# Conservatives reducing immigration targets.



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

BBBBoooooohhhh, HHHHiiiiiiiissssss

CBC Radio just reported that Salburg is planning to reduce our immigration targets. This, if true, is probably the stupidest thing the Conservatives have done to date.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why is it stupid?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why is it stupid?


Canada has a negative population growth rate. We are not producing enough babies to replace the population. The only way for our economy to grow is by increasing the number of immigrants who want to settle in Canada.

This is pretty basic economics. Clearly the conservatives have been failing econ101.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Frankly, that economic model is insane anyway. When do you stop artificially boosting population? At some point it all falls apart. Do we want a Canada with 50 million people? 90 million people? 150 million people? I'm surprised any "progressive" voices here would support a program that shovels human beings in to promote "economic growth" based solely on population increases--which will incidentally place a severe environmental strain on the country.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Canada has not meet it's immigration quotas in a very long time if ever. Therefore if the quota is reduced, maybe that is more realistic that it will be met. At some points economics (along with humanity) will need something other than the more-more-more, grow-grow-grow model if it want's to survive.

As far as I know (and I could be wrong) every year the population of Canada is more than the year previous. That could be do to immigration. Even so, shouldn't the goal be less or the same amount of total population and not more?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would say the most admirable goal is to work on a SUSTAINABLE economy which involves working with the current number of Canadians. If the population reduces somewhat --with current environmental standards enforced--it should have environmentalists applauding.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I would say the most admirable goal is to work on a SUSTAINABLE economy which involves working with the current number of Canadians. If the population reduces somewhat --with current environmental standards enforced--it should have environmentalists applauding.


Yes, that would be admirable. I would love to hear how the current government is working towards a more sustainable economy... When does that oil in Alberta get replaced?

Look, who do you think pays for the previous generation? In Canada, based on western approach to economics you need to have a a pretty even segmentation of the population across all age groups. We don't have this. We have the "baby boomers" and the "boomers echo"... When this groups starts to retire, someone has to make up the slack in the economy. 

Care to share with us who that will be? OOhhh I see, you think that we should raise corporate taxes to pay for social service for retirees... no?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Actually, I think the unreasonable set of entitlements offered to Canadians is the main justification for large immigration quotas. We simply can't afford this forever--but to import human capital to pay for each previous generations' largesse is a dead-end policy--and grossly irresponsible.

If you believe that the entitlements are sacrosanct, then I suppose massive immigration until Canada can no longer sustain itself environmentally is the answer.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Actually, I think the unreasonable set of entitlements offered to Canadians is the main justification for large immigration quotas. We simply can't afford this forever--but to import human capital to pay for each previous generations' largesse is a dead-end policy--and grossly irresponsible.
> 
> If you believe that the entitlements are sacrosanct, then I suppose massive immigration until Canada can no longer sustain itself environmentally is the answer.


That is a crock... And you see what that does to the conservatives popularity when people have to start paying for their own retirement and healthcare.

I don't believe in "your" vision of Canada. My Canada is inclusive... everyone has the right to basic retirement support and basic healthcare. And we are not just talking about social programs... we are talking about who pays for infrastructure and business development and education and sanitation, etc...

People with your opinion are closer to anarchists, don't you even remotely understand that society has costs. That if you don't address those costs in a fare and equitable manner, well then welcome to the third world my friend...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I guess they needed something to keep busy after kicking out all those skilled Portuguese workers.

Laterz


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So we throw Canada into a state of overpopulation and environmental unsustainability on the altar of social entitlements?

A magnificent vision. I suppose getting that Govenment of Canada check each month makes it all worthwhile.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I don't believe in "your" vision of Canada.


Nor many of us with yours. Kind of evens out doesn't it?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I don't believe for a second that any immigration policy has thrown the population balance out of whack. Show me some studies on how immigration has hurt our country, 

As the current generation entering the workforce turns their backs on the trades and service industries for more white collar or technical vocations, what are we left with? Immigrants tend to fill a void within society that has for some reason been shunned.

Is your solution to get all those on welfare to do these jobs? Also. what happens to the workforce when the old out number the young? Do we just continue with our closed door policies until we crumble or do we set up mating farms to create a new and obliging workforce?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So we throw Canada into a state of overpopulation and environmental unsustainability on the altar of social entitlements?
> 
> A magnificent vision. I suppose getting that Govenment of Canada check each month makes it all worthwhile.


Dude... have you ever looked at a map of Canada? Do you have any concept of how many people it would take to throw Canada into a state of overpopulation? I just came back from Bangkok yesterday and was in Singapore last month. Bangkok alone, a single city has a third the population of our ENTIRE country.

Population density when managed well is NOT an issue. It is in fact a very good thing when one considers the benefits of economies of scale.

I would suggest you try changing your argument from sustainability to something closer to your true feelings on subject. Sustainability and immigration in Canada are absolutely linked... the only way we will achieve economic sustainability is by increasing immigration to increase our population growth rate so that we at least maintain our population.

Arguments like yours a thin veils for something else, as sustainability in relation to immigration polices in a Canadian context is not even close to an issue.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nor many of us with yours. Kind of evens out doesn't it?


C'mon Sinc... tell us. What do YOU think MY vision of Canada is?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

While your theory and goals are fine the reality is these people already populate the planet and just to stay steady state Canada needs a certain influx.

I'd rather rant at things like Quebec paying Quebeckers to have more kids.

Canada is not in isolation from the rest of the planet.

Japan might be able to navigate a 50% population drop over 50 years but it's not a likely scenario for Canada.

Shutting the borders does nothing for world population growth but a view to sustainable agriculture and cities and industries rather than one that must have growth to continue would be preferred.

Reasonable immigration and sustainabledevelopment are not mutually exclusive for Canada in my mind. As the interchange with other nations occurs and education levels rise populations tail off as they have here.

Immigration for Canada and turning the population growth corner for the planet are quite different programs in my mind.
••••

hmmmm seems your Republican slip is showing


> Govenment of Canada *check*


 sic

......what's bred in the bone.......


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Dude, MY vision of Canada is a place where I can swing my arms without hitting someone. MY vision is a place where green grass and trees grow. MY vision is a place where I can see the skyline.

Dude, have another look at that map of Canada. Very little is hospitable to human life. Sure we have a big geographical area but much of it is rock, water and tundra.

All the better places to live also happen to be prime agricultural land. You want to import ALL our food?

MY vision of Canada is a sustainable population and right now I think that means maintaining the status quo.

If I want Hong Kong I'll go live THERE. I never want to see that throng of humanity here. Canada is special and unique because we do have a low population. It's what makes Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> C'mon Sinc... tell us. What do YOU think MY vision of Canada is?


