HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 10:09 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
I think a lot of the reduction is political. Trudeau wants to be seen as immigrant and refugee friendly and kicking them out even after being denied after endless reviews would hurt his touchy-feely credentials. Now he is realizing that Canadians are sick of fake refugees not being deported and knows it could hurt him in 2019 so he is finally cracking down.

Another often unreported issue with our refugee system and why the federal government`s commitments to timely reviews and deportations has to do with federal/provincial fiscal arrangements. While the refugees are waiting for their case to be heard and endlessly reviewed, they are on provincial welfare rolls of which the federal government only funds a part thru social transfers. If the federal government had to pay 100% of all costs while in the country they would have a far bigger reason to streamline the process of the reviews and deportations.
I don't think so. Although there are cases of public protest against the deportation of specific individuals, I don't think Canadians generally, or the Canadian government, have much problem with the idea of deporting people how have been found by the system and/or courts to be ineligible to remain in Canada (best option, of course, is always for them to leave on their own). What I am curious about is why deportations declined so much during the last Conservative government. Seems counterintuitive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 10:09 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 17,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
I think a lot of the reduction is political. Trudeau wants to be seen as immigrant and refugee friendly and kicking them out even after being denied after endless reviews would hurt his touchy-feely credentials. Now he is realizing that Canadians are sick of fake refugees not being deported and knows it could hurt him in 2019 so he is finally cracking down.

Another often unreported issue with our refugee system and why the federal government`s commitments to timely reviews and deportations has to do with federal/provincial fiscal arrangements. While the refugees are waiting for their case to be heard and endlessly reviewed, they are on provincial welfare rolls of which the federal government only funds a part thru social transfers. If the federal government had to pay 100% of all costs while in the country they would have a far bigger reason to streamline the process of the reviews and deportations.
I don't think so. Although there are cases of public protest against the deportation of specific individuals, I don't think Canadians generally, or the Canadian government, have much problem with the idea of deporting people who have been found by the system and/or courts to be ineligible to remain in Canada (best option, of course, is always for them to leave on their own).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 10:25 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 17,105
The government is planning to increase the annual immigration target to 350,000 by 2021 from the current target of 310,000, Minister Hessen announced today.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...350000-by-202/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 12:17 AM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,067
^I wasn't able to read the article since it was behind the G&M's paywall.

Here's the same story at the CBC

One of the best things about Canada is that immigration is not a political hot potato, which means that what could be a very volatile issue that divides the electorate, is treated in a very technocratic fashion by policy wonks, as if it were something like interest rate hikes or stormwater management.

Notice how emotional appeals from both sides of the immigration debate in other countries are flat out rejected by Hussen. That's a good thing. An American or European nativist would balk at the idea of increasing the immigration level by any number, but here the messaging from the Canadian government is clear: increase gradually at roughly 1% of the Canadian population to 450,000 over time. At the same time, pro-immigration leftists in other countries would want to dramatically increase the number of refugee claimants, but, again, the message is clear: immigration is ultimately a labour market strategy, not a charity, and the number of refugees and asylum seekers will always remain a small fraction of the total intake.

Canada's immigration system isn't perfect, but it's probably the best one in the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 12:30 AM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
^I wasn't able to read the article since it was behind the G&M's paywall.

Here's the same story at the CBC

One of the best things about Canada is that immigration is not a political hot potato, which means that what could be a very volatile issue that divides the electorate, is treated in a very technocratic fashion by policy wonks, as if it were something like interest rate hikes or stormwater management.

Notice how emotional appeals from both sides of the immigration debate in other countries are flat out rejected by Hussen. That's a good thing. An American or European nativist would balk at the idea of increasing the immigration level by any number, but here the messaging from the Canadian government is clear: increase gradually at roughly 1% of the Canadian population to 450,000 over time. At the same time, pro-immigration leftists in other countries would want to dramatically increase the number of refugee claimants, but, again, the message is clear: immigration is ultimately a labour market strategy, not a charity, and the number of refugees and asylum seekers will always remain a small fraction of the total intake.

Canada's immigration system isn't perfect, but it's probably the best one in the world.
Well said.

I personally have no issue w/taking in (some) additional refugees, as we did from Syria, but it must be similarly planned, justified and supported by the public.

