Canada's population growth, good or bad?

[turningrite]

Well, Stats Can now informs us that due to our massive immigration program Canada's population grew by 1.4 percent (by about 500 thousand) during the period July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Yippee! Our population growth is approaching levels more commonly experienced these days in developing rather than Western countries. But are we better off? As a column published during that growth spurt (written by a former immigration official) notes, much of the logic underlying Canada's current approach to immigration is grounded in mythology rather than reality. Where is this leading us and is there any prospect that we will in the near future examine and adjust our policies to reflect the needs and interests of the existing Canadian population?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180927/dq180927c-eng.htm

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul

Edited October 26, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

We need to find ways of directing immigration north or else we'll put too much strain on the environment, transportation network, and housing affordability in our largest centres, and we won't develop the resources in the north and make northern communities more self-sustaining.  As of now we pour money into servicing small scattered northern communities that aren't big enough to justify the cost of hospitals, business parks, etc.  

[cannuck]

Why would we see this idiotic need to "grow"????????  And, if we are going to grow, why would we want to import the problems of the worst trouble spots in the world to do so????

Yes, we SHOULD be directing immigration North - to the other side of the pole.  Russia has lots of room for the refugees they displace with their "foreign policies".

Now, I am NOT against immigration, I just think the 100% requirement would be that all qualified immigrants be wealthy, healthy, atheistic scientists.

Edited October 27, 2018 by cannuck

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Why would we see this idiotic need to "grow"????????  And, if we are going to grow, why would we want to import the problems of the worst trouble spots in the world to do so????

Yes, we SHOULD be directing immigration North - to the other side of the pole.  Russia has lots of room for the refugees they displace with their "foreign policies".

Now, I am NOT against immigration, I just think the 100% requirement would be that all qualified immigrants be wealthy, healthy, atheistic scientists.

Sounds dystopian to me. Atheist scientists?  Do we want to be China?  Reasonable, controlled immigration of highly skilled people or just people who meet our country’s needs economically and regionally is fine.  It’s all about how we do it.  Any time I hear certain phrases —.atheist (or religious) scientists, sterilizations, one child policy, mass deportations — I get worried.  Maintaining our way of life means maintaining our freedoms, not just a strong economy. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Sounds dystopian to me. Atheist scientists?  Do we want to be China?  Reasonable, controlled immigration of highly skilled people or just people who meet our country’s needs economically and regionally is fine.  

But that's not what we're doing. As per a cite someone else posted on another thread.

In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers. The selection is done by a paper review. The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria ), refugees and humanitarian cases.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul

[Zeitgeist]

I don’t care about people coming in on family status as long as they’re sponsored and pay an up front fee to help cover initial costs.  No doubt we have to make sure refugees are legit.  I still think the biggest concern is settlement patterns.  They can’t all move to Toronto. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t care about people coming in on family status as long as they’re sponsored and pay an up front fee to help cover initial costs.  No doubt we have to make sure refugees are legit.  I still think the biggest concern is settlement patterns.  They can’t all move to Toronto. 

Vancouver, then?

Actually, a legal immigrant/refugee can move to wherever they want unless someone tells them they can't.  How do you see that ever coming about?

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Vancouver, then?

Actually, a legal immigrant/refugee can move to wherever they want unless someone tells them they can't.  How do you see that ever coming about?

Have a graduated immigration system and make one of the conditions maintaining an address within certain regions for a minimum period of, say, 3-5 years.  It can be within most of the country, but perhaps not the Toronto-Montreal corridor, Greater Vancouver, Ottawa or Calgary.  After full citizenship anywhere is fine. We could even just make this requirement one category of immigration status, where perhaps some other requirements are removed or lowered.  Perhaps even offer a fast track category for those willing to commit to living in areas targeted for settlement, especially in the far north. 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Have a graduated immigration system and make one of the conditions maintaining an address within certain regions for a minimum period of, say, 3-5 years.  It can be within most of the country, but perhaps not the Toronto-Montreal corridor, Greater Vancouver, Ottawa or Calgary.  After full citizenship anywhere is fine. We could even just make this requirement one category of immigration status, where perhaps some other requirements are removed or lowered.  Perhaps even offer a fast track category for those willing to commit to living in areas targeted for settlement, especially in the far north. 