Odd you would question that, as you just posted it:



da_jonesy said:


> That is a crock... And you see what that does to the conservatives popularity when people have to start paying for their own retirement and healthcare.
> 
> I don't believe in "your" vision of Canada. My Canada is inclusive... everyone has the right to basic retirement support and basic healthcare. And we are not just talking about social programs... we are talking about who pays for infrastructure and business development and education and sanitation, etc...
> 
> People with your opinion are closer to anarchists, don't you even remotely understand that society has costs. That if you don't address those costs in a fare and equitable manner, well then welcome to the third world my friend...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

adagio said:


> Dude, have another look at that map of Canada. Very little is hospitable to human life. Sure we have a big geographical area but much of it is rock, water and tundra.


C'mon... lets get a grip on the scale we are talking about here. We aren't talking about doubling the population in ten years or twenty or fifty. I've seen high density... we are far far from that. People can make cities in harsh climates like Edmonton or Calgary or St. John's for that matter. You completely underestimate the human ability to adapt to our surroundings. By increasing the density of our urban centers we can very easily absorb more population growth than you can shake a stick at... 




adagio said:


> All the better places to live also happen to be prime agricultural land. You want to import ALL our food?


Two things... 

1/. Yes development on agricultural land is a bad thing... case in point, Niagara. Solution: higher density in our main urban areas. We don't need to grow outwards when cities can increase density. 

2/. When was the last time you looked at where the majority of your produce comes from? Except for a few months during the summer, very little produce comes from Canada. Canada relies on food imports from other countries. That is why in a city of 10 million people (Bangkok) I can eat for far less than I ever could here.




adagio said:


> Canada is special and unique because we do have a low population. It's what makes Canada.


No Canada is unique because of the quality and temperament of its people and the harsh climate we live in, not because we have a smaller population.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Odd you would question that, as you just posted it:



That was my comment directed at furrymac, macfurry... whatever his name is.

You commented to me was that you do not share my vision of Canada... so I want you to tell what you thought my vision of Canada was, because I never actually said what it was did I?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we should deal with our own population numbers--and let other countries deal with theirs. I don't want Canada to be a safety valve for other countries' proclivities to procreate. That they already exist on this planet doesn't make me want to bring them here. It would probably be "fair" for us to take 100 million people from the rest of the world and bring them here--after all, we're not an overcrowded hellhole yet.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> You commented to me was that you do not share my vision of Canada... so I want you to tell what you thought my vision of Canada was, because I never actually said what it was did I?


And you stated your vision of Canada and I don't agree with it. My vision is in agreement with the current government's policies on reduced immigration. For the record, here is your vision again in case you missed it:



da_jonesy said:


> My Canada is inclusive... everyone has the right to basic retirement support and basic healthcare. And we are not just talking about social programs... we are talking about who pays for infrastructure and business development and education and sanitation, etc...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> And you stated your vision of Canada and I don't agree with it. My vision is in agreement with the current government's policies on reduced immigration. For the record, here is your vision again in case you missed it:



Ohh yeah, I did say that.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think we should deal with our own population numbers--and let other countries deal with theirs. I don't want Canada to be a safety valve for other countries' proclivities to procreate. That they already exist on this planet doesn't make me want to bring them here. It would probably be "fair" for us to take 100 million people from the rest of the world and bring them here--after all, we're not an overcrowded hellhole yet.


This is alarmist paranoid crap of the highest order. We aren't talking about being a safety valve (although in certain cases it is our duty to take in refugees) for the worlds population. We are talking about making sure that Canada has the population it needs to keep a viable economy and society.

Please give me a reason... a rational reason why keeping our immigration targets at their current levels is a bad thing?

You'll forgive me... but I married a refugee. Her family (large extended) are professionals and entrepreneurs. They have provided a net positive impact on the Canadian economy, providing skilled services and jobs through the companies they own.

Once again we see the Toronto Sun version of Canada, where immigrants are living off of the welfare system and rampaging Gangs are burning down city blocks by the dozen. Ohhh I forgot those roving hordes pillaging through Alberta... hey hows that loaded gun thing protecting your house working out? (ooopps that was a flash back to a long forgotten thread).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Ohhh I forgot those roving hordes pillaging through Alberta... hey hows that loaded gun thing protecting your house working out? (ooopps that was a flash back to a long forgotten thread).


"Forgotten" is right. I don't own a gun.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It has nothing to do with being "fair" or a population valve - bottom line we need workers as others retire and managing immigration and moderate growth is no bad thing for Canada.

There is a case that the US is currently over populated for any sort of sustainable future but that is not the case for Canada and if we stop immigration our population will drop as with Japan and Russia.

This nation is/was built on diversity and immigration and bottom line whether we like it or not the world population is going to go up 50% or so in the next few decades and our resources will be in demand. If we are to be value added for those resources then workers are needed to undertake that - even if the population here remained at zero growth we need a substantial immigration just for the status quo.

Density, sustainability, not using farm land for housing and supporting world population reduction all are issues separate from a managed immigration policy to at the very least sustain current agriculture and industrial bases.

Could we do with a more sophisticated immigration policy - yep - immigrating professionals are dealt with horribly, stupidly.
Are the Cons the ones to undertake this....NO.

DJ is correct.... smacks far to much of thinly veiled bigotry and xenophobia and the current Con regime is rife with it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You married a refugee? So what. That has no impact on our discussion. Neither does the issue of whether individual immigrants have a net good or bad effect on the economy. 

I would like to see Canada's population remain stable. We should try to gauge our social programs to what we can afford. Even a child can see that bringing in masses of new people to fund the social programs of the previous generation is just postponing the inevitable. Eventually we have to live within our means or find a way to expand the ecomnomy without just adding new bodies. 

When does it stop Jonesy? When we need to bring in 10 million new people to service the debt on the 100 million who are already here?

Where are the environmentalists on this one?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: It's funny how you switch from being a big environmentalist to a big business booster when your buttons are pushed.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You married a refugee? So what. That has no impact on our discussion. Neither does the issue of whether individual immigrants have a net good or bad effect on the economy.


It means that my perspective is somewhat more enlightened than yours and by personal experience I can safely say that I have far more insight into the issue than you.

Unless you have some personal experiences with immigrants that you want to share?



Macfury said:


> I would like to see Canada's population remain stable. We should try to gauge our social programs to what we can afford. Even a child can see that bringing in masses of new people to fund the social programs of the previous generation is just postponing the inevitable. Eventually we have to live within our means or find a way to expand the ecomnomy without just adding new bodies.