Simply, that's best for the refugees themselves as public support and empathy are critical to their success in a new homeland; antipathy would be awful.

The immigration component (non-refugee) should be about what's good for Canada and shouldn't adversely impact the average Canadian or the government.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 12:33 AM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 641
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/fede...back-1.4157651

Federal government poised to add three paid personal leave days to the Federal labour code as well as mandate 4 weeks paid vacation (minimum) for those 10 years or more w/the same employer.

FWIW, not enough in my opinion, but a good start.

Also an interesting counterpoint to Ontario rolling back the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 12:37 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
The immigration component (non-refugee) should be about what's good for Canada and shouldn't adversely impact the average Canadian or the government.
Then the beginning point will be to recognize all degrees obtained in other commonwealth countries. It’s already ridiculous enough to have cab drivers who should have been professors.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 12:49 AM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Then the beginning point will be to recognize all degrees obtained in other commonwealth countries. It’s already ridiculous enough to have cab drivers who should have been professors.
While I agree that we are unreasonable in many cases (varies by province and profession) in respect of recognizing foreign credentials, I cannot agree w/your statement entirely.

A medical degree, or an engineering one is simply not of the same quality in every country, including within the commonwealth.

Further, one must understand the professional nomenclature in either English or French as may be the case in Canada. (if you took your degree in another language).

That said, we should be more proactive in accepting credentials from a wider range of places.

But we also have many non-degree barriers to work on as well.

For instance, we may recognize your medical degree but require you to do one year of residence under supervision in Canada.

On its face, not unreasonable.

Yet in practice there are a shortage of such places available both for immigrants and graduating medical students here.

That's mind numbingly stupid.

Its a more complex question than blanket recognition of credentials; but it is one that needs serious and timely attention.

Certainly we ought not to waste the talents of people we bring to our country and who seek out are country for what it can do for them as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 2:17 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
At the same time, pro-immigration leftists in other countries would want to dramatically increase the number of refugee claimants, but, again, the message is clear: immigration is ultimately a labour market strategy, not a charity, and the number of refugees and asylum seekers will always remain a small fraction of the total intake.
The labour market aspect of this should be discussed more than it is in Canada though.

The media are generally completely uncritical of companies or politicians who talk about labour or skill shortages. That CBC article follows the same pattern; no mention of the effect of immigration on wages. Do we really have a shortage of people capable of being Tim Hortons servers or health care workers, or are employers simply complaining that the market rate of labour is too high and that the government needs to step in by supplying more immigrant labour?

I have lots of "empty jobs" available. I am willing to hire full-time lawyers and engineers to work for minimum wage. I'd hire doctors too but I'm not sure that's allowed. Any takers? No?

Likewise we could ask why we have so many underemployed postsecondary graduates and so many skill shortages at the same time.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 2:28 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
I personally have no issue w/taking in (some) additional refugees, as we did from Syria, but it must be similarly planned, justified and supported by the public.
My main problem with refugee programs is that I am not sure they provide optimal value for dollar. I am fine with foreign aid and actually I wish Canada spent more money on it (i.e. if Justin Trudeau announced that foreign aid would be raised by $5B and my taxes went up by a commensurate amount that would be OK with me).

Not too long ago I listened to an interview of a Syrian refugee who talked about the horrible conditions in the refugee camp she escaped. Many people were missing basic essentials. Babies had no diapers, etc. Canada spent about $30M just flying the Syrian refugees to Canada. We picked 25,000 out of how many millions? What else could have been done with the $30M? Probably a lot if basic material conditions in the refugee camps were awful. $30M is a lot of diapers. Or what if Canada paid other Arabic-speaking countries to resettle Syrians?

There are some good reasons for admitting refugees I can think of:

- The refugees are from some small persecuted minority and it will be better for everybody if they are resettled in Canada or some other tolerant country.
- We want to foster some kind of cultural connection and regular immigration is not possible.
__________________
flickr

Last edited by someone123; Nov 1, 2018 at 2:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 5:01 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
^I wasn't able to read the article since it was behind the G&M's paywall.

Here's the same story at the CBC

One of the best things about Canada is that immigration is not a political hot potato, which means that what could be a very volatile issue that divides the electorate, is treated in a very technocratic fashion by policy wonks, as if it were something like interest rate hikes or stormwater management.

