WELCOME - HOME PAGE

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS

A mawkish view of immigration overlooks the facts
By and , Vancouver Sun
June 6, 2011

Vancouver Sun columnist Stephen Hume (The big picture shows immigrants are a good bet, May 30) dismisses as "disingenuous" our study for the Fraser Institute that estimated that recent immigrants admitted between 1987 and 2004 cost Canadian taxpayers about $20 billion annually. After consulting the dictionary, we concluded that he is suggesting that we are not "sincere" and that we are "withholding or not taking account of known information." In less polite parlance, he is calling us "liars."

What are the grounds for such a charge? A careful read of his article suggests that it stems from two equally misguided sources. The first is Hume's own fuzzy positive feelings toward immigration from having been brought to Canada as an immigrant by his father. The second is another opinion piece from last week's Province newspaper by Robert Vineberg from the Canada West Foundation.

Hume's positive feelings toward immigrants are based on his and his family's success as immigrants and journalists. He even brings into his narrative our own conditions as economically successful immigrants, accusing us of trying to "pull up the ladder" after we're in the lifeboat. He plays shamelessly on the populist slogan "Canada is a country of immigrants and therefore all immigration is good" that vote-seeking politicians and the chattering classes have been hammering into our collective brains for decades.

Hume based his attack on our findings on an column by Vineberg, whom he quotes as saying that "the average income of immigrants in Canada more than 15 years before the 2006 census was actually higher than for native-born Canadians" and that "on average, those immigrants paid more in taxes than they got in benefits." According to Vineberg, "This turns the Fraser Institute's analysis on its head and suggests that immigrants are net contributors to government revenues if their entire working life is considered."

Vineberg's suggestion that the earlier postwar pattern of immigrant integration in the labour market will apply to recent immigrants is pure unsubstantiated conjecture. Statistics Canada and academic scholars have noted many times that recent immigrants have a poor economic record that has created an ever larger gap in their average earnings relative to the Canadian-born. While this gap has tended to narrow through time after their arrival, the evidence strongly indicates that it will probably never close.

The problem that we address in our study is not the past success of immigration, which we gladly celebrate, but its current failings and how they can be fixed. To all but the blind, there is mounting evidence that immigration is not working as well as it did in the past. A symbolic turning point was 1987. This was the year when the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney started to increase the numbers of immigrants admitted, and kept right on increasing them through the subsequent 1990-1992 recession abandoning the previous tap-on, tap-off policy whereby the number of immigrants admitted was cut back during recessions, when the economy was unable to absorb them.

The most obvious explanation of this record of recent immigrants is that their language skills, education and work experience are not valued by employers as highly as were those characteristics of pre-1987 immigrants. There is an ongoing debate as to the reasons for this difference. Some blame discrimination by Canadian employers, others more plausibly blame the lower language skills and quality of educational and work experience of workers from the Third World countries.

Regardless of the reason for the poor economic performance of recent immigrants, if they keep being selected in the same way and in the same large numbers, we'll get the same disappointing results. The gap will increase even further and the size of the fiscal burden will continue to grow. These problems can be solved only through a wholesale revamping of our immigrant selection system, which obviously isn't working.

We are surprised that Hume put so much credence on Vineberg's observations, which are not based on any economic study done by the Canada West Foundation. The only study currently available on the fiscal cost of recent immigration is our own (http: //www. fraserinstitute.org/research-news/ display.aspx?id=17546).

If you want hard facts that go well beyond Hume's mawkish anecdotal approach to immigration and reliance on unsupportable evidence, check it out.

is an economic consultant with Global-Economics.ca and is professor of economics (emeritus), Simon Fraser University and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

and are Advisory Board members of the CIPR

Immigration policy a drain on Canada
With one million more people expected to come to Vancouver by 2030, country requires informed public debate
By , Vancouver Sun
May 26, 2011


From left, Dr. Victor Rabinovitch, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, Hon. Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and Citizenship Judge Suzanne Pinel help the children cut a cake following a special Canada Day citizenship ceremony where 50 new Canadians, representing 21 countries, were sworn-in at the Museum of Civilization, July 1, 2010, Gatineau. Photograph by: Jana Chytilova, The Ottawa Citizen

As Jock Finlayson of the Business Council of BC noted in a recent Sun commentary, Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy fails to address the fact that we are a relatively low-income urban region despite having the most expensive housing in Canada. One of the factors he cites as the cause for this poor showing is our high immigration intake combined with the low median incomes of new Canadians. Finlayson points out that although immigration will increase the population of Metro Vancouver by more than a million people by 2030, the regional growth strategy will be of little use in terms of providing housing and finding jobs for the newcomers.