This is the problem, you are looking at this from a child's point of view. We are not talking about postponing the inevitable... inevitable what? Fiscal responsibility has to come hand in hand with social responsibility. That is what is means to live in a society. Or are you suggesting an "every man" for himself approach? If so... well my anarchist label on you stands.



Macfury said:


> When does it stop Jonesy? When we need to bring in 10 million new people to service the debt on the 100 million who are already here?


Yo, child's point of view dude... who do you think will be paying off that debt if we don't start replacing people within our economy?



Macfury said:


> Where are the environmentalists on this one?


They are silent because they know that increased immigration will have little or no impact on our environment... The two issues are so separate that they might as well be completely unrelated. BTW... I have a degree in Politics and Urban and Environmental Studies... and never once was it ever suggested that immigration in a Canadian context was bad.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc: It's funny how you switch from being a big environmentalist to a big business booster when your buttons are pushed.


The two are unrelated in a Canadian context... get over it. Try a new argument because this one won't fly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course it's flying--it just busted a big hole in your previous philospophical outpourings. A hole you can't seem to repair or reconcile. Of course environment and population are inextricably linked. And you haven't suggested where your scenario ends. At what point do we become "sustainable"--or do we keep adding population until we find out?

And your perspective is just that--a perspective, not an argument.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Interesting discussion, despite the various jabs by DJ. As MacDoc pointed out, to sustain our population we need immigration and we should overshoot a little temporarily to manage the labour force (which would shrink faster than population). But what is that number over the course of the next 20 years and how do you square that circle with allowing immigrants over 50 years of age?

There are social policies (eg. families) in there too before you even get to a discussion about whether long-term population growth is something we want (I do). So, what goals does the current number and method have and what does the new number change? In absolute terms, more is only better if you want population growth.

Once we're through the baby boom, a growing economy doesn't require population growth and nor do social services unless bad policies are used to structure social services as pyramid schemes. 

Productivity is what drives up real per-person economic growth in wealth and, therefore, financing for social services. The economic impact of immigration, outside covering for the baby boom, is not accurately looked at as GDP but GDP per capita and, for more fun, individual net contribution to a nation's finances. 

DJ, if you want to play the 'more insight' game, go right ahead. I'm a first generation Canadian (both parents immigrants) and many of my friends growing up were the same plus I've studied economics, including long-term growth and other relevant items. Macfury is right: those factoids have no impact on our discussion. My contribution does (and it is based on my knowledge and experience) but the background trivia has no bearing on trying to prove my contributions are more enlightened.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Of course it's flying--it just busted a big hole in your previous philospophical outpourings. A hole you can't seem to repair or reconcile. Of course environment and population are inextricably linked. And you haven't suggested where your scenario ends. At what point do we become "sustainable"--or do we keep adding population until we find out?
> 
> And your perspective is just that--a perspective, not an argument.


I must be in the twilight zone or something... a conservative arguing for sustainable development. Ahhhh wait a sec... I knew the spin doctors were at work here.

"Many environmentalists have criticized the term "sustainable development" as an oxymoron, claiming that economic policies based around concepts of growth and continued depletion of resources cannot be sustainable, since that term implies resources remain constant. Resources such as petroleum are consumed much faster than they are created by natural processes, and are continually being depleted. It is argued that the term "sustainable development" is a term invented by business to show capitalism as ecologically friendly, thereby placating people promoting environmentalist values."

OK... Mafurry, please cite for me an example in scholarly literature where it says that Canada's immigration policies will in fact be a detriment to sustainable development.

And please, articles from the Frasier Institute (or equally whacked out sources)don't count. I'll accept anything from a reputable scholarly journal or even something from a ration mainstream press source.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

So what are problems that an immigration quota/limit addresses?

We need immigrants to enter the workforce to replace aging and retiring baby boomers? To support the ongoing social costs of the boomer generation?

Perhaps.

There are other solutions. For example both parents entering the workforce. Surely that must help offset those reitiring.

Also we could increase individual contributions to the social safety net. More taxation.

We could as a culture embrace euthansia (sp). That's way out there.

We could value trades work even more than we do know. Most teenagers are being groomed for university, not trades schools. We could change our thinking about this.

There's nothing wrong with immigration as an answer either.

However we should have some debate on what sort of population we would like Canada to have. How much is not enough? How much is too much?

The way I see it, is that with a lower population, each individual gets a pigger part of the overall pie.

I think the population goal limit could be what the enviroment of Canada can self-sufficiently sustain within a certain quality of life.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I do agree that we need stability, because a rapid decline in population will cause a breakdown in existing systems--economic and social. We may disagree about various visions for Canada, but rapid dislocation does nobody good. Immigration is a useful tool for maintaining population, but it has no intrinsic or magical value. These are just people, regardless of whether they're born here or elsewhere.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> So we throw Canada into a state of overpopulation and environmental unsustainability on the altar of social entitlements?
> 
> A magnificent vision. I suppose getting that Govenment of Canada check each month makes it all worthwhile.


gee, didn't your handlers teach you how to speak Canadian?
the boys and girls at Langley, VA are not teaching up to snuff these days
can't be because of budget cuts - lots of anti-terrorism money being thrown around
not to mention that 1 billion that the U.S. recently snagged from Canada


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Her family (large extended) are professionals and entrepreneurs. They have provided a net positive impact on the Canadian economy, providing skilled services and jobs through the companies they own.


They sound like just the sort of immigrants we should be encouraging to come to Canada -- people with skills that are needed in this country, that are prepared to work hard and make a contribution.


da_jonesy said:


> Once again we see the Toronto Sun version of Canada, where immigrants are living off of the welfare system and rampaging Gangs are burning down city blocks by the dozen.


And these are the folks we want to keep out. I'm sure they only represent a small minority, and it would be impossible to predict with 100% accuracy who the criminals are, but we should do as much as we can to keep thugs like this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060509.wabduc0509/BNStory/specialComment/ away.

I'm not familiar with the current rules -- what sort of system do we have to determine who gets in and who gets out?


da_jonesy said:


> Ohhh I forgot those roving hordes pillaging through Alberta... hey hows that loaded gun thing protecting your house working out? (ooopps that was a flash back to a long forgotten thread).


I've lived in Alberta most of my life, and I have never owned a gun. I guess I've just been lucky that the roving hordes haven't pillaged my house yet...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Where are the environmentalists on this one?


On overpopulation or the question of the environment?