Notice how emotional appeals from both sides of the immigration debate in other countries are flat out rejected by Hussen. That's a good thing. An American or European nativist would balk at the idea of increasing the immigration level by any number, but here the messaging from the Canadian government is clear: increase gradually at roughly 1% of the Canadian population to 450,000 over time. At the same time, pro-immigration leftists in other countries would want to dramatically increase the number of refugee claimants, but, again, the message is clear: immigration is ultimately a labour market strategy, not a charity, and the number of refugees and asylum seekers will always remain a small fraction of the total intake.

Canada's immigration system isn't perfect, but it's probably the best one in the world.
I agree with you, but let's not be too quick to pass judgement on Europe and the USA for their anti immigrant opinions. We are in the supremely lucky geographic position of having almost no illegal migration. If we were suffering from the same number of illegal immigrants that those countries were, you can bet Canadians would be wanting to shut the doors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 9:04 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 7,033
I completely agree. Canada is sitting in a very geographically advantageous position. We have no one bordering us on the north, east or west and from the south all those Latin Americans are heading to the US and staying there.

Canadians are rightyly complaining about the border jumpers thru Quebec but that is but a trickle compared to the flood of illegal immigranst that have set up shop in the US and Europe. I can`t stand Trump but he is right in planning to stop the thousands currently making their way thru Mexico from ES/Hond/Guat in a bid to get to the US.

One can`t help but feel sorry for these people but that does not make them refugees under the UN Charter. Americans know that even if they are denied status, most won`t show up at the court hearing but rather melt into the woodwork, never to be seen from again. Americans may feel bad for these people but know that if they are not refused entry at the border then word will get back to these nations that the US`s border is now open and the caravans of people will be never ending...……...if you don`t believe me, go ask Spain.


Canada doesn`t have this issue which is why we are in a position to have a points based immigration system getting only the best and brightest. Most wealthy countries in the world would kill to be in our position. Canadians can look down on the Americans with our smug holier-than-thou attitude and proclaim how we welcome immigration but the reality is that we have no concept of what illegal immigration is but facts be damned, it plays nto the `mean spirited Americans, touchy-feely Canadian` narrative.

Last edited by ssiguy; Nov 1, 2018 at 6:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 1:12 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I agree with you, but let's not be too quick to pass judgement on Europe and the USA for their anti immigrant opinions. We are in the supremely lucky geographic position of having almost no illegal migration. If we were suffering from the same number of illegal immigrants that those countries were, you can bet Canadians would be wanting to shut the doors.
You're definitely right that Canadians would not tolerate a high number of illegal immigrants or even a high number of legitimate asylum-seekers. Our distance from the developing world certainly helps, but I don't think it's the only reason why we have fewer asylum seekers and, in particular, fewer illegal immigrants.

In Europe, the countries with some of the more well-known immigration problems are just as far from the developing world as we are. It's not that easy to get to Sweden without an air ticket, for example. Immigration policies differ from country to country, but broadly speaking, the "European" immigration problem is that it's focused on providing asylum first, and then fitting migrants into the job market second. While this analogy is somewhat simplistic, if you hired for your company by onboarding a bunch of welfare recipients, and then went to work figuring out which jobs they could do to meet your business needs, the results would be similarly terrible.

In the case of the US, I don't think that there would be at least 11 million undocumented people if it simply boiled down to having a land border with Mexico.

There were many very powerful constituencies who looked the other way when it came to illegal immigration because it quietly benefited them. This is particularly true for industries where labour can't be outsourced to a developing country because it has to be produced and consumed within the US; agriculture, care work, restaurant and hospitality work, unskilled trades work, etc. Corporations benefited from bringing developing world labour costs and conditions within the United States, and American consumers benefited from the cheaper goods and services that could be delivered to them. So with corporations appeased, the second most powerful constituency in America - upper middle class people, many of them liberal - were also appeased because they could get cut-rate landscaping and nannies. Also, the fact that America has a parallel, but much smaller, Canadian system of immigration that brings highly talented immigrants to fill a handful of highly-skilled positions at the top of the economic pyramid gives many liberals cover to deliberately lump undocumented immigrants with skilled, legal immigrants, and strangle meaningful debate on immigration.

