No new money for immigration

[Leafless]

A request was killed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, along with Bloc MP's to kill a request by Citizenship and Immigration Minister Joe Volpe for $168.5 million in new funding for immigration measures and other expenditures.

This is good news as I have a hard enough time taking care of my own family and have no desire to raise immigrants.

If the federal or provincial governments are serious about Canada's sagging population maybe they should consider PAYING Canadians to propagate Canada's population.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/...pf-1290989.html

[tml12]

A request was killed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, along with Bloc MP's to kill a request by Citizenship and Immigration Minister Joe Volpe for $168.5 million in new funding for immigration measures and other expenditures.

This is good news as I have a hard enough time taking care of my own family and have no desire to raise immigrants.

If the federal or provincial governments are serious about Canada's sagging population maybe they should consider PAYING Canadians to propagate Canada's population.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/...pf-1290989.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you really think that will help, paying us to have kids?

[Leafless]

tml12

You wrote- "Do you really think, paying us to have kids."

I think the major problem to-day preventing couples from having children is affordable housing and this could be helped a great deal with federal-provincial assistance.

I think immigration is not necessarily good thing for the country as there are many cost associated with immigration that make this an expensive proposition for Canadian taxpayers.

On top of this immigrants take advantage of our Charter and many never do become Canadian by Canada allowing dual citizenenship which encourages an attachment to political concerns from their home country, an attachment to a religion with undesirable political ramifications along, an attachment to their culture which promotes cultural fractionation which could cause undesirable consequences for Canadian interest.

[RB]

Do you really think that will help, paying us to have kids?

I think if you increase the current 55% of so call benefits from the EI funds to become 90%

Subsidise daycare

Increase tax incentives for families with children

Bring back the baby bonus program

Currently there is no incentive to have kids - it is difficult financially with 2 parent working

Plus since folks are not having kids there is more breakdown of marriages and more divorces, like no commitments to marriage

But, I have noticed that new immigrants show up and take advantage of the incentives available for proverty stricken families and can have a million of kids and we keep pouring monies into supporting the poor folks

[Renegade]

It seems to be taken as a given that more people is better. I would like to challenge that assumption.

1. It is beyond dispute that population growth is unsustainable. As some point resources will be unable to sustain a population size beyond a certain amount.

2. Unlike certain countries which have population explosions and have had to actively minimize population, Canada has no such problem. Long term population decline mean less competition between people for scarce resource, and a potentially higher standard of living.

3. The ONLY reason I can see for having population growth is to support Ponzi-like schemes like CPP, where future payouts depend upon ever increasing population. The real solution lies in fixing these schemes to depend upon a person's current contributions for funding rather than a future population's contribution.

4. Beyond have enough of a population to sustain economies of scale, as we currently do and are in no danger of losing, there is no other reason to increase the population.

There are good reasons to have immigration, afterall Canada is a desirable destination and there are skills shortages in certain areas which can't be easily filled by the existing population.

I can't see any reason why we would want to subsidize parents to have children either through tax incentives, EI, subsidized daycare or baby bonuses. The choice of parents is one they make knowing full well the costs involved and I don't see why the taxpayer should take on any part of the financial burden.

[cybercoma]

It seems to be taken as a given that more people is better. I would like to challenge that assumption.

1. It is beyond dispute that population growth is unsustainable. As some point resources will be unable to sustain a population size beyond a certain amount.

We hardly need to worry about the collapse of resources in Canada when we have the second largest country in the world with a population roughly equal to the state of California. At least not for quite awhile...

2. Unlike certain countries which have population explosions and have had to actively minimize population, Canada has no such problem. Long term population decline mean less competition between people for scarce resource, and a potentially higher standard of living.

It also means less people working, making money and spending that money.

3. The ONLY reason I can see for having population growth is to support Ponzi-like schemes like CPP, where future payouts depend upon ever increasing population. The real solution lies in fixing these schemes to depend upon a person's current contributions for funding rather than a future population's contribution.

Ah, here it is. CPP is going to collapse because the baby boomers are going to retire and demand more out of the system than it an handle, leaving the rest of us with nothing when we retire. This is all speculation and I hope the government in the future does something to address this potential disaster.

4. Beyond have enough of a population to sustain economies of scale, as we currently do and are in no danger of losing, there is no other reason to increase the population.

Besides boosting our economy and adding skilled labour to the workforce, we don't need it?

There are good reasons to have immigration, afterall Canada is a desirable destination and there are skills shortages in certain areas which can't be easily filled by the existing population.