Here's what been said today:


> Ambrose has said that most other Kyoto countries can't meet their targets either, but her critics deny this.
> Britain and France have already met their targets, and the European Union as a whole is expected to do so, they said. New Zealand is on track while Japan and Norway are having trouble but remain committed to their targets.
> The United States and Australia have pulled out of the treaty. Stephen Guilbeault of Greenpeace said the Conservatives are following the path of U.S. President George W. Bush, and isolating Canada from the rest of the world.
> Developing countries argue rich countries should take the lead in dealing with climate change, having largely created the problem. They were not required to adopt targets in the current phase of the treaty.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=e2991e43-d29b-4f03-b778-b4532ef2730c&k=36014

Now, the biggest increase of our green house emissions come from the Alberta oil sands. So basically, in our desire to export oil to a developed nation (or is it feed their addition to it?), we are polluting our own environment. I don't expect the Cons to do something for Canada that would be perceived as hurting Alberta...

Shamefully, the chair of the United Nations climate-change process, will not be around for upcoming the conference. 


> The meetings in Bonn, Germany, begin on Monday. Ms. Ambrose will arrive that day to open the talks and will then fly home immediately, even though the international meeting is two weeks long.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060511.ENVIRONMENT11/TPStory/National
Maybe she's afraid at the negative press she will receive... who knows...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here is a very interesting read on Canada's current immigration situation that covers many aspects of this discussion:

http://jdi.econ.queensu.ca/Publications/Immigration.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacSpectrum: I'm trilingual, moving freely between English, Canadian, and American.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

So then the question is what level of quality of life do we want within a limited environmental footprint. Given limited resources we can increase our population if we give up certain qualities of life. Affordable housing, land per capita. Access to fresh water. Agrible land. Exposure to pollution.

Population increases do seem to lead to technological breakthroughs though. Concentration of industry and knowlege. So their are benefits.

No, upon some thinking I don't believe there is a set optimal population that we want. It's an ebb and flow. It's based on how we want to live. I doubt there is any real government planning in the issue of population. That only seems to happen when you have overpopulation.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> I guess I've just been lucky that the roving hordes haven't pillaged my house yet...


You should move to SINC's area....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I must be in the twilight zone or something... a conservative arguing for sustainable development. Ahhhh wait a sec... I knew the spin doctors were at work here.


I agree with Al Gore. Environmental issues are not political, they are moral.

As a Conservative I strongly support environmental initiatives and sustainable development. I think most parties agree on the end goals, it's how we get there where politics come into it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> ...I don't believe there is a set optimal population that we want....I doubt there is any real government planning in the issue of population. That only seems to happen when you have overpopulation.


I believe that's because current policies are based on expediency. There are no goals in mind, just a propping up of the status quo. Its much like the City of Toronto trying to attract development to subway stations. This sort of development is designed to prop up a rapid transit system that Torontonians choose not use in large numbers--it has no other real value.

The original value we placed on expanding populations had more to do with raising armies than creating new markets for consumer goods. That's very outmoded thinking.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Once we're through the baby boom, a growing economy doesn't require population growth and nor do social services unless bad policies are used to structure social services as pyramid schemes.
> 
> Productivity is what drives up real per-person economic growth in wealth and, therefore, financing for social services. The economic impact of immigration, outside covering for the baby boom, is not accurately looked at as GDP but GDP per capita and, for more fun, individual net contribution to a nation's finances.


I understand what you are saying Beej, but I don't really agree.

I think a decrease in population (or say workers), or even its rate of growth, will hurt our GDP and even GDP per capita. If we can't support our current industries with new workers, investment will go elsewhere. You can't maintain and create high paying jobs without investment.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The investment is being put in place under a view of the labour market. Our investment levels are based on population and technological growth, just like our city planning is. 

You still need investment in a static situation (technology, knowledge, replacement, refurbishment). Declining population is much trickier because then you have stranded investments (e.g. roads to empty towns, oversized infrastructure) but stable is actually quite a bit simpler than what we have now -- unless the underlying age mix is changing substantially.

So the age mix issue is different than long-term economic/population/social goals in that it limits our options or, at least, increases the gap between 'do nothing' and 'ideal'.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Interesting discussion, despite the various jabs by DJ.
> 
> DJ, if you want to play the 'more insight' game, go right ahead. I'm a first generation Canadian (both parents immigrants) and many of my friends growing up were the same plus I've studied economics, including long-term growth and other relevant items.


And your opinion will be weighted accordingly.



Beej said:


> Macfury is right: those factoids have no impact on our discussion.


Yes they do. Damn straight they do. I provided a real world factual example of how immigrants successfully provided a positive impact. I'm waiting for the reverse... I'm wait for that real world example of how immigrant are a detriment to our society... a society built on immigrants.



Beej said:


> My contribution does (and it is based on my knowledge and experience) but the background trivia has no bearing on trying to prove my contributions are more enlightened.


Yeah it does... you've plainly proved my point that increased immigration is one example of a potential solution to upcoming boomer bubble which needs to addressed. 

The background trivia as you call is vitally important in an issue such as this. Canada is a nation of immigrants... everyone here (including the first nations) are immigrants. If not for immigrants then no Canada.

That being said, sure I have an abrasive arguing style, however my style should not deflect from the inadequacy of the counter argument. Suffice to say that in this case making any link to sustainable development from increased immigration misleading at best.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jonesy: You're trying to frame the argument in terms of whether individual immigrants have had positive or negative effects on society and you are trying to draw out people who will argue that immigrants have a negative impact on society. 

I haven't forwarded that argument at all. I'm stating that using immigration as a stop gap measure to prop up a failing system is wrong headed. I would argue the same way if it involved a plan to have Canadian citizens double their birth rate.

Having married an immigrant or a refugee adds no value or weight to your argument. If I had married an immigrant who turned out to be shiftless, would our arguments cancel each other out?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> using immigration as a stop gap measure to prop up a failing system


What system is "failing"?
Failing how?

You are just splashing broad strokes with no context.
•••

Reality is a 50% population increase on the planet over the next few decades - leaving that out of any discussion of population and immigration in Canada is ludicrous.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> The investment is being put in place under a view of the labour market. Our investment levels are based on population and technological growth, just like our city planning is.
> 
> You still need investment in a static situation (technology, knowledge, replacement, refurbishment). Declining population is much trickier because then you have stranded investments (e.g. roads to empty towns, oversized infrastructure) but stable is actually quite a bit simpler than what we have now -- unless the underlying age mix is changing substantially.
> 
> So the age mix issue is different than long-term economic/population/social goals in that it limits our options or, at least, increases the gap between 'do nothing' and 'ideal'.


