Results 1 to 44 of 44

Thread: Prominent Liberals want to triple Canada`s population

  1. #1
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,042

    Default Prominent Liberals want to triple Canada`s population

    And they said Harper had a secret agenda.

    `OTTAWA Ė Imagine Canada with a population of 100 million ó roughly triple its current size.
    For two of the most prominent voices inside the Trudeau governmentís influential council of economic advisers, itís much more than a passing fancy.

    Itís a target.`

    http://globalnews.ca/news/3020783/in...riple-by-2100/

  2. #2

    Default

    1. If we care about pollution, more humans is not the solution; an economy based purely on endless growth is not sustainable
    2. If we're looking to move existing humans here, the current makeup of Canada will drastically change
    3. Rapid influx of people will increase demand of publicly funded labour-heavy services (healthcare, education) but will not increase the demand at an equivalent rate for employees at increasingly automated private sector industries (that don't solely exist on government contracts). Where will everyone work?

    I'm 100% for immigration. I'm 100% against basing our future prosperity on endless growth.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  3. #3

    Default

    Not only must they be in total, absolute denial about global warming, but much of our standard of living arises out of our exports. Consuming an ever greater share of what we can produce, mine or otherwise extract from our environment at home only steals from our ability to export that same production abroad.

    Moreover, add computerization and automation reducing the need for a large traditional human workforce and the ever higher skill requirements required of the remaining workforce and you can see that any population increase might only serve to drive down the median standard of living if our lofty goals of full employment don't pan out.

  4. #4

    Default

    I don't normally agree with the Liberals, but this makes sense. If we want to have world class cities, big cities, we need lots of people who will consume and generate more growth, picking the best and brightest from around the world can help in generating that.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    1. If we care about pollution, more humans is not the solution; an economy based purely on endless growth is not sustainable
    2. If we're looking to move existing humans here, the current makeup of Canada will drastically change
    3. Rapid influx of people will increase demand of publicly funded labour-heavy services (healthcare, education) but will not increase the demand at an equivalent rate for employees at increasingly automated private sector industries (that don't solely exist on government contracts). Where will everyone work?

    I'm 100% for immigration. I'm 100% against basing our future prosperity on endless growth.
    I think the advocates for growing Canada's population are not advocating a much higher birth rate, but mainly more immigration. One could argue that wouldn't add many more humans to the world, but just move people from more congested parts of the world to less congested parts. This is not the first time the Federal government did a study like this - in the 1950's or 1960's, the government looked at doing something similar. They felt that "mid-Canada" (the part of the country between southern Canada and the northern/arctic Canada) had a huge potential for growth and development. In Alberta that would include areas like Peace River country and of course, Fort McMurray (although interestingly that was not one of the communities they planned on growing).

    The more recent study plans for this growth to occur over the years until 2100, so it is not like there will be a huge rush of people right away that we have to deal with. I think about an average 2.0% population growth per year over 65 years would get us there.

  6. #6

    Default

    80% would end up in Toronto or Vancouver.

    The 60 million added to Canada would be about 9 months of world growth rate.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-10-2016 at 02:48 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  7. #7
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,596

    Default

    For reference, Canada's population has been growing at around 1-1.5% for most of the past half century. That rate dropped below 1.5% in the mid 70's, and for the most part has stayed between 1-1.5% for most of the last 40 years. At 36 million people presently, for Canada's population to hit 100 million at around 1% growth a year would take just over 100 years. At 1.5% a year, about 70 years. And at 2% a year, about 52 years. So even at present rates of growth and immigration, we're on track to hit that "target" by 2100 (give or take a decade) pretty much no matter what. Bumping up immigration fairly significantly would put us on track to do it a couple decades earlier.

    I don't get where they're getting that Canada would only hit 52 million by the end of the century. That would be a growth rate of 0.5% annually, which is well below recent trends as far as I can see. Perhaps the assumption is that death rates will continue to rise while birth rates stay flat, and immigration won't be increased to keep the overall "rate" vs. population the same? Seems overly pessimistic to me.

  8. #8

    Default

    Do we have the room for more people? Yes.

    Do we NEED to fill the room we have? No.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Do we have the room for more people? Yes.

    Do we NEED to fill the room we have? No.
    Look at the various countries on earth. We could load ourselves up to some incredible density -and still be able to take or make millions upon millions more. We could be like everywhere else. Why on earth would we want that?

    Moreover most of the new population would concentrate in the existing population centres. We'd have to go all out nuclear to populate some areas of Canada.


    An article:

    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/20...ation-density/
    Last edited by KC; 24-10-2016 at 03:58 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Do we have the room for more people? Yes.

    Do we NEED to fill the room we have? No.
    Look at the various countries on earth. We could load ourselves up to some incredible density -and still be able to take or make millions upon millions more. We could be like everywhere else. Why on earth would we want that?

    Moreover most of the new population would concentrate in the existing population centres. We'd have to go all out nuclear to populate some areas of Canada.


    An article:

    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/20...ation-density/
    I think the real problem would be trying to populate some of the more sparsely populated parts of Canada, while not over populating areas that are already getting quite congested (ex. around Toronto and Vancouver). Yes, we have a low overall population density but that is a bit misleading because there are large areas that are not that desirable or very habitable (ex. mountains in BC, tundra, etc ...). Understandably, most immigrants would probably prefer to come to parts of the country that are more urban and have milder climates, but that is only a very small part of the country. I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.

  11. #11
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    For reference, Canada's population has been growing at around 1-1.5% for most of the past half century. That rate dropped below 1.5% in the mid 70's, and for the most part has stayed between 1-1.5% for most of the last 40 years. At 36 million people presently, for Canada's population to hit 100 million at around 1% growth a year would take just over 100 years. At 1.5% a year, about 70 years. And at 2% a year, about 52 years. So even at present rates of growth and immigration, we're on track to hit that "target" by 2100 (give or take a decade) pretty much no matter what. Bumping up immigration fairly significantly would put us on track to do it a couple decades earlier.

