Tag Archives: C.D. Howe Institute

AN OPEN LETTER TO CANADA’S IMMIGRATION MINISTER

Posted on by
Attention Editor/Reporter/Columnist:
For your information, Immigration Watch Canada is sending you its latest bulletin: “AN OPEN LETTER TO CANADA’S IMMIGRATION MINISTER.”
Respectfully,
Dan Murray
AN OPEN LETTER TO CANADA’S IMMIGRATION MINISTER

  
December 11, 2017
Your reasons for increasing Canada’s immigration intake contain three big mistakes.
Here they are :
(1) You said that Canada needs immigrants to deal with its aging population. Wrong!! If you had done your homework you would have realized that over 25 years ago, Ottawa asked its department of Health and Welfare to decide whether Canada should use immigration to solve future aging population issues. The answer was “NO”. Researchers concluded that even if Canada increased immigration to 600,000 per year, the increase would not reduce Canada’s average age or the ratio of older Canadians to younger Canadians. It would be better to get older unemployed men into jobs and to encourage more women to enter the work-force. The CD Howe Institute’s study in 2006 reached a similar conclusion : It found that to have an effect, Canada would have to have an unrealistically high intake of immigrants and would be taking in 7 million immigrants per year and the country’s population would have reached 165 million by 2050. Obviously, that intake would cause social havoc. It would be better to avoid using immigration as a tool and to gradually increase Canada’s retirement age.
(2) You said that immigration drives innovation and strengthens the economy. Wrong !! Once more, if you had done your homework, you would have realized that around 1990, Ottawa asked The Economic Council of Canada to determine if immigration would stimulate (strengthen) the economy. That group looked at Canada’s economic performance in every decade from Confederation to 1990 and concluded that immigration had not stimulated the economy in any previous decade. Its message : If immigration had failed to stimulate Canada’s economy for about 120 years, it was unlikely it would do that in future. Today, with completely senseless immigration, Canada is currently throwing away $35 Billion per year to import people it does not need.
(3) You implied that Canada had to keep increasing its population. Wrong!! You said that immigration-driven population growth now accounts for about 75 per cent of Canada’s population increase and that by 2036, 100 per cent of Canada’s population growth will be as a result of immigration. What good is achieved by increasing a country’s population endlessly? If you had bothered to read the Science Council of Canada’s thorough study regarding an optimum population for Canada, you would have learned that the Science Council (the best scientists in Canada) stated that Canada’s resources are not limitless and that Canada has to restrict its immigration,slow down its population growth and stabilize its population at around 34 million. If Canada does not do these things, it will jeopardize its own food and energy supply, and severely curtail both its standard of living and its national sovereignty.
Here is a vital question you should ask : “Why have I made such a mess of my announcement?” And here’s the answer : You have spent all your time listening to the immigration lobby. Let’s illustrate : If you were in charge of making new laws to curb drug dealers, would you ask Hell’s Angels for advice? Let’s spell it out for you : Here are three of the HELL’S ANGEL equivalents that you have listened to :
(a) the federal government’s own Advisory Council on Economic Growth. That is Bill Morneau Incorporated and should not be trusted.
(b) The Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants. Canada has organized crime but immigration consultants are Canada’s organized slime. They definitely also should not be trusted.
(c) The Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance and others. They are Canada’s Coalition of the Putrid. All of them (immigration service groups, refugee advocates and ethnic groups such as Sikhs, Muslims and Mainland Chinese have betrayed Canada in order to gain financially. You are the latest in a list of immigration Ministers and members of Standing Committees to let them get away with it.
Your leader has not kept important promises he made when he campaigned. He said he would restore evidence-based government. As we’ve explained, it’s clear that the immigration policies he has supported are not evidence-based. In addition, you’ll have to admit that his announcement last winter that all refugees are welcome here was exceptionally foolish. And, at the start of his term, he declared that Canada was a post-national state. Scandalously, he meant that his first loyalty would be to recently-arrived ethnic groups, not to Canada’s majority population. We could go on. But let’s cut to the chase : Many Canadians believe he has betrayed Canada. They think that he chose you to be the Somalian acid that he would throw into the face of Canada. As for you, to whom Canada generously gave refugee status, no Canadian respects anyone who taunts them as you did with contemptuous statements such as “Increased intakes of millions of unnecessary immigrants are Canada’s NEW IMMIGRATION NORMAL”.
Your statements may make you feel good because unnecessary immigration has a good chance of making Canada look like a hell-hole such as Somalia. But sane Canadians don’t want to make Canada look like Somalia or India (particularly the Punjab) or Mainland China.
Remember three important matters : (a) Canada has at least 1 million unemployed, many of whom are now competing for jobs with unnecessary immigrants. (b) Canada also has tens of thousands of homeless. As winter arrives, why are they on our streets while new arrivals live in hotels or secure housing? (c) Canada has obligations to its aboriginal population who in addition to being part of the jobless and homeless, require other assistance. It will take years for Canada to correct these THREE major problems. In the meantime, instead of increasing immigration to well over 300,000 per year and worsening the lives of Canadians, you should have announced that Canada’s immigration intake would be reduced to nearly zero. Get your act together and do the right thing.
For sensible immigration policies for the 21st cent
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