I think you need a certain number of specialized workers to support a particular industry. The trend right now is that industry is being shifted into regional centres. For example, high tech and software is focussed in Silicon Valley, or Venture Capital investment in New York. Let's say Vancouver wanted to create a zone focussed on biotechnology. If we can't get enough workers to support the whole concept, then it will fail and you simply won't win that industry or get needed investment.

Silicon Valley understands this quite well. That's why they bring in programmers and engineers from all over the world. It's a MASSIVE percentage of their work force. 

I think this concept is much like Minimum Efficient Scale in Economics. If you don't achieve it, you might as well go home.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The background trivia as you call is vitally important in an issue such as this.
> .....
> That being said, sure I have an abrasive arguing style, however my style should not deflect from the inadequacy of the counter argument.
> .....
> Suffice to say that in this case making any link to sustainable development from increased immigration misleading at best.


Personal background trivia isn't relevant to me. It's about what a poster says.
.....
It does. It's about what a poster says. If a poster says 'child like' that becomes a more likely point of contention than 'I think immigration does A, B and C'. Then it gets discussed.
....
Sustainability could greatly benefit from being discussed within meaningful timelines. Eventually pop growth hurts sustainability; eventually resource usage from this planet hurts sustainability; and, in the long-run, we're all dead. The relevant time horizon is important and I think you're mention of how nebulous the word 'sustainable' is got to that point.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think this concept is much like Minimum Efficient Scale in Economics. If you don't achieve it, you might as well go home.


Good points. There are smaller and wealthier nations out there, so 30 million is over that minimum scale for a handful of given industries. However to create a U.S.-style specialize in everything (almost) economy, 30 million doesn't appear to be enough and there are basic advantages to being that diverse. That's a big reason behind why I support population growth for Canada -- the world needs more Canada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> What system is "failing"?
> Failing how?


We can't pay for our own social programs without indulging in the Ponzi scheme of increased immigration. Like all P{onzi schemes, it will eventually collapse.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme)




MacDoc said:


> Reality is a 50% population increase on the planet over the next few decades - leaving that out of any discussion of population and immigration in Canada is ludicrous.


Leaving Canada out of that growth is a great idea.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

By controlling population we also control consumption and environmental impact. I'm seeing the biggest proponents of environment friendliness on EhMac now arguing for population increases as though they have negligible environmental impact.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think you need a certain number of specialized workers to support a particular industry. The trend right now is that industry is being shifted into regional centres. For example, high tech and software is focussed in Silicon Valley, or Venture Capital investment in New York. Let's say Vancouver wanted to create a zone focussed on biotechnology. If we can't get enough workers to support the whole concept, then it will fail and you simply won't win that industry or get needed investment.


Yes, you need specialized workers but there is also a need for all types of workers. The immigration policy should not only what you think is right for the economy but should be inclusive and offer the possibility of a better life to qualified applicants. 

If there is demand for immigration to Canada, I think we try within our means to accommodate it, less we have a situation similar to the US (where they periodically make illegals, legal)...

My previous firm resembled a melting pot of the United Nations - all had different reasons for being wanting to come to Canada. 





Vandave said:


> Silicon Valley understands this quite well. That's why they bring in programmers and engineers from all over the world. It's a MASSIVE percentage of their work force.


It's also caused MASSIVE economic disruptions to the local economy, when a sector falters...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> By controlling population we also control consumption and environmental impact. I'm seeing the biggest proponents of environment friendliness on EhMac now arguing for population increases as though they have negligible environmental impact.


One would hope that you have other strategies in place other than limiting immigration to control the environmental problems....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes, you need specialized workers but there is also a need for all types of workers. The immigration policy should not only what you think is right for the economy but should be inclusive and offer the possibility of a better life to qualified applicants.


I think the economy should be a big factor, but not the only factor. During the recession in the early 90's, Mulroney didn't back off immigration which made the unemployment situation worse.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> During the recession in the early 90's, Mulroney didn't back off immigration which made the unemployment situation worse.


I think it would be easier to say that Cons economic policies had a much worse impact on the unemployment situation than any immigration during those time. 
But hey, it's always easier to blame someone else...










But yes, the immigrants did not fair as well during that time. Should we put it down as another example of Con policy failure?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> By controlling population we also control consumption and environmental impact. I'm seeing the biggest proponents of environment friendliness on EhMac now arguing for population increases as though they have negligible environmental impact.


Climate change is global and needs to be looked at as such (ie. global population patterns). The case can be made that Canadians consume more therefore more of us is worse, but that logic unnecessarily pits economic progress against the environment; and the environment above poverty. 

Local environmental change is manageable with 30 million or a 100 million just using our current population patterns. That has more to do with learning to live in higher densities regardless of our population. 

Zero environmental impact is unreasonable, so we're into the grey area of acceptable given a wealth of other considerations (like wealth). Everybody will have their own 'acceptable' for a given set of circumstances, but population growth and environmental cleanup are hardly diametrically opposed. They can stress each other, though.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> By controlling population we also control consumption and environmental impact. I'm seeing the biggest proponents of environment friendliness on EhMac now arguing for population increases as though they have negligible environmental impact.


Controlling population does not necessarily curtail consumption. Some of the most populous regions of the world have the least consumption (poverty will do that).

We aren't saying that it doesn't have an impact, the argument in question is in relation to a Canadian context. Given our access to resources Canada could very easily support a much larger population, but we aren't even suggesting that. We are suggesting that in order to keep rational/healthy growth in our economy a steady influx of immigrants is in fact a good thing. If we were the US that might not be the case. If we were England, that certainly wouldn't be that case. But we aren't England and we aren't the US. Our situation is different.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Jonesy: You're trying to frame the argument in terms of whether individual immigrants have had positive or negative effects on society and you are trying to draw out people who will argue that immigrants have a negative impact on society.
> 
> I haven't forwarded that argument at all. I'm stating that using immigration as a stop gap measure to prop up a failing system is wrong headed. I would argue the same way if it involved a plan to have Canadian citizens double their birth rate.
> 
> Having married an immigrant or a refugee adds no value or weight to your argument. If I had married an immigrant who turned out to be shiftless, would our arguments cancel each other out?


Yeah I am trying to focus the argument in that way because arguing that increased immigration (even at our current sustained rates) is degrading our environment in Canada is a specious argument at best.

I for one think that there is some sort of ulterior motive in providing this argument as I have not seen anything in both scholarly or popular press that even remotely suggests that sustained immigration in a Canadian context negatively impacts the environment.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej That's correct local population loading is far different from the global problem.
BOTH need to be addressed but local depopulating is not a current valid solution for Canada.

