So Kevin Oleary wants to increase immigration

[H10]

" O’Leary also promised to accelerate immigration for those in key sectors by working with employers and HR executives "

thestar.com speech at empire club.

What do you people who are on the far right think about that?  More TFWs?  More immigrants coming in driving up housing prices?

[Army Guy]

O leary would bring in the devil himself if he thought it would give him the support he needs, he is turning into a politician more and more everyday, canadians don't want more politicians ...we want someone to lead this country.............everything i have seen so far is he wants to please ....we already have a PM that wants to please everyone , but can't keep a promise ....What we need is a PM with leadership skills that will do what is best for the nation, if it is popular or not......i don't care if that's a liberal , cons, NDP...i'm tried of half wits and half measures.....Mr O'leary  show us some leadership....stop messing around with those liberal half baked ideas.....train Canadians for those positions, .  

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, hernanday said:

" O’Leary also promised to accelerate immigration for those in key sectors by working with employers and HR executives "

thestar.com speech at empire club.

What do you people who are on the far right think about that?  More TFWs?  More immigrants coming in driving up housing prices?

We have to have immigration that will fill good-paying jobs in order to pay taxes and keep our Old Age Pension, Canadian Pension Plan, Health Care, Education, etc. going.  Without sufficient immigration our social services will collapse.  The percentage of the population in the older age bracket is increasing and we may be heading for a crisis. Canada is not having enough children or enough young educated people to replace them.  But I like Kellie Leitch's proposal to interview every immigrant to make sure they will accept Canadian values.  I would go further and try to get as many as possible who would fit in with our Judeo-Christian culture.  That's my far right position.   I don't know if O'Leary is talking about TFW or regular immigrants.

Edited April 8, 2017 by blackbird

[-1=e^ipi]

Sounds more like he wants to put more emphasis on economic immigration and less emphasis on other forms of immigration. Personally, I don't see any issue with that.

[Army Guy]

How much money is spent on immigration and refugees every year in Canada ? Why not use that money to fund either child care, or increase child care benifits....Pay Canadians to have more babies......and then cut back on immigration.... 

[Rue]

17 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Sounds more like he wants to put more emphasis on economic immigration and less emphasis on other forms of immigration. Personally, I don't see any issue with that.

Me neither. Skilled immigrants do not take jobs away from Canadians they create them. O'Leary is talking about skilled immigrants.

Immigrants are actually needed in Canada with specific skills. I think Army with due respect is mistaking skilled immigrants which we need to attract with unskilled migrants jumping the line using the cover of being refugees.

Humanely we need to accommodate a fixed number of refugees a year not an unlimited amount. This allowing migrants to break the law and flood our country is a recipe for disaster. Lets not mistake illegal migrants for legitimate immigrants or refugees.

As for legitimate refugees-the vast majority don't come here unless we fly them. What we are seeing are migrants-people looking for a better life with no skills and so know the regular immigration route won't take them and so walk in illegally because our current government has given them the green light.

O'Leary with due respect to Army did not say that. He has condemned illegal migrants.

I do not want to sound elitist or racist but its a topic I can't sugar coat. When we get skilled people from China and India becoming cutting edge doctors in Canada no one complains unless they drive their cars badly. We have sucked up skilled labour from other nations causing brain drain in their home nations. Its a complex world but Canada is not producing enough skilled individuals to keep us competitive in world markets, that is what O'Leary was saying. He was very clear about illegal migrants making a farse of the immigration system. Immigration policy designed to bring skilled individuals to Canada to keep the economy going is crucial to replace the baby boom bubble.

 

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We have to have immigration that will fill good-paying jobs in order to pay taxes and keep our Old Age Pension, Canadian Pension Plan, Health Care, Education, etc. going. 

We have immigration because the parties believe those they bring in will vote for them. Immigration has little or nothing to do with economics or paying taxes - something many of our immigrants do not and never will do due to poor skiillsets.

However, given the ambiguity of the economic arguments, Ms McDougall carried the day by stressing the benefits to the Progressive Conservative Party from increased immigration, especially in urban areas such as Southern Ontario.