I can't see any reason why we would want to subsidize parents to have children either through tax incentives, EI, subsidized daycare or baby bonuses. The choice of parents is one they make knowing full well the costs involved and I don't see why the taxpayer should take on any part of the financial burden.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Giving Canadians money to have children is a quick and easy way to increase the number of people born here in Canada. With both parents working nowadays and the average person making less and less money, it's difficult to impossible to raise kids. The extra money to help with groceries, diapers, toys, etc. would give people a hope in being able to afford raising kids.

[Leafless]

Renegade

You wrote- " There are good reasons to have immigration, afterall Canada is a desirable destination and there are skill shortages in certain areas which can't be filled by the existing population."

I have never seen the jobs you are talking about concerning skill shortages and if there are truly skill shortages I would think the feds and provinces are badly lagging proper educational courses in our schools and universities and colleges.

What the REAL PROBLEM is 'el cheapo' companies are to cheap to properly train existing staff or don't want to spend money to properly pay for what the positon is really worth.

Immigration is a partial answer to exploit our home grown work force but they then become a problem when U.I runs and cost taxpayers extra money for welfare.

So in effect the tax payer is subsidizing private companies to exploit Canadians with our federal banana governments blessings.

The only reason most immigrants come here is to escape poverty and violence from there war torn countries. No one leaves tropical conditons for the COLD white north.

[Renegade]

We hardly  need to worry about the collapse of resources in Canada when we have the second largest country in the world with a population roughly equal to the state of California.  At least not for quite awhile...

On the contrary. Resources we consume is not just timber and iron ore. As you live in Ontario, you know that we are in continual electricity energy shortage. Do you think more people will reduce the demand? If you ever try to buy a house in Toronto or Vancouver, you will know that what you get now is a fraction of what you would have got 10 or 20 years ago. Where you may have been able to get a house with a yard 20 years ago, you may be lucky in those areas to get a townhouse, and in the future you may be lucky to even get a condo. Demand which outstrips supply generates price increases, and increased population means increased demand.

You are quite correct that we are a large country, but have you noticed that the bulk of the population is concentrated in small pockets near the border? Incremental population, are not going to settle in the unhabitated Yukon, they will crowd into existing urban centers.

2. Unlike certain countries which have population explosions and have had to actively minimize population, Canada has no such problem. Long term population decline mean less competition between people for scarce resource, and a potentially higher standard of living.

It also means less people working, making money and spending that money.

I'm probably missing your point so you will need to humour me and elaborate a bit.

For illustration's sake let's call the existing population "Population X" (say 100 individuals) Lets call the proposed increased population "Population Y" (say 50 individuals). If Population X can build 10 wigets, and Population X + Population Y can bulid 15 wigets, how does benefit Population X? It already has a market for its 10 widgets and it is no more efficient with more people.

Perhaps I'm missing something in your reasoning and if you can kindly explain further.

3. The ONLY reason I can see for having population growth is to support Ponzi-like schemes like CPP, where future payouts depend upon ever increasing population. The real solution lies in fixing these schemes to depend upon a person's current contributions for funding rather than a future population's contribution.

Ah, here it is. CPP is going to collapse because the baby boomers are going to retire and demand more out of the system than it an handle, leaving the rest of us with nothing when we retire. This is all speculation and I hope the government in the future does something to address this potential disaster.

CPP isn't the only scheme bulit this way. So is OAS, Healthcare, etc. Yes it is speculation that it may collapse, or it may not. The fact that we even need to worry about future population growth in order to fund the scheme is a cause for concern. I would have much perferred a RRSP-like scheme which didn't depend upon population growth to fund its objectives.

4. Beyond have enough of a population to sustain economies of scale, as we currently do and are in no danger of losing, there is no other reason to increase the population.

Besides boosting our economy and adding skilled labour to the workforce, we don't need it?

I'm assuming here you are using the same reasoning as point 2. I'd like to understand what you mean.

Many other countries with less population than we do have better productivity and standards of living. Conversely many countries with larger population (and hence numerically a larger economy and number of skilled workers) have worse productivity and standard of living than we do. I can understand how increasing the size of the economy with the current population (and hence the productivity) would increase the standard of living, but I can't understand how just increasing the population would achieve the same effect.