Lowering environmental impact is yet a third issue.
MF - Have you written Mayor Miller to establish a Sustainable City department like Portland has??
If you are so concerned .....why not?

I've sent the info to both Miller and Hazel.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I think it would be easier to say that Cons economic policies had a much worse impact on the unemployment situation than any immigration during those time.
> But hey, it's always easier to blame someone else...
> 
> But yes, the immigrants did not fair as well during that time. Should we put it down as another example of Con policy failure?


Yes, it was a failed policy. Too many people were let in at that time. Your graph supports this statement because it curves up in the early 90's.

It takes a while for immigrants to adjust to employment in Canada. A recession just makes it that much more difficult because good jobs are hard to get. You can't blame the Cons for immigrants having a higher unemployment rate. That's always going to be the case. WARNING... CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT AHEAD....When you are born and raised within Canada, speak either language fluently and were educated here, obviously your employability is going to be higher than your average immigrant.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> WARNING... CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT AHEAD....When you are born and raised within Canada, speak either language fluently and were educated here, obviously your employability is going to be higher than your average immigrant.


If you want to go that far VD, I'd go further, if you are born in Canada, try to make an effort to learn whatever official language you don't speak.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> If you want to go that far VD, I'd go further, if you are born in Canada, try to make an effort to learn whatever official language you don't speak.


non.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> non.


Et par votre réponse, vous démontrez une certaine bigoterie… 
C'est un certain culot que vous faites preuves. Je comprend l'argument que pour augmenter les chances a un emplois, il faut parler la langue de la place d'emplois. C'est naturel. 
Mais si vous souhaitez qu'un immigrant prenne à coeur la langue de Shakespeare ou Molière, menez par example et faite se que vous lui demandez: maîtriser une autre langue que votre langue maternelle...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacFly: We don't control the population of other countries. Bringing their excess human capital here is not an accaptable way of dealing with overpopulation.

AS: Of course I think there are more approaches to dealing with the environment. I'm just stunned to see this group of "greens" disassociating population and the environment.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: Of course I think there are more approaches to dealing with the environment. I'm just *stunned* to see this group of "greens" disassociating population and the environment.


"Stunned" maybe not, but I can see a certain hypocrisy in it - it may also signal that the issue is more complex than can be elaborated in 50 words or less...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Et par votre réponse, vous démontrez une certaine bigoterie…
> C'est un certain culot que vous faites preuves. Je comprend l'argument que pour augmenter les chances a un emplois, il faut parler la langue de la place d'emplois. C'est naturel.
> Mais si vous souhaitez qu'un immigrant prenne à coeur la langue de Shakespeare ou Molière, menez par example et faite se que vous lui demandez: maîtriser une autre langue que votre langue maternelle...


I agree that it is good for Canadians to learn both languages, but I don't think the reason should be setting an example for immigrants. I don't see any hypocrisy in expecting immigrants to learn one of our languages, while not expecting some Canadians to learn a second official language....

Especially when the second language is French.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Especially when the second language is French.


Sadly, too many Canadian would agree with you (and that's without the  )


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Immigrants need to learn one of the languages to open up most opportunities. Learning the second, if it's French, has fewer returns and begins to be a career/lifestyle choice. Depending on what kind of work you want to get in to or where you live, Cantonese may be a better idea. If you really want to work for the Feds, then French is a very good idea.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> stunned


Yeah I'd say that was an operative word for you if you can't understand local versus global issues. You think if you repeat a misconception long enough it will somehow acquire veracity???

Just ask George Bush about his "misconceptions" and repetitions.
Simplistic nostrums seem a hallmark of Con thinking.

•••

Beej - if immigrants get BOTH French and English as many have, I'd say it IMPROVES opportunity to accelerate past English only.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sadly, too many Canadian would agree with you (and that's without the  )


I'm sure a lot do, but way out here in BC, there aren't enough French Immersion classes to meet demand. Everybody wants to put their kids into it. I don't know who's to blame, but I know the demand is there.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> "Stunned" maybe not, but I can see a certain hypocrisy in it - it may also signal that the issue is more complex than can be elaborated in 50 words or less...


Not only are environmental issues complex, but very few would place the environment above all else across the board even if they do care about the environment. The public policy basket (case) has many items in it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - if immigrants get BOTH French and English as many have, I'd say it IMPROVES opportunity to accelerate past English only.


I agree. But once you have English (a neccessity in most of Canada) your next pursuit, in a time-constrained life, can go along many paths. French isn't the best one for everybody. Higher education, volunteer work, other languages etc. all come into play. That first language of common use in the area, though, is a top priority. More knowledge is better, but choices need to be made.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Japan is a very good model to watch as it has no immigration to speak of and a drastically declining population.

Interesting that the Economist finally started to question deflation as a automatic bad thing in this weeks edition. 'Bout time.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Interesting that the Economist finally started to question deflation as a automatic bad thing in this weeks edition. 'Bout time.


I may pick that up. I've been surprised at that assumption for some years. 0% interest is troublesome, but very moderate deflation doesn't need to be a bad thing, in my opinion. I tend to think that the 0% interest/deflation issue solves itself unless policy makers are really screwing around; negative real interests rates don't seem like something that can persist without government intervention.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Immigrants need to learn one of the languages to open up most opportunities. Learning the second, if it's French, has fewer returns and begins to be a career/lifestyle choice. Depending on what kind of work you want to get in to or where you live, Cantonese may be a better idea. If you really want to work for the Feds, then French is a very good idea.


When we talk about the Canadian experience, I think it's important to at least have some knowledge of both official languages. 
Certain European countries are a fine example. Rarely have I met someone from Europe that did not speak 2 or more languages.
When I worked in the US, I made an effort to learn Spanish and it opened up different opportunities than just career ones - cultural ones also...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You might know better but isn't the civil service pretty multicultural??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah I'd say that was an operative word for you if you can't understand local versus global issues.


MacDoc, you are such an ANGRY guy. Does EVERY issue raise insults from you? Is that the type of treatment I should accept from small "l" liberals?

I understand local vs. global issues quite well. I've written policy papers for variious government departments. When you talk about importing other people's GLOBAL population problems, and making them LOCAL you've completely erased the distinction.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I found this on population projections:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051215/d051215b.htm

But it doesn't provide the 'plug' number for immigration to stabilise the population or the labour force. So, before attacking any decrease in the sacred 300,000, what number do we need before assuming that pop growth is a good thing? Is 300,000 the magic number?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF - I shudder to think what those policy papers are like...you are the ONLY one talking about "importing a problem"....that's your phrase no one else and it reeks.

