I am the New Minister of Immigration!

[bush_cheney2004]

41 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

They already represent a greater proportion of our population. 

 

But it's a much smaller population...there are more immigrants in the U.S. than Canada's entire population.

 

[eyeball]

On 9/18/2018 at 12:57 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I as an immigration minister will

2 - A much tougher criteria for refugees qualification. A solid proof beyond reasonable doubt that deportation will result in torture or execution for political beliefs.

How about life in a Gulag?  I'm just trying to drill down towards the bottom line here.

[turningrite]

15 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

That's an old take on Canadian immigration.  Some only want to come to Canada.  Some of them are my neighbors from New Zealand, China, and Italy.

 

And old take? Huh? Some immigrants may only want to come to Canada, but a significant proportion now do so on a much more strategic basis. I believe that a fairly recent Stats Can study indicated that about one-third of immigrants leave Canada following their arrival, presumably most of these being the highly-touted skilled and highly employable immigrants our system is said to encourage, In fact, many of them have better options available to them elsewhere. Meanwhile, many of these immigrants sponsor less economically viable relatives to come to Canada, leaving an immigrant population that on the whole is less skilled and older than many of our leaders and opinion makers want us to believe to be the case. Reportedly, while about half of Toronto's residents are immigrants, about two-thirds of its seniors are immigrants. We should consider the implications of this.

The 'stepping stone' immigration strategy isn't new, of course. Countless immigrants have for generations moved on to the U.S. after first arriving in Canada. My maternal grandfather's ancestors in fact did this, although the more prosperous branch of the family remained in Canada, which is likely somewhat different than most such cases nowadays. Another strategy that's emerged in recent years, however, which has particularly troubling implications for the country, is called "citizenship of convenience", whereby many immigrants stay here only so long as to acquire citizenship and in many cases to get family members into the country. A relative of mine who lives in the suburbs was startled when some new neighbours told her about a decade ago that this was precisely their plan. And in fact they moved to another country after obtaining citizenship and left an older couple, presumably sponsored relatives, living in the home the original immigrants had purchased upon arriving in Canada. My relative thought this scheme couldn't possibly be acceptable but I told her I believed it to be consistent with Canadian law and told her there was nothing she could do about it.

Edited September 22, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

Usually sponsored relatives have enough supports to keep them fairly independent.  Yes, there may be health care costs, but these people are buying products, renting/buying property, paying taxes, and making other contributions, even if they're retired.  I think a certain amount of drain on the system is the price you pay.  At least Canada targets immigration to the skills/sectors where there's a need, and uses a point system to assess applicants.  Family class immigration/sponsorship isn't quite the same thing.  Sure, we may get some low skill workers, but we used to bring in a ton of low-skilled workers.  Our country was built on it early on.  We still bring in a lot of Phillippino nannies.  I've never understood this, but apparently there's a high demand.  I don't know why our young, lower skilled Canadian workers can't serve equally well as nannies.  Odd.

[h102]

On 9/21/2018 at 2:53 PM, turningrite said:

It's not even that they're rejected by other countries with warmer climates, it's that it's easier and takes less time to get into Canada, which is often seen as a kind of 'stepping stone' or consolation prize. I recall speaking to a former co-worker who had come to Canada along with her family members from a country in the developing world. She was absolutely clear about the fact that their first choice was the U.S. but Canada was seen as an acceptable temporary alternative. Getting into the U.S., however, remained their dream and having Canadian work experience and children educated here sure wouldn't hurt their chances of achieving it, she bluntly told me.

Actually she is wrong that Canada is a good stepping stone. The USA has robust affirmative action programs for immigrants to force employers to recognize their foreign credentials.

[h102]

On 9/21/2018 at 9:00 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Well Canada is teaming with immigration applications.  From Wikipedia:

"In 2016, Canada admitted 296,346 permanent residents, vs. 271,845 admitted the previous year — the highest admissions levels since 2010.^[1] Of those admitted, 53% were economic immigrants and their accompanying immediate families; 26% were family class; 20% were either resettled refugees or protected persons; and 1% were in the humanitarian and other category.^[1] [...] However, in 2017, the majority of Canadians indicated that they agree that Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees.^[6"] "

May 11, 2016 - The number of immigrants from the United States of America (USA) increased 10.7% from 237920 in 2001 to 263480 in 2011.

From the American Academy of Political and Social Science: "The net loss from Canada to the United States appears much smaller than has been thought, mainly because the number of Canadian citizens returning to Canada has been underrecorded."