    I don't get where they're getting that Canada would only hit 52 million by the end of the century. That would be a growth rate of 0.5% annually, which is well below recent trends as far as I can see. Perhaps the assumption is that death rates will continue to rise while birth rates stay flat, and immigration won't be increased to keep the overall "rate" vs. population the same? Seems overly pessimistic to me.
    it's funny how the actual numbers aren't anywhere near as sensational as the reaction to the headlines...

    canada's current population is about 36 million. almost exactly the same as poland and iraq for perspective.

    the target for tripling that population is 2100 - approximately 85 years from now.

    interestingly enough, canada's population in 1930 was 10.2 million so it has more than tripled in the approximately 85 years since.

    so this "secret agenda" is to pretty much maintain the country's status quo for growth for the past 85 years for the next 85 years. it might well have been secret but it's not a particularly high growth expectation and it certainly doesn't seem particularly revolutionary or disruptive.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.
    You can't put borders up within a country / force people to live in certain places, you have first class citizens then (who can live anywhere), and second class. The trend towards larger cities is normal everywhere in the world, its not something to be afraid of, we won't have a Bejing or Tokyo anytime soon, certainly not in the next 100 years. We will still probably be smaller than California population wise.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.
    You can't put borders up within a country / force people to live in certain places, you have first class citizens then (who can live anywhere), and second class. The trend towards larger cities is normal everywhere in the world, its not something to be afraid of, we won't have a Bejing or Tokyo anytime soon, certainly not in the next 100 years. We will still probably be smaller than California population wise.
    I expected that argument - yes, you actually can have rules. Immigrants are generally not immediately citizens, so many conditions are already put on them until they become citizens. After they become citizens, then they could probably live where they want.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    For reference, Canada's population has been growing at around 1-1.5% for most of the past half century. That rate dropped below 1.5% in the mid 70's, and for the most part has stayed between 1-1.5% for most of the last 40 years. At 36 million people presently, for Canada's population to hit 100 million at around 1% growth a year would take just over 100 years. At 1.5% a year, about 70 years. And at 2% a year, about 52 years. So even at present rates of growth and immigration, we're on track to hit that "target" by 2100 (give or take a decade) pretty much no matter what. Bumping up immigration fairly significantly would put us on track to do it a couple decades earlier.

    I don't get where they're getting that Canada would only hit 52 million by the end of the century. That would be a growth rate of 0.5% annually, which is well below recent trends as far as I can see. Perhaps the assumption is that death rates will continue to rise while birth rates stay flat, and immigration won't be increased to keep the overall "rate" vs. population the same? Seems overly pessimistic to me.
    it's funny how the actual numbers aren't anywhere near as sensational as the reaction to the headlines...

    canada's current population is about 36 million. almost exactly the same as poland and iraq for perspective.

    the target for tripling that population is 2100 - approximately 85 years from now.

    interestingly enough, canada's population in 1930 was 10.2 million so it has more than tripled in the approximately 85 years since.

    so this "secret agenda" is to pretty much maintain the country's status quo for growth for the past 85 years for the next 85 years. it might well have been secret but it's not a particularly high growth expectation and it certainly doesn't seem particularly revolutionary or disruptive.
    The status quo (of growth driven by population growth) is no longer acceptable in many ways and our government has been saying exactly that in terms of its position on carbon emissions, etc.

    In the past 85 years the country has witnessed an incredible drop in the birth rate. Assuming it stabilizes at a low level, the difference would need to be made up through a higher rate of immigration, which presents a lot of new issues. Over the last 85 years vast swaths of natural environment has been altered through resource development or urban development. (C2es old map thread would highlight some of those changes.) Moreover, many of Canada's urban centres were build where the renewable resources were readily available (Resources such as water, arable soil, forestry, fisheries, etc) and many of those have been heavily depleted by the last 85 years of population growth. A LOT would/will have to change to avoid total depletion. That said, maybe Canada needs to look at ways to create an economy based on a stable or declining population rather than one guaranteed (that's why it's desired) to increase consumption of more and more resources.

    Also, tripling say Edmonton's population from 333,000 to 1 million would be very different from tripling it again to 3 million in terms of water usage, waste disposal, infrastructure needs, surrounding farmland development, pollution emissions, food importation plus all the other goods we demand...

    Now, if we could cap river water extraction and purify our water then we'd do less downstream damage. If we could fix our borders and just build up, that would help too. Recycling would have to improve greatly. Still, there will be immense damage to the remaining natural areas as demand for food production rises. Intensive farming only tends to occur after all arable land us in production.
    Last edited by KC; 24-10-2016 at 05:03 PM.

  15. #15

    Default

    Comparative graphing...

    New York City’s approximately 8 million residents occupy only 469 square miles of land. The numbers make for one of the most crowded cities in the country. But numbers don’t even begin to describe just how crowded that actually is. Previously, Slate produced an interactive map that split the entire united states into regions of equal population. Some regions in the West appear much larger because of their decreased population density while the East coast remains tightly packed. The fun part: clicking anywhere on the map produces an area of these regions that is equal to the population of New York City. It takes all of Kansas and parts of Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma to rival the population of New York appearing as a tiny orange speck.

    http://untappedcities.com/2015/08/10...rowded-nyc-is/
    Last edited by KC; 24-10-2016 at 05:12 PM.

  16. #16
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    For reference, Canada's population has been growing at around 1-1.5% for most of the past half century. That rate dropped below 1.5% in the mid 70's, and for the most part has stayed between 1-1.5% for most of the last 40 years. At 36 million people presently, for Canada's population to hit 100 million at around 1% growth a year would take just over 100 years. At 1.5% a year, about 70 years. And at 2% a year, about 52 years. So even at present rates of growth and immigration, we're on track to hit that "target" by 2100 (give or take a decade) pretty much no matter what. Bumping up immigration fairly significantly would put us on track to do it a couple decades earlier.