Finlayson's concerns are, indeed, fully justified if one looks at the results of a study released on May 18 by the Fraser Institute. It found that the weak economic performance of recent immigrants is costing Canadian taxpayers between $16.3 billion and $23.6 billion a year. Using Canadian census data, economists and calculated that this is what it costs Canadians because of what newcomers receive in government benefits over what they pay in taxes.

The question one must ask in the circumstances is: Why are we going to bring another million immigrants into the Vancouver area and who is going to benefit from having them here?

Professor George Borjas of Harvard, one of the pre-eminent experts on the economics of immigration in the United States, pointed out that there are winners and losers when it comes to large-scale immigration such as what we are experiencing in Vancouver. Winners obviously include employers looking for a large pool of inexpensive labour, real estate developers, immigration lawyers and organizations that receive government funding to help in the settlement of newcomers. Losers are Canadian workers and residents of Vancouver in general, including immigrants who have already arrived. Homeowners also benefit from the appreciation of the value of their homes while those who rent or are buying a home for the first time lose.

Advocates of high immigration argue that, notwithstanding the difficulties associated with current immigration policy, continued high intake is essential if we are to be able to meet anticipated labour shortages and keep the economy moving forward. Research shows, however, that while there may be temporary labour shortages at times in the years to come, Canada has both the educational and human resources to meet most of them from within the country and does not need to rely on immigration.

A further argument frequently advanced to justify high levels of immigration is that it is essential to provide the labour force needed to pay the taxes required to fund the social services for the increasing proportion of the population that will be over 65 in the years to come. While the population is definitely living longer and we will have to figure out where the money is coming from to support the requisite social services, research shows beyond a doubt that immigration will not provide a solution to this challenge simply because immigrants grow old and require the same services as everyone else.

The fact is that, while high levels of immigration played an important role in Canada's economic development at various times in the past, it can no longer be justified on either economic or demographic grounds -a point made by one of Canada's most respected specialists in the relationship between immigration and labour markets, the late professor Alan G. Green of Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.

It is curious, therefore, that in the recent election campaign, not a single Canadian political party called for a reduction in the record-high immigration levels that are both entirely unnecessary and are, in the event, extremely costly to Canadians. Three parties, in fact, called for even higher numbers. Why they did is not entirely clear.

One explanation is that the parties believe that immigrants themselves support high levels of intake and will vote for those who promise to make this happen. While some newcomers are particularly interested in bringing in their parents and extended family members, it is very much open to question whether immigrants in general want to see large numbers of new arrivals competing with them for the same jobs. Research in the U.S. and United Kingdom suggests they are not enthusiastic about such a prospect.

Surveys in the U.S. also indicate that there is also a very large gap between the views of opinion leaders (members of Congress, the administration, leaders of church groups, business executives, union leaders, journalists, academics and leaders of major interest groups) and those of the general public when it came to immigration; 55 per cent of the public said it should be reduced compared with only 18 per cent of opinion leaders. It would not be surprising if a gap of similar proportions exists in Canada. What is clearly needed is an informed public debate on immigration policy in this country with a clear opportunity for Canadians to make their voices heard. Until now attempts to ascertain what Canadians want have usually been dominated by interest groups bent on preserving the benefits they get from continued high levels of immigration. Unless members of the public are prepared to step forward and tell politicians what they want when it comes to good immigration policy, they can expect to get more of what they are getting now.

is a former Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East and spokesman for the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform. He lives in Vancouver.

Immigration isn't as beneficial as politicians claim
By , Calgary Herald
May 20, 2011

The recent election campaign focused a great deal of attention on immigrant communities. There are good reasons for this. Since 1990, Canada has been accepting about a quarter of a million newcomers each year and these numbers have caused a dynamic transformation in the demographic characteristics of our country.

The pace of change is underlined by research done by Statistics Canada showing the phenomenal growth in the number of so-called ethnic enclaves since the early 1980s. Statistics Canada defines an ethnic enclave as a community where over 30 per cent of the population is of one ethnic group other than English or French. In 1981, there were six ethnic enclaves in Canada. Today, there are 260.