It makes sense, but can you see a government ever implementing such a requirement?  As an immigrant myself, I would have gone anywhere happily.   I think most immigrants would.  I just don't see the beauracracy going down that path willingly. 

It would make for some animated question periods, that's for sure.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It makes sense, but can you see a government ever implementing such a requirement?  As an immigrant myself, I would have gone anywhere happily.   I think most immigrants would.  I just don't see the beauracracy going down that path willingly. 

It would make for some animated question periods, that's for sure.

I think we can afford to set our requirements higher to meet our needs.  Having said that, I don't think it such a residency requirement should apply to family status applications or a category for our most skilled applicants, as we are competing globally and want to reduce barriers for the best doctors, scientists, academics, technologists, business wunderkinds, and so forth, since they will boost productivity, employment, and living standards for all Canadians.  I just think the categories should change as well as their requirements.  Our criteria for immigration seems at least a generation behind the country's current needs. 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t care about people coming in on family status as long as they’re sponsored and pay an up front fee to help cover initial costs. 

How big should that fee be if they'll spend the next fifty years on welfare?

[Zeitgeist]

58 minutes ago, Argus said:

How big should that fee be if they'll spend the next fifty years on welfare?

That’s uncommon. Generally immigrants work harder at lower paying jobs for longer than native Canadians. In many ways they make the economic wheels turn. 

[marcus]

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Have a graduated immigration system and make one of the conditions maintaining an address within certain regions for a minimum period of, say, 3-5 years.  It can be within most of the country, but perhaps not the Toronto-Montreal corridor, Greater Vancouver, Ottawa or Calgary.  After full citizenship anywhere is fine. We could even just make this requirement one category of immigration status, where perhaps some other requirements are removed or lowered.  Perhaps even offer a fast track category for those willing to commit to living in areas targeted for settlement, especially in the far north. 

Conditional permanent residency is interesting. It was actually part of the now defunct federal entrepreneur program in the past. 

I think they should leave it to the provinces to expand their provincial immigration programs, where immigrants with job specific education and experience would go through the expression of interest program, like they do now and then give a 3 year location specific open work permit for the applicant to live and work in the province with location specific study permits, if they have children. Once completed, they can apply for a nomination from the province and eventually permanent residency through the federal government. All of this would take around five years. I believe a large number of these people will set roots in the area they're welcomed and where they have more opportunities.

On 10/26/2018 at 8:45 AM, turningrite said:

Our population growth is approaching levels more commonly experienced these days in developing rather than Western countries. But are we better off?

Yes we are. Despite these reasonable immigration numbers, we are still experiencing major shortage of skilled workers in many of the industries. The baby boomers are retiring and they're leaving jobs which the regular Canadian population is not able to fill up. There are also many new jobs that we simply cannot supply workers for. This is why there is a real battle amongst 7 countries: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Singapore and UAE when it comes to creating paths for skilled workers. Canada is in the forefront with their immigration model and is admired by many other countries, even the U.S. A lot of the credit for the immigration model we have now can be attributed to Jason Kenney who was the immigration minister under Harper. One interesting note here; The Harper government had a leaked memo, which revealed that Canada needs at least 400,000 immigrants a year in order to meet the demand for job openings in Canada. Of course, this was kept hush hush as many of the Conservative play the anti-immigration crowd in order say they represent them. 

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s uncommon. Generally immigrants work harder at lower paying jobs for longer than native Canadians. In many ways they make the economic wheels turn. 

Generally immigrants have higher unemployment rates, lower incomes, and thus pay less taxes while consuming more government services.

[eyeball]

Quote

Canada's population growth, good or bad?

It just is what it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It just is what it is.

 

True dat....it is estimated that 10% of Canadians don't even live in Canada....more than the populations of six provinces.

[eyeball]

You just are where you is.

I'm directly above the centre of the planet.

Ommmmmm.

[turningrite]

On 10/28/2018 at 3:43 AM, marcus said:

Yes we are. Despite these reasonable immigration numbers, we are still experiencing major shortage of skilled workers in many of the industries. The baby boomers are retiring and they're leaving jobs which the regular Canadian population is not able to fill up.