Ms McDougall's own riding of St. Paul's in downtown Toronto is extremely sensitive to immigration issues, and the political aspect of the issue is underlined by the fact that the minister's principal policy adviser on immigration is her chief of staff, Ruth Archibald, who used to be a full-time Tory organizer.

Creating new potential links to the Conservative Party echoes a theme taken up at the last national Conservative convention by the minister responsible for multiculturalism, Gerry Weiner. He talked about ways the Tories could try to make inroads among ethnic-minority voters, who have long been considered partial to the Liberals.

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

 

42 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Without sufficient immigration our social services will collapse.

Really? How? Not enough gravity?

42 minutes ago, blackbird said:

  The percentage of the population in the older age bracket is increasing and we may be heading for a crisis.

Immigration is not going to help with an aging population, which, btw, is largely a temporary phenomenon, the result of the baby boom.\

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.

A study by the RAND Corporation (Grant et al., 2004), for example, looked at the demographic consequences of low fertility in Europe and reached conclusions broadly similar to ours on the question of whether immigration could compensate for the demographic challenges faced by EU nations. Schertmann (1992) shows that a constant inflow of immigrants, even relatively young ones, does not necessarily rejuvenate low fertility populations, and may in the long term actually contribute to population aging. Specific studies on Canada (United Nations, 2004; Denton and Spencer, 2004; Guillemette and Robson, 2006) have found that the dynamic of aging among the resident population is so strong that immigration’s ability to affect it is remarkably small.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/EffectsofMassImmigration.pdf

 

[Rue]

56 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We have to have immigration that will fill good-paying jobs in order to pay taxes and keep our Old Age Pension, Canadian Pension Plan, Health Care, Education, etc. going.  Without sufficient immigration our social services will collapse.  The percentage of the population in the older age bracket is increasing and we may be heading for a crisis. Canada is not having enough children or enough young educated people to replace them.  But I like Kellie Leitch's proposal to interview every immigrant to make sure they will accept Canadian values.  I would go further and try to get as many as possible who would fit in with our Judeo-Christian culture.  That's my far right position.   I don't know if O'Leary is talking about TFW or regular immigrants.

You are failing to distinguish skilled immigrants who fill jobs no Canadians can do and then create jobs for other Canadians.  You engage in the myth immigrants take jobs away from Canadians. That is false. They actually take jobs Canadians won't do anymore i.e., service and fast food low level jobs.

Please provide the stats where immigrants take away jobs and do not produce them. We here that all the time on this and many other forums but the only stats I have ever seen show the exact opposite. If anything illegal migrants don't take away jobs-they go on welfare and get medical benefits no regular Canadian can afford and that causes resentment towards all immigrants and refugees.

Stereotyping all immigrants is unfaur,

That said I am engaging in stereotyping of illegal migrants-I do on purpose- I lump them all under the category ILLEGAL because they are. If some were legitimate refugees that is another story. If some were skilled immigrants that is another story. But if they were in the latter two categories, i.e., skilled or genuine refugee, they are STILL cue jumpers when they don't come through proper entry points.

You want to come to this country, show you can help build the economy and show you will obey the law-don't mock the laws of this country the very moment you enter it. When you do that you show you are a user. Zero excuse for a legit refugee to come to a proper entry point and declare themselves. Please don't me they can not. Of course they can.

That said, if you are a legitimate refugee coming here that is a separate criteria based on humane consideration and that system is broken. It fails to distinguish between illegal migrants and true refugees. If we were serious about refugees we would spend our money overseas in refugee camps keeping people safe, clean and fed until they can return home not be dropped off in inner cities in Canada with zero coping skills. That is cruel. Take in refugees based on private guarantors as Harper did. The best way to bring in refugees is through churches and community organizations that can sponsor them and assure they become productive and support them through difficult transition=don't  dumpi them en masse in large cities on welfare so Mayors can suck up to them for votes.

I am anti illegal migrant, pro legitimate refugee and pro legitimate immigrant. The latter two go on to do good things. The initial have already shown the first thing they did was break the law and what  does Trudeau do, welcome them for breaking the law.