Immigration has also had a powerful impact on our political system. All of the political parties favour large-scale immigration. Every immigrant is seen by them as a potential voter for their party. The politicians justify high immigration levels by claiming immigration is desperately needed to sustain our economic growth, enhance our labour force and combat our so-called aging problem.

Last year, Canada received 281,000 immigrants -the highest number since 1957. In addition, 182,000 temporary foreign workers arrived, so that by the end of the year, there were 283,000 of these workers in the country. There were also 218,000 foreign students here and most of the temporary workers and students will remain permanently. There is also a massive backlog of over one million immigrants waiting to come who have met all of the entry requirements.

These are very high numbers -on a per-capita basis, no other country receives as many immigrants. Clearly, the program is out of control, but our political leaders seem incapable of acknowledging there is a problem and continue to urge even higher numbers.

It is significant that of the 281,000 immigrants who arrived in 2010, only 17 per cent, or 48,800, were skilled workers selected for their potential contribution to our labour force. The remainder were spouses and children accompanying them, relatives sponsored by people already in Canada, immigrants sponsored by the provinces, refugees or others accepted for humanitarian reasons. So much for helping our economy or labour force!

vo There are few economists today who argue that immigration is a significant factor in economic development. Studies in Canada since the MacDonald Royal Commission Report of 1985 and the Economic Council of Canada's studies in the early 1990s concluded that immigration was not necessary for economic prosperity. In 2003, Prof. Alan Green of Queen's University released a study that argued that while immigration had been useful in the past, the economic argument for it had largely disappeared and that the current political posture of using immigration to solve economic problems was no longer valid.

In 2008, Prof. Herb Grubel of Simon Fraser University, in a landmark study, showed that the 2.5 million immigrants who had come to Canada from 1990 to 2002 had received in benefits and services in one year (2002) $18.3 billion more than they had paid in taxes. That amount was more than the federal government spent on health care and twice what was spent on defence in fiscal 2000-2001.

Studies in the United States and Britain have reached similar conclusions.

In 2008, the British House of Lords warned that the plan to admit 190,000 immigrants per year would achieve little benefit and criticized the Labour government for misleading the public by justifying such high levels, which provided no economic benefit and were not needed to fill labour force demands.

Demographic studies in various countries have conclusively put to rest the myth that immigration can help a country overcome its aging problem. In 2006, the C.D. Howe Institute study Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young pointed out that to have any significant impact on aging, Canada would have to accept several million immigrants each year.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, our political parties -even the Green party -repeatedly advocate raising our immigration levels, and do so, as they did in 2008, regardless of economic down turn. The name of the game is to get more numbers, because numbers are seen as voters.

In fact, the pressure to increase immigration has become such an overwhelming obsession with politicians that our overseas visa officers do not have time to interview prospective immigrants and the vast majority are no longer seen or interviewed.

The assessment of qualifications is done by reviewing documentation and the visas are issued by mail. Is there an employer in Canada who would hire someone without a personal interview?

Immigration is a critical public policy issue. The kind of Canada we will be in the future depends on the policies we follow today.

The dramatic changes in our demographic composition are being done without public knowledge or debate. This is wrong. There may be reasons why demographic change is desirable, or even inevitable, but if through mass immigration, the traditional society of a nation is in danger of becoming marginalized, then surely it should be done as a deliberate and open policy objective of government -and not driven by politicians competing desperately for ethnic votes.

Immigration has always been an integral part of the Canadian story and has made a powerful contribution to our historic achievements.

We must not allow our politicians to use it as a political game that patronizes the immigrants and damages our national interest.

is a former ambassador and the executive director of the Canadian Immigration Service. He serves on the advisory board of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform.

: The invisible price tag of immigration
National Post
May 18, 2011

There has been much huffing and puffing by politicians, the media and immigrant lobbyists about the government’s plan to reduce the number of parents and grandparents joining their immigrant offspring in Canada next year.

Yes, the policy change is unfair. Many immigrants have come to Canada having been promised that their parents and grandparents could join them so that they can continue the cultural traditions of their homelands and receive help with family chores and child care.

But, as is the case with all government policies, benefits to one group of citizens impose costs on another. In this case, the benefits to immigrants come at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. Unfortunately, these costs do not show up in government budgets but are hidden behind the provisions of the welfare state and driven by low average incomes of recent immigrants.