    I don't get where they're getting that Canada would only hit 52 million by the end of the century. That would be a growth rate of 0.5% annually, which is well below recent trends as far as I can see. Perhaps the assumption is that death rates will continue to rise while birth rates stay flat, and immigration won't be increased to keep the overall "rate" vs. population the same? Seems overly pessimistic to me.
    it's funny how the actual numbers aren't anywhere near as sensational as the reaction to the headlines...

    canada's current population is about 36 million. almost exactly the same as poland and iraq for perspective.

    the target for tripling that population is 2100 - approximately 85 years from now.

    interestingly enough, canada's population in 1930 was 10.2 million so it has more than tripled in the approximately 85 years since.

    so this "secret agenda" is to pretty much maintain the country's status quo for growth for the past 85 years for the next 85 years. it might well have been secret but it's not a particularly high growth expectation and it certainly doesn't seem particularly revolutionary or disruptive.
    The status quo (of growth driven by population growth) is no longer acceptable in many ways and our government has been saying exactly that in terms of its position on carbon emissions, etc.

    In the past 85 years the country has witnessed an incredible drop in the birth rate. Assuming it stabilizes at a low level, the difference would need to be made up through a higher rate of immigration, which presents a lot of new issues. Over the last 85 years vast swaths of natural environment has been altered through resource development or urban development. (C2es old map thread would highlight some of those changes.) Moreover, many of Canada's urban centres were build where the renewable resources were readily available (Resources such as water, arable soil, forestry, fisheries, etc) and many of those have been heavily depleted by the last 85 years of population growth. A LOT would/will have to change to avoid total depletion. That said, maybe Canada needs to look at ways to create an economy based on a stable or declining population rather than one guaranteed (that's why it's desired) to increase consumption of more and more resources.

    Also, tripling say Edmonton's population from 333,000 to 1 million would be very different from tripling it again to 3 million in terms of water usage, waste disposal, infrastructure needs, surrounding farmland development, pollution emissions, food importation plus all the other goods we demand...
    there was an article in the last canadian business magazine about the vancouver island salt company that contained the following two statements:

    "...the company now uses a bio- and fossil fuel blend, which he insists is stillkinder to the environment than importing salt."

    and

    "...has allowed Vancouver Island Salt Company to find export markets in the U.S.,Japan and Europe."

    i was struck by their undisclosed plan as to howthey plan to reconcile both of the above actions with their also quoted "customer base's noted greenideals"?

    i think it's the same here in much the same way that not building the energy east pipeline will only encourage the continued importation of competitive products from elsewhere in the world until such time as they can be phased out entirely. it makes no sense to me to phase out the most friendly alternative first rather than the least friendly alternative.

    there is no point in artificially limiting growth here if it is then just going to be forced to take place in less appropriate places somewhere else. we won't be able to solve what is a global problem by adopting trump's solution and attempting to turn our borders into walls between us and the rest of the world and then being sanctimonious about what a great job we're doing with our part.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    For reference, Canada's population has been growing at around 1-1.5% for most of the past half century. That rate dropped below 1.5% in the mid 70's, and for the most part has stayed between 1-1.5% for most of the last 40 years. At 36 million people presently, for Canada's population to hit 100 million at around 1% growth a year would take just over 100 years. At 1.5% a year, about 70 years. And at 2% a year, about 52 years. So even at present rates of growth and immigration, we're on track to hit that "target" by 2100 (give or take a decade) pretty much no matter what. Bumping up immigration fairly significantly would put us on track to do it a couple decades earlier.

    I don't get where they're getting that Canada would only hit 52 million by the end of the century. That would be a growth rate of 0.5% annually, which is well below recent trends as far as I can see. Perhaps the assumption is that death rates will continue to rise while birth rates stay flat, and immigration won't be increased to keep the overall "rate" vs. population the same? Seems overly pessimistic to me.
    it's funny how the actual numbers aren't anywhere near as sensational as the reaction to the headlines...

    canada's current population is about 36 million. almost exactly the same as poland and iraq for perspective.

    the target for tripling that population is 2100 - approximately 85 years from now.

    interestingly enough, canada's population in 1930 was 10.2 million so it has more than tripled in the approximately 85 years since.

    so this "secret agenda" is to pretty much maintain the country's status quo for growth for the past 85 years for the next 85 years. it might well have been secret but it's not a particularly high growth expectation and it certainly doesn't seem particularly revolutionary or disruptive.
    The status quo (of growth driven by population growth) is no longer acceptable in many ways and our government has been saying exactly that in terms of its position on carbon emissions, etc.

    In the past 85 years the country has witnessed an incredible drop in the birth rate. Assuming it stabilizes at a low level, the difference would need to be made up through a higher rate of immigration, which presents a lot of new issues. Over the last 85 years vast swaths of natural environment has been altered through resource development or urban development. (C2es old map thread would highlight some of those changes.) Moreover, many of Canada's urban centres were build where the renewable resources were readily available (Resources such as water, arable soil, forestry, fisheries, etc) and many of those have been heavily depleted by the last 85 years of population growth. A LOT would/will have to change to avoid total depletion. That said, maybe Canada needs to look at ways to create an economy based on a stable or declining population rather than one guaranteed (that's why it's desired) to increase consumption of more and more resources.

    Also, tripling say Edmonton's population from 333,000 to 1 million would be very different from tripling it again to 3 million in terms of water usage, waste disposal, infrastructure needs, surrounding farmland development, pollution emissions, food importation plus all the other goods we demand...
    Europe, Japan and some other places seem to be able to manage well with much more density, but I think our approach to development would have to change a lot if our population increased by that much. Development in Toronto and Vancouver is already being more constrained than it used to be and I think it will become even more so in the future.