But again let's not blame immigrants and legitimate refugees for destroying this country-bull crap-they built it.

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Rue

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

If anything illegal migrants don't take away jobs-they go on welfare and get medical benefits no regular Canadian can afford and that causes resentment towards all immigrants and refugees.

Some do. Some want to work, though. They simply don't have much in the way of skills. They also have VERY low standards in jobs, given what they've been doing and the long hours they've spent doing it. Thus they are willing to take all those low skilled jobs in Canada for less than Canadians, and will work harder and longer and in lousier conditions for those few bucks. So if you're a low-skilled Canadian, you suddenly have a whole bunch of new competitors for every job, competitors who will work ten or twelve hour days without complaint and be happy to do it, too. This allows employers to lower the wages further. Even less Canadians are now interested, given they can just go on welfare or pogey, and employers say "We need more immigrants or temporary foreign workers because Canadians won't take these jobs!"

The solutions to this seem, to me, twofold. First, don't bring in low skilled immigrants. Second, require Canadian employers register the jobs they need with EI, and make Canadians in the area take those jobs rather than collect EI if those are the kinds of jobs they've done or can do.

Bring in more immigrants from areas our own studies show produce economically successful immigrants, like Europe, the Philippines and India, and less from those areas which produce economically unsuccessful immigrants, like the middle east and China.

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/20/government-studies-immigrant-incomes-by-where-they-come-from.html

[taxme]

2 hours ago, hernanday said:

" O’Leary also promised to accelerate immigration for those in key sectors by working with employers and HR executives "

thestar.com speech at empire club.

What do you people who are on the far right think about that?  More TFWs?  More immigrants coming in driving up housing prices?

I see it as the end of the Caucasian race in Canada because we all should know by now that all those TFW's will be imported in from non-white countries, and it will be keeping the white people on UI or the welfare rolls because the corporations will want cheap labor. More immigrants means more assault on our social, traffic, medical, environment and infrastructure.  I heard the other day Christie Clark say that there will be approx. 130,000 being born in BC. What about the other provinces? Add that up and we can easily see that immigration is something Canada doesn't need all that much. Adding another 300,000 to the mix is just creating more problems. But who cares, eh? We must not seen as being anti-immigration these days. Just keep bringing in more and add to the chaos and havoc. 

So, too those pro more immigration liberals out there, don't whine and cry when you have to wait for surgery or it takes hours to get home or home prices and rents go up. You want and asked for it, well you got it. Now live with it, and go sit down, and be quiet.  

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Some do. Some want to work, though. They simply don't have much in the way of skills. They also have VERY low standards in jobs, given what they've been doing and the long hours they've spent doing it. Thus they are willing to take all those low skilled jobs in Canada for less than Canadians, and will work harder and longer and in lousier conditions for those few bucks. So if you're a low-skilled Canadian, you suddenly have a whole bunch of new competitors for every job, competitors who will work ten or twelve hour days without complaint and be happy to do it, too. This allows employers to lower the wages further. Even less Canadians are now interested, given they can just go on welfare or pogey, and employers say "We need more immigrants or temporary foreign workers because Canadians won't take these jobs!"

The solutions to this seem, to me, twofold. First, don't bring in low skilled immigrants. Second, require Canadian employers register the jobs they need with EI, and make Canadians in the area take those jobs rather than collect EI if those are the kinds of jobs they've done or can do.

Bring in more immigrants from areas our own studies show produce economically successful immigrants, like Europe, the Philippines and India, and less from those areas which produce economically unsuccessful immigrants, like the middle east and China.

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/20/government-studies-immigrant-incomes-by-where-they-come-from.html

Trudeau wants to bring in more Syrian and another refugees into Canada. This guy just wants to screw up everything with his bring them all in attitude. We will find a hole for you, somewhere, and Canadians can take care of you. The liberal dumbness of it all is quite deplorable indeed. 

