Is increasing immigration by 50% to 450k too high?

[Moonlight Graham]

Immigration Minister John McCallum says it may.  An external advisory panel is recommending Canada increase its immigration levels from 300,000 per year to 450,000, mainly highly skilled immigrants, they say, to "stimulate economic growth".  It's no secret McCallum and the Liberals have publicly said they would like to raise immigration levels in Canada.  Is this too much? 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-system-increase-mccallum-1.3812749

Quote

 

A high-powered group of external advisers is calling for a dramatic increase in Canada's immigration levels, but Immigration Minister John McCallum says that might be too ambitious. McCallum said Wednesday he's read the report by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth that calls for a 50-per-cent increase in targets to 450,000 people a year. The measure would target skilled, entrepreneurial newcomers in an attempt to stimulate economic growth.

The 14-member panel, chaired by Dominic Barton of the firm McKinsey and Co., is to deliver a set of recommendations to Finance Minister Bill Morneau on Thursday. McCallum said meeting the target suggested by Barton's group would be costly and might not find broad national support. "The figure he gives is a huge figure," McCallum said. "But this is not a universal view across the country."  Discussions are continuing and the government will announce immigration targets for 2017 next month, McCallum added.

MP Navdeep Bains, an Indian-Canadian (born in Canada) fellow who is recognizable by his red Sikh turban seems to favour higher immigration:

McCallum's cabinet colleague, Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains, told The Canadian Press on Wednesday that he's "worked very closely" with Barton's panel, and favours increased immigration levels. But he stopped short of endorsing the target in Barton's report. "Clearly he's demonstrating an opportunity for Canada," Bains said. "We value our diversity, we value our multicultural society and we recognize immigration is an opportunity to create jobs."

 

Is this for "economic growth"?  A grab for more immigrant voters (more likely to vote Liberal than CPC)?  Both?  Something else?  Are these proposed numbers too high?  Are the current numbers too high or too low?  It seems McCallum would probably like to increase them to these levels, but is worried of a backlash from Canadians, so maybe he's putting "feelers" out there through the media to gauge reaction.

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[BC_chick]

Chris Alexander is talking 400,000 too.  It's not just Liberals.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/chris-alexander-announces-tory-leadership-bid-wants-canada-to-boost-immigration-to-400000-a-year

[Bonam]

Flooding Canada with almost a half million new people every year would destroy our pristine wilderness environments, cause social and economic stresses, and cause major livability issues in the cities where most newcomers settle (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal), where infrastructure and housing are already unable to keep up with the rapidly growing population at current immigration levels let alone higher ones. 

I see no hard quantitative evidence that shows that Canada would benefit from a higher immigration rate. Until this can be provided with a high level of certainty, I see no rational reason to increase immigration levels. Of course, increases may be rational from the point of view of political parties if they think they can get more votes, but that doesn't mean it's rational from the point of view of citizens. 

I think a reduction from 300,000 to 200,000 would be more appropriate. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Bonam

[TimG]

It is insane. 

Economic growth via population increases are phony. Real economic growth only comes from productivity improvements.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

It is insane. 

Economic growth via population increases are phony. Real economic growth only comes from productivity improvements.

Honest question here: Don't reduced wages equate to higher productivity ?

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, TimG said:

Real economic growth only comes from productivity improvements.

What is economic growth? If it is just dollars moving around, then inflation does a good job of that. If it is widgets produced, then yes productivity helps but you need customers for those widgets. Canada is getting more and more lousy at producing widgets, regardless of how many immigrants we bring in.

[TimG]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Honest question here: Don't reduced wages equate to higher productivity ?

Yes. But I am think of per capital economic growth. In BC in the 90s the GDP grew but the per capita GDP fell because the growth was driven entirely by immigration. A falling per capita GDP means we are getting poorer.

[TimG]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

What is economic growth? If it is just dollars moving around, then inflation does a good job of that. If it is widgets produced, then yes productivity helps but you need customers for those widgets. Canada is getting more and more lousy at producing widgets, regardless of how many immigrants we bring in.

90% of people used to be employed on farms because that was the only way to produce the food necessary to keep society running. Productivity improvements have reduced that to <2%. The people who used have to work on farms are now free to work on other tasks that add value. 

Productivity is about producing more benefit with fewer resources.  

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Immigration Minister John McCallum says it may.  An external advisory panel is recommending Canada increase its immigration levels from 300,000 per year to 450,000, mainly highly skilled immigrants, they say, to "stimulate economic growth". 

There is no evidence whatsoever that high immigration will spur any kind of economic growth. And I guarantee you no one will be providing any. This is just a sop to ethnic groups and another grab for votes by unethical, unprincipled politicians.