    I don't see stop growth or no growth argument as very realistic, first because there are many other parts of the world that are much more densely populated that Canada. Second, I don't think we can just slam the door shut on immigration - I don't see that as being ethical or moral. Third, I don't think it would be a good idea anyways - we will soon need more younger people to replace those retiring, to care for the elderly, to work and pay taxes so we can continue to fund pensions, etc ...

    The figures do seem kind of shocking, but the growth rates are not out of line with historical rates. Fortunately, we do have some time to plan for this and figure it all out and we can also learn from other countries experience too.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Comparative graphing...

    New York City’s approximately 8 million residents occupy only 469 square miles of land. The numbers make for one of the most crowded cities in the country. But numbers don’t even begin to describe just how crowded that actually is. Previously, Slate produced an interactive map that split the entire united states into regions of equal population. Some regions in the West appear much larger because of their decreased population density while the East coast remains tightly packed. The fun part: clicking anywhere on the map produces an area of these regions that is equal to the population of New York City. It takes all of Kansas and parts of Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma to rival the population of New York appearing as a tiny orange speck.

    http://untappedcities.com/2015/08/10...rowded-nyc-is/
    Canadian example



    More fun with density




    More info graphics

    https://files.lsecities.net/files/20...ared-Chart.jpg
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.
    You can't put borders up within a country / force people to live in certain places, you have first class citizens then (who can live anywhere), and second class. The trend towards larger cities is normal everywhere in the world, its not something to be afraid of, we won't have a Bejing or Tokyo anytime soon, certainly not in the next 100 years. We will still probably be smaller than California population wise.


    I expected that argument - yes, you actually can have rules. Immigrants are generally not immediately citizens, so many conditions are already put on them until they become citizens. After they become citizens, then they could probably live where they want.

    Telling immigrants where to live is a terrible idea. If an immigrant was a heart specialised what would be the point of sending him to Three Hills AB or anywhere for that matter that does not have a hospital that supports such a specialised. Now, it's no good saying 'well people like medical specialists should just go to bigger cities', that would start a two tier system. Forcing them to go to places where they don't want to be will not work. They want to work but not in servitude to a place they have been forced to go. It would be a great idea if immigration told prospective immigrants what trades etc are needed in which areas but making them go there is not good. A lot of them are fleeing oppression not fleeing to it.

    As for immigration. No problem with it if it is done slowly. Alberta could easily grow, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Medicine Hat, Grande Prairie, Ft. McMurray could all become as big as Edmonton & Calgary within time.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.
    You can't put borders up within a country / force people to live in certain places, you have first class citizens then (who can live anywhere), and second class. The trend towards larger cities is normal everywhere in the world, its not something to be afraid of, we won't have a Bejing or Tokyo anytime soon, certainly not in the next 100 years. We will still probably be smaller than California population wise.


    I expected that argument - yes, you actually can have rules. Immigrants are generally not immediately citizens, so many conditions are already put on them until they become citizens. After they become citizens, then they could probably live where they want.

    Telling immigrants where to live is a terrible idea. If an immigrant was a heart specialised what would be the point of sending him to Three Hills AB or anywhere for that matter that does not have a hospital that supports such a specialised. Now, it's no good saying 'well people like medical specialists should just go to bigger cities', that would start a two tier system. Forcing them to go to places where they don't want to be will not work. They want to work but not in servitude to a place they have been forced to go. It would be a great idea if immigration told prospective immigrants what trades etc are needed in which areas but making them go there is not good. A lot of them are fleeing oppression not fleeing to it.

    As for immigration. No problem with it if it is done slowly. Alberta could easily grow, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Medicine Hat, Grande Prairie, Ft. McMurray could all become as big as Edmonton & Calgary within time.
    I think it would probably be a points based system or a quota system, so immigration would effectively be encouraged to some places and discouraged to others. The highest skilled people could probably go to a number of places, the less skilled might have fewer choices of places. If you look at our history, this is not that different than how the west was settled - those immigrants weren't encouraged to go to Toronto and they seemed to manage ok. Coincidentally, there are many small towns that can not get Canadian doctors to work there so they already bring in immigrants - maybe not heart specialists, but GP's.

  21. #21

    Default

    Assignment of a place to live has always been there for many immigrants or refugees. Those sponsored by an agency or by the government or by private citizens, as well as the homesteading farmers, were -- and as the Kosovar and Syrian refugee episodes show -- are still automatically given a place to go to. When my family came to Canada in 1976, for example, we were assigned to Calgary because my mother was a geologist. Although she found work in Edmonton, it was through geological contacts she made in Calgary. And my father's experience shows up the predictable second-class-citizen ramblings for the nonsense they are. He was an electronics engineer, and he found work in Toronto. NO ONE prevented him in any way from buying a bus ticket from Alberta to Ontario.

    The initial placement is made in good faith as an effort to assist the job search. No more and no less.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 24-10-2016 at 06:59 PM.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.
    You can't put borders up within a country / force people to live in certain places, you have first class citizens then (who can live anywhere), and second class. The trend towards larger cities is normal everywhere in the world, its not something to be afraid of, we won't have a Bejing or Tokyo anytime soon, certainly not in the next 100 years. We will still probably be smaller than California population wise.


    I expected that argument - yes, you actually can have rules. Immigrants are generally not immediately citizens, so many conditions are already put on them until they become citizens. After they become citizens, then they could probably live where they want.

    Telling immigrants where to live is a terrible idea. If an immigrant was a heart specialised what would be the point of sending him to Three Hills AB or anywhere for that matter that does not have a hospital that supports such a specialised. Now, it's no good saying 'well people like medical specialists should just go to bigger cities', that would start a two tier system. Forcing them to go to places where they don't want to be will not work. They want to work but not in servitude to a place they have been forced to go. It would be a great idea if immigration told prospective immigrants what trades etc are needed in which areas but making them go there is not good. A lot of them are fleeing oppression not fleeing to it.