New data and studies show the extent of this fiscal burden; recent immigrants remit lower average incomes and tax payments than other Canadians, even 10 years after their arrival. At the same time, these immigrants on average absorb at least the same amount of social benefits as other Canadians.

As a result, $6,000 is annually transferred to the average immigrant at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. In 2006, the value of these transfers to all 2.7 million immigrants who arrived between 1987 and 2004 and still live in Canada came to $16.3-billion. Taking account of the 1.5 million immigrants who arrived since 2004, the fiscal burden comes to $25-billion in 2010. These costs represent a significant portion of the federal government’s $55-billion deficit projected for the fiscal year 2011.

Important here is the fact that parents and grandparents lower the observed average incomes of all immigrants. The reasons are obvious: parents and grandparents tend to be elderly, often cannot speak English or French and possess few marketable skills. At the same time, the number of parents and grandparents arriving as immigrants are high: 84,917, or 6.7% of the 1.3 million immigrants admitted to Canada from 2006 to 2010.

The fiscal transfers to parents and grandparents are much higher than those of the average immigrant, not only because of their low incomes but also because they tend to be of an age where their demand for costly medical services is at its highest level.

For example, in 2009, family-class immigrants made up 22.1% of all immigrants who entered Canada that year. Those who were selected by the federal government on the basis of their occupational skills and other characteristics contributing to their economic success accounted for only 16.2%.

To alleviate this fiscal strain on taxpayers, Canada’s immigration selection process should be reformed to replace the existing, failed system of using points to select immigrants, with a system that emphasizes a reliance on market forces. This would result in giving preference to immigrants with job offers in Canada and skills needed by Canadian employers.

In our recent paper, Immigration and the Canadian Welfare State 2011, and I outlined our proposals for reforming the Canadian immigration system to one that places a premium on employable skills. We envisioned a system where would-be immigrants with job offers are provided with temporary work visas, valid for two years and renewable for an additional two years upon the presentation of evidence of continued employment. After four years and continued employment in Canada, the holders of work visas would be eligible for landed immigrant status and for citizenship two years later. Spouses and dependents of the holders of work visas would be allowed to enter Canada under a program of family work visas, which would allow them to accept employment. Finally, immigrants would be able to have their parents and grandparents join them as landed immigrants in Canada after posting a bond that is used to pay for their health care and other social benefits.

Since holders of work visas pay the same personal income, GST and other sales taxes and social insurance premiums as Canadian citizens do, the holders of these visas would rightfully and automatically be entitled to receive the same public benefits that are available to Canadian taxpayers, including employment insurance, provincial welfare, health care and public pensions.

Over time, the immigration issue has attained a kind of religious mystique, so much that any debate over the costs of immigration will immediately be dismissed as racist, or anti-Canadian. But with Canada now facing the prospect of large, cyclical deficits, it’s time for a no-holds-barred examination of current immigration policy.

An examination of the true costs of immigration on Canadian taxpayers would be a good place to start.

National Post

is professor of economics at Simon Fraser University and a senior fellow at The Fraser Institute. He is also a member of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform's Advisory Board.

Immigration’s the elephant in the room
,QMI Agency
Toronto Sun
April 21, 2011

Politics in an advanced democracy is not much different than politics in a less advanced democracy, as in contemporary Russia, save for the niceties of how the political contest for the prize of forming government is conducted.

It is during an election campaign when the mechanics of democracy becomes more or less visible. The players ­— politicians and parties — descend from their elevated perch of authority, rub shoulders with the common people for votes, and massage their message through the media.

The media is the fourth estate and technically distant from parties and politicians. But technicality aside, members of the fourth estate and politicians are in each other’s incestuous embrace most of the time.

There is a tacit understanding among politicians and mainstream journalists not to rock the boat excessively during an election. Consequently, politics in an advanced democracy becomes a learned art in deception, evasion and obfuscation of any issue that is, or might prove to be, explosive.

An explosive issue is one that reveals the widening gap between the voting public and political players, including the media.

One of the explosive issues in Canadian politics, as it is in other western democracies, is immigration. Since 9/11, this issue has become important or, it might even be said, vital in discussing the future shape of the country in terms of its inherited cultural and political values.