[blackbird]

54 minutes ago, Argus said:

Some do. Some want to work, though. They simply don't have much in the way of skills. They also have VERY low standards in jobs, given what they've been doing and the long hours they've spent doing it. Thus they are willing to take all those low skilled jobs in Canada for less than Canadians, and will work harder and longer and in lousier conditions for those few bucks. So if you're a low-skilled Canadian, you suddenly have a whole bunch of new competitors for every job, competitors who will work ten or twelve hour days without complaint and be happy to do it, too. This allows employers to lower the wages further. Even less Canadians are now interested, given they can just go on welfare or pogey, and employers say "We need more immigrants or temporary foreign workers because Canadians won't take these jobs!"

The solutions to this seem, to me, twofold. First, don't bring in low skilled immigrants. Second, require Canadian employers register the jobs they need with EI, and make Canadians in the area take those jobs rather than collect EI if those are the kinds of jobs they've done or can do.

Bring in more immigrants from areas our own studies show produce economically successful immigrants, like Europe, the Philippines and India, and less from those areas which produce economically unsuccessful immigrants, like the middle east and China.

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/20/government-studies-immigrant-incomes-by-where-they-come-from.html

If they bring in a lot of low-skilled workers willing to work slave hours, a contractor will simply hire them and lay off Canadian workers.  Why would he waste time with Canadian workers if he can get slave labour willing to work 14 or 16 hours a day.  A contractor can make much more money with slave labour.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

You are failing to distinguish skilled immigrants who fill jobs no Canadians can do and then create jobs for other Canadians.  You engage in the myth immigrants take jobs away from Canadians. That is false. They actually take jobs Canadians won't do anymore i.e., service and fast food low level jobs.

Please provide the stats where immigrants take away jobs and do not produce them. We here that all the time on this and many other forums but the only stats I have ever seen show the exact opposite. If anything illegal migrants don't take away jobs-they go on welfare and get medical benefits no regular Canadian can afford and that causes resentment towards all immigrants and refugees.

Stereotyping all immigrants is unfaur,

That said I am engaging in stereotyping of illegal migrants-I do on purpose- I lump them all under the category ILLEGAL because they are. If some were legitimate refugees that is another story. If some were skilled immigrants that is another story. But if they were in the latter two categories, i.e., skilled or genuine refugee, they are STILL cue jumpers when they don't come through proper entry points.

You want to come to this country, show you can help build the economy and show you will obey the law-don't mock the laws of this country the very moment you enter it. When you do that you show you are a user. Zero excuse for a legit refugee to come to a proper entry point and declare themselves. Please don't me they can not. Of course they can.

That said, if you are a legitimate refugee coming here that is a separate criteria based on humane consideration and that system is broken. It fails to distinguish between illegal migrants and true refugees. If we were serious about refugees we would spend our money overseas in refugee camps keeping people safe, clean and fed until they can return home not be dropped off in inner cities in Canada with zero coping skills. That is cruel. Take in refugees based on private guarantors as Harper did. The best way to bring in refugees is through churches and community organizations that can sponsor them and assure they become productive and support them through difficult transition=don't  dumpi them en masse in large cities on welfare so Mayors can suck up to them for votes.

I am anti illegal migrant, pro legitimate refugee and pro legitimate immigrant. The latter two go on to do good things. The initial have already shown the first thing they did was break the law and what  does Trudeau do, welcome them for breaking the law.

But again let's not blame immigrants and legitimate refugees for destroying this country-bull crap-they built it.

 

I think you are mistaking me with someone else.  I never mentioned a lot of what you are talking about.  I don't think Canada should bring in a lot of low-skilled workers.  This creates problems.  Contractors will hire them if they are willing to work long hours for low pay and just lay off regular Canadians who don't want to work extra hours.

My point was we need to go back to bringing in Europeans to try to save our Judeo-Christian civilization from being destroyed and bring in fewer from the rest of the world.  Lot of the people from the third world are not willing to assimilate and want to change our society to suit their backward culture.  Trudeau thinks that is great.  That's why I think liberal ideology is destroying our Judeo-Christian civilization.  Conservative governments are not much better either.

Edited April 9, 2017 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

1) What we spent on refugees we do not spend on poverty alleviation, on education, other social welfare schemes and health care.