    As for immigration. No problem with it if it is done slowly. Alberta could easily grow, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Medicine Hat, Grande Prairie, Ft. McMurray could all become as big as Edmonton & Calgary within time.
    I think it would probably be a points based system or a quota system, so immigration would effectively be encouraged to some places and discouraged to others. The highest skilled people could probably go to a number of places, the less skilled might have fewer choices of places. If you look at our history, this is not that different than how the west was settled - those immigrants weren't encouraged to go to Toronto and they seemed to manage ok. Coincidentally, there are many small towns that can not get Canadian doctors to work there so they already bring in immigrants - maybe not heart specialists, but GP's.
    I think the big problem is people tend to get an immigrant and a refugee mixed up. A refugee when given permission to go to Canada is maybe taken to the bigger cities simply because they have the supports for large numbers of refugees, the social services infrastructure etc to process them and point them to the programs they need. Once settled they should be able to go where they want. Immigrants who apply through the correct channels should be able to go where they want. Immigrants usually have the means (money) to be able to tide them over until they find work. Refugees, not so much. I remember talking to an old Ukrainian guy years ago. He was fleeing the war. When he came to Canada he spoke no English. He said he got off the boat in Montreal. He had a tag hung around his neck with a number and his name on it. They put him on a train going west with a lot of other immigrants. None of them had a say in the matter. Anyway he ended up in Edmonton. Good story but it's nice to know we have come a long way from those days.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I think we may eventually have to consider making immigration conditional in living in certain places in order to avoid too much congestion in some other parts of the country.
    You can't put borders up within a country / force people to live in certain places, you have first class citizens then (who can live anywhere), and second class. The trend towards larger cities is normal everywhere in the world, its not something to be afraid of, we won't have a Bejing or Tokyo anytime soon, certainly not in the next 100 years. We will still probably be smaller than California population wise.


    I expected that argument - yes, you actually can have rules. Immigrants are generally not immediately citizens, so many conditions are already put on them until they become citizens. After they become citizens, then they could probably live where they want.

    Telling immigrants where to live is a terrible idea. If an immigrant was a heart specialised what would be the point of sending him to Three Hills AB or anywhere for that matter that does not have a hospital that supports such a specialised. Now, it's no good saying 'well people like medical specialists should just go to bigger cities', that would start a two tier system. Forcing them to go to places where they don't want to be will not work. They want to work but not in servitude to a place they have been forced to go. It would be a great idea if immigration told prospective immigrants what trades etc are needed in which areas but making them go there is not good. A lot of them are fleeing oppression not fleeing to it.

    As for immigration. No problem with it if it is done slowly. Alberta could easily grow, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Medicine Hat, Grande Prairie, Ft. McMurray could all become as big as Edmonton & Calgary within time.
    When my parents immigrated to Canada in early April of 1954, they were told that there was work in Edmonton and in April, Edmonton was beautiful because the apricot trees are in bloom. Well, when they arrived off the train, it was snowing... ...and my father was told that there was no work in Edmonton.

    He did contact a couple of people he had networked with (probably on his 1954 Blackberry, LOL) and went to work the next day.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  24. #24

    Default

    So... We do it through immigration. In the future I can see a lot of people wanting to come here because the society they are leaving has depleted and/or destroyed much of its own resource base, impoverished a good portion of its population, not prioritized education, health care, equality, 'freedom' and the many things we have prioritized here in Canada - because we can afford to, while their societies missed that boat.

    So, that's just how it is, Canada is attractive to many people in the world and we've benefitted in many ways from immigration. However, we just have to look at the older, 'matured' societies to see our own potential fate if we don't try to optimize our population size in relation to our wants and needs. Blindly pursuing growth in population purely because ever more people means ever more consumption, more construction, more of everything just seems to be twisted logic.




    Another opinion I posted on another thread here:

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post

    Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies,
    Bioethicist Travis Rieder Says - Bloomberg

    Carbon dioxide doesn't kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.

    That's a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.
    When economists write about climate change, they'll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:

    How carbon-heavy fuels are

    How much energy the economy needs to produce GDP

    GDP per capita

    Population

    After years of policymakers' yammering about carbon-light or carbon-free this-or-that, Rieder basically zeroes in on the fact nobody wants to acknowledge: The number of people in the world—particularly in affluent countries—is literally a part of the equation.
    ..."


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...is-rieder-says

    The philosopher's personal dilemma

    "I have been one of those women who actually craved to have a baby," says Sadiye Rieder, smiling as she sits next to her husband in the sunroom of their Maryland home. "To go through pregnancy and everything, that mattered to me a lot."

    Sadiye also wanted a big family. She grew up among extended relatives in the Turkish part of Cyprus and says she enjoyed having people around all the time

    ...

    Excellent idea, Rieder says. But no amount of conservation gives you a pass. Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows

    For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441.

    ...
    He would have nations open up immigration to allow in the expected tens of millions of climate refugees.) Rieder's real hope is to change people's way of thinking about childbearing.

    ...
    http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349...climate-change
    Last edited by KC; 24-10-2016 at 07:50 PM.

  25. #25
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,042

    Default

    To achieve this they need to increase immigration by 50% in 5 years. (from the article)
    My question is, who benefits?

  26. #26

    Default

    ^aside from immigration lawyers, I think we all do, because skilled immigrants tend to be better educated, and younger, than the general population. Slow immigration, like Japan has done, results in a demographic nightmare, because like it or not, we aren't producing enough children to replace the workers needed as the boomers retire. Good luck getting a millennial who has been driven around from one activity to the next their entire childhood, encouraged to do a toilet paper university arts degree (which they probably dropped out from, as difficult as that is given how easy such degrees are), having constantly been told how amazing they are, to change the diapers on a boomer in a nursing home, it just won't happen. Like it or not, we need immigrants to do the work that a lot of our population consider themselves "too good for", in addition to do the work a lot of our population just aren't good enough for.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-10-2016 at 08:57 AM.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    We could be like everywhere else. Why on earth would we want that?