Most Canadians recognize the unprecedented immigration numbers over the past several decades, and the composition of newly arriving immigrants, have adversely and unduly accelerated the pace of changing the country’s profile.

While immigration as an issue demands the most serious public discussion, it is the elephant in the room that all major parties and political leaders, with the collusion of the fourth estate, have done their best to evade.

In per-capita terms, Canada receives the largest number of immigrants —­ in addition to refugee claimants and workers on temporary visas —­ every year of any western democracy.

At an annual rate of more than a quarter million, Canada has received 1.3 million immigrants during the past five years.

The consensus of the elite — political players, the media, the government bureaucracy federally and provincially, immigration lawyers and other interest groups ­— is that immigration is beneficial in terms of Canada’s aging population and declining birth rate.

Anyone questioning this consensus is muzzled by the fear of being publicly labelled a bigot. Hence, the consensus prevails despite the assumptions supporting it being rather weak and tenuous.

Recently, however, a new organization, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform (immigrationreform.ca), dedicated to publicly discussing this near taboo subject was launched.

The role CIPR has assumed for itself is providing information and education to Canadians on the whole spectrum of issues related to Ottawa’s immigration policy, or the lack thereof.

And in respecting here the principle of full disclosure, I am a member of the advisory board of the CIPR.

In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron spoke recently about the ill-effects of open immigration, and the need to reduce immigration numbers. Similarly, in the U.S., immigration is an explosive issue.

So it is in Canada, and the need for public discussion cannot be postponed, evaded, or fudged indefinitely.

Missing in electoral action: immigration
MARTIN COLLACOTT
Special to Globe and Mail Update Online edition
Friday, April 22, 2011

While party leaders have gone to considerable lengths to court immigrant communities, important questions about immigration have been ignored in this election campaign. In general, Canadians are more positive about immigration that any other major immigrant-receiving country. But a very significant proportion thinks that, with the highest net per capita intake in the world, we’re bringing in far more people than we need or can absorb.

This is clear from the fact that those who’ve arrived in recent years have had a much weaker economic performance and higher poverty rates than either those born in Canada or newcomers who came here before 1980. There’s particular concern in larger cities, where pressures on the education and health-care systems and the problems of congestion, integration and cost to taxpayers are most obvious. Despite this, however, no major party has shown itself prepared to call for lower immigration levels – in fact, the Liberals, NDP and Greens want to raise them even higher.

The English-language leaders debate not only failed to address key issues but exposed the fact that some of the participants didn’t even understand the basic terms involved. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, for instance, passionately defended family-class immigration and used the example of his own family’s entry into Canada decades ago. The fact is, however, that family-class immigration didn’t exist in the 1920s when the Ignatieffs came to Canada and, had the current immigration categories been in place, the family would have entered as independent immigrants (i.e., on their own merits) rather than family-class immigrants (who are sponsored by relatives already here).

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe revealed an even greater degree of ignorance when he railed against the government for establishing two classes of refugees because it took a tough line with the Tamil boat people who arrived last year compared with our generous treatment of boat people from Vietnam and Cambodia several decades ago.

What he apparently didn’t bother to find out was that, by all international standards, the two groups do fall into quite different categories. The Indochinese boat people made their way to Southeast Asian countries, where they were accommodated in refugee camps by the United Nations, and we then selected and assisted large numbers of them to resettle in Canada.

The Tamil boat people, in contrast, simply arrived on our doorstep and sought to stay here without our first having an opportunity to screen them and decide whether they were genuine refugees. They could have applied to come to Canada as refugees from overseas but knew that, once they set foot on our soil, our highly dysfunctional refugee determination system would in all likelihood make it possible for them to stay here permanently, no matter how weak their claims as refugees.

All the opposition parties, in the event, have taken issue with the government’s attempts to pass a bill aimed at curbing the kind of human smuggling that occurred in the case of the Tamil boat people. While one of the explanations offered by the Liberals for their position is that the proposed legislation might not survive a Charter challenge, the real reason is probably more related to the fact that they don’t want to alienate communities that have made widespread use of our lax refugee system. Indeed, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently tried to explain the importance of such legislation to an immigrant audience in Vancouver, he was politely told they weren’t interested in hearing about human smuggling since 30 per cent of their community had used the refugee system to get into Canada.