Giving Canadians money to have children is a quick and easy way to increase the number of people born here in Canada.  With both parents working nowadays and the average person making less and less money, it's difficult to impossible to raise kids.  The extra money to help with groceries, diapers, toys, etc. would give people a hope in being able to afford raising kids.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No question that raising kids is less affordable then ever before. Part of the reason is our expectations of what we expect to provide kids is higher then ever before (everything from iPods to a university education). Regardless, just because it is not affordable to everyone doesn't mean that the taxpayers should fund it. There are a lot of things which were affordable in the past which are not now. It used to be affordable to have a one-parent working family. It used to be affordable to have a house close to your place of work, etc. If it is not affordable or expectations are higher, people should scale down to the level they can afford. For example, if they can't afford 2 kids, they should have one. If they can't afford one, they shouldn't have any. I don't see having kids as a right. It is a priviledge which parents should earn, by having the emotional, mental, and financial responsibility for caring for the kids they bring into the world.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I am a parent. I would happly pocket the money the government would send my way if it chose to subsidize kids. Regardless, it doesn't change my feeling that this is an unfair subsidization of parents by childless individuals and seniors.

[Renegade]

Renegade

You wrote- " There are good reasons to have immigration, afterall Canada is a desirable destination and there are skill shortages in certain areas which can't be filled by the existing population."

I have never seen the jobs you are talking about concerning skill shortages and if there are truly skill shortages I would think the feds and provinces are badly lagging proper educational courses in our schools and universities and colleges.

As an example the construction industry in Ontario is currently hampered by a lack of skilled trades. There is strong encouragement both by industry and government for young people to enter these fields, but demand still can't keep up with supply, notwithstanding the fact that it takes 3 years from the time you start to educate someone until he becomes avialable to the workforce.

What the REAL PROBLEM is 'el cheapo' companies are to cheap to properly train existing staff or don't want to spend money to properly pay for what the positon is really worth.

The beneficary of a properly trained employee is both the company and the employee. The company in getting a more productive employee (at least it expect to) and the employee in that differentiated skill leads to higher earning power. If a company doesn't think it will get value out of paying for an employees traing, it is fully within its rights to make that determination. Similarily if an employee feel he can enhance his market value by additional training he is free to make that choice by investing in that training himself (afterall isn't that what a university education is?)

Immigration is a partial answer to exploit our home grown work force but they then become a problem when U.I runs and cost taxpayers extra money for welfare.

I agree that uncontrolled immigration would cause havoc and disruption to the economy and would probably be unaffordable and further would dilute the value of the existing labour pool. I am in favour of targeted immigration for specific areas which will benefit the economy such as the example I cited earlier.

So in effect the tax payer is subsidizing private companies to exploit Canadians with our federal banana governments blessings.

The goal of immigration seems to be to increase our overall population. As I have said I'm not convinced that the goal is one we shoudl be striving for. And it would seem to me by your statement that you agree with me that an increase in population (in this case by immigration) would not be a benefit because of increased competition for employment.

The only reason most immigrants come here is to escape poverty and violence from there war torn countries. No one leaves tropical conditons for the COLD white north.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is simply untrue. I've known professionals who have immigrated to Canada and they have had a middle-class life in their country of origin. They moved simply because they could get a better standard of living in Canada. I've known executives who have immgrated to Canada to take high-level positions in companies. In either case, it can hardly be caonsider excaping poverty. The reasons people immigrate are varied, everything from moving to be close to relatives to not liking the heat, so to pigeon-hole everyone into a one reason is simply wrong.

[Leafless]

Renagade

You cited the construction industry in Ontario is hampered by lack of skilled trades.

In Ontario there is only 1% of workers enrolled in apprenticeship programs.

There is as problem with employers not wanting to or are reluctant to sponser apprentices in all trades.

Basically the emphasis of governments until recently has been obtaining a university education while basically ignoring the trades.

Certaintly Canada needs immigration but it is not clear how many and it is not clear if the governments intent is to displace the Canadian worker in order to create a more competitive work place.

In fact I have an article right in front of me that says some experts say that as a result of technological change and global market pressures to cut labour cost, the Canadian workforce has been reshaped forever, the large core of workers doomed to job insecurity and there is no turning back the clock.

[Renegade]

Renagade

You cited the construction industry in Ontario is hampered by lack of skilled trades.

In Ontario there is only 1% of workers enrolled in apprenticeship programs.

There is as problem with employers not wanting to or are reluctant to sponser apprentices in all trades.

We should not lose sight that a company's main mandate is to realize a profit. It will only invest in apprentice programs or training if it helps toward that goal.

I would agree that there is very little governmental/individual/industry cooperation in implementing an apprentice program which may be ultimately benefical to all.

Basically the emphasis of governments until recently has been obtaining a university education while basically ignoring the trades.