••

Hard to get to a single number I would think Beej as the age/work force curves come into play - so 20,000 40 year olds versus 20,000 25 year olds will have quite a different impact.

I'd like to see small growth and lowered footprint as a combined result. Zero or negative growth for this nation I would think may be admirable in theory for some but a head shaker for many on the planet.

We ALL have to deal with the upcoming bottleneck of population and resources and climate change......gating a community is not a solution in my mind.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Hard to get to a single number I would think Beej as the age/work force curves come into play - so 20,000 40 year olds versus 20,000 25 year olds will have quite a different impact.


I am SO tempted to put together my own model and figure out the details of this. On a completely unrelated note, I am SUCH a data geek. Middle-management be damned; the money doesn't seem to be worth it. Note to employers lurking around here: I'd still consider middle management for enough $$$ if the job includes 'data geek days'.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Timely column



> Yesterday, Mr. Solberg, the Conservative Immigration Minister, made his first appearance before the House of Commons immigration committee, where he revealed that Canada last year took in 260,000 new arrivals. When asked what the target will be under his watch, Mr. Solberg replied: "I would love to see the numbers stay about where they are right now." This is reassuring.
> 
> Mr. Solberg told the committee that his priorities are to streamline the refugee-determination process, and to work with provinces at identifying labour shortages and recruiting immigrants to fill them.
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060511.wxibbitson11/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/populationgrow.htm

Interesting. I didn't know Canada still has natural population growth. So to do this in a way that doesn't just attack someone who doesn't pray at the altar of immigration with empty slurs:

If you want a stable population (for various reasons) we don't need significant/any immigration, but may need it in the future.

If you include economic concerns, the shrinking labour force is worrying. Things can be done to offset it, but some immigration is likely required and/or easier.

*So, why is 260k worse than 300k unless you're using it as a tool to ease the economic burden of the baby boom or you inherently want population growth?
*
I would like to know others' thoughts without, if possible, resorting to sacred cows.

I support population growth for a number of reasons, of which a growing economic footprint/diversity is my #1 but not the only factor. Canada's environmental footprint is a factor but, with global environmental considerations and things beyond the environment (it isn't always or even usually #1...there are ways to do it and more at the same time), I don't think it comes close to outweighing the benefits, in my opinion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> MF - I shudder to think what those policy papers are like...you are the ONLY one talking about "importing a problem"....that's your phrase no one else and it reeks. ...Zero or negative growth for this nation I would think may be admirable in theory for some but a head shaker for many on the planet.


MacDoc: You are an angry fellow. If you don't see over-population as a problem it hardly matters to me. 

And I certainly don't care if the rest of the planet shakes its collective head about Canada's immigration policies--they have their own policies to deal with and I won't shake my head when they establish them. At least our policy is heading in the right direction now.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Geez, work for a day, and I have this massive thread to catch up on.

Beej, we have natural population growth BUT that is only because first generation immigrant families make up for the rest of us, iirc. So in order to maintain that natural growth, we need immigrants. Wish I had a source for you, but I am trying to catch up whilst entertaining the wee one. One of you single people, or people with kids old enough to entertain themselves can do the source hunting.  Pretty sure I heard that from Stats Can, though.

In general, I support high levels of immigration. For those for whom my personal background is relevant, I am married to an immigrant. But I support high levels of immigration for two reasons: Firstly, what Beej so eloquently said: "the world needs more Canada". Secondly, because I firmly believe that in every aspect of life diversity makes us stronger in the long run, and we are still a distressingly white nation.

I would also argue that actually we do help with global population problems by bringing people here, where their next generation will reproduce at much lower rates, but someone already declared it stupid to make said argument, so I won't bother.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I would also argue that actually we do help with global population problems by bringing people here, where their next generation will reproduce at much lower rates, but someone already declared it stupid to make said argument, so I won't bother.


Seems valid but we take their most economically valuable. Another complication. This is a wonderfully complex topic.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Seems valid but we take their most economically valuable. Another complication. This is a wonderfully complex topic.


Indeed it is, and yes, that is a very valuable concern. I find the habit some provinces have of actively poaching doctors from developing nations to be highly objectionable.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> Indeed it is, and yes, that is a very valuable concern. I find the habit some provinces have of actively poaching doctors from developing nations to be highly objectionable.


Not nearly as objectionable as those provinces who refuse to allow certified foreign doctors to practice in Canada. Methinks there are more of the latter than the former.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Not nearly as objectionable as those provinces who refuse to allow certified foreign doctors to practice in Canada. Methinks there are more of the latter than the former.


Yes, and I agree.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Not nearly as objectionable as those provinces who refuse to allow certified foreign doctors to practice in Canada. Methinks there are more of the latter than the former.


Just because someone has the title Dr. does not mean he's up to standards here. I was once treated by a "certified foreign doctor", his misdiagnostic of nearly killed me and my lungs are still recovering. 

What's clear here is that most look at immigration as getting the most desirable candidates but leave out people that just want a chance at a better life and will take any job. We seem to be leaving out tradespeople and political/religious/my-nation-is-hell immigrants.

Many of our parents came here with nothing and build up from there....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Just because someone has the title Dr. does not mean he's up to standards here. I was once treated by a "certified foreign doctor", his misdiagnostic of nearly killed me and my lungs are still recovering.


Sorry to hear that, BUT many provincial medical associations make it near impossible for documented and extremely well qualified doctors to practice in spite of shortages. That is just plain wrong. My personal doctor is an immigrant and serves me well.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Not nearly as objectionable as those provinces who refuse to allow certified foreign doctors to practice in Canada. Methinks there are more of the latter than the former.


This has very little to do with government and more to do with the professional associations, who are empowered by legislation to decide who can become certified.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> This has very little to do with government and more to do with the professional associations, who are empowered by legislation to decide who can become certified.


Exactly. I concur. It is provincial medical associations who issue licenses that are to blame. And does that not smack of greed in the sense they want to keep the shortage alive to protect their ability to over bill the provincial medicare system?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I understand local vs. global issues quite well. I've written policy papers for variious government departments. When you talk about importing other people's GLOBAL population problems, and making them LOCAL you've completely erased the distinction.


Unless they are classified, care to share these policy papers?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> This has very little to do with government and more to do with the professional associations, *who are empowered by legislation* to decide who can become certified.


And if they continue to grossly neglect their duties, then maybe the legislation needs to be adjusted.

Yes, AS, of course we cannot simply take another nation's word for it. But we can, and must, do much better than we are.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Exactly. I concur. It is provincial medical associations who issue licenses that are to blame. And does that not smack of greed in the sense they want to keep the shortage alive to protect their ability to over bill the provincial medicare system?