While the opposition’s position on this issue may play well with a number of immigrant communities, surveys indicate that most Canadians support the kind of firm line the government has taken. So it remains to be seen which parties will benefit the most from these differing stands on election day.

Perhaps even more contentious in terms of party differences is the issue of sponsorship of parents and grandparents under the family class. When the Conservatives took office in 2006, they inherited a backlog of more than 100,000 applications in this category, a queue that has since grown considerably longer.

The problem with such sponsorships is that they’re very costly for Canadians. Apart from eligibility for Old Age Security, elderly people incur much heavier costs on the health-care system than those who’re younger, and few sponsored parents and grandparents contribute to any of these costs through income tax. The expense to taxpayers of the third of a million who’ve been granted visas in recent years probably constitutes a significant portion of the estimated tens of billions of dollars annually that newcomers receive in benefits over what they pay in taxes.

In some immigrant communities, sponsoring one’s parents is particularly popular because they’re allowed to bring with them their unmarried children without the latter having to have any of the qualifications for employability, language fluency etc. needed to be admitted as an independent immigrant. When the offspring are old enough, they, in turn, sponsor spouses from their former homelands whose families will pay large sums so they’ll be able to launch a chain of family-class sponsorships of their own. Bringing in one’s parents, therefore, can be a very profitable enterprise.

Despite the high cost to Canadians of the sponsoring of parents and grandparents, both the Liberals and NDP have promised to be more generous in terms of letting them in. The parties are presumably counting on this to shore up support in immigrant communities and hoping that few other voters will take note of just how expensive this program is for taxpayers.

, a former Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East, is a spokesman for the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, April 15, 2011

THE CENTRE FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM PROVIDES A VOTER’S GUIDE TO QUESTIONS FOR CANDIDATES IN THIS 2011 ELECTION CAMPAIGN

For the first time during a political leaders’ debate, the important policy area of immigration was an item for discussion. Regrettably, the level of debate was discouraging as none of the leaders displayed any inclination to talk about policy. Instead each piously defended the principle of ‘family reunification’ as the cornerstone of Canada’s immigration system while deliberately side-stepping major policy issues such as the serious implications of accepting a quarter of a million immigrants annually and the dramatic transformation these high numbers are having on the traditional demographic make-up of our nation.

While it may be unrealistic to expect the party leaders to address the real immigration policy concerns of many Canadians during a televised debate, those policies are nevertheless in desperate need of reform. We therefore urge Canadians to ask their local candidates where they stand on this critical area of public policy.

To assist in this process, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform has compiled seven questions that should be addressed by all of the political parties running in this election and which voters and the media may use to help frame their own questions.

Question #1:
For the past twenty years we have been taking in about a quarter of a million immigrants each year, that is, approximately 1.3 million in the last five years. How can you explain these exceptionally large numbers when studies show that so many are not doing well and a large proportion are living below the poverty line? Do you support such high numbers and if so why?

Question #2:
We are told that Canada needs immigrants to help build our economy but all of the serious studies in Canada, Australia, Britain and the United States indicate that immigration does not significantly affect economic development.

Only about 17% or 48,361 of the 280,000 immigrants who arrived last year were skilled workers fully selected on their own merits. The largest group of arrivals, more than 170,000, was sponsored by relatives already here or accompanied the bread-winner to Canada, i.e., spouses and children, parents and grandparents. The remainder were: self employed, live in care givers, investors, provincial nominees or refugees or others accepted for humanitarian reasons. Are you aware of these facts and if so do you still support such high numbers of immigrants not selected for their ability to contribute to our economic growth or help our labour force?

Question #3:
In July 2008 Professor Hebert Grubel of Simon Fraser University published “The Fiscal Burden of Recent Immigrants” showing that the costs of immigration greatly out weigh the benefits. In 2002 alone, the costs and benefits received by the 2.5 million immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes they paid by18.3 billion dollars, which is more than the Federal government spent that year on health care Can you or anyone else argue that we need immigrants because they help our economy?

Question #4:
Are you aware that few of the immigrants to Canada are interviewed or seen by our overseas visa selection officers? Do you think there are many employers in Canada who would hire someone without a personal interview? Does our government not have concerns about this practice and its associated security risks?