Republican Congress.  You also seem to forget that far more apply to America than can get in.  Canada has less applicants but a higher admittance rate.  Doesn't mean Canada has more or equal applicants.  1 million illegals crossed the US border, they didn't even bother to apply.

[turningrite]

9 hours ago, h102 said:

Actually she is wrong that Canada is a good stepping stone. The USA has robust affirmative action programs for immigrants to force employers to recognize their foreign credentials.

First of all, you appear not to have carefully read my post, which delineated between two different approaches to immigration, the first being the 'stepping stone' strategy and second being the 'citizenship of convenience' approach. The example I cited was noted as an illustration of the second case.

But where the stepping stone issue is concerned, it's often reflects a deliberate and long-term family approach. I recall listening to a conversation between a couple of late middle-aged South Asian immigrants while enduring an interminable wait at a specialist's office a couple years ago. Both noted that all their children had left Canada after finishing school here, one stating that all her children were now living and prospering in the U.S. while the other was more circumspect about where his children had relocated, but my guess is that at least a couple likely ended up in the U.S. as well. Canadian status, education and work experience renders it much easier to live and work in the U.S. than is the case faced by those trying to get into the U.S. from the developing world. Canadian credentials are generally recognized at face value south of the border. I know this because I have a lot of relatives, including a sister, and friends who either live and work or have lived and worked there.

[Zeitgeist]

45 minutes ago, turningrite said:

First of all, you appear not to have carefully read my post, which delineated between two different approaches to immigration, the first being the 'stepping stone' strategy and second being the 'citizenship of convenience' approach. The example I cited was noted as an illustration of the second case.

But where the stepping stone issue is concerned, it's often reflects a deliberate and long-term family approach. I recall listening to a conversation between a couple of late middle-aged South Asian immigrants while enduring an interminable wait at a specialist's office a couple years ago. Both noted that all their children had left Canada after finishing school here, one stating that all her children were now living and prospering in the U.S. while the other was more circumspect about where his children had relocated, but my guess is that at least a couple likely ended up in the U.S. as well. Canadian status, education and work experience renders it much easier to live and work in the U.S. than is the case faced by those trying to get into the U.S. from the developing world. Canadian credentials are generally recognized at face value south of the border. I know this because I have a lot of relatives, including a sister, and friends who either live and work or have lived and worked there.

Well living and working in the U.S. is an option Canadians can seek, yet it certainly isn't a movement of notable size.  There was a period in the early 90's when our economy was hit hard by debt levels.  In media it was called a brain drain as there was higher emigration to the U.S..  The recession in 2008 didn't hit Canada nearly as hard as the U.S. and there was some movement north, which was echoed after Trump's immigration ban.  The warmer weather has always been a draw for the U.S., as well as its larger economy, but there is also more violence, a smaller safety net, poorer public education, and more natural disasters.  The U.S. isn't as much of a draw anymore, and given the huge numbers of applications to Canada to immigrate (outside of refugee applications) and the high real estate prices in Southern Ontario and BC's lower mainland, it's no surprise that Canadians are becoming concerned about immigration levels.  It isn't so much about the idea of immigrants coming to Canada or fear of other cultures.  We're very used to that.  It's more the pattern of growth that we're seeing: High immigration in our largest cities is straining services and driving up home prices, making cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary unaffordable for existing local populations.  Young people are priced out of the market.  Immigration must be targeted to need, not just in terms of skills but also geography.  We'll never get the infrastructure we need to access the resources of the north and make the smaller communities in up north viable without larger populations and tax bases.  Continuing to cram 90% of the population into 10% of Canada's land mass is unsustainable.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canadian immigrants just do what Canadian citizens have done for generations....work, live, and move to the United States.

[Zeitgeist]

24 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canadian immigrants just do what Canadian citizens have done for generations....work, live, and move to the United States.

Gross exaggeration. Even when there are some clear upsides to moving south, such as higher wages for doctors running private practices, most choose to stay.  I know first hand because there are very competent doctors in my family who would never consider moving to the U.S., with all due respect.  I liken it to a conversation I had with a hotel manager where I worked as a clerk years ago when I was a student.  He bragged about how he could live like a king with servants in India with the money he earned working at the hotel.  I asked him why he didn't then save up and move back to India.  Once you leave your private compound you have to function in a wider society.  What is it like to live in that society?  We have a relatively safe and healthy society where, to a high extent compared to many other countries, we look out for one another.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[taxme]

On 9/18/2018 at 12:57 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I as an immigration minister will

1 - Cut immigration to 150,000 and refugees to 50,000 a year..