Certaintly Canada needs immigration but it is not clear how many and it is not clear if the governments intent is to displace the Canadian worker in order to create a more competitive work place.

In fact I have an article right in front of me that says some experts say that as a result of technological change and global market pressures to cut labour cost, the Canadian workforce has been reshaped forever, the large core of workers doomed to job insecurity and there is no turning back the clock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I woudl agree that government's immigration policy is absymal. It's not that immigration isn't needed, but it needs to be specificly targeted. This is something that the government to date has not done.

[Argus]

It seems to be taken as a given that more people is better. I would like to challenge that assumption.

1. It is beyond dispute that population growth is unsustainable. As some point resources will be unable to sustain a population size beyond a certain amount.

We hardly need to worry about the collapse of resources in Canada when we have the second largest country in the world with a population roughly equal to the state of California. At least not for quite awhile...

In reality, you can lop off at least half the country as uninhabitable. Then there are large areas which are only barely habitable. More than 90% of Canadians live in a 100 mile stretch along the US border. So how big is Canada, really?

[Yodeler]

In reality, you can lop off at least half the country as uninhabitable. Then there are large areas which are only barely habitable. More than 90% of Canadians live in a 100 mile stretch along the US border. So how big is Canada, really?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering that you could plunk many a European country with half the population of Canada into Lake Ontario it's pretty big, really.

[tml12]

tml12

You wrote- "Do you really think, paying us to have kids."

I think the major problem to-day preventing couples from having children is affordable housing and this could be helped a great deal with federal-provincial assistance.

I think immigration is not necessarily good thing for the country as there are many cost associated with immigration that make this an expensive proposition for Canadian taxpayers.

On top of this immigrants take advantage of our Charter and many never do become Canadian by Canada allowing dual citizenenship which encourages an attachment to political concerns from their home country, an attachment to a religion with undesirable political ramifications along, an attachment to their culture which promotes cultural fractionation which could cause undesirable consequences for Canadian interest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that case, I would not be against paying us to have kids.

However, I do not think it is appropriate to put all immigrants in the same boat. Some are bad, some are good, etc...I don't like to generalize.

As for the dual citizenship issue, I support it, although that is only because I like having that option. Also, if Canada allows dual citizenship why would some immigrants never become Canadian? I don't understand your argument there.

[Argus]

In reality, you can lop off at least half the country as uninhabitable. Then there are large areas which are only barely habitable. More than 90% of Canadians live in a 100 mile stretch along the US border. So how big is Canada, really?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering that you could plunk many a European country with half the population of Canada into Lake Ontario it's pretty big, really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you actually couldn't. And that isn't the point anyway. Canada is not nearly as big as people seem to think when they talk about bringing in millions of immigrants. All of them will settle along that hundred mile line, the vast majority in a few large cities. You know, they used to call Toronto, the city that worked. They don't call it that any more, what with the crime, the garbage, the pollution, the slums. So how is Toronto any better for having more people than it did twenty years ago?

[RB]

I can't see any reason why we would want to subsidize parents to have children either through tax incentives, EI, subsidized daycare or baby bonuses. The choice of parents is one they make knowing full well the costs involved and I don't see why the taxpayer should take on any part of the financial burden.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Western governments and Western-funded multilateral organizations are currently spending over $1 billion a year on population programs in Third World countries -

How about facilitating population programs with that money in the Western world - I mean you encourage population growth elsewhere and then import them into Canada - Does this make sense?

Anyway how much money does Canada give to these programs?

[Renegade]

Western governments and Western-funded multilateral organizations are currently spending over $1 billion a year on population programs in Third World countries -

How about facilitating population programs with that money in the Western world - I mean you encourage population growth elsewhere and then import them into Canada - Does this make sense?

Anyway how much money does Canada give to these programs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RB, If you mean by "population programs", programs which will INCREASE the population, I certainly agree that this is money wasted.

I can see NO good reason why our government should be helping fund population growth in the Third World. I would advocate that the money can be better redirected within Canada, though not necessarily to population programs.

[RB]

Goverments need to have some population growth policy. Did you know that there are 29% of families with no kids plus another 6% of women who claim they will not have any children. That's 35% the breeding population you wish to rule out.

Sweden has generous day care which correlates with its big population growth plus 18 months of parental leave - every female want to have kids

If nothing the government should start by choosing government employees by merit, like being married with children should be considered an advantage.

What is your reasons for no government subsidy really? I mean are you afraid that letting the government get very involved in family planning is dangerous.