    Because it's nice to be different, isn't it?

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^aside from immigration lawyers, I think we all do, because skilled immigrants tend to be better educated, and younger, than the general population. Slow immigration, like Japan has done, results in a demographic nightmare, because like it or not, we aren't producing enough children to replace the workers needed as the boomers retire. Good luck getting a millennial who has been driven around from one activity to the next their entire childhood, encouraged to do a toilet paper university arts degree (which they probably dropped out from, as difficult as that is given how easy such degrees are), having constantly been told how amazing they are, to change the diapers on a boomer in a nursing home, it just won't happen. Like it or not, we need immigrants to do the work that a lot of our population consider themselves "too good for", in addition to do the work a lot of our population just aren't good enough for.
    Canada has largely addressed the demographic issue with baby boomers through earlier immigration levels.

    We face huge issues in converting our economy to a non-CO2 generating system and reducing consumption by reducing our population growth may be the only effective way to do so.

    Our resource base is fixed but the mathematical ratio determining the per capita share is flexible. Increase the population denominator and you reduce the value per capita share. You bring forward development at the cost of lower future development with a larger population base as well as bringing forward environmental destruction and alteration. (Think shareholder dilution.)

    The first generation of immigrants may yield performance boosts but at the cost of what you'd likely see as endless future generations of slothful native born arts grads. That's being penny wise and very pound foolish.

    You're bringing in large numbers of immigrants that bring with them less educated family and values and beliefs that are often very traditional (regressive in many ways) and non-Canadian and non-western and often of religious views that are deeply at odds with democratic governance, but are willing to play the demographics high-birth-rate game to increase voting power to eventually dominate the democratic process.

    Also, you're are suggesting that the ones we will bring in will do the work domestic workers won't touch. So, are these better educated immigrants going to continue to do that work or quickly seek to attain better jobs (often by displacing slothful domestic worker), all in the name of upper mobility.
    Last edited by KC; 25-10-2016 at 09:39 AM.

  29. #29
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Many people confuse Refugees with Immigrants. Paint them all with the same brush, it's even happening in this thread.

    I am seeing a lot more Xth generation Canadian families with 3 or more kids. Far more than there used to be. But also more with no kids, so maybe the average is still the same. I think immigration is great. We've (in our company) had great success with them. China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Australia, UK, India, Fiji. All hard workers that are easy to get along with and have no problems blending in to our traditional society. Our best successes have been from Fiji, Venezuela, Iran, Colombia. Very jovial, educated hard workers. Social with a big emphasis on family but so eager to become Canadian and learn how to ski, huge Oilers' fans, etc. Colombia especially - I'd gladly key in on that area to get more immigrants.

  30. #30

    Default

    ^Well said, I agree (rare thing with u, lol)

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Many people confuse Refugees with Immigrants.
    Indeed.

    Most non-refugee immigrants have had ambitions to come here and be part of our society. That is perfectly welcome and nice to see.

    However, a lot of refugees are opportunists and not necessarily thankful to be here. Many wish they didn't have to leave their home country, and some don't respect our country very much if they think we played a role in destroying their home nation.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Also, you're are suggesting that the ones we will bring in will do the work domestic workers won't touch. So, are these better educated immigrants going to continue to do that work or quickly seek to attain better jobs (often by displacing slothful domestic worker), all in the name of upper mobility.
    I didn't say domestic work was slothful, or unskilled (if you wanna see slothful, see a lot of students at a university), I said a lot of Canadians are unwilling to do it. It always amazes me when we have high unemployment, yet I see job wanted signs at fast food restaurants, and people struggle to get labor to work in nursing homes and similar. We are very much first world spoiled. Most immigrants who IMO have a harder work ethic / greater desire to do whatever it takes to improve their lives and those of their families, are a good thing for our society, constant immigration is a big part of why, North America has been more successful economically than Europe.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-10-2016 at 10:35 AM.

  33. #33

    Default

    ^ That's very true. A lot of Canadian-born people see certain tasks/jobs as "beneath" them and refuse to do them, yet new Canadians take them on with pride.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^aside from immigration lawyers, I think we all do, because skilled immigrants tend to be better educated, and younger, than the general population. Slow immigration, like Japan has done, results in a demographic nightmare, because like it or not, we aren't producing enough children to replace the workers needed as the boomers retire. Good luck getting a millennial who has been driven around from one activity to the next their entire childhood, encouraged to do a toilet paper university arts degree (which they probably dropped out from, as difficult as that is given how easy such degrees are), having constantly been told how amazing they are, to change the diapers on a boomer in a nursing home, it just won't happen. Like it or not, we need immigrants to do the work that a lot of our population consider themselves "too good for", in addition to do the work a lot of our population just aren't good enough for.
    Whoa, what a cynical geezer you sound. This post sounds like you are bitter for some reason. Every generation THINKS they are the greatest generation that ever lived. All generations contribute. You may think this generation going into the work force is not up to scratch when that is not the reality. Each generation seems to be more travelled and more aware of the world around them. They seem to be more excepting and less critical of immigrants. Less likely to rant about their lot. Whatever age group you are the world is moving on.