2 - A much tougher criteria for refugees qualification. A solid proof beyond reasonable doubt that deportation will result in torture or execution for political beliefs.

2 - Adaptability test based (for both immigrants and refugees) on Canadian values, that is to believe in equality and respect for women , respect for human rights and all religions and races. Adaptability coming before assets and skills or political reasons.

4 - Fluency in one of official languages for immigrants.

5 - The first 3 years will be on probation for immigrants and first 10 years probation for refugees. Anything other than a traffic violation will result in immediate deportation to the country of origin.

You are way more generous than I am because I would put a moratorium on all immigration to Canada for at least five years, period. Canada will do just fine as Canada has already too many new immigrants and refugees looking for a job. All illegal refugees entering Canada would be considered criminals and would be shipped back from whence they came from tout suite. Law breakers are not wanted in my country if I were the immigration minister. My job as an immigration minister is to look after and protect Canada and Canadians from illegal criminals. 

A new immigrant would have to be on probation for at least 7 years to become a citizen of Canada and a refugee would be on probation for 10 years.  Prove your worth to me. 

[turningrite]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.) The warmer weather has always been a draw for the U.S., as well as its larger economy, but there is also more violence, a smaller safety net, poorer public education, and more natural disasters. 

2.) The U.S. isn't as much of a draw anymore....

3.) High immigration in our largest cities is straining services and driving up home prices, making cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary unaffordable for existing local populations. 

1.) It appear that some of our cities are experiencing an upsurge in violence as well. Gang activity in particular has become a growing problem in Canada and much of it emerges in immigrant populations. There are many places in the U.S. that are as safe as Canada, as my sister who lives in a comfortable suburb of a large and prosperous U.S. city routinely points out. Crime in the U.S., like here, is really a matter of particular location. There may be more dodgy locations in the U.S. than here, but there are lots of safe places as well. And if you think our safety net still actually exists in any substantive form, I'd counter that you're either romantic or naive. We've replaced it with a layered subsidy system that serves an entrenched underclass. If a middle class taxpaying citizen becomes seriously ill or disabled or otherwise falls on hard times, they'll find out how vast the cracks in our vaunted safety net have become. Too many Canadians are smug about our system. Both the average and maximum disability payments received under the American Social Security system exceed the corresponding CPP-D levels in this country, and that's before considering the impact of the currency exchange and generally lower cost of living in the U.S., both of which render the American system much more generous than ours. As for natural disasters, have you watched coverage of the Ottawa-Gatineau tornado this weekend? Natural disasters are so random that to attribute them to a particular country seems, well, bizarre.

2.) The U.S. isn't much of a draw anymore? According to a 2017 World Economic Forum study, the U.S. clearly remains the preferred destination for immigrants from around the world. (See link below.) Canada ranks third in the study, behind Germany, effectively tied with the U.K. and France and just ahead of Australia, but the percentage who prefer the U.S. is equal to the combined rankings of the next four countries behind it on the list.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-countries-migrants-want-to-move-to/

3.) I agree with you on this. And it is this fact that I believe is largely responsible for the growing concern among Canadians about high immigration levels.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Gross exaggeration. Even when there are some clear upsides to moving south, such as higher wages for doctors running private practices, most choose to stay.

 

It is not a gross exaggeration....it is historical fact.    I have already posted data for Canada's net migration, which is impacted by immigrants and Canadian citizens who decide to leave.   My neighbour is a proud Canadian who told me she is not going back....opportunities are much better "south of the border".    In the IT business, Canadians really covet a U.S.  "green card" (permanent residency).

 

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It is not a gross exaggeration....it is historical fact.    I have already posted data for Canada's net migration, which is impacted by immigrants and Canadian citizens who decide to leave.   My neighbour is a proud Canadian who told me she is not going back....opportunities are much better "south of the border".    In the IT business, Canadians really covet a U.S.  "green card" (permanent residency).

 

There are more opportunities in some sectors for people with certain skill sets in the U.S., but it's not significant net migration.  Canada has lots of IT opportunity.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

There are more opportunities in some sectors for people with certain skill sets in the U.S., but it's not significant net migration.  Canada has lots of IT opportunity.

 

Sure...for much less money and a higher cost of living.

There is more net migration from Canada to the United States than the opposite...and the U.S. has 10X the population.