2) As an example, let's look at a municipal public housing system. Generally speaking the waiting list for poor people to get into public housing is many years long. However, there are two lists. One is for homeless people, especially homeless families. Those get priority over everyone else. When refugees are brought here by the federal government they are not provided with housing. That's the city's job. They go onto the 'homeless' list, which prioritizes them over all those thousands and thousands of families who have been waiting years on the regular housing list. They go immediately into motels/hotels until they can be slotted into a house or apartment. Everyone else gets pushed back further down the list. And when the next batch of refugees comes over that happens again.So when you ask what I am willing to spend, consider that the real cost is not to you and I but to poor Canadians. Then the conversation becomes a little more complex in moral terms.

3) Just raise taxes? There's a limit to that before you start damaging your economy, which in turn damages everyone. We're pretty much at that limit now with the taxes going over 50% for higher income earners. Much more and we'll start driving them out of the country, which robs of of income taxes but also their drive, ambition and skillsets, and the jobs those bring.

1) True but even the poorest Canadians have it better than refugees.  We have been helping with international aid for a long time and given that we keep getting wealthier there is no reason to cut our charity.

2) I don't agree that mismanagement and poor treatment of the poor is justification to not bring refugees in.  Instead of dealing with the problems this approach pits poor against poor.  

3) There's a wider discussion of the economy needed.  Business wants lower wage workers, low taxes and less regulation.  A wider discussion would trade off some improvements to the business community at a cost to the government but should be win-win.  I suspect that the results of such discussions are exactly the kinds of changes we see today anyway.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) True but even the poorest Canadians have it better than refugees.  

That is irrelevant. Most poor Canadians have it better than most Russians. Does that mean we should bring in a lot more Russians?

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't agree that mismanagement and poor treatment of the poor is justification to not bring refugees in.  Instead of dealing with the problems this approach pits poor against poor.  

Well pardon me for preferring to help OUR poor rather than someone else's. You suggest it is mismanagement that poor people must wait years to get free housing. What is your solution? Just build more, I assume Which presumes we should simply hike taxes even further. Which ignores economic realities.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) There's a wider discussion of the economy needed.  Business wants lower wage workers, low taxes and less regulation.

I don't really care that business wants lower wage workers. That is not good for Canadians. There is a case for less regulation, provided essential regulations remain in place, and be streamlined. It should not take years of hearings to start a mine or pipeline.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 A wider discussion would trade off some improvements to the business community at a cost to the government but should be win-win.  I suspect that the results of such discussions are exactly the kinds of changes we see today anyway.

I have no idea what you're suggesting here.

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) That is irrelevant. Most poor Canadians have it better than most Russians. Does that mean we should bring in a lot more Russians?

2) Well pardon me for preferring to help OUR poor rather than someone else's. You suggest it is mismanagement that poor people must wait years to get free housing. What is your solution? Just build more, I assume Which presumes we should simply hike taxes even further. Which ignores economic realities.

3) I don't really care that business wants lower wage workers. That is not good for Canadians. There is a case for less regulation, provided essential regulations remain in place, and be streamlined. It should not take years of hearings to start a mine or pipeline.

4) I have no idea what you're suggesting here.

1) No but I'm not arguing for more refugees per se, just addressing the idea that funding refugees takes money away from other areas.  We have funded foreign aid for a long time.

2) If the preference is to 'help' the poor, then let's have that discussion.  My solution is to fix the system, not to say let's let refugees die and give marginally extra to the poor.

3) Productivity is good for Canadians because it makes us more competitive correct ?  If a worker is paid less, then there is more profit, lower costs, lower prices.  This is not a binary discussion.  I take exception to the "let's help the poor" angle when it really means let's stop immigration and refugees.  Are these factors really a big reason for poverty ?

4) A wider discussion.  Should we hike welfare rates ?  Put in a universal income ?  Caring for the poor is a transparent cover for other reasons for eliminating refugees IMO.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) No but I'm not arguing for more refugees per se, just addressing the idea that funding refugees takes money away from other areas.  We have funded foreign aid for a long time.