Quote

The measure would target skilled, entrepreneurial newcomers in an attempt to stimulate economic growth.

So the first move Trudeau made was to lower the number of 'skilled' immigrants and raise the number of unskilled family members and seniors coming in. The fact is that a high proportion of all immigrants wind up in poverty. An even higher proportion wind up in jobs which are not high paying enough to actually pay income taxes. Bringing in hundreds of thousands more poor people is not going to improve the economic well-being of Canada. It's going to lower it.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Honest question here: Don't reduced wages equate to higher productivity ?

The point is to make life better for people here. Neither reduced wages nor flooding the country with immigrants are going to do that.

 

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, TimG said:

90% of people used to be employed on farms because that was the only way to produce the food necessary to keep society running. Productivity improvements have reduced that to <2%. The people who used have to work on farms are now free to work on other tasks that add value. 

Productivity is about producing more benefit with fewer resources.  

 

More benefit? For who? The supermarket owners who import food from South America? Those out of work farmers should be grateful?

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, TimG said:

It is insane. 

Economic growth via population increases are phony. Real economic growth only comes from productivity improvements.

Look at it from the perspective of Canadian corporations.  If the population goes up, Loblaw sells more food, opens more stores, makes more money, stock price goes up, foreign and Canadian investors are happy.  If the population shrinks or grows at a slower rate, it means less profit, a worse company to make an investment in from global/Canadian investors.  It's the same for a gazillion Canadian corps.

More people means more infrastructure to build, more houses and condos to build, more dentists and hairdressers needed etc. etc and all the materials/services that goes with that.

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, TimG said:

Yes. But I am think of per capital economic growth. In BC in the 90s the GDP grew but the per capita GDP fell because the growth was driven entirely by immigration. A falling per capita GDP means we are getting poorer.

That's true, but only on a per capita basis.  Non-immigrants may be getting richer.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Bringing in hundreds of thousands more poor people is not going to improve the economic well-being of Canada. It's going to lower it.

Here's the thing I never EVER here about the media.  What are the taxpayer costs associated with bringing in immigrants, in dollar amounts?  Especially for refugees or lower-skilled immigrants..  Providing them with social services through government must cost quite a bit, including the salaries/benefits of the government workers processing all of these immigrants and providing them with the social services. 

But you can also think of it as a long-term investment, since a non-skilled immigrant's Canadian-born children and grandchildren will need to rely less on social services.

[cybercoma]

We're not going to solve the problem they're trying to solve with more immigration. We need a stronger working class and that means higher minimum wage and stronger unions. The economy is stagnate because people, especially those coming out of university, aren't making enough to spend. With pensions and other benefits stripped, while wages have remained the same or fallen, people are effectively making less. Combine that with crippling student debt when tuition and residence fees are around $10,000 per year and you get a working age population that doesn't have the disposable income to support the economy. Immigration will make little difference in this broader trend.

[dialamah]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Look at it from the perspective of Canadian corporations.  If the population goes up, Loblaw sells more food, opens more stores, makes more money, stock price goes up, foreign and Canadian investors are happy.  If the population shrinks or grows at a slower rate, it means less profit, a worse company to make an investment in from global/Canadian investors.  It's the same for a gazillion Canadian corps.

More people means more infrastructure to build, more houses and condos to build, more dentists and hairdressers needed etc. etc and all the materials/services that goes with that.

Not if people can't afford those services, though.  A population that is steeped in poverty isn't going to be spending money on houses, condos, dentists or even hairdressers.  The only businesses that are guaranteed to "grow" from more poor people is discount grocery stores, foodbanks, 2nd hand stores, slum landlords and the public health system as it tries to cope with people who are sick because they can't afford decent food, shelter or basic health care.  

Edited October 20, 2016 by dialamah
typo

[Argus]

In today's Globe we see a headline of a looming 'employment catastrophe' in as little as four years as driverless vehicles begin to cost the jobs of everything from truck and taxi drivers to messengers and construction workers who operate heavy machinery. 

“On the other hand, driverless cars will bring catastrophe. The best thing about the automobile age was that it employed tens of millions of people to make, market, insure and drive vehicles. Over the next 20 years, the mostly low-skilled men who now drive trucks, taxis and buses will see their jobs decimated."

The idea that we should now double the number of immigrants, many of whom will be looking for low skilled jobs precisely like these men, is utterly beyond comprehension. What this country needs is a forward looking government which will develop a plan for rapid retraining of the many unemployed we're going to see in the coming years, not one which looks to curry favour with ethnic communities by increasing immigration.

[Argus]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Here's the thing I never EVER here about the media.  What are the taxpayer costs associated with bringing in immigrants, in dollar amounts?  Especially for refugees or lower-skilled immigrants..  Providing them with social services through government must cost quite a bit, including the salaries/benefits of the government workers processing all of these immigrants and providing them with the social services. 

According to the Fraser Institute the current cost of our immigration system hovers around $30 billion per year. The cost to process a single refugee is about $50,000, but that is just the processing and does not include the cost of food, clothing, shelter, ESL classes, etc.

Then there's older immigrants. Trudeau promised to double the number of elderly immigrants allowed into Canada. The theory is their children will support them, but their children don't pay for their health care. The estimate for the cost of the existing program is $1.5-$2 billion per year. So, double that.

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Argus

[Goddess]

A report on the news last night from Edmonton about the food banks in the area cited that in addition to the influx of those who needed food banks during the Fort Mac wildfires, the number of Syrian refugees using the food banks increased dramatically.

I think it's sad that we brought all these people over and they have to use food banks.

[Argus]

I think it's worth resposting this from the last time we saw a government proposing a huge increase in immigration. People might forget that back in the Mulroney years we only took in about 85,000 immigrants a year. That was tripled under Mulroney in a bald faced attempt to garner more immigrant votes.

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

Also I note that while  McCallum's own department produced a study last year showing the most economically successful immigrants to Canada come largely from Europe, and the least economically successful from China and the Middle East, the Liberals' have largely moved to increase immigration from China and the Middle East. That might seem odd unless you realize that in the last election the vast majority of Muslims voted Liberal. I'm going to assume that there also exists a study that shows the majority of Chinese vote Liberal, too. 

 

 

 

[?Impact]

26 minutes ago, Argus said:

That might seem odd unless you realize that in the last election the vast majority of Muslims voted Liberal. I'm going to assume that there also exists a study that shows the majority of Chinese vote Liberal, too. 

 

Then why did the Conservatives bring in 1,662,380 (2006-2014, sorry 2015 numbers not available yet) from Africa, the middle east and Asia and the pacific compared to only 388,434 from Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States? That is well over 4:1 ratio. They also brought in another 237,849 from South America. They had plenty of time to change the balance, how does you vote getting conspiracy theory work?

I just looked over time, and the Conservatives did indeed change the balance. The above ratio was 3.8 when they took office and 5.1 in 2014. It seems the Conservatives are the ones that want more and more Muslims and Asians.

Edited October 20, 2016 by ?Impact

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

Then why did the Conservatives bring in 1,662,380 (2006-2014, sorry 2015 numbers not available yet) from Africa, the middle east and Asia and the pacific compared to only 388,434 from Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States? That is well over 4:1 ratio. They also brought in another 237,849 from South America. They had plenty of time to change the balance, how does you vote getting conspiracy theory work?

If you read the article about the Mulroney tories you can clearly see the reason they tripled immigration was the hope the immigrants would then vote for them. I think I've made it clear that immigration has been operated by BOTH parties to their own private benefit and against the interests of Canada for the last thirty years. You might recall that at the beginning of last year, an election year, Harper suddenly announced an increase in immigration numbers from about 250-300k. Why? To demonstrate how much he loved immigrants, of course, and as a help in currying favor with ethnic groups, particularly those who favored Tories.

As for why we haven't switched our immigration stream to Europe, get real. The instant a sizable increase in immigration from 'white countries' was noticed there'd be an outcry from the political/media/academic elites that the Tories were being racist. There has been absolute unanimity among national opinion makers for decades that all immigration is good. That unanimity is based upon the belief most immigrants are non-white, and therefore to oppose immigration in any way, shape or form marks you as racist. Shifting immigration to white countries would horrify them.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Shifting immigration to white countries would horrify them.

 

So they did the exact opposite? See my update while you were typing, Harper increase the ratio of Asians and Mulsims compared to white from 3.8 to 5.1. He didn't want more whites to suddenly appear, he wanted a significant increase in the browns. 

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

So they did the exact opposite? See my update while you were typing, Harper increase the ratio of Asians and Mulsims compared to white from 3.8 to 5.1. He didn't want more whites to suddenly appear, he wanted a significant increase in the browns. 

Why are you asking me to explain Tory immigration policy when I've long opposed it? Maybe you should instead explain Liberal immigration policy, since that's what we're talking about.

[?Impact]

Just now, Argus said:

Why are you asking me to explain Tory immigration policy when I've long opposed it? Maybe you should instead explain Liberal immigration policy, since that's what we're talking about.

I not defending any policy, just pointing out the fact that your theory on it being a Liberal policy holds no water. I think it is nonsense to pretend we can solve economic problems, especially long term, with immigration. I'm not against immigration, and I also believe we have a responsibility to help refugees, but we need to rethink our approach.