    “The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”(Socrates)
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    ^ That's very true. A lot of Canadian-born people see certain tasks/jobs as "beneath" them and refuse to do them, yet new Canadians take them on with pride.
    And a lot don't or wouldn't mind doing some jobs but they can work against you if you have a degree but mismatched work experience. The kid that graduates and builds his/her resume with related experience will get ahead faster and will be seen as a more suitable candidate than one taking what is seen as having worked a " "beneath" them " job.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Also, you're are suggesting that the ones we will bring in will do the work domestic workers won't touch. So, are these better educated immigrants going to continue to do that work or quickly seek to attain better jobs (often by displacing slothful domestic worker), all in the name of upper mobility.
    I didn't say domestic work was slothful, or unskilled (if you wanna see slothful, see a lot of students at a university), I said a lot of Canadians are unwilling to do it. It always amazes me when we have high unemployment, yet I see job wanted signs at fast food restaurants, and people struggle to get labor to work in nursing homes and similar. We are very much first world spoiled. Most immigrants who IMO have a harder work ethic / greater desire to do whatever it takes to improve their lives and those of their families, are a good thing for our society, constant immigration is a big part of why, North America has been more successful economically than Europe.
    No it's not the jobs that are slothful. I said "displacing a slothful domestic worker" with domestic being Canadian born or raised.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    And a lot don't or wouldn't mind doing some jobs but they can work against you if you have a degree but mismatched work experience. The kid that graduates and builds his/her resume with related experience will get ahead faster and will be seen as a more suitable candidate than one taking what is seen as having worked a " "beneath" them " job.
    Sometimes that is the case.

    But the example I keep thinking of are the abundant entry-level health care jobs (which pay decent entry-level salaries, usually offer good benefits, and lead into more health-related jobs) that mostly immigrants seem to gladly take, but Canadian-born people don't even want to do. A lot of Canadian-born people would rather settle for less pay at dead-end retail jobs because it's "cleaner".

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So... We do it through immigration. In the future I can see a lot of people wanting to come here because the society they are leaving has depleted and/or destroyed much of its own resource base, impoverished a good portion of its population, not prioritized education, health care, equality, 'freedom' and the many things we have prioritized here in Canada - because we can afford to, while their societies missed that boat.

    So, that's just how it is, Canada is attractive to many people in the world and we've benefitted in many ways from immigration. However, we just have to look at the older, 'matured' societies to see our own potential fate if we don't try to optimize our population size in relation to our wants and needs. Blindly pursuing growth in population purely because ever more people means ever more consumption, more construction, more of everything just seems to be twisted logic.




    Another opinion I posted on another thread here:

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post

    Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies,
    Bioethicist Travis Rieder Says - Bloomberg

    Carbon dioxide doesn't kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.

    That's a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.
    When economists write about climate change, they'll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:

    How carbon-heavy fuels are

    How much energy the economy needs to produce GDP

    GDP per capita

    Population

    After years of policymakers' yammering about carbon-light or carbon-free this-or-that, Rieder basically zeroes in on the fact nobody wants to acknowledge: The number of people in the world—particularly in affluent countries—is literally a part of the equation.
    ..."


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...is-rieder-says

    The philosopher's personal dilemma

    "I have been one of those women who actually craved to have a baby," says Sadiye Rieder, smiling as she sits next to her husband in the sunroom of their Maryland home. "To go through pregnancy and everything, that mattered to me a lot."

    Sadiye also wanted a big family. She grew up among extended relatives in the Turkish part of Cyprus and says she enjoyed having people around all the time

    ...

    Excellent idea, Rieder says. But no amount of conservation gives you a pass. Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows

    For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441.

    ...
    He would have nations open up immigration to allow in the expected tens of millions of climate refugees.) Rieder's real hope is to change people's way of thinking about childbearing.

    ...
    http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349...climate-change
    I don't think any party in power wants to blindly populate Canada just for the numbers. Immigrants (and refugees) not only take work they also create it
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So... We do it through immigration. In the future I can see a lot of people wanting to come here because the society they are leaving has depleted and/or destroyed much of its own resource base, impoverished a good portion of its population, not prioritized education, health care, equality, 'freedom' and the many things we have prioritized here in Canada - because we can afford to, while their societies missed that boat.

    So, that's just how it is, Canada is attractive to many people in the world and we've benefitted in many ways from immigration. However, we just have to look at the older, 'matured' societies to see our own potential fate if we don't try to optimize our population size in relation to our wants and needs. Blindly pursuing growth in population purely because ever more people means ever more consumption, more construction, more of everything just seems to be twisted logic.




    Another opinion I posted on another thread here:

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post

    Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies,
    Bioethicist Travis Rieder Says - Bloomberg

    Carbon dioxide doesn't kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.

    That's a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.
    When economists write about climate change, they'll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:

    How carbon-heavy fuels are

    How much energy the economy needs to produce GDP

    GDP per capita

    Population

    After years of policymakers' yammering about carbon-light or carbon-free this-or-that, Rieder basically zeroes in on the fact nobody wants to acknowledge: The number of people in the world—particularly in affluent countries—is literally a part of the equation.
    ..."


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...is-rieder-says

    The philosopher's personal dilemma

    "I have been one of those women who actually craved to have a baby," says Sadiye Rieder, smiling as she sits next to her husband in the sunroom of their Maryland home. "To go through pregnancy and everything, that mattered to me a lot."

    Sadiye also wanted a big family. She grew up among extended relatives in the Turkish part of Cyprus and says she enjoyed having people around all the time

    ...

    Excellent idea, Rieder says. But no amount of conservation gives you a pass. Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows

    For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441.

    ...
    He would have nations open up immigration to allow in the expected tens of millions of climate refugees.) Rieder's real hope is to change people's way of thinking about childbearing.

    ...
    http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349...climate-change
    I don't think any party in power wants to blindly populate Canada just for the numbers. Immigrants (and refugees) not only take work they also create it
    Population growth creates all kinds of work by buying more homes, more cars, more of everything. Sounds great in theory and is great in many ways, but there are costs.