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) It appear that some of our cities are experiencing an upsurge in violence as well. Gang activity in particular has become a growing problem in Canada and much of it emerges in immigrant populations. There are many places in the U.S. that are as safe as Canada, as my sister who lives in a comfortable suburb of a large and prosperous U.S. city routinely points out. Crime in the U.S., like here, is really a matter of particular location. There may be more dodgy locations in the U.S. than here, but there are lots of safe places as well. And if you think our safety net still actually exists in any substantive form, I'd counter that you're either romantic or naive. We've replaced it with a layered subsidy system that serves an entrenched underclass. If a middle class taxpaying citizen becomes seriously ill or disabled or otherwise falls on hard times, they'll find out how vast the cracks in our vaunted safety net have become. Too many Canadians are smug about our system. Both the average and maximum disability payments received under the American Social Security system exceed the corresponding CPP-D levels in this country, and that's before considering the impact of the currency exchange and generally lower cost of living in the U.S., both of which render the American system much more generous than ours. As for natural disasters, have you watched coverage of the Ottawa-Gatineau tornado this weekend? Natural disasters are so random that to attribute them to a particular country seems, well, bizarre.

2.) The U.S. isn't much of a draw anymore? According to a 2017 World Economic Forum study, the U.S. clearly remains the preferred destination for immigrants from around the world. (See link below.) Canada ranks third in the study, behind Germany, effectively tied with the U.K. and France and just ahead of Australia, but the percentage who prefer the U.S. is equal to the combined rankings of the next four countries behind it on the list.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-countries-migrants-want-to-move-to/

3.) I agree with you on this. And it is this fact that I believe is largely responsible for the growing concern among Canadians about high immigration levels.

1. I disagree.  We have far fewer natural disasters.  This relates primarily to the location of hurricanes, which occur closer to the tropics.  Violent crime has come up at different times, but overall our average rates are much lower than in the U.S., especially related to homicides.  Staggeringly different actually.  Our minimum wages, unemployment insurance, health system, maternity leave, child tax credits, full day kindergarten from JK (in some jurisdictions), the list goes on, are more generous on the most part.  

2.  I'm not denying that the U.S. has a higher profile and is more of a draw internationally, but among the educated citizenry of developed countries, the U.S. has mixed reviews, depending, as mentioned, on which cities, states, and industries are referenced.  The reality is that workers are probably looking more at cities/regions than they are at countries, not that national policies aren't important in the decisions of highly skilled/educated migrants.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[turningrite]

15 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. I disagree.  We have far fewer natural disasters.  This relates primarily to the location of hurricanes, which occur closer to the tropics.  Violent crime has come up at different times, but overall our average rates are much lower than in the U.S., especially related to homicides.  Staggeringly different actually.  Our minimum wages, unemployment insurance, health system, maternity leave, child tax credits, full day kindergarten from JK (in some jurisdictions), the list goes on, are more generous on the most part.  

2.  I'm not denying that the U.S. has a higher profile and is more of a draw internationally, but among the educated citizenry of developed countries, the U.S. has mixed reviews, depending, as mentioned, on which cities, states, and industries are referenced.  The reality is that workers are probably looking more at cities/regions than they are at countries, not that national policies aren't important in the decisions of highly skilled/educated migrants.

1.) Of all the items addressed, natural disasters are probably among the least relevant in impacting where people move. Look at the success of Silicon Valley in attracting immigrant talent (including a lot of Canadians) and wealth. It's in one of the most seismically risky regions on the globe. Vancouver, one of Canada's fastest growing cities and a magnet for immigrants, is also in a seismically unstable region. And Houston, one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S., and another magnet for immigrants, is in a low-lying area prone to hurricanes and flooding. I continue to maintain that crime is mainly a localized issue, whereby if one is seeking a safe place to live one can find such places in either country. As for social programs, I think you don't fully understand the comparisons between the two countries. If one is looking for handouts and subsidies, Canada no doubt offers newcomers more goodies than does the U.S. However, if you're a taxpayer who somehow falls through the cracks due to an economic downturn, ill health or disability, I believe the American system is actually superior. Its disability coverage (Social Security vs. CPP-D)  is more generous. And its unemployment insurance system is actually better in some aspects as well. For those who lost jobs in the last recession, I believe the maximum period one could collect EI benefits in Ontario was "extended" by a few weeks to a maximum of somewhere short of 40 weeks. My American brother-in-law, who lives in a prosperous northeastern state and who was laid off at that time, saw his UI benefits extended to almost two years. The big differences are in health care but as our system has been allowed to deteriorate so dramatically I'm not sure we retain bragging rights on this.

