The National Question

[Alliance Fanatic]

I voted for A, once again can I ask most people to state the reason they made that choice. Once again, dont be silent of any issue. Dont be afraid to make your opinion known.

[SirRiff]

A is the closest logical choice, but its not perfect.

we still have room believe it or not for new canadians. so i dont know if 100K is so much better then 150K or 200K. if your idea that less is better, eventually you will advocate 0. my ideal is that less is not better, and some generous number of immigrants should be allowed. especially if you encourage them to settle in rural areas.

definately criminals must be screened as much as possible. like former nazis, and african military people who engaged in genocide, or known terrorists or whatever. that is concerned about screening more then limiting.

absolutely immigrants should have to complete a comprehensive canadian history test before granted citizenship. in truth, all high school students should be required to pass some basic level of science and history and english too. but there is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding immigrants accept our culture and history as thier own if they want to live here and enjoy our nation.

i think the US has gotten heat about fast tracking citizenship for immigrants in the military. i think people who sign up to serve should get a range of benefits anyways. priority citizenship after serving your term honorably seems reasonable to me.

sirriff

[Lost in Manitoba]

I'm repeating myself here but.....

My vision of Canada is that of the egalitarian, multi-cultural UN poster country. As such I would prefer to have the majority of immigrants coming from other such countries, namely the EU. Second preference would be from any commonwealth country that may share our country's British heritage. Third preference is to the US and Mexico, due to their similiar culture or trade relations. Refugees should be a part of immigration but not as much as it is now (running away from something is not the same as running towards something, humanitarian reasons aside).

I think education and trade skill should be the most important factor for coming to Canada. Younger people rather than older. Single rather than married, and married with no children rather than married with children. Obviously, any criminal ties or history should disqualify immigration, unless special circumstances are apperent.

I think immigration should also not be a static thing. I would prefer to see a rotation of the amount of immigration. For instance, year one let in a very large amount of people, then for the next few years let in less and less. Not sure if this is logical but I would think a sudden large influx of skilled, employable people would take a while for the economy to grow and stabalize, and also give time for a) the immigrant to adapt to his new home, and society to get used to the new population.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I'm surprised that most people agree with me, the only ones who dont seem to agree with me are, Gugsy, Hardner, Black Dog. Surprisingly some people on the left even support my position.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm surprised that most people agree with me, the only ones who dont seem to agree with me are, Gugsy, Hardner, Black Dog. Surprisingly some people on the left even support my position.

Well, the poll certainly doesn't seem to reflect that.

How can we condone free trade, unlimited movement of money and goods between nations but restrict the movement of people ? ( Just a straw dog there. )

Canada's economy needs more people in order to keep growing. 2nd, 3rd and later generation immigrants don't have enough children to sustain growth. You can crow about the fact that children don't know the words to 'God Save the Queen' but that doesn't really warrant alarm in the same way.

Conservatives have opened the world up to globalization, and so immigration has gone: open borders, fluid labour markets etc. Countries will soon be as meaningless as religions are.

If you don't like that, don't blame Chretien - he's only the end of the whip - blame Reagan and Thatcher. It's their plan.

[Craig Read]

That is false - that we need more people. This is the utter falsehood put forward by the Liberal-Immigration Media complex that believes in unfettered immigration.

It is wrong.

Canada needs far less than 100.000 per annum in certain industry sectors. Right now 60 % of immigrants are not screened, 50 % of total immigration is on the extended family plan, and no economist supports the idea of a quota - a ridiculous idea - of 325.000 people per annum [about 250.000 actually arrive].

Besides security risks, welfare payment issues, lack of jobs, demographic change and infrastructure strain, there is no compelling evidence that quota's, family plans and selective diversity immigration [ie. Middle East and Asia] are correct.

There is lots of evidence that the immigration system in Canada wastes money, unfairly punishes and strains Toronto, and feeds the political-immigration lawyer complex from which much political money is extracted.

Borjas at Harvard probably the world's pre-eminent immigration economist feels that the US needs a max of 500.000 people per annum. This would equate to about 50-80 K in Canada.

Immigration is an economic policy, not a UNO summer camp concept.

[Michael Hardner]

That is false - that we need more people. This is the utter falsehood put forward by the Liberal-Immigration Media complex that believes in unfettered immigration.

It is wrong.

Canada needs far less than 100.000 per annum in certain industry sectors. Right now 60 % of immigrants are not screened, 50 % of total immigration is on the extended family plan, and no economist supports the idea of a quota - a ridiculous idea - of 325.000 people per annum [about 250.000 actually arrive].

When you say certain industry sectors, I assume you're speaking of employment. There's also the demand for goods that is created by these people.

Besides security risks, welfare payment issues, lack of jobs, demographic change and infrastructure straing, there is no compelling evidence that quota's, family plans and selective diversity immigration [ie. Middle East and Asia] are correct.

Welfare payment issues, lack of jobs are all part of the big economic picture.

Security risk is indeed a concern. "Intrastructure straining" isn't anything at all. The infrastructure is built to accomodate a range of populations, which needs to increase perpetually.

Borjas at Harvard probably the world's pre-eminent immigration economist feels that the US needs a max of 500.000 people per annum. This would equate to about 50-80 K in Canada.

Immigration is an economic policy, not a UNO summer camp concept.

That sounds low to me.

I'll read more about Borjas. I don't know much about him, but having (just now) read his response to critics of his book, he sounds like somewhat of a leftist.

His main concern seems to be that oversupply of work will reduce wages. Well, EXACTLY. Lower wages reduce the cost of goods and services, don't they ?

[Alliance Fanatic]

I think that we should help families that are living here grow even more. The way to do it is give a large tax break to those who have children.

3000$- a year off of taxes.

They had a family allowance in the 50's, and 60's, for families, and this country was able to grow.

[Craig Read]

Borjas and others [he is one of many i used him as an example because he writes well and is politically rather centrist], state that unfettered immigration which is advocated by the right as necessary is actually an economic drain overall on the economy when all costs are considered not to mention security and social risks which are hard to quantify.

Borjas concludes that immigration does help the receiving economy but not by nearly the amount that the political left and legal set would like us to believe. He and others [you can read books on immigration by Stoffman and Francis for the Cdn view] feel that quota's are insipid. I would agree stating that we must allow 200-300.000 people per annum to come here, irregardless of economic conditions is nescient.

Immigration is an economic matter not a diversity induced socialisation program nor a lawyer centric program and political program.

[Lost in Manitoba]

If we primarily screened on education grounds, ie post-grads and high demand skills, would that not promote industry? The matter of immigration needs to take so many different things into account that it takes a smarter person than me to figure it out.

I do think, though, we should aspire to bring in immigrants who have more historical, cultural, political, and/or economic ties to Canada.

[Morgan]

This article was published this summer by a demographer who is a self-described left winger. Daniel Stoffman has come to believe that current immigration levels are too high, too family reunification oriented, have negative effects for immigrants themselves. An informative perspective from an unusual source.

Stoffman looks at how current immigration levels hurt immigrants and us

A Statistics Canada study released last week revealed that the poverty rate in 2000 among immigrants who had arrived since 1995 was 36 per cent, compared to 24.6 per cent in 1980 of those who had arrived in the previous five years.The reason is simple: supply and demand. Canada gets twice as many immigrants per capita as the two other leading "receiving" countries, the U.S. and Australia. Until the end of the Trudeau era, immigration levels were moderate and fluctuated according to labour market conditions. Brian Mulroney introduced permanent high levels, which stayed in place even during economic downturns. The Chrétien government has continued this policy.

Canada does not have a labour shortage nor is Canada short of people generally. Canada has one of the higher fertility rates and younger populations among the industrialized countries. Yet it is the only country whose government deems the universal phenomenon of population aging a crisis that must be remedied by immigration.

[Michael Hardner]

The article is correct. But why is downward pressure on wages a good thing when considering globalized trade but not immigration ?

I was strongly against the FTA but came to change my mind when I decided that these agreements will, in the long term, bring other nations into the western fold.

The only difference I can see is that exported industrial jobs are "out of sight, out of mind".

I suspect, too, that many conservatives who don't leave near immigrants, and don't deal with them - except when employing them as say, nannys, or working in a building cleaning business - appreciate the downward pressure on service wages.

[Morgan]

Michael,

Low wage job earners living in Canada still get the benefit of costly social assistence programs like medicare, denticare, unemployment insurance, old age pension, low cost housing, public education, etc.

The costs to the public purse make the importation of low wage earners a very bad economic deal for Canadians. Low wage immigrant earners also cause a ghetto-izing of large cities like Toronto and Vancouver, and with poverty come associated higher crime rates and a host of other social problems.

Exported low wage industrial jobs= out of sight, out of mind and not on the public purse...

If you want to read an extensive research paper on immigration issues (51 pages in total), see:Immigration reform needed by Martin Collacott

[Michael Hardner]

Low wage job earners living in Canada still get the benefit of costly social assistence programs like medicare, denticare, unemployment insurance, old age pension, low cost housing, public education, etc.

The costs to the public purse make the importation of low wage earners a very bad economic deal for Canadians. Low wage immigrant earners also cause a ghetto-izing of large cities like Toronto and Vancouver, and with poverty come associated higher crime rates and a host of other social problems.

The social assistance programs that you mentioned are varied. EI funds itself, at a surplus, out of payroll deductions. Denticare goes to welfare recipients as far as I know. CPP is also funded by payroll deductions and is geared to earning. Low cost housing programs are, I believe, also for welfare recipients. Education costs are presumed to be paid back when someone graduates and starts to pay taxes as well.

You didn't address my point about businesses and individuals benefitting from cheaper labour. Isn't this one of the main drivers of the globalization ?

And the poverty=crime equation has long been used by the left to explain such things as terrorism.

As you see, many of the arguments you espouse are rooted in leftist thinking... That's fine with me, if you're indeed a leftist.

[Morgan]

I thought I answered your question.

Entitlements cost more than what the benefits of importing low cost labour offer.

eg. Having a Chinese garment worker stay in China and sew clothes and then import the cheap garments to Canada makes money for the garment industry and saves money for the consumer.

But having that same Chinese factory worker immigrate to Winnipeg to work in a clothing factory in Canada is not a cost effective - taxpayers end up paying way more in entitlements than what that cheap labourer offers the economy.

[Craig Read]

The current rate of qualified immigrants is 25 %. Ie. Only one-quarter have job skills we need now. The rest are largely on Family plans. They access almost immediately the health care system and after a period of time - usually 12-24 months - the welfare system. The sponsors are supposed to pay their way for 3 years - but this rarely happens. In Toronto it is not uncommon for Somalian taxi drivers to have sponsored 5-10 people on the extended family plan.

The immigration system costs Toronto about $4 billion per year paid by local and provincial govt's. In other words Ottawa's porous and pathetic policy is paid by other levels of gov't with no citizen say in who gets to come to Toronto and why.

And of course you can demand social services to use an interpretator for your language of choice - 26 langugages are supported by social services by law here in Toronto.

Makes sense to me.

[Michael Hardner]

But having that same Chinese factory worker immigrate to Winnipeg to work in a clothing factory in Canada is not a cost effective - taxpayers end up paying way more in entitlements than what that cheap labourer offers the economy.

The premise here seems to be that low wage earners are not economically viable entities. This would mean that minimum wage earners are a net drain on the economy.

Okay...

Then who benefits from lower wages ? If the benefits from downward pressure on wages go to someone, shouldn't that person's net benefit be taxed somehow to offset the net drain on the Canadian taxpayer ?

[August1991]

Bump.

[Knoss]

I think the big problem is provincial licenses which are not just a problem for immigrants as well as Canadians moving from province to province. For some trades I think the license requirement should be eliminated and for many other requirements for education should be reduced, we also need to do more to ensure licenses are transferable between provinces and even between nations.

[August1991]

I think the big problem is provincial licenses which are not just a problem for immigrants as well as Canadians moving from province to province. For some trades I think the license requirement should be eliminated and for many other requirements for education should be reduced, we also need to do more to ensure licenses are transferable between provinces and even between nations.

I agree. This is a failure of the federal government. As a minimum, the federal government should ensure a Canadian economic space. It should ensure that provincial governments do not create costly barriers to trade.

If Canadians thought rightly about this, they would grant provincial government autonomy in return for a federal power to ensure interprovincial free trade. Even right minded pequistes would have to agree.

[geoffrey]

Why does the Federal government need to enforce free trade? Alberta and BC just arranged an agreement that allows some of these things and much more...

Let the provinces deal with it on their own terms. The last thing we need is people in Ottawa dictating whom sells what to whom... which is exactly what would happen. You should know better than that August, you know it'd turn into some sort of twisted equalisation system (Alberta is capped on Ontario trade to give Saskatchewan more growth, ect. ect.).

I prefer provincial governments to agree between each other what is benefical. I have one example of it. There is no reason others can't and won't do the same.

[Knoss]

While some licensing could be made federal, such as making it easier to packing plants to get a federal license to sell meat to hospitals or for export, primarily we need provincial action. Not just inter-provincial agreements but also cut to license requirements and yes to eliminate licenses for many trades.

[scribblet]

I voted for number 1, although I don't think they should be deported after only 12 months, especially if they are supporting themselves. I wouldn't object to a longer waiting period for medical coverage, and no welfare benefits if they have never contributed to the system.

[Figleaf]

No choice in the poll worked for me.

I would prefer:

1-Urgently improving deportation enforcement. After hearings and final decisions are made, people who have been ordered out can still float around in the country for a long time before the authorities get them out. What's the delay for? No reason, the bureaucrats just don't do it.

2-Rethink and enhance the criteria for economic immigrants. It should include an assessment of their ability to hit-the-ground running both in employment and in terms of social integration.

3-Speed up the processing of economic immigrants. It can take OVER TWO YEARS to get accepted and processed, no matter how desireable your qualifications are. This is ridiculous and thwarts our getting the best immigrants, who can and do just apply to quicker jurisdictions.

4-End all sponsorship except of family-class members.

5-Reduce the scope of family-class immigration.

6-Carry out suitability interviews and personality testing. Anyone who doesn't accept basic Canadian norms should not be admitted.

7-Make it a condition of landing to settle in smaller/remote communities (and assess the applicants on their job prospects in THOSE communities.)

8-Make it mandatory to acquire some level of English or French. For those who need it, compell them to attend government-provided classes.

That would be good for a start.

[mikedavid00]

I voted for A, once again can I ask most people to state the reason they made that choice. Once again, dont be silent of any issue. Dont be afraid to make your opinion known.

I voted to completely shut down the borders. We don't have the jobs and servies to provide the people comming to Canada.

Ontario alone just lost 15,000 full time manufacturing jobs. We get that many immigrants each month.

The flood of people isn't needed. They are only here to elect the Liberal party of Canada and nothing more.