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,042

    Default

    Canada is a great country and we have developed a wonderful society.
    Immigration has been key to this. Our intake rate of newcomers is among the highest in the developed world. Why mess with something that works? I would like to see some hard economic data before such a radical change takes place.
    From the article: "“It would obviously change the country considerably. It’s a different path… But I don’t think it’s crazy.”"
    I also have concerns about the Liberals carrying this out. They state that they would recruit top business talent. This is in total contrast to their new immigration policy that is all about loosening immigration for family members, obviously squeezing out professional class immigrants.
    http://www.canadim.com/justin-trudea...n-immigration/
    Show me the need and some hard economic justification, not more Liberal B.S.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    Canada is a great country and we have developed a wonderful society.
    Immigration has been key to this. Our intake rate of newcomers is among the highest in the developed world. Why mess with something that works? I would like to see some hard economic data before such a radical change takes place.
    From the article: "“It would obviously change the country considerably. It’s a different path… But I don’t think it’s crazy.”"
    I also have concerns about the Liberals carrying this out. They state that they would recruit top business talent. This is in total contrast to their new immigration policy that is all about loosening immigration for family members, obviously squeezing out professional class immigrants.
    http://www.canadim.com/justin-trudea...n-immigration/
    Show me the need and some hard economic justification, not more Liberal B.S.
    We can say the same about debt and deficits. We've had them for decades and look at all the stuff we have as a result. So why mess with success? Answer, because more isn't always better. Some times, some things "hit the wall" and after that, all there is is the downside. However, the assumption that never ending population growth has done wonders for the world is an interesting proposition.

    Take our population to 100 million, 500 million, 1 billion people... what's the limit, if there is one? China is doing great and amazing things with its 1.4 billion so why can't we? Moreover they are now an exporter so look at what their cheap labour has allowed them to attain.
    Last edited by KC; 26-10-2016 at 09:44 AM.

  42. #42

    Default

    Here's some numbers and conclusions...

    “I think the main purpose of Canada’s high immigration policy is to lower wages – and inflate real estate values,” Stoffman said.

    Daniel Stoffman, co-author of Boom,
    Bust and Echo, says the government
    pension system is solid and Canada will
    not become a country of dependent
    seniors because of the baby-boomer
    generation.


    10.09.2015


    http://www.vancouversun.com/Daniel+S...956/story.html


    Baby boom bubble is already deflating. Adjust accordingly (Interactive chart)

    DOUGLAS TODD
    More from Douglas Todd
    Published on: October 10, 2015

    Canada’s baby boomers have been the target of great discussion and fear.

    Worries continue to proliferate that Canada is becoming “a nation of old people” as the baby-boom bulge enters retirement.

    Alarm bells were ringing this month as the media reported on a Statistics Canada study showing the country has more people over 64 than under 15. Some raised the spectre of a “seniors tsunami.”

    To be sure, the birth explosion that took place in Canada from 1947 to 1965 following the Second World War was unprecedented in the West. Typical Canadian mothers were having four babies.

    As a result, Canadians are repeatedly told, mantra-like, to grimly prepare for baby boomers to age: Expect government pension plans to collapse, health care to be decimated and workers to be in short supply. To prepare for the “greying crisis,” companies chopped their pension plans, governments privatized more health care and Ottawa pushed immigration rates higher.

    ...

    Reflecting on baby boomers leaving the workforce, Stoffman and others say a second widespread “myth” to be confronted is that high immigration is necessary for economic growth. He acknowledges it is partly true: Newcomers inflate a country’s GDP.

    “Immigration slightly increases the size of the economic pie, but the price of that small increase is a drop in wages.”

    When Stoffman has given talks on his book on immigration, Who Gets In, he finds it is predominantly immigrants who come up to him after to agree with him.

    The settled immigrants realize new immigrants will reduce everyone’s wages. And that is what has happened: Statistics Canada reports immigrants are doing worse economically than they did prior to the 1990s.

    The average Canadian worker is also struggling more. Even though Metro Vancouver’s housing market is astronomically expensive, University of B.C. economics Prof. Craig Riddell says B.C. and Canadian incomes are lower and more unequal, full-time employment is decreasing and jobs are more at risk.

    “I think the main purpose of Canada’s high immigration policy is to lower wages – and inflate real estate values,” Stoffman said.

    In support of his view, he noted..."

    ...
    In the early 1980s, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau cut immigration levels by 25 per cent. It was not considered controversial. But that adjusting stopped with Brian Mulroney.

    When Stoffman was asked how he would change immigration levels in light of Canada’s struggling economy, he suggested lowering it to 150,000 a year.
    ...




    http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-b...eractive-chart
    Last edited by KC; 26-10-2016 at 09:57 AM.

  43. #43

    Default

    A year old but fascinating information.

    Douglas Todd: Values of some immigrants contrast sharply with 'Canadian' values





    Douglas Todd: Values of some immigrants contrast sharply with 'Canadian' values
    BY DOUGLAS TODD
    ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: MAY 25, 2017

    “...
    The first mistake that Leitch’s critics make is dismissing the entire notion that most Canadians aspire to certain values. Their second mistake is assuming that talking about Canadian values is out-and-out xenophobic.

    Despite the moral panic over Leitch’s proposal in Canada, ...rule of law.

    And, believe it or not, reasoned public discussions about national values have already occurred in ...

    The fact is, national values are easily measured with social-science techniques.

    And I suggest people who are not ready to believe residents of different countries often hold different values are people who are not really prepared to embrace “diversity,” which means “difference.”
    ...

    Or, if we are willing to admit ethno-cultural differences exist, who are we to assume, as many Canadians do in a patronizing way, that immigrants will eventually become “just like us” anyways? ...”


    http://vancouversun.com/opinion/colu...anadian-values

    Bolding mine
    Last edited by KC; 26-05-2018 at 08:22 AM.

  44. #44
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Even if we could agree what Canadian values are, imposing such a test on new immigrants assumes that people's attitudes and beliefs don't evolve and change.

    Had my parents been subjected to a values test when they immigrated to Canada in the 1950s, I'm not sure they would have been let in. My father especially had some very rigid ideas about gender roles in the family and society that today would be considered misogynistic. Forgot about other religions. Back in those days people like my parents thought Catholics would go to hell if they didn't repent of their idol worship and mistaken beliefs.

    My parents values and beliefs evolved and changed a lot during their decades of living in Canada. The beliefs of their children and grandchildren even more so.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •