Bill C-428

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS

On financial sustainability of immigration and social programs.

Every analysis I have ever seen of net inputs to social programs is that those of us already here are large beneficiaries of immigration. That its only immigration that saves us from being much more seriously whipsawed by the effects of reduced birth rate demographics.

And you did broaden the point beyond intake of older family members to a generalized point about immigration numbers intake period.

ACSial

KenS & Sean,

Your Point #3 is interesting. There are many 'selfish' reasons to take in immigrants. Skilled jobs are one. However, these workforces can be generated internally. An example is the so-called 'doctor shortage'. This was the result of Medical Associations capping enrolment in medschools, in order to control the supply of doctors (and, hence, have more leverage over governments, in their negotiations over fee schedules). The other reason is 'doing the jobs Canadians won't do'--a euphemism for controlling labour costs. Not all of these are the proverbial housemaid to Ruby Dhalla. Unionised, skilled Canadian workers have lost out to this sort of thing. Also, during this last recession, the (Conservative) government brought in nearly half a million immigrants, many of whom were unemployable in an economy that was hit with massive layoffs. As we see, immigration isn't helping to keep the public social welfare system solvent. And, again, the 'native' Canadian population is growing, quite a bit above replacement. However, the growth rate isn't high enough to keep the real estate bubble endlessly inflated.

Basically, one sector benefits the most from large-scale immigration: anything connected to housing and construction. This also means banks, REITs and other real estate speculators. These are the people who successfully lobbied Brian Mulroney's government to massively increase immigration, regardless of economic conditions (Trudeau's regime reduced immigration, during recessionary periods). The whole Vulgar Marxist crux of this is that the people involved in housing and infrastructure construction, along with real estate speculation, are the beneficiaries of such a huge, sustained level of population growth. If these people could convince Canadian women to pop a dozen kids apiece, and not bother bulk-importing people, they would.

The financial, social and environmental effects of adding over a quarter million people to Canada annually are problematic. You can't hide behind the 'r'-word forever and pretend that the current immigration intake level is improving the incomes of Canadians, creating social cohesion, or helping the environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

gadar

So the letters to be written to the MPs (as suggetsted in the OP) are about the OAS and Bill C-428 or poor language skills of immigrants or the educational credentials of immigrants from third world countires or the cultural practises of immigrants communities or the ghettos or extended family crap or the environmental impact of immigrants or immigrants taking 'native' canadians jobs or immigrants being a burden on social welfare programs or to keep the real estate prices low.......

Or is it all of it.

If it is all of it then it was rightly pointed out that the OP had a bigger agenda then the red herring of OAS. The honest thing would have been to put all of it in the OP and have a discussion about immigration in general.

KenS

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am getting tired of this -- perhaps someone else wants to take on the bullshit argument. As I argued against one point the poster finds a slippery way to pretend we are arguing something else-- first it was policy about pensions for those here then it became immigration as a whole--

gadar wrote:

So the letters to be written to the MPs (as suggetsted in the OP) are about the OAS and Bill C-428, or [is it] poor language skills of immigrants or the educational credentials of immigrants from third world countires or the cultural practises of immigrants communities or the ghettos or extended family crap or the environmental impact of immigrants or immigrants taking 'native' canadians jobs or immigrants being a burden on social welfare programs or to keep the real estate prices low.......

 Just in case its not totally clear, here is the precise umpteenth iterration of your game as outlined by gadar:

ACSial wrote:

KenS & Sean,

Your Point #3 is interesting. There are many 'selfish' reasons to take in immigrants. Skilled jobs are one. However, these workforces can be generated internally. An example is the so-called 'doctor shortage'....

So you raise the bogus "issue" of immigrants in general swamping the social welfare system, when the truth is immigration keeps it fiscally afloat. I point out you have done that, which is also affirmed by Sean. You say that what we have said on this is interesting, but then proceed to ignore the question of fiscal sustainability that you brought up, and move onto more and different arguments against immigration.

So getting back to Sean's point: "perhaps someone else wants to take on the bullshit argument."

Actually, no one should be dealing with your endless and multi-headed bullshit argument.

I am flagging your post as offensive for the moderators. Though it is not just that post in particular of course. Read the Babble policy about toleration, or not, of racism. I'll go find that sticky or whatever it is about recognizing racism and link it here. Its your responsibility to read it if you want to stick around and post on theses subjects- not ours to start from scratch [with yet another person] about why its racist.

KenS

Here is that link- "sticky" from the top of the anti-racism forum:

Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression 101...... 2.0

In going to the forum to get the sticky there, I see you have been busy there [and maybe elsewhere]. Your argument that police profiling isn't really racial reads a little more subtle than your argument here- but its the same thing. All very "reasonable" of course.

ACSial

Gadar,

The point is that 'keeping the pension system[s] actuarially solvent' is one of the lines used by business (primarilly construction and financial) lobbies to justify such a high immigration intake. Bill C-428 essentially cracks that facade. And while I can sympathise with the plight of refugees fleeing genocide--these are the sorts of people Canada has a moral obligation to help--what's ethical about letting people buy their way into the country (Immigrant Entrepreneurs)? Why did we take in nearly half a million 'badly-needed workers', when Canadian workers were being layed-off left and right? And why are politicians trying so hard to pander to specific ethnic lobbies, even if it means hurting Canadians in general (C-428, keeping Babbar Khalsa and the LTTE off of terror lists)? Our immigration policy is grossly dysfunctional and Bill C-428 is just another broken piece.

A discussion of Bill C-428 is essentially a discussion of Canada's immigration policy, in toto. The problem is that nobody wants to talk about this. The right pushes the 'we need immigrants, because...' justifications, while the left keeps invoking the 'r'-word against anybody who dare suggest that our immigration policy needs revision. Rather than suspecting that people who disagree with the Mulroneyist immigration policy are subversive racists of some sort, ask yourself why it's no-longer polite to say that population growth is a negative thing, or admit that most of Canada's population growth is coming from outside the country. You also don't seem to notice that the most strident defense of our quarter million plus, boom-or-bust immigration intake is coming from the corporate sector you claim to dispise: Chartered Banks, Real Estate Income Trusts, developers, construction companies. These business lobbies were clever enough to turn this into a 'race' issue, and everyone was dumb enough to fall for it.

 

 

 

 

 

KenS

ACSial wrote:

A discussion of Bill C-428 is essentially a discussion of Canada's immigration policy, in toto. The problem is that nobody wants to talk about this. The right pushes the 'we need immigrants, because...' justifications, while the left keeps invoking the 'r'-word against anybody who dare suggest that our immigration policy needs revision. Rather than suspecting that people who disagree with the Mulroneyist immigration policy are subversive racists of some sort..

I'm not saying you are a "subversive racist" of "some sort"... thats a hugly subjective argument and not one that is being made. We're saying simply that you are advancing racist arguments. There is a clear policy against that here.

As to your so called "discussion"... a number of us have already given you more than the benefit of the doubt in dealing with the specifics of your arguments. But you just move onto something else without actually addressing what was said. Its endless.

And the last refuge: raising the r word is used to avoid discussion.

You don't have a discussion to avoid. You have a rant that shifts specific targets that are part of the totality. And whenever anyone takes up a target you raise, you just shift to another one. [And in the course of shifting from one to another, eventually hit on an argument that is particularly ugly.]

Now two people have explicitly said they are finished with your games. It sure looks like what Gadar said amounts to that as well.

Try reading the material in that sticky I linked above. It would be a small return favour for the time a number of people have taken to address what you bring up.

Fidel

ACSial wrote:
And, if I have an 'agenda'--other than calling everyone who points out the negative side effects of Canada's current immigration policy 'racist'--it's expressing concerns that the current immigration intake (>250,000 per year, even during the recession), coupled with liberalised eligibility for social programmes, isn't environmentally, or financially sustainable.

If you think about it, Canada is a huge country with a relatively tiny population compared to most.

And Canada has unparalleled in the world natural resource wealth and massive, simply massive amounts of fossil fuels and total energy being siphoned off to the USSA 24-7.

We've been paying them to take it off our hands for decades.That is what's unsustainable.

That economy south of us is the most fossil fuel dependent, the most wasteful, and the most unsustainable economy in the world. And our corrupt stooges in power from one decade to the next can't say no to them. Socialism for the rich is unsustainable. People who do live in real countries might ask how Canada's stoogeocracy has been able to achieve so little with so much at their disposal for so long. Too many Canadians have no idea how this country is just a vast repository of natural resource wealth for corporate America to raid at will. People have to be sustained. It's time to get the rich off welfare in this Northern Puerto Rico and start building a real country.

oldgoat

ACSial, did a quick perusal of your past contributions here.  This is the wrong forum to be beating your anti-immigration drum.  Bye

George Victor

If you have just banned ACSial, Oldgoat, then I must also give a cryptic "bye" and leave you with your children's crusade role. Everything that he put forward could have been challenged, but perhaps not successfully by those interested in a truthful account of Canadian life today.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

1) The question of incentive is bogus the country sets how many immigrants come in -- no matter how badly or well they may be treated the government decides on the numbers. I said this before so I assume your failure to recognize this point is purposeful. There is no environmental impact at all-- zilch nada zero of giving these people their minuscule pension as this policy CANNOT change the number who come here -- that is a different argument.

2) The amount you get in pension is exactly proportional to your time here so the system is not damaged and people who get a pension based on their time here are not taking it from anyone else. It is the long waiting period that is prejudicial not a decision to allow people to get what is based on time here. Again I assume you are deliberately ignoring this point even thought the 1/40th per year part has been raised several times and each time you pretend it wasn't.

3 The economic purpose of immigration is basically selfish-- this country lets in immigrants because they are beneficial economically. The impact of providing smaller amounts of money to people of low income is much more complicated as they spend this money which creates economic activity. It really costs the government very little to do this.

I am getting tired of this -- perhaps someone else wants to take on the bullshit argument. As I argued against one point the poster finds a slippery way to pretend we are arguing something else-- first it was policy about pensions for those here then it became immigration as a whole-- there never was a connection between the two since the government sets annual quotas and if more people want to come the line gets longer but that does not mean more people get to come.

Slumberjack

Who lives where they were born these days George. The migration of people away from their ancestral lands, at least in the modern era has always been about capitalist economic exploitation. Capital tears people away from the sense of belonging anywhere, to the extent that we are no longer from anywhere, except from some distant memory. We have the lingering effects of colonialism, its vicious wars, and the resulting destruction of all human roots to thank for that. One would think that from the contemporary experience, a way could be found within ourselves to spare a thought for people that have been torn from everything they know, when we ourselves, that is a majority of the people in this country, have been expropriated from friends through the dire necessity of continuous wage serfdom, from the dignity of ones own flesh by industrial pornography and the expediency of corporate travel regulations, and from the wider community around us by the police who enforce the artificial divisions.

We have arrived at the point where the only way to regain a sense of ourselves is to lay the curse that afflicts us all at the feet of other victims, the immigrants, who from the perspective of those who continue to insist on the benefits of exploitation to maintain their own existence, appear to us through conditioning as more foreign than the parasitic system which surrounds us. Capital doesn't give a rat's ass about the long term viability of social programs or the environment for that matter, as those issues tend to be left for others to manage, if indeed the motivation and priority exists within our system of governance.  That in itself should be enough to render the protestations of concern regarding social initiatives from our corporate leaders to be an obscene charade.

 Anyway..watch for that spring loaded door on your way out.

Fidel

And neoliberal capitalism has created supranational corporations possessing more power than governments and labour unions combined. Marauding capital is allowed to run roughshod over democracy. Free labour markets and free movement of labour are ruled against by their hirelings in government. Right-rightist versions of free trade theory amount to so much deliberate state intervention in markets on behalf of the rich. They call it freedom when themselves are free.

George Victor

Slumberjack wrote:

Who lives where they were born these days George. The migration of people away from their ancestral lands, at least in the modern era has always been about capitalist economic exploitation. Capital tears people away from the sense of belonging anywhere, to the extent that we are no longer from anywhere, except from some distant memory. We have the lingering effects of colonialism, its vicious wars, and the resulting destruction of all human roots to thank for that. One would think that from the contemporary experience, a way could be found within ourselves to spare a thought for people that have been torn from everything they know, when we ourselves, that is a majority of the people in this country, have been expropriated from friends through the dire necessity of continuous wage serfdom, from the dignity of ones own flesh by industrial pornography and the expediency of corporate travel regulations, and from the wider community around us by the police who enforce the artificial divisions.

We have arrived at the point where the only way to regain a sense of ourselves is to lay the curse that afflicts us all at the feet of other victims, the immigrants, who from the perspective of those who continue to insist on the benefits of exploitation to maintain their own existence, appear to us through conditioning as more foreign than the parasitic system which surrounds us. Capital doesn't give a rat's ass about the long term viability of social programs or the environment for that matter, as those issues tend to be left for others to manage, if indeed the motivation and priority exists within our system of governance.  That in itself should be enough to render the protestations of concern regarding social initiatives from our corporate leaders to be an obscene charade.

 Anyway..watch for that spring loaded door on your way out.

What does any of your verbal diarrhea have to do with the suppression of voices attempting to post on this board, Jack?  But then, what have your your long, meaningless messages ever meant?

The silence of the pack is what I find so interesting in this instance.  Turns out to be a comfortable little clique with all the fortitude of a lynch mob.    

Sean in Ottawa

Only one person has been banned here, the other is making a personal choice, and the banned person had a long run of comments that were quite extreme here as described above. (I will not repeat the descriptions because that person is no longer here.) ,You can't say the poster was not given quite a lot of latitude. While I do not want to continue a commentary without the person here, it seems fair that I would respond at least to reject the notion that I was part of a "lynch mob" or clique. For the most part I was arguing against two people.

PW

Alex Atamanenko (NDP MP, BC Southern Interior) is opposed to this bill:

"Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with Bill C-428. A number of persons in my riding are concerned about this private member's bill. They say that there are currently already 50 social security agreements in place with a wide variety of countries that allow for a period of residence and contributions to the other country to be used to meet a 10-year requirement.

"They feel that a cost of over $700 million that the bill would entail is too costly and irresponsible, and would be paid for by the Canadian taxpayers. They request the House of Commons to reject Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement)."

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4240795&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2

 

George Victor

Careful, PW.  You are entering on dangerous ground.

PW

George Victor,

I wasn't aware that quoting the Hansard was 'dangerous ground'...

George Victor

I was half-seriously pointing to the fate of those who deal with this subject.  I applaud efforts to make it a legitimate area of discussion.  Bravo, PW. And thanks for unearthing it from Hansard. 

Sean in Ottawa

George so you are saying you are back from your pout? (post #61)

You are being disingenuous here.

There is a lot more to this discussion than that. and the person that put up the post has not stated an opinion either way. Perhaps he agrees and is using this as support or perhaps he is pointing out that a New Dem is on the wrong side of the issue.

I did not have trouble with the topic itself, even though I have strong opinions on it. I did have trouble with the bob and weave that brought in the environment etc. as well as other issues I can't get in to because the original poster is no longer here.

I still have trouble with the volume of misinformation. In fact, I would like an explanation concerning where this $700 million comes from. I'd like to know if Dhalla just pulled it out of thin air or if it is accurate. It does not appear accurate:

The only people this affects are people from those countries, who have arrived here between 3 and 9 years ago (at 10 they would get it anyway). The pension is only $566 and the most anyone could get is 22.5% of that per month or $127.35/month. Others would get as little as $42.45. If we assume an average of the two amounts we would be talking about $84.925 per month.

For this to come to $700/year we would need to have 686,880 applicants. Thing is we let in some 15,000 total-- many of who are not from these countries and not of age. If we assume that all of them came from these countries and all were old enough then it would take some 45 years of applicants to get this number of $700 million.

I really want to know where they get that number.

I suspect Dhalla did not do her job and that her estimate is not based on accurate numbers of people and not based on accurate figures (that it is a partial not a full pension). that said it is also possible Dhalla is speaking of an expense that covers many years. Of course that is misleading because even the smallest expense if added up over decades coems to a big number. Still this number doesn't appear accurate at all. If she messed up the numbers she may have destroyed a decent policy with crappy research.

 

George Victor

As you see, PW, having made sure that the source of much thoughtful material has been eliminated from the discussion, some are again resorting to demands for "evidence".   

They won't bother turning to the April 14 Canadian Press story that gives out the Conference Board of Canada's opinion that "Canada will have to increase the number of immigrants allowed into the country by about 100,000 per year in order to boost productivity and help pay for pensions."  These are the folk to the right of Vlad the Impaler.

That has been the mantra of management for many moons now.  And, one supposes, the younger set will somehow find the means to call a halt to growth.  We dasn't.

kropotkin1951

Alex was doing what a good MP always does which is present the petitions of his constituents.  There is no implication that any MP agrees with the petition unless they say so.  Geez its a good thing he didn't table a citizens petition trying to take the word god out of anything.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/ChamberPublicationIndexSearc...

kropotkin1951

On the same day just after Alex tabled his petition others did as well.

 

Quote:

Protection of Human Life

 

Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC):  
    Madam Speaker, the last petition I wish to present to the House today is in regard to life.

 

 

    The petitioners point out that Canada is a country that respects human rights and includes in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that everyone has the right to life.

 

 

    The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

Slumberjack

Dangerous ground indeed. When ones available time is spent lamenting over border security and immigration, they may as well take up with a local minuteman group over a cup of tea as the panacea for their fears.

Sean in Ottawa

George Victor wrote:

As you see, PW, having made sure that the source of much thoughtful material has been eliminated from the discussion, some are again resorting to demands for "evidence".   

They won't bother turning to the April 14 Canadian Press story that gives out the Conference Board of Canada's opinion that "Canada will have to increase the number of immigrants allowed into the country by about 100,000 per year in order to boost productivity and help pay for pensions."  These are the folk to the right of Vlad the Impaler.

That has been the mantra of management for many moons now.  And, one supposes, the younger set will somehow find the means to call a halt to growth.  We dasn't.

Wow George do you see the problems with what you are saying or is this purposeful?

Punishing people who live here is not thoughtful.

Asking for the math when it does not add up is. Pity you can't see the difference.I actually took the time to explain the math problem with the $700 million figure. Rather than engage that you choose to try to tar me as a censor. That is a cowardly line of argument.

But let's review once again the problem: I consider growth and the environment to be global. The way to control population growth is to reduce the number of those being born (contraception, access to abortion and combating poverty are some of the ways we can help). George is concerned about Canada sharing space and resources with others who are already born and he expresses a desire to keep Canada for the current Canadians as his proposal for the environment. It's an argument that is many things but, based on a global response to the environment, it is not.

The only thing that anyone was trying to eliminate from the discussion was credibility for George Victors defence of the racist foundations of the original post and racist thread drift trying to suggest that somehow denying people access to small amounts of pension money in George's opinion helps the environment because it discourages people from those populous non-white countries from coming here. George is defending a "let them starve and then others won't want to come here" approach to the environment.

Interestingly he dopes not seem interested in more rational environmental concerns perhaps because the environment is a good excuse to keep Canada white (and by that I don't mean snow). He never answered how the globe is better off by keeping those people in overpopulated countries that have fewer environmental regulations than here, where we could try to fight for better environmental laws but instead some people prefer a racist approach.

And George, when you choose to pretend that I am involved in censorship rather than condemnation, don't expect me to be pleasant about it. I am condemning your vile disgusting line of argument not preventing you from making it. That was your proposed gift to this thread not my request.

George Victor

You, and others, are leaving the questions to your kids (or others) to solve...in the name of your holier than thou positions.

That is a cowardly and inexcusable act.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

rofl

Sean in Ottawa

George, I have little to no respect left for you and it would be very difficult for me to answer you right now while following the rules of this forum so I suppose I'll just have to leave it to you to imagine the specifics of what I think of you, your insinuations about me and your comments. I think if I laid out my response in detail, I'd be in breach of those rules.

I can say however that your post reminds me of the types of answers we are getting from the government on the detainee issue. You show a talent for using some progressive language on the surface to hide vile right-wing bigoted positions. Perhaps the PMO could offer you a job rather than have you have to slave away here for free.

George Victor

Your respect, I can live without, Sean.  I have laid out the case for the need to treat the subject of immigration with the world's most pressing needs in mind, and I have the welfare of my descendants in mind in taking this position. As Doug Saunders points out in an op-ed spread in the Globe today - and as I have argued here - the sons and daughters of the ignorant will perhaps overcome their beginnings. Always, your type take refuge behind charges of racism and bigotry, and seek solace in opinions matching your own, just in case you might be wrong. That's a pity because in casting your gaze a little farther afield, you might come to understand the full nature of the world you live in and realize that positions like mine are not those of the enemy.  The enemy is the ignorance that the Conservative, with his perverted view of human nature, knows how to feed on.   You confirm his view.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I find it amusing when a hue and cry goes up to defend this land that we stole from the encrouchment of others who would share in the spoils. Notably this cry is loudest when the majority of those coming do so in pursuit of the risidual wealth left over from the occupation and exploitation of their own lands by Europeans. Perhaps some think it is co-incidental that so many of these late arrivals are non-white, non-Europeans.

To see this defense made in the name of defending ourselves from the rapacious savagery of the machine we ourselves created and unleashed upon the planet and its people is ironic in the extreme.

George Victor

Cast your gaze back over the postings, Cue.  Your position is absolutely correct, as far as it goes.  But in  2010 THE question has to be survival of all the many-hued varieties of our species, not territory. 

Sean in Ottawa

The last post by GV is hypocritical as he seeks to protect only the Canadian environment from those who already exist elsewhere yet the issue of immigration is about population movement not increased population. We need to manage the world's population as a whole not seek to focus on keeping other people out so we are free to waste resources as we see fit here.

Now GV is pretending he is talking about saving the entire population from what? The sharing of the resources of the most well off? This is the most twisted series of so-called "environmental" arguments I have ever seen. And there have been a few around.

Of course the one good thing about it that its lack of logic and hypocrisy is at least blatantly apparent. This of course explains the need to accuse others of being cowards and trying to censor views. I am ridiculing the ridiculous and censoring nobody.

GV I am taking no refuge behind arguments-- I am making them and instead of addressing what I bring up or responding to them you just repeat your allegations that I am somehow wrong to point out the basis of your arguments. Now why don't you at least attempt to respond to the argument that the environment is global and that a person moving from an overpopulated country to Canada is hardly damaging the planet that you pretend to care about. And while you are at it justify why you think it is reasonable to go after minuscule pensions for immigrant seniors as a way of discouraging migration to Canada. You have never in this thread actually addressed the substance of the critiques of your argument. Yet you can accuse me of hiding?

GV Your tactic seems to be to wear people out with garbage so that they don't notice that you have never, ever, ever, ever, answered what they said. That is the cowardly tactic of hiding.

I am so glad that you have no use for my respect. You have none. I will never bother to consider as valuable anything you might have to say because you refuse to debate, engage and learn and are only interested in twisted arguments and evading the substance of any criticism of what you say.

PW

"These are the folk to the right of Vlad the Impaler."

The Cato Institute is another corporate-funded thinktank, in the U.S., that's pushed for liberalization of immigration. These people don't like high labour costs, or social programs like public pensions and think that environmental issues like overpopulation are bunk. This should maybe be a clue as to whether or not high levels of immigration are, in fact, beneficial to working Canadians and pensioners.

World environmental issues, like CO2 levels, are global. Things like urban sprawl and water consumption are local issues, impacted by local population growth.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Absolutely. In reaction to that what is necessarry is a hindboun anti-immigration view that reinforces disparities, and traps the better part of the world in traditional social relations which cause the problems in the first place, so that the privileged few can benefit while the rest of the world rots. In essence, we support "environmentalism" as long as the impact of reform doesn't impact our preciious way of life.

You are right, we can download the pain on others? What is so new about that?

Have immigration positive policies of the last 30 years meant that Canada has been populated with millions of people just waiting to spawn gigantic families? Not at all, social well-being has removed the social and economic impetus that drives high population growth, and in fact there has been no shocking upswing in reproduction.

PW

Here's something Britain on the immigration debate in this election.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7100863.ece

Even with modernity, traditional family sizes persist. In Soviet Central Asia, with industrialization and official sexual equality, the birthrate stayed the same and the population actually grew. The birthrate stayed the same but infant mortality declined and life expectancy increased, meaning more babies lived to produce children...the population grew faster. Very advanced societies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia have very high birthrates just like in pre-petro days. These people don't want to adopt our gender equality and small family sizes. They don't want to listen to our "culturalism" about women's rights and working mothers with small families. Different societies make their own choices and most of the non-western world chose to keep having really large families, even if they ended up with more people than they could feed. China, South Korea and some Gulf states like Kuwait are already leasing and buying farmland in Canada, because they now have more people than their lands can feed. At some point we have to say STOP! and protect our immediate environment and social systems.

People call China a "Communist" country, but they don't have much in the way of healthcare or pensions. Neither does India. Who do you know who moves to India or China from Canada? But how many move to Canada from India and China, especially when they are near retirement? The math can't work out here. And we're outsourcing too many manufacturing jobs to Asia. Why does Canada get a company to build a crane in Esquimalt with Chinese workers? Why do Canadian companies like Black & Decker make everything in Chinese factories? Why do we allow our raw materials to go to Asia, so they can sell manufactured goods back to us? Some say that China keeps its currency artificially low, others blame labour costs. But people like Jack Layton and Bob Rae don't say anything. Jobs and industry being outsourced means less funds from taxation and payroll coming into medicare and pensions. And I know at least a few people who came here from China and Jamaica either because they needed things like clubfoot surgery or special ed for their kids, or subsidized care for their parents. I think the Singh decision was one of the stupidest things the SCOC did to Canada.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Look. This is all just really traditional blame immigrants for your trouble shit. The reason that the government outsourced work to non-Canadian workers is because the people who are doing the hiring are corrupt, not the people they hired. Why is it a big issue that the workers are Chinese. All that has to do with is skewed immigration policies designed to exploit people, such as guest labourers and so on and so forth.

Someone is filling your head with racist propaganda that is all. Check your head.

The reason that Black and Decker subcontracts labour out is because they just don't give a flying fuck about you or anyone else. That has nothing to do with immigration, Chinese people or anything else but corporate corruption.

You can't save the planet one country at a time. Just like you couldn't save New Orleans one neighborhood at a time. It is all connected. Immigration policy, aint got nothing to do with that.

KenS

Insert another blame immigrants post here.

...88, 89, 90..

...getting close to 100

Sean in Ottawa

PW much of what you say is false.

China actually has a low birthrate and an aging population I guess you did not want to mention that.

You seem to be suggesting that the Chinese immigrants to Canada are mainly elderly or needing health care: the opposite is true.

The bulk of our immigrants from China are economic immigrants meaning they are coming to enrich us. A variety of factors are considered including preference for those who can speak English, have high education, are young (yes there are points for youthfulness), are working in areas we have shortages etc. People who have health care issues are denied. Then there is the family reunification provision that I mentioned before. Tis is a much, much smaller group of immigrants and these may include older Chinese who are related to younger Chinese who have immigrated here before. This group is much smaller so the net effect of Chinese immigration is actually reducing the average age-- Older Chinese can't come here on their own and most younger Chinese don't ever bring older relatives for many reasons: 1) some don't want to 2) some are not making enough money to sponsor them 3) some of the parents don't want to come because they are attached to their own country, don't speak the language etc. 4) some can't pass the medical as only healthy people are allowed 5) the wait is now over 5 years to come to Canada and that is discouraging some from applying and others become to old or lose their good health while waiting.

To put this in perspective PW (or is this a reincarnation of ACSIAL?) thinks that older Chinese are the big number. Here are the facts -- the latest numbers we have are from 2008 and the government has slowed family reunification since then while increasing economic migrants. 

There were 247,243 total immigrants that year. Of those 60% were economic 149,072-- those picked based on a point system to enrich Canada. Then there were 21,860 refugees, many of whom are young but they come fearing being harmed in their own country and do not have to go through the points system. Then we have the family class and these totaled 65,567 people. Now before you get excited about this number that is almost half the economic class let's consider it more closely. Over 50,000 of them are younger people coming here to marry economic class migrants. Many are of the same age social and economic status and education as the economic migrants but they can get in faster if they are spouses. The vast majority are in their 20s. So these people also contribute to a younger Canadian population. Finally you have the rest of the family class-- this includes both children and parents etc. Adopted children and orphans are brought in on a priority basis, spouses and dependent children are next and finally if there is any room in the quotas some parents/grandparents are let in. This is no more than 15,000 or roughly 6% of the immigrants coming in. So the net result of immigrants coming in would be to reduce the percentage of elderly people in Canada -- not increase them. Also increases the percentage of tax paying people while reducing the percentage of ill or infirm people as a percentage of the population as a whole.

Since 2008 the waiting time for parents coming from China for example has doubled from about 3 years to about 6 years.

Sean in Ottawa

Sorry Ken, I took another one so the blame the immigrant posts will have to be 89, 90 and 91...

Oh and this post means 90, 91, 92... getting there

Sean in Ottawa

By the way the so-called Singh decision was to allow the application of the Canadian Charter to those who are resident in Caanda. It required fair hearings before deportation of those claiming refugee status as they are currently residents. Many breathless right-wing ideologues have been very selective about stats to pretend that this has created a wave of refugees in spite of the fact that the actual stats prove otherwise. The alternative to that decision was to ahve people living amongst us not subject to the Charter, something that to most Canadians would be more offensive than a small number of additional refugees being allowed in just because they got to have fair hearings.

PW

@Cueball why isn't Layton complaining about this? Isnt the NDP supposed to be on the side of CANADIAN workers? He never said anything about Esquimalt. The NDP could push for tax penalties or tarrifs on Canadian companies that outsource production. Or ban Chinese imports. Why did we let in Chinese imports after the melamine, lead, drywall problems? Jack Layton and Bob Rae are like Jean Chretien, they're in the pockets of Chinese business. The Cons, Libs, NDP don't care about Canadians, they just want votes. This is why they'll vote for C428 and pick up votes in Indian and Chinese ridings. Harper, Ignatieff, Layton don't care if there is no public pension or health care. They all have private sector money. Even layton got his knee done at a private clinic, do you think he cares if theres no public health care for you when you retire?

China's birthrate isn't that low. Northern China is turning to desert and their food production has been dropping since 2003. The One Child policy doesn't apply to everyone and there's loopholes. This is why the Han colonized Tibet, Mongolia, East Turkestan. India is half starving because they have too many people. And people do bring their parents here to get access to healthcare. It's not racist to say that we have to look after people here first, especially the ones who paid for years into Old Age Security. You're being elitist when you scream "racist!" at working people and pensioners who are afraid for their jobs and pensions. You can't be like Jack Layton and sell out CANADIANS to your business friends.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

PW, you have busted yourself. This is one of the clearest examples of outrageous trolling I've ever seen on this board.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

PW wrote:

@Cueball why isn't Layton complaining about this? Isnt the NDP supposed to be on the side of CANADIAN workers? He never said anything about Esquimalt.

 

Why aren't he and his wife breeding like rabbits, after all his wife is of Chinese national origin?

PW

@Cueball, the Chinese DON'T "breed like rabbits". Now THAT'S racist. Ethnic Han don't have big families any more than Europeans did. The problem is that most of China is a cold and arid country, especially in the North and can't produce enough food to feed itself with the land and water it has. China doesn't have the good grazing land like North America so they have to raise cattle on grain right from calving. China has about 1.2B people and the area of the U.S. The problem is that they exceeded their land's carrying capacity long ago. The population is still growing because infant mortality went down and the surviving babies eventually have their own. India isnt one country for all practical purposes but a bunch of ethnic groups who hate each other in a fragile federation. India is on track for a major famine, has a terrible social welfare system and will eventually come apart at the seams. Canada also has a limited ecological capacity, limited water, limited farmland and cold weather, meaning the more people from warm climates who move here, the more fossil fuel use for heating. We aren't solving the world's problems by shuffling people around like musical chairs. We cant let Canada keep growing and we can't let people use social programs they never paid into. We have also got to use fines and tarrifs to stop businesses from outsourcing Canadian jobs.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am glad we clarified this point. So we can agree that high birthrates are not to do with any intrinsic cultural or racial attributes. Causes for over-population lie elsewhere.

In any case, I wouldn't worry too much, Canada has moved over to having a "guest worker" policy now, so in fact we can fill our unquenchable need for cheep labour to do things like cook, clean and wash toilets for the deserving "hard working" Canadian, and at the same time not have to give these workers any benefits, healthcare or pensions or anything. When we don't need them, or should they become difficult we can always just send them back.

Isn't that nice? It will just be like home away from home for them: no rights, hard work and low pay. It's the best of both worlds don't you agree? Third world labour at third world prices, serving the needs of first world Europeans right here at home.

Even better these workers pay into all the standard employment plans such as CPP and EI, yet are unlikely to collect, since they are gone before they are elligible. How do you like that? Foreigners paying "hard working" Canadians for the privilege of serving them!

Don't worry, you won't be stuck in McDonalds serving fries in the foreseeable future. And none of your hard stolen loot that you have inherited, need be redistributed to the unwashed

Happy now? Smile

PW

@cueball, The reason that North America and Europe have small families is because we were "lucky" to go through the Total War economies of WW I-II, when women entered the workforce in large numbers. This meant defferred childbirth. This never happened in other countries, where women generally remained stay at home moms and had bigger families. Most of the female industrial workforce in the USSR was in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, not Central Asia. While our birthrate stayed low, but still enough to grow because of lower infant mortality and vaccines etc everybody else kept having large families. This is why the population is still growing and dangerously high in places like India. We cant force them to practice family planning but we don't have to let everybody in or buy our farmland.

Most of the immigrants coming here ARENT poor. The easiest way into canada is the immigrant entrepreneur program. You have half a million, youre in. Letting people buy citizenships is not a good thing. And elderly people will still get oldage pensions, everybody is eligible to immediately use the medicare system. Lots of this people buy businesses and farms, orchards and then bring people from home to work for dirt wages. Lots of farms and orchards in the Okanagan like this. And like in Europe so-called guest workers usually never go back and often just end up on social assistance. In Canada you can fight deportation forever. A welfare state that works needs workers spending money here and paying taxes here to support the few people who cant work. You cant bring hundreds of thousands of people into the country when you have thousands of layoffs. You can't let people claim benefits from a program they never paid into. When you have something like the Singh decision and C428 you are basically putting out the welcome mat for people to come here just to get social benefits. Search the internet and see how many people are angry over this. Do you want to call them racist rednecks too? Go talk to working people and seniors and ask THEM what they think.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

I haven't called anyone a racist or a redneck yet.

I do however, dispute your sociology "in a can" analysis of low birth rates in Canada. I think you just made all that up. That's fine, I am not going to begrudge someone the right to think about stuff and come up with their own ideas. Who knows, you may even be partly right.

But here is my point: No two tiered system of rights. Its a very simple idea. Read it:

Quote:
This bill seeks to increase support to immigrant seniors and erase an inequality that exists against seniors coming to Canada from certain countries like China, India and others in Africa, South America, and the Caribbean. Immigrant seniors from these areas have to wait 10 years to receive their Old Age Security benefits vs. 3 years for seniors coming from other countries.

This bill obviously equalizes the system so that any seniors from any country is accorded the same rights. Fine if you want to argue that all seniors should wait 10 years to receive benefits. But what you are attacking is an equalization of rights for people who are by and large non-white people.

Why specifically should people from China, India, Africa, South America and the Caribbean have to wait longer than people from the USA or Europe?

Your whole idea that some kind of welcome mat has been put out to people who just come here to exploit social benefits is highly speculative, and not only that seems tainted with some very odd associations. For example, I bet the number of white Americans who come here to scoop free health care far outnumbers the number of people who come here from Asia to do the same. In fact, I have met several, however, you and your "angry" internet mob seem to spend a lot of time bleating about the "Singh" decision, and the Asian hordes.

What's up with that?

Fidel

PW wrote:
People call China a "Communist" country, but they don't have much in the way of healthcare or pensions. Neither does India.Who do you know who moves to India or China from Canada?

Ryerson Poly published a study of immigration patterns a few years ago. It said that something like 650,000 Asian emigres to Canada in the late 1990s have since returned to their countries of origin and citing a lack of career opportunities in Canada. They love the wide open spaces, fresh air and generally barren landscape in our relatively empty Northern Puerto Rico. And very many of them are well educated and earned advanced degrees either there or during their brief stay in Canada. We have the equivalent population of an entire province of Canadian citizens living somewhere other than Canada.

And, China's mortality rates are considerably better than exists in democratic capitalist India. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/asia/22iht-beijing.1.19590543.ht... plans universal health care[/url] $123 billion by 2011. I think China will achieve universal health care before the USA ever does.

PW

@Cueball, here's some more stuff from Britain and the immigration issue there.

Canada has more land than Britan, but not much arable land or water resources.

 

"Why specifically should people from China, India, Africa, South America and the Caribbean have to wait longer than people from the USA or Europe?"

Because Canada has reciprocity agreements with the following.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/research/elderly/appendix.asp

If these countries Dhalla thinks are being treated unfairly then they can play tit for tat and pay free healthcare and pensions to Canadians who go there.

And how many people move from Canada to Jamaica, India, China vs from these countries to Canada? This is not some question of being fair, but being financially realistic. Maybe "fair" would be to only allow in as many people from a given country as that country takes in of our citizens. And no, white people from South Africa or German people who can't home school their kids, or white American deserters aren't "refugees". We don't need them either.

 

Lots of Americans rip off the Canadian healthcare system. Ontario has estimated over $100M annually in medicare fraud. Part of the problem is really bad security with medicare cards, like no photo ID. My Air Miles card is more secure than my medicare card. Im also angry at the fact that the government no longer sends annual healthcare statements, so I can see if my account is being used fraudulently. SOMEBODY did this when they got ahold of my health care # and got a bunch of x-rays...I only found out about this months later.

 

The Singh decision was stupid because things like medicare and welfare are benefits earned by being a full member of society. Sort of like the right to vote. Medicare and welfare are NOT the same thing as real charter rights, like freedom of expression and religion. The judges should have ruled that the plaintiffs had a right to practice their religion in Canada...but access to tax-funded social benefits is not some kind of basic freedom or right. And, like you say, there are "hordes" from any country...including Americans who use a Canadian relative's medicare # to get healthcare thats paid for by Canadian taxpayers. And white Americans use the Singh Decision in this way, too. We don't need them any more than the scam artists from other countries.

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Equality under the law is a right. Laws that are descriminatory contravene these right. So, yeah, if you give welfare to one guy, and not the other because he is from Pakistan, you have infringed the charter. Maybe you don't deserve these rights. You sure don't seem to understand them.

Also, thanks for the chart. I fail to see how reciprocity deals relate to the timing of when people may get a pension.

As well, the fact that "hardly anybody" goes somewhere does not amount to a useable legal principle. It amounts to a subjective context. We don't assert rights or make laws on the basis of subjective contexts. Each case is measured individually. One person might move to Jamaica, twenty might, a thousand might. Laws and rights pertain first to the individual. Any collective rights extend from the individual right, and do not under any circumstances supercede those individual rights.

So, it is irrelevant, how attractive any place is. or how many people end up there, or come from there.

By the same token, what is this about 'countries' being treated unfairly? This isn't about countries, this is about persons from other countries living in Canada. Individuals with rights. Some of whom won't apparently be eligible for pensions, until long after they become Canadians.

Pages

Topic locked