I think you've been heavily influenced by corporate propaganda on this issue. There are many indicators that Canada's labour markets are exhibiting considerable slack, including the following: 1) Income growth remains anemic, suggesting that increased labour availability is suppressing wages; 2) The labour market participation rate (i.e. the percentage of working age individuals who are engaged in the workforce) remains below 2008 (i.e. pre-recession) levels; 3) Thousands of new labour market entrants, including recent post-secondary graduates and new immigrants, remain unemployed or underemployed for significant periods of time; 4) Thousands of post-secondary graduates, particularly in STEM fields, continue to leave the country each year for opportunities abroad; 5) Despite ageing and increased longevity, the retirement age is dropping, suggesting that in many cases discouraged older workers are simply leaving the workforce; 6) Our productivity performance remains anemic in comparison to other Western countries. There are of course real looming skilled trades shortages, which in the past were met primarily with immigration from Europe, however it's not clear that our programs are calibrated to address this particular issue at all. The real "shortage" faced by Canada's corporate sector is access to skilled cheap labour. Were the immigrant and temp foreign worker taps to be slowed, real wages, innovation and productivity would likely increase, a strategy that is not favoured by this country's corporate elites.

Edited October 29, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I think you've been heavily influenced by corporate propaganda on this issue. There are many indicators that Canada's labour markets are exhibiting considerable slack, including the following: 1) Income growth remains anemic, suggesting that increased labour availability is suppressing wages; 2) The labour market participation rate (i.e. the percentage of working age individuals who are engaged in the workforce) remains below 2008 (i.e. pre-recession) levels; 3) Thousands of new labour market entrants, including recent post-secondary graduates and new immigrants, remain unemployed or underemployed for significant periods of time; 4) Thousands of post-secondary graduates, particularly in STEM fields, continue to leave the country each year for opportunities abroad; 5) Despite ageing and increased longevity, the retirement age is dropping, suggesting that in many cases discouraged older workers are simply leaving the workforce; 6) Our productivity performance remains anemic in comparison to other Western countries. There are of course real looming skilled trades shortages, which in the past were met primarily with immigration from Europe, however it's not clear that our programs are calibrated to address this particular issue at all. The real "shortage" faced by Canada's corporate sector is access to skilled cheap labour. Were the immigrant and temp foreign worker taps to be slowed, real wages, innovation and productivity would likely increase, a strategy that is not favoured by this country's corporate elites.

There IS no shortage of labour. This is a constant propaganda refrain from the pro-immigration set, despite the fact we had three separate reports last year, including one from the Parliamentary Budget Office, saying there was no labour shortage and that they could not foresee any in the coming years.

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

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

[turningrite]

53 minutes ago, Argus said:

There IS no shortage of labour. This is a constant propaganda refrain from the pro-immigration set, despite the fact we had three separate reports last year, including one from the Parliamentary Budget Office, saying there was no labour shortage and that they could not foresee any in the coming years.

 

Thanks for the links you provide on this topic. Why Canadians have been so complacent in the face of the propaganda spewed by both corporate Canada and the immigration industry remains a mystery to me. Not only are a lot of people simply unaware that the labour shortages argument is propaganda, but most uncritically accept the deeply flawed "demographic" argument that immigration is required due to Canada's low fertility rate. Increasingly, evidence suggests the demographic case for high immigration levels simply doesn't exist. Australia's Productivity Commission, which fairly recently conducted an extensive study of that country's large-scale immigration program, reached this conclusion, noting I believe that immigration intake would have to be maintained at enormous and unsustainably high levels in order to have any real beneficial impact on an ageing population and workforce.

Edited October 29, 2018 by turningrite

[taxme]

On 10/27/2018 at 10:53 AM, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t care about people coming in on family status as long as they’re sponsored and pay an up front fee to help cover initial costs.  No doubt we have to make sure refugees are legit.  I still think the biggest concern is settlement patterns.  They can’t all move to Toronto. 

So, this family reunification program that we have in Canada today does their family sponsors pay for their medical costs if they get sick or do Canadians?  Are they ready to pay, say, $50 - 60,000 dollars to cover the cost of one of their family reunification members if they get seriously ill? This is something I would like to know. Do you know? 

[taxme]

On 10/27/2018 at 11:05 AM, bcsapper said:

Vancouver, then?

Actually, a legal immigrant/refugee can move to wherever they want unless someone tells them they can't.  How do you see that ever coming about?