It's not that simple. It's also a matter of liability. When something goes wrong, the lawyers will start looking at the professional association and could claim negligence on their part.

It's also not easy for a professional association to assess hundreds or thousands of foreign schools, each of which has dozens of courses which may or may not cover the same content as Canadian schools. 

I don't think any association is trying to keep their numbers low.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> And if they continue to grossly neglect their duties, then maybe the legislation needs to be adjusted.
> 
> Yes, AS, of course we cannot simply take another nation's word for it. But we can, and must, do much better than we are.


Gross neglect would be giving a person certification when they are not qualified to get it.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Gross neglect would be giving a person certification when they are not qualified to get it.


Agreed. But I would argue they are grossly neglecting their duty to the nation. Their primary duty is to ensure that Canadians get quality healthcare, not protect their own practices and prejudices.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jonesy: In most cases, position papers I've written are "adopted" by various bureaucrats as their own handiwork. You can see my name on a study I prepared for the then-city of Scarborough on how health units could best assist immigrant populations.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Jonesy: In most cases, position papers I've written are "adopted" by various bureaucrats as their own handiwork. You can see my name on a study I prepared for the then-city of Scarborough on how health units could best assist immigrant populations.


Can you get me a link to that? Or perhaps post it here?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jonesy: These were not published on the internet. Which part of it interests you the most?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Jonesy: These were not published on the internet. Which part of it interests you the most?


I'm just very curious. I'm interested to see policy papers from someone who would argue against sustained immigration in Canada based on environmental issues.

It would be interesting to see your stance on how health units could best assist immigrant populations.

If you don't have a link that is fine, you can post an attachment here.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

mrt_mcfly said:


> i've had a canadian (born and raised) doctor do the same to my mother and brother...some doctors are just bad. they are not thourough, and practice deductive medicine (not a cold, not pneumonia, must be....)


Yes, but because of cultural backgrounds and frequency of certain diseases/conditions, some common Canadian ailments should be easy to diagnose. 

And, yes, there are bad doctors everywhere.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrt_mcfly said:


> i have not encountered any literature on the negative impact of immigrants on the environement


I think the concept was the impact of population growth on the environment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, I was only referring to population growth not specifically immigration. The discussion related to the perceived need for Canada to have a larger population.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

New idea - no target numbers

Odd approach...

Anywho, the other changes announced today all sound cautiously positive. Not sure the logic behind half-cutting the headtax, but they can have half credit for it . Yay for actually doing something to work on the creditation processes. (Presuming it actually amounts to something, but I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt for now)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

C'mon AS, give the Prime Minister a hug for cutting the head tax.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> C'mon AS, give the Prime Minister a hug for cutting the head tax.


That's actually quite good of him - not sure I'd hug him, I'd do something more intimate like shake his hand...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> New idea - no target numbers
> 
> Odd approach...


I don't think it's that odd, this part seems like common sense to me:


> But Harper appeared cool to the idea of setting specific target numbers, saying the previous Liberal government set targets that were never met.
> 
> "Just having a number out there I don't think matters," he said.
> 
> Harper said it's more important to make sure applications are processed quickly.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> C'mon AS, give the Prime Minister a hug for cutting the head tax.


Sounds great... and if He stands by it I'll actually say kudos. That is exactly the attitude we need.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think it was passed with the budget. Maybe there's some detail that could derail it in implementation (politicians are sneaky), but it seems to be approved. So, with the Libs and NDP voting against the budget, they therefore supported higher charges for immigrants? No, that would be silly-logic and that is NEVER seen around here...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I think it was passed with the budget. Maybe there's some detail that could derail it in implementation (*politicians are sneaky*), but it seems to be approved. So, with the Libs and NDP voting against the budget, they therefore supported higher charges for immigrants? No, that would be silly-logic and that is NEVER seen around here...


I would go with the specious logic - not that _you_ won't anyway....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Too bad the Bloc supported the budget. It would have been fun watching the Liberals having to support it. Right now the Conservatives are doing well in the polls and the Liberals are about to take another hit with the Gun Registry scam (BulletGate).


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

You're right, it's not that odd, really. Poorly phrased on my part, I meant simply that that was an odd way to resolve the question of whether to lower the targets or not.
Meh. Mostly I wasn't really thinking 

Beej, the philosophy behind how to object or support something as a whole when one objects to parts of the whole, or how many objectionable parts can be accepted and so on is highly complicated. But surely even the silly-logic people are smart enough to realise that to support an omnibus package does not necessarily imply support for all the parts, any more than opposition to the whole implies opposition to all the parts.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Beej, the philosophy behind how to object or support something as a whole when one objects to parts of the whole, or how many objectionable parts can be accepted and so on is highly complicated. But surely even the silly-logic people are smart enough to realise that to support an omnibus package does not necessarily imply support for all the parts, any more than opposition to the whole implies opposition to all the parts.


For most people, I agree. Not all people though. When one has an axe to grind at all costs, logic (traded in for silly-logic) is often the first transaction. From blaming Harris for everything (or Rae, for that matter) to much, much more, we all have 'moments'.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Too bad the Bloc supported the budget.


The Bloc is not doing well - seems everyone is waiting for an election just around the time the Libs elect a new leader...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and the recession in the US starts 
Interesting times ahead.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The Bloc is not doing well...." AS, how is the PQ now doing in Quebec with its new leader?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Funny you should ask:


> Quebecers prefer fantasy political party to Liberals, PQ
> Hypothetical party would unite ADQ leader Dumont, former premier Bouchard
> 
> GRANBY, Que. -- *A hypothetical political party would be more popular with Quebec voters than either the Parti Quebecois or the ruling Liberals, *a poll suggests.
> ...


http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet...=73aa4d46-5bba-4c87-9666-b7e27d2a3dfa&k=22476



> (Angus Reid Global Scan) – Support for the separatist Parti Québécois (PQ) fell in Canada’s largest province, according to a poll by Leger Marketing. 34 per cent of respondents would support the PQ in the next provincial election, down 13 points in a year.
> 
> The governing Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) is second with 29 per cent, followed by the conservative Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ) of Mario Dumont with 15 per cent, and Québec Solidaire with eight per cent.
> 
> Jean Charest became Quebec’s premier after the Liberals won the provincial election in April 2003, ending nine years of PQ rule. 65 per cent of respondents think Charest should quit.


http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/11781

Both party leaders are unpopular. Charest is basically a Liberal in name only and Boisclair is disliked by his own party. 

Harper and Charest are like tow peas in a pod and yet Charest is not doing well with all the treats that Quebec is getting.


----------