But the money for refugees is not coming out of foreign aid. It's coming out of the social welfare budgets of cities and provinces. 

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) If the preference is to 'help' the poor, then let's have that discussion.  My solution is to fix the system, not to say let's let refugees die and give marginally extra to the poor.

How to help the poor is a long and complicated discussion. Suffice to say there is a limited amount of money available for the task, as there is for anything government wants to do. If you bring in lots more poor to help then that money is diluted.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Productivity is good for Canadians because it makes us more competitive correct ?  If a worker is paid less, then there is more profit, lower costs, lower prices.

You are ignoring the complexity of the argument. If we pay everyone much less money that will make the profits of Ford boom! Uh, but then nobody will be able to afford to drive a car so...

Lowering overall wages will only increase profits if prices are lowered which then decreases profits. Do you see where I'm going with this? Wages are much lower in third world countries. Do they have a better standard of living than us? No.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

 This is not a binary discussion.  I take exception to the "let's help the poor" angle when it really means let's stop immigration and refugees.  Are these factors really a big reason for poverty ?

There will always be poverty. There has been poverty in every system of government in every nation state throughout the history of the world. In any system whereby the best are free to climb to the top, the 'worst' are going to sink to the bottom. Any system which prevents the best from climbing high and getting rewarded, in turn, winds up being, well... you've seen the pictures of bread lines in Communist countries.

And they still had poorer people.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

4) A wider discussion.  Should we hike welfare rates ?  Put in a universal income ?  Caring for the poor is a transparent cover for other reasons for eliminating refugees IMO.

No, it's not. It's simply AMONG the reasons for being careful about how many refugees and low skilled immigrants we take in. Because those who are harmed by bringing in tens of thousands of new poor people are the poor people already here, not the comfortable like you and me.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

1) But the money for refugees is not coming out of foreign aid.

 

2) It's coming out of the social welfare budgets of cities and provinces. 

How to help the poor is a long and complicated discussion. Suffice to say there is a limited amount of money available for the task, as there is for anything government wants to do. If you bring in lots more poor to help then that money is diluted.

3) You are ignoring the complexity of the argument. If we pay everyone much less money that will make the profits of Ford boom! Uh, but then nobody will be able to afford to drive a car so...

4) Lowering overall wages will only increase profits if prices are lowered which then decreases profits. Do you see where I'm going with this? Wages are much lower in third world countries. Do they have a better standard of living than us? No.

5) There will always be poverty. There has been poverty in every system of government in every nation state throughout the history of the world. In any system whereby the best are free to climb to the top, the 'worst' are going to sink to the bottom. Any system which prevents the best from climbing high and getting rewarded, in turn, winds up being, well... you've seen the pictures of bread lines in Communist countries.

And they still had poorer people.

6) No, it's not. It's simply AMONG the reasons for being careful about how many refugees and low skilled immigrants we take in. Because those who are harmed by bringing in tens of thousands of new poor people are the poor people already here, not the comfortable like you and me.

1) Sorry - I was using the term 'foreign aid' generally.  We have been admitting refugees for a long time is my point.   

2) 'Money' as in social welfare is part of the discussion but not all of it.  Bringing in 'poor' means working poor as well as people who are less of a burden on the system.  

3) That's right, but I would argue that I want to have that complex discussion or at least be informed of it when it happens.  

4) No - if prices stay the same and wages decrease then there are more profits.  

5) There will always be relative poverty, and absolute poverty will decrease over time.

6) How much of an impact is it ?  What is your priority list for helping the poor that you care about ?  Why aren't tax increases part of the discussion ?  How much are we going to 'help' our poor people by turning away refugees from our society where wealth increases over time ?  You want to make the poor fight for scraps, but I don't agree.

 

[Charlie]

Canada and Australia probably have the best skilled immigration program. The philosophy is simple. In order to keep your economy growing, you need to have more younger people than the old ones. Because of low birth rates, it's important to bring in young and skilled people. And that's exactly what Canada has been doing.  Look at the point system, a typical skilled immigrant is 30-35 years old experienced doctor or engineer. Perfect profile of a person who can start adding value to Canadian economy from day 1. 