The City of Vancouver is already 45% non-Western looking. No more new immigrants needed or required anymore at this time, thank you very much. 

[taxme]

On 10/26/2018 at 5:08 PM, Zeitgeist said:

We need to find ways of directing immigration north or else we'll put too much strain on the environment, transportation network, and housing affordability in our largest centres, and we won't develop the resources in the north and make northern communities more self-sustaining.  As of now we pour money into servicing small scattered northern communities that aren't big enough to justify the cost of hospitals, business parks, etc.  

The environmentalists are already whining and crying about all the damage being done to the environment and to our infrastructures in Canada. So why bring in more new immigrants to Canada to make things even worse for them and the environment? The environmentalists will always be politically correct though and will never dare blame all the attacks going on to their precious environment as a result of the millions of new immigrants that have been imported to Canada in the last two years. Maybe it is just because they are just too stunned to figure that one out? If people are so concerned about what is going on in their cities, it is not hard to figure out as to what the main cause is? They call it "Immigration 101, stupid". And I am not calling you stupid. I am calling more immigration stupid. 

It's hard enough already to try and get any kind of big development to happen in the north because of the environmentalists and the native Indians who are always out there trying to stop any kinds of big developments. Imagine if Canada opened up more new cities, needed infrastructure, new homes, hospitals, schools and stores and services of all kinds. That would have to take a huge toll on the environment even more in the north. Canadians just need to demand a moratorium on immigration for a few years to give our environment and infrastuctures a much needed break. Just saying. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Thanks for the links you provide on this topic. Why Canadians have been so complacent in the face of the propaganda spewed by both corporate Canada and the immigration industry remains a mystery to me. Not only are a lot of people simply unaware that the labour shortages argument is propaganda, but most uncritically accept the deeply flawed "demographic" argument that immigration is required due to Canada's low fertility rate. Increasingly, evidence suggests the demographic case for high immigration levels simply doesn't exist. Australia's Productivity Commission, which fairly recently conducted an extensive study of that country's large-scale immigration program, reached this conclusion, noting that immigration intake would have to be maintained at enormous and unsustainably high levels in order to have any real beneficial impact on an ageing population and workforce.

The ratio to births and deaths shows that 8.7 deaths per 1000, and 5.7 new immigrants per 1000 in 2017. These statistics do not appear to be right as the population keeps growing every year. It should be the other way around as our Canadian population keeps growing and has grown from 33 - 35 million in two years. It would seem that either someone in the government is lying or they are totally clueless as to what the real ratio is to births and deaths. Or they are trying to make it appear as though Canada needs more new immigrants. 

I am not sure as to whether it is true that white people are not having enough kids or not. It could be true or it could be not true. I see plenty of white couples with two or three or four white children per family these days in my travels. So, I cannot say as to whether our low white population is due to white people not having that many children anymore. Maybe the reason why it would appear as though the white population is in decline and not having enough children is because of the amount of new immigrants that are coming from non-white countries en masse. 

But whatever it is Canada does need a moratorium on new immigration. There are too many immigrants coming in for Canada to be able to handle. There is more traffic, more waiting lines in hospitals for operations, and more schools and stores and new infrastructure needed to take on all of this massive immigration of people into Canada. 500,000 new immigrants to Canada is way too many people for Canada to being taking in when there are approx. 2 million Canadians unemployed. What is with our governments that want to keep promoting for more immigration and not less for Canada? There is no doubt about it that corporations and minority pro-immigration special interests groups are behind this push for more immigration to Canada. They need the hand to be shoved in their faces and told to stop it now. Works for me. 

[taxme]

On 10/28/2018 at 1:42 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

True dat....it is estimated that 10% of Canadians don't even live in Canada....more than the populations of six provinces.

That begs the question to be asked is why is this so? That is something close to 3.7 million so called Canadians that are living elsewhere and working there and not paying any taxes here. I have read that there are many new immigrants that are still citizen's from wherever they came from and that many return to their home country to run a business and will only come back to Canada if they need too for whatever reason. Two reasons may be due to turmoil in some country or the need for our medical services which they cannot get back home. 

There is definitely something sick and not so right about this country called Canada. I can only blame our dear leaders for the mess that Canada is in today. Canada has become one big time joke and sucker nation. Bloody sad indeed.