Question #5:
Our asylum system permits anyone from any country (democratic or despotic) to apply for refugee status if they manage to get to Canada, and it costs taxpayers approximately 2 to 3 billion dollars annually. 3700 asylum seekers arrived in Canada from 188 different countries in 2008 and a backlog of 60,000 cases waited for a hearing to decide if these were genuine refugees. Typically 60% will be found not to qualify for refugee status but it is unlikely many will be sent home. Obviously the system is out of control. If you are elected will you urge reform?

Question #6:
We continue to hear from politicians and certain media outlets that we need immigration to help us overcome the problem of an aging population. Every study in that has been done on this issue anywhere has categorically denied that immigration solves the population aging of a country. The most recent study in Canada by the C.D.Howe institute in 2009 reasserted that annual immigration in staggering large numbers would be necessary to have any significant impact on aging. Do you believe the Department of Citizenship and Immigration should stop using our aging demographics as a reason for large scale immigration?

Question # 7:
Do you support the idea that immigration policy and its implications for the future demographic make–up of Canada should be an issue for serious study, for Parliamentary attention and debate? Should immigrants be chosen for their ability to help Canada’s economy and labour force and integrate quickly into our country’s value system?

For further information please visit www.immigrationreform.ca.
Contact Joe Bissett.

Canadians in Libya took their chances

By , Ottawa Citizen, February 27, 2011


A Virtu Ferries ship transporting U.S., French and Canadian evacuees from Libya docks at the Valletta harbour on February 25, 2011. Photograph by: BEN BORG CARDONA, AFP/Getty Images

Canadians want to be flown out of Libya? Hardly surprising, given the chaos engulfing that country. But our sympathy and wish to help Canadian expatriates should not divert us from difficult questions raised by this situation.

In recent years, hordes of Canadian passport-holders have looked to Ottawa to facilitate their escape from sticky foreign situations. The most striking example was the removal of thousands of Canadian passport-holders from Lebanon during the Israel-Hezbollah War of 2006. Difficult questions were raised at the time. Were all of these "real" Canadians, or merely Canadians-of-convenience? Had they stayed in Canada only long enough to qualify for citizenship and its promise of world-beating health care, social welfare and pension benefits? Were there security risks, especially among those from the heartland of our Hezbollah enemy? What of the costs?

We retrieved 15,000 from Lebanon at a cost to taxpayers of $85 million, with about half returning at the end of the crisis. Did many of these evacuees not have decades of warning that they were in a lethal locale? What was their responsibility for the bind in which they found themselves?

Similarly, Libya. Canada's impulse was to book private charter flights to collect passport-holders in Tripoli. But the reality of hazard caught up, and charter-insurers balked at sending planes to a conflict zone. Solution: send Canadian armed forces transport aircraft to the rescue.

Now, think of the implications. Confronted by a dreadful national debt and diminishing social services, we are diverting precious diplomatic, military and other government resources. This, to send aircraft and personnel to rescue people who are presumed voluntarily to have submitted themselves to the risks that they now face. Indeed, some of whom may enjoy dual citizenships, with a want of commitment to Canada that fact might imply.

Libya, a pariah state for decades, has been a notoriously brutal, torturing and terror-supporting dictatorship. Is it unfair to suggest that Canadians there on business - including the oil business - were making generous salaries in part because this risk was implicitly recognized in payment schemes? Is it unreasonable to suggest that they were, at least indirectly, servants of the regime with limited regard for abuses suffered by other residents?

As for any tourists: Could they really have failed to realize that they were swanning through a country-sized prison camp and torture chamber?

What about dual citizens of Canada and Libya? If they are long-term residents of Libya, what does it say of their commitment to Canada? What kind of chilling comment upon their ideology would it be if they had dependant children whom, given the choice between Canada and Libya, they elected to keep in Moammar Gadhafi's "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"?

So now we oblige Canadian armed forces aircrews to enter the airspace of a country whose military is fractured but still equipped with surface-to-air missiles. And who knows what risks once on the ground?

In future, the Department of Foreign Affairs must provide more precise warnings to travellers in its bulletins about country conditions. Those leaving Canada for specified troubled lands must be warned that they are assuming serious safety risks for which the Canadian government and people cannot be accountable. Canadians already in place in such nations must receive formal warnings to this effect, along with requests to leave actual or potential trouble spots. As incentives, Ottawa must cut off support entitlements to those abroad beyond a reasonable period. And the holding of foreign citizenships and passports must be ended so that there is no mistaking Canadians' focus of loyalty and commitment.