Were you thinking in the lines of you really didn't want to encourage welfare mothers to have more children?

I guess when everything fails encourage more sex - however you modify the women shampoo, lipstick, purses, tampax tampon

[Renegade]

Goverments need to have some population growth policy.  Did you know that there are 29% of families with no kids plus another 6% of women who claim they will not have any children.  That's 35% the breeding population you wish to rule out.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why do governments need to have a population growth policy? Perhaps what is needed is a population maintinance or reduction policy. I would like to understand your views on why growth is needed instead of taking it as a given.

Sweden has generous day care which correlates with its big population growth plus 18 months of parental leave - every female want to have kids

Ok but how has that benefitted Sweden?

If nothing the government should start by choosing government employees by merit, like being married with children should be considered an advantage.

Are you suggesting systemic discrimmination against single and married-no-kids individuals? I'm pretty sure it would contravene the Charter.

What is your reasons for no government subsidy really? I mean are you afraid that letting the government get very involved in family planning is dangerous.

No government subsidy because I seen no beneift in population growth, so the government should not be incenting people to do it. I don't really think that the government shoudl be involved in family planning. That is an individual choice. However, that is not the reason I am opposed to government subsidy.

Were you thinking in the lines of you really didn't want to encourage welfare mothers to have more children?

No one should have more kids than they want or are willing to assume responsibility for. That goes for everyone, welfare mothers or not. So as I said, I haven't seen the reason why it shoudl be encouraged and subsidized.

I guess when everything fails encourage more sex - however you modify the women shampoo, lipstick, purses, tampax tampon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nature has its own way of encouraging population growth. Its called sex. For the most part its been very successful at generating growth. Thanks goodness for birth control which allows to somewhat mitigate the natural effects of our sexual urges.

[RB]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why do governments need to have a population growth policy? Perhaps what is needed is a population maintinance or reduction policy.

Our birth rate is low and we have depopulation.

(you have 35% of women not having kids and you don't see a problem)

Canada needs 2.1 children per woman to replace the current population. 2 children means that their parents are replaced and .1 means we can compensate for the potential early death a parent before the children reach reproduction.

This is the way to ensure a stable and zero growth.

Canada has a birth rate of 1.2 or something like that and by 2031 we will be losing population as the 22% of baby boomers begin to die. We also lose 60,000 people through emigration.

To stabilized the current population we currently need about 250,000 extra people.

There is a baby bust looming right here!

[RB]

Ok but how has that benefitted Sweden?

yes, Sweden does not have a birth rate issue, and capitalism finds a way to feed population growth

[Renegade]

Our birth rate is low and we have depopulation.

(you have 35% of women not having kids and you don't see a problem)

You're right. I don't see that as a problem, at least not yet. I could be convinced if I undestand a strong argument why it is a problem

Canada needs 2.1 children per woman to replace the current population.  2 children means that their parents are replaced and .1 means we can compensate for the potential early death a parent before the children reach reproduction.

This is the way to ensure a stable and zero growth.

Canada has a birth rate of 1.2 or something like that and by 2031 we will be losing population as the 22% of baby boomers begin to die.  We also lose 60,000 people through emigration.

To stabilized the current population we currently need about 250,000 extra people.

There is a baby bust looming right here!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RB, you are citing statistics which show that without intervention, we are losing population (at least we would without immigration). I'm not disputing that. What you are not addressing is why is that a bad thing? Why should we assume that zero growth is a good thing?

Surely we have environmental problems such as running out of places to put our garbage, polluting the air and water, and competition for land which drives up prices. All of these are symptoms of the size of our existing population. Surely more population means these problems are exacerbated and less population means that these problems are reduced.

[Renegade]

Ok but how has that benefitted Sweden?

yes, Sweden does not have a birth rate issue, and capitalism finds a way to feed population growth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok so capitalism will find a way to feed an increased population, but does that really point to a better standard of living for the existing population? As long as a community has sufficient population to justify the infrastructure required to sustain it, why does it matter if it goes down?

[tml12]

Ok but how has that benefitted Sweden?

yes, Sweden does not have a birth rate issue, and capitalism finds a way to feed population growth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok so capitalism will find a way to feed an increased population, but does that really point to a better standard of living for the existing population? As long as a community has sufficient population to justify the infrastructure required to sustain it, why does it matter if it goes down?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It depends how regulated the capitalism is and, most important I would argue in any situation, who is running the show.

[Renegade]

It depends how regulated the capitalism is and, most important I would argue in any situation, who is running the show.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe so, but that seems to be unrelated to the population of the community.