2.) I agree that there is a distinction to be made about the attractiveness of the U.S. as a migration destination for those from developed vs. developing countries. I have read that among the citizens of developed countries the U.S. ranks well down the list preferred places to which one might relocate, however this is mainly a hypothetical assessment as most people in developed Western countries are unlikely to seriously contemplate emigration. Emigration is now dominated by those from the developing world and among these migrants the U.S. retains its long-held allure. It may be difficult for many from the developing world to get into the U.S. these days, but admission to the U.S. remains the holy grail for a huge contingent. Canada, by the way, has a relatively high emigration rate for a developed Western economy and by far the most common destination for Canadians is the U.S., followed I believe by the U.K., Australia and France.

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) Of all the items addressed, natural disasters are probably among the least relevant in impacting where people move. Look at the success of Silicon Valley in attracting immigrant talent (including a lot of Canadians) and wealth. It's in one of the most seismically risky regions on the globe. Vancouver, one of Canada's fastest growing cities and a magnet for immigrants, is also in a seismically unstable region. And Houston, one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S., and another magnet for immigrants, is in a low-lying area prone to hurricanes and flooding. I continue to maintain that crime is mainly a localized issue, whereby if one is seeking a safe place to live one can find such places in either country. As for social programs, I think you don't fully understand the comparisons between the two countries. If one is looking for handouts and subsidies, Canada no doubt offers newcomers more goodies than does the U.S. However, if you're a taxpayer who somehow falls through the cracks due to an economic downturn, ill health or disability, I believe the American system is actually superior. Its disability coverage (Social Security vs. CPP-D)  is more generous. And its unemployment insurance system is actually better in some aspects as well. For those who lost jobs in the last recession, I believe the maximum period one could collect EI benefits in Ontario was "extended" by a few weeks to a maximum of somewhere short of 40 weeks. My American brother-in-law, who lives in a prosperous northeastern state and who was laid off at that time, saw his UI benefits extended to almost two years. The big differences are in health care but as our system has been allowed to deteriorate so dramatically I'm not sure we retain bragging rights on this.

2.) I agree that there is a distinction to be made about the attractiveness of the U.S. as a migration destination for those from developed vs. developing countries. I have read that among the citizens of developed countries the U.S. ranks well down the list preferred places to which one might relocate, however this is mainly a hypothetical assessment as most people in developed Western countries are unlikely to seriously contemplate emigration. Emigration is now dominated by those from the developing world and among these migrants the U.S. retains its long-held allure. It may be difficult for many from the developing world to get into the U.S. these days, but admission to the U.S. remains the holy grail for a huge contingent. Canada, by the way, has a relatively high emigration rate for a developed Western economy and by far the most common destination for Canadians is the U.S., followed I believe by the U.K., Australia and France.

The US was hit much harder in the last recession, so I’m not surprised benefits were extended for Americans.  When you look at CPP, you also have to look at all the amazing regional support for seniors: meals on wheels, subsidized transportation, long term care.  It’s substantial in Canada.

Those might be the order of top destinations for Canadians who emigrate, but emigration from Canada is a nonissue.  

We are more contented than Americans. The 2017 World Happiness Report ranks Canada 9th and the US 18th. 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[turningrite]

On 9/23/2018 at 4:29 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 In the IT business, Canadians really covet a U.S.  "green card" (permanent residency).

 

I wonder if this is because the federal government is allowing big companies to game Canadian labour markets to give preferential access to foreign workers? One of my friends who works in IT says this very thing is going on. Canadians, he says, are often interviewed on a 'pro forma' basis so the companies can argue they can't find suitable Canadian applicants.

[ironstone]

It may sound harsh to those on the left,but immigration policy should first and foremost be designed to benefit the country as a whole.It should not be used as a tool for getting votes to remain in power which is what is happening now.Immigration levels should be tied to the strength of our economy as well,strong economy,more people,weak economy,bring in less.Pierre Trudeau surprisingly did this back in his day.Being able to immigrate to Canada has pretty much become a right and not a privilege as it once was.

A real screening process would be most welcome too. The Khadr family anyone?