Bissett: Immigration policy is out of control and needs an overhaul

Posted on by

Bissett: Immigration policy is out of control and needs an overhaul

James BissettJAMES BISSETT
Published on: November 20, 2017 | Last Updated: November 20, 2017 7:00 AM EST
Inline image 1
A group of new Canadians takes the citizenship oath at Pier 21 immigration centre in Halifax on Saturday, July 1, 2017. How many newcomers should Canada admit?

SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT

The Trudeau government’s plan to bring in close to one million new immigrants within the next three years should be of serious concern to Canadians. Next year alone, the numbers are expected to reach 310,000 but to that total must be added approximately 900,000 temporary foreign workers and foreign students who will be living in Canada. Since most of the newcomers will be settling in three of our major cities, the pressure on infrastructure and local services will be extreme.

Canada’s current immigration policy is based on myths. All of our political parties, most of the news media, big business interests, the banks and land developers favour large-scale immigration and justify this on the grounds that immigration helps our economy, strengthens the labour force and alleviates our aging problem.

In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers. The selection is done by a paper review. The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria ), refugees and humanitarian cases.

The truth is that the government has lost control of the immigration program by abandoning its traditional role of selecting our immigrants and controlling their numbers. Canadians have been brainwashed into believing we are doomed if we don’t keep immigration levels high. We are also told that our immigration policies are acknowledged to be the envy of the world. These arguments are wrong.

There is no evidence that immigration is essential for economic growth. The 1985 MacDonald Royal Commission Report concluded that immigration did not contribute to economic growth and, in fact, caused a decline in per capita income and real wages. In 1989, a two-year study by the Department of Health and Welfare supported the MacDonald report and stated there was no argument for increased population growth and that immigration was not the answer to the aging of the population. In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion.

A more recent study by Prof. Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University and economist Patrick Grady found that in the year 2002 alone, the costs in services and benefits received by the 2.5 million immigrants between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes paid by these immigrants by $23 billion. It is not surprising that this study has received little media coverage in Canada.

Studies outside of Canada have come to the same conclusion about the economic value of immigration. In Britain, a report by the House of Lords in 2008 warned that the government’s plan to admit 190,000 immigrants per year would achieve little benefit and would seriously affect the availability of housing and the quality of public services. The report also criticized the government for misleading the people by justifying immigration levels when they provided no economic benefit, were not needed to fill labour shortages and did not help the state’s pension fund.

Perhaps the most insidious argument still being advanced by government and other advocates of mass immigration is the belief that we need immigration to provide the workers needed to replace our aging population. This argument is obviously flawed if, as in Canada, the immigration movement has a similar age structure as the receiving country; then, immigration does not help the aging problem – indeed it may well exacerbate it.

In 2009, a study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that to offset our declining birth rate and maintain the ratio of five taxpayers to support the benefits of one pensioner until 2050, our immigration levels would have to reach 165.4 million. And in that single year, 2050, the annual movement would have to be seven million immigrants. The study recommended that raising the retirement age to 67 would be much more effective.

Sadly, we have allowed our political parties to use and exploit immigration for political purposes – with all parties competing for the ethnic vote by calling for increasing numbers. This is a cynical approach, patronizing to immigrants and damaging to the country. It is time for comprehensive reform.

James Bissett is former head of Canada’s immigration service  (1985-1990).

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,