I remember the ex-forumer geotag (who I rarely agreed with) once said something very profound. He said that immigration is to the American left what gun control is to the American right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 5:46 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,220
I've always held one reason Canadian productivity is poor because businesses know that can just import cheap labour rather than invest in auotmation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 7:27 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,220
How BC'ers and Quebeckers see themselves in Confederation:

Over the past few years, British Columbia and Quebec have had their share of common goals. The two provinces consistently outrank all others as places where environmental concerns are paramount. Discussions related to pipelines and energy projects have been different in these provinces than anywhere else in Canada.

While Quebec has long been regarded as a unique region within Canada, British Columbia is starting to show some differences when compared with other western provinces. In a Research Co. poll conducted earlier this year, a whopping 66% of British Columbians said they had more in common with the people of Seattle and Portland than with other Canadians. Even at a moment when views of the United States have soured considerably over the presidency of Donald Trump, British Columbians appear to keep the dream of “Cascadia” alive.

However, the expressions of fondness for the people of Washington state and Oregon did not create a drastic change in how British Columbians perceive themselves and Canada. Three in five residents (61%) believe the views of British Columbians are different from the rest of Canada, and only 17% thought the province would be better off as its own country.

A question on identity also showed that 60% of residents consider themselves “Canadians first, British Columbians second” while 22% placed their province ahead of their country...

...In Quebec, two thirds of residents (68%) think their views are different from the rest of Canada – seven points higher than what was observed in British Columbia this year. Residents of these two provinces are looking at things differently, especially after recent political changes in Ontario and an at times unfriendly relationship with Alberta.

More than half of Quebecers (51%) disagreed with the idea that Quebecers have more in common with the people of France than with the residents of other parts of Canada. British Columbians may find Cascadia compelling, but few Quebecers are looking at the other side of the Atlantic Ocean for a sense of brotherhood.

However, the main issue that could change matters in Quebec is identity. Almost half of residents (48%) consider themselves “Quebecers first, and Canadians second” while just over two in five (43%) place country ahead of province...


https://biv.com/article/2018/11/two-...-confederation
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 7:36 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,114
I was surprised how Québec solidaire supporters who strongly disagree that Quebec would be better off as a country outnumber those who strongly agree by about a 2:1 margin. The party is supposedly sovereigntist.

At the end of the day I think most of these responses to identity questions are often rooted in narcissism or wishful thinking and mean almost nothing. There is no practical implication to believing that you have more in common with someone in France or Oregon than with your compatriots, and actually it's harder for people far away to do anything to annoy you so it's easier for them to seem great.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 8:07 PM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Westboro, Ottawa
Posts: 1,602
I get the sense that while independence is in QS' platform, it's not really top of mind for them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2018, 2:13 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Paidge Beaulieu's Ex-BF
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 41,675
A few things about that BC-Quebec study.

Firs of all as has been said the fairly low % of QS supporters who think Quebec would be better off independent is noteworthy but not extremely surprising.

If you look at the numbers for CAQ supporters the pro-independence share is actually quite a bit higher than for QS. Again, noteworthy but not super shocking either to anyone who is familiar with these political beasts.

Regarding the question about having more in common with France (Quebec) or Cascadia (BC), what's actually surprising is that the sentiment in Quebec is as high as it is. France is an ocean away and Quebec has had nothing to do with France in terms or governance or administration (and for a long time even diplomatic ties) since 1763. Technically we have stronger historical relationships on this front with the UK than we do with France.

As for Cascadia and BC, well it's right there just across the border.
__________________
Got you thinking
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2018, 2:33 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 28,249
BC is basically the opposite of us in those responses. Interesting. I'd've expected them to be somewhat closer.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co...ch-celebration

This line sums up my daily life and prejudices/biases perfectly:

Quote:
Canada doesn’t matter much to many Newfoundlanders. Canada is there like God might be there, sensed only when it brings harm.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2018, 2:47 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 28,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I agree with you, but let's not be too quick to pass judgement on Europe and the USA for their anti immigrant opinions. We are in the supremely lucky geographic position of having almost no illegal migration. If we were suffering from the same number of illegal immigrants that those countries were, you can bet Canadians would be wanting to shut the doors.
Definitely. I've heard more anti-immigration noise since the illegal crossings by people fleeing Trump's America. I mean news articles lamenting homeless shelters were full of asylum seekers, as though any of them ever gave a shit about the homeless before?
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.