[turningrite]

On 10/2/2018 at 11:54 AM, ironstone said:

It may sound harsh to those on the left,but immigration policy should first and foremost be designed to benefit the country as a whole.It should not be used as a tool for getting votes to remain in power which is what is happening now.Immigration levels should be tied to the strength of our economy as well,strong economy,more people,weak economy,bring in less.Pierre Trudeau surprisingly did this back in his day.Being able to immigrate to Canada has pretty much become a right and not a privilege as it once was.

A real screening process would be most welcome too. The Khadr family anyone?

Most sensible countries tie immigration levels and policies to the economic needs of the host economy and citizenry. Canada moved away from this during the Mulroney era and has maintained a steadfastly politically and ideologically driven immigration program ever since. The surprising thing is that the reaction against it has been so tepid, perhaps because Canadians have been intimidated into believing that criticism of the program will be interpreted as intolerance. There was a good item on the NP site this week about why opposition to open immigration isn't, and shouldn't be characterized as, racism.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/stephen-ledrew-quebec-just-proved-its-not-racist-to-control-immigration

[Argus]

Canada's Somalian immigration minister, lying to the media yesterday, said Canada needs to increase immigration again because of a shortage of labour. Yet despite what the story says about 'the vast majority' being skilled immigrants, the vast majority are actually anything but. Only about 15% of Canada's immigrants are actually skilled. The rest are assorted immediate family members who come in under the skilled program, and the relatives they sponsor later, and the people we admitted as refugees in earlier years who are now getting their citizenship. Besides that, three reports last year said Canada has no labor shortage.

Canada will take in 40,000 more immigrants in 2021 than it plans to accept this year, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said Wednesday.
The target for new arrivals in Canada will rise to 350,000, which is nearly one per cent of the country’s population.
Hussen says economic immigration is badly needed in areas across the country that are short on workers and long on older residents.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-to-increase-annual-immigration-admissions-to-350000-by-2021

A second study in less than a week has concluded that there is no labour shortage in Canada, nor is one expected to arrive in the next few decades. A study published Friday by a University of Lethbridge professor echoes results of a report by the federal government’s Parliamentary Budget Office released Tuesday — both conclude there are more than enough workers on a national basis in Canada to fill available jobs. 

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Study+debunks+Canadian+labour+shortage/9674478/story.html

Dire warnings of a widespread Canadian labour crisis and a “lost generation” of young workers have been overblown, according to a market analysis by TD Economics. Deputy chief economist Derek Burleton says demographic and economic shifts may be hitting young workers particularly hard, but he doesn’t believe projections of across-the-board labour shortages and skills gaps.  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/21/skills-gap-canada-labour-shortage_n_4138487.html

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Canada will take in 40,000 more immigrants in 2021 than it plans to accept this year, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said Wednesday.
The target for new arrivals in Canada will rise to 350,000, which is nearly one per cent of the country’s population.
Hussen says economic immigration is badly needed in areas across the country that are short on workers and long on older residents.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-to-increase-annual-immigration-admissions-to-350000-by-2021

A second study in less than a week has concluded that there is no labour shortage in Canada, nor is one expected to arrive in the next few decades. A study published Friday by a University of Lethbridge professor echoes results of a report by the federal government’s Parliamentary Budget Office released Tuesday — both conclude there are more than enough workers on a national basis in Canada to fill available jobs. 

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Study+debunks+Canadian+labour+shortage/9674478/story.html

Dire warnings of a widespread Canadian labour crisis and a “lost generation” of young workers have been overblown, according to a market analysis by TD Economics. Deputy chief economist Derek Burleton says demographic and economic shifts may be hitting young workers particularly hard, but he doesn’t believe projections of across-the-board labour shortages and skills gaps.  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/21/skills-gap-canada-labour-shortage_n_4138487.html

Propaganda about alleged labour shortages and supposedly problematic demographic change (which is being experienced in many countries - most of which aren't pursuing mass immigration as a 'solution") are the two biggest fables underlying immigration policy in this country. The business and immigration lobbies are the main proponents of these arguments and feckless and self-serving politicians merely fall in line. Let's hope Trudeau isn't PM after next year's election and that Canadians vote for parties that are willing to rein in the immigration nonsense that's hurting so many Canadians.

Edited November 1, 2018 by turningrite

[Bonam]

5 hours ago, turningrite said:

parties that are willing to rein in the immigration nonsense that's hurting so many Canadians.

Such as?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

Such as?

Yeah, that's the problem, isn't it. Half the population says we're bringing in too many immigrants but you won't get a politician to make such a statement. All you'll get is smarmy talk about how diversity is a wonderful thing and immigration helps Canada's economy.