Keepitsimple]

I would have thought it was fairly simple. We are spending enormous amounts of money and changing the makeup of this country supposedly to counter an aging population and low birth rate even though the experts say that immigration isn't going to even come close to doing that. If you want to do something about a low birth rate then you need to do something to encourage people to have children. Simply raising immigration is not going to do it. It's not even going to help, really, except to a tiny degree.

As in the cite I posted earlier, immigration was tripled in the 80s entirely for selfish political reasons by the Mulroney government. It is being raised again next year in an election year entirely for selfish political reasons by Harper. The excuse that this is being done because of a low birth rate is total crap.

You seem to be defeating your own arguments. On one hand you're saying that raising the immigration rate will not do anything and on the other you're saying we have to do something to encourage people to have more children. Wouldn't that lead you to think that we need to do both? And funnelling money to families with kids would seem to be helpful - at least a bit - towards one of those goals. If you don't believe in either of those - what suggestions do you have? Do nothing?

[Bonam]

You seem to be defeating your own arguments. On one hand you're saying that raising the immigration rate will not do anything and on the other you're saying we have to do something to encourage people to have more children. Wouldn't that lead you to think that we need to do both?

No. Why would it lead you to think you need both? If the problem is a falling population due to sub-replacement birth rate, then there are many possible solutions. One is immigration to keep the population increasing. Another is to raise the birth rate. You could use a combination of the two, but either individually also works. You could also reconsider whether a constantly growing population is even necessary. Once you have all the solutions on the table, you can evaluate the pros and cons of each. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that suggest that raising immigration rates is preferable to trying to raise birth rates.

[marcus]

No. Why would it lead you to think you need both? If the problem is a falling population due to sub-replacement birth rate, then there are many possible solutions. One is immigration to keep the population increasing. Another is to raise the birth rate. You could use a combination of the two, but either individually also works. You could also reconsider whether a constantly growing population is even necessary. Once you have all the solutions on the table, you can evaluate the pros and cons of each. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that suggest that raising immigration rates is preferable to trying to raise birth rates.

I agree with most of that, except the bit about not making any changes. The reason is because once the seniors out number the children and the workforce is unable to respond to the needs, then there will be instability. The least we must do is to replace the baby boomers who are now retiring. Their lack of contribution to the workforce aside, the amount of taxes they pay will decrease and their contribution to the raising cost of healthcare is going to become an issue in the near future.

We need to adapt and respond to the needs.

Here is information that was buried after Argus' tantrum which shows that the current government has been worried and alarmed about the aging population for quite a few years and that their increasing of the number of immigrants may only be partly about the coming elections:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the highest levels of the public service are immersed in a flurry of closed-door talks aimed at tackling the rising costs of health care and retirement benefits in the face of a shrinking number of working-age taxpayers available to foot the bill.

Internal government documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show Canada’s aging population is no longer a problem on the horizon, but rather one that will impact the federal government this year. It's a challenge Ottawa is now discussing more openly and with added urgency.

...

Canada, currently the 27th oldest country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, is on track to become the 11th oldest within 20 years. It’s a challenge that will spark debate over Canada’s retirement age, fertility rates and immigration, while risking generational tension between a growing population of older voters and a shrinking pool of younger taxpayers.

...

“The oldest baby boomers start to turn 65 in 2011, meaning the dependency ratio will start to increase significantly in a matter of months,” states the draft report, which was obtained in redacted form by The Globe under Access to Information.

Prepared by officials at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and Finance Canada, the report is full of alarming statistics. It also lays out several measures the government could take to limit the impact, including incentives to boost fertility rates, bring in younger immigrants and encourage Canadians to work longer.

“A Canada where seniors outnumber children is uncharted territory,” the report states.

Globe and Mail - 2011

Edited November 12, 2014 by marcus

[Michael Hardner]

... to counter an aging population and low birth rate even though the experts say that immigration isn't going to even come close to doing that.

Hold on a second. You have posted a substantive criticism of the idea that immigration can't amend an 'aging population', because the numbers of older Canadians is too high.

But low birth rate ? Birth rate isn't a problem in itself, it's low population growth that's the problem. Are you being intellectually honest here, I wonder ?

As in the cite I posted earlier, immigration was tripled in the 80s entirely for selfish political reasons by the Mulroney government.

No, read the article again. McDougall believed there were other benefits, clearly, so it's dishonest to say it was for 'entirely' political reasons.