 

If your concern is that Canada isn't going to remain a white dominated society, probably Canada would need to bring in more people from Eastern Europe. Although, I don't understand why would anyone be worried about keep a society white or black or brown. We are all human beings. Skin color is just one of our features. 

[Charlie]

Refugees is a purely humanitarian issue.  Would Canadians be willing to help people suffering from war and hunger? I personally feel that something needs to be done. And I would be happy to direct some of my tax dollars to refugees. But again, this is pure charity. Nobody can force others to pay, if they don't want to.

[betsy]

20 hours ago, hernanday said:

" O’Leary also promised to accelerate immigration for those in key sectors by working with employers and HR executives "

thestar.com speech at empire club.

What do you people who are on the far right think about that?  More TFWs?  More immigrants coming in driving up housing prices?

 

I have no problems with immigration, provided they are well-screened, and immigrants are compatible with Canadian values.  We don't have enough young people to sustain old age pension.

 

However, O'Leary isn't talking about correcting the problems we currently  have in our immigration system!

Edited April 9, 2017 by betsy

[Newfoundlander]

21 minutes ago, betsy said:

However, O'Leary isn't talking about correcting the problems we currently  have in our immigration system!

1

What specific problems are there now?

 

[Charlie]

There is an alternative: every Canadian couple should start having more babies. Our population pyramid problem will solve and there will be no need for bringing in new immigrants.

However, promoting to raise larger families is a difficult task.  On a lighter note, Korean govt. recently published a fertility map and it kind of backfired: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/world/asia/south-korea-fertility-birth-map.html?_r=0

 

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Charlie

[Topaz]

When he first came out and start talking  all I heard was "I" this and I that and he seemed to just care what he could get out of being leader of a party. I'm not sure if he's still talking that way now but for me it was a turn-0ff.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Sorry - I was using the term 'foreign aid' generally.  We have been admitting refugees for a long time is my point.   

I would argue that we were once more focused on individuals rather than broadly accepting that anyone who comes from a given region or country qualifies simply due to living in that region or country. I would also argue that the disparity between the skillset of third world residents in general and that required by the Canadian work force has never been so wide, and it continues to widen. This makes it even more costly to bring over tens of thousands of people who will probably never be able to achieve the status of taxpayers.

Which means we are bringing over more poor.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) 'Money' as in social welfare is part of the discussion but not all of it.  Bringing in 'poor' means working poor as well as people who are less of a burden on the system.  

They are less of a burden but still a burden in that they use resources but do not contribute much, if anything, to the tax base.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) That's right, but I would argue that I want to have that complex discussion or at least be informed of it when it happens.  

4) No - if prices stay the same and wages decrease then there are more profits.  

That will not happen. Prices inflate with wages out of necessity, and deflate if wages fall for the same reason. This is elementary economics.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5) There will always be relative poverty, and absolute poverty will decrease over time.

6) How much of an impact is it ?  What is your priority list for helping the poor that you care about ?  Why aren't tax increases part of the discussion ?  How much are we going to 'help' our poor people by turning away refugees from our society where wealth increases over time ?  You want to make the poor fight for scraps, but I don't agree.

Don't make accusations about what I want to do. It strikes me as trying to talk down to me from a pedestal of moral superiority.

You seem to be a well-educated man but you do not appear to have much understanding of basic economics and the impact increased taxation has on productivity. The higher the taxation the lower the reward for working hard and taking risks, and gaining more skills to get ahead. Concurrently, the higher the subsidy to those who are poor the less incentive there is to put out that extra effort, to risk your time and effort to acquire new skills and try new employment in an attempt to get ahead. Simultaneously, the higher the tax rate on business, the lower the profit, the less likely is expansion. In some cases business will relocate to other jurisdictions where taxes are lower. See Ireland as an example.

In the end, higher taxation brings everyone down, in economic terms, and the government becomes bloated and even more inefficient than usual, disincentivizing investment of all kind and encouraging tax avoidance.