Despite our best efforts, rescue initiatives may periodically prove necessary. All expenses of repatriation should be aggressively reclaimed by the government, after repatriation if need be, rather than the nominal fee applied to recent evacuees from the Middle East. A further, general charge should be imposed for disproportional use of diplomatic and other government services.

Hungry to import votes, Canadian politicians welcome unprecedented numbers of newcomers - over half a million in a single year - at unconscionably great social, economic and security cost. This alone should warn us that passport-holders' connections with crisis-ridden countries will increase, and so too will Canada's exposure to far-flung expatriates demanding Ottawa's assistance.

In a dangerous world of finite resources, workable ground rules must be established for all Canadian travellers before the next crisis strikes. A lawyer with 30 years in intelligence affairs, is director of the intelligence program INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc. He has consulted with intelligence organizations in Canada and abroad and served with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in 1988-'90.

is a member of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform's Advisory Board

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, February 17, 2011

CANADIANS SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT RECORD HIGH IMMIGRATION LEVELS

The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform is deeply concerned about record high immigration levels.

On February 13 Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced that Canada received more than 280,000 permanent residents last year - a level not seen for more than 50 years and reached only once in the past century. In addition, in 2010 we accepted more than 182,000 temporary foreign workers and 96,000 foreign students, a majority of whom are expected to try to stay here permanently. Yet out of the total 558,000 newcomers, only 48,815 qualified as skilled immigrants.

This is no doubt a major reason why the economic performance of recent immigrants has fallen far below that of earlier immigrants or Canadian-born. A study to be published soon by two members of CIPR's Advisory Board, and , will show that the cost to Canadian taxpayers because of lower earnings, higher unemployment and higher poverty rates for recent arrivals is well over $15 billion a year.

It is clear that mass immigration increases the overall size of the population but does not improve the living standards of Canadians in general. The negative effects of mass immigration on the quality of life of those living in large cities are particularly onerous because of pressures on health care services, educational facilities, the environment and increased congestion. One of Canada's leading experts on immigration and labour markets, Professor Emeritus Alan G. Green of Queen's University, has pointed out that the current policy of using immigrants to solve economic problems is no longer valid, that we now have the educational facilities to meet Canada's needs for skilled workers and that the import of such individuals constitutes a substitute for the education of domestic workers.

Despite all of this, Canada continues to maintain the highest per capita intake of immigrants in the world - but without any real justification for doing so. Jason Kenney has shown leadership in attempting to deal with some of the problems in human smuggling and the program under which parents and grandparents can be brought to Canada. It is now time for him to address the excessively high levels of immigration and temporary foreign worker intake.

While most Canadians are well-disposed towards newcomers, they are increasingly concerned about burgeoning numbers, particularly in the larger cities, and the attendant costs and problems of integration. Unless Canadians demand that the government reduce intake to much more modest levels, however, they should expect nothing to change.

For More Information please see www.immigrationreform.ca

  -30-

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, February 2, 2011

ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS OF THE CENTRE FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FEB 3 AND FEB 10, 2011

CIPR Advisory Board members and will appear before the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on Thursday, February 3rd, 2011. In their presentations, Mr. Collacott, a former ambassador and author of several studies on immigration and refugee determination policy, will address issues around the integration of immigrants into Canada's major cities. Mr. Harris, an international and terrorism intelligence expert, will address security issues arising from Canada's current immigration and refugee determination policies.

The February 3 presentations will take place at 11.30am in Room 2, Victoria Building, 140 Wellington Street.
Former Ambassador and former Head of the Canadian Immigration Service will speak before the same committee on February 10th. One of the subjects he will address is why immigrants since 1990 are failing to do as well economically as previous immigrants.

Former Mayor of Toronto Art Eggleton chairs the Senate Standing Committee; Toronto is one of Canada's three most popular destinations for immigrants, the other two being Vancouver and Montreal.

Please also note that at a time to be announced CIPR intends to ask all parties and candidates to address the reform of Canada's immigration and refugee policies during the next election campaign, and not sweep these important issues under the rug as has happened in past campaigns.

For More Information please see www.immigrationreform.ca

  -30-

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 4th January, 2011

CIPR remembers John L. Manion, public servant extraordinary, who warned governments about Charter provisions that eroded Canadian Sovereignty

We at the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform are deeply saddened by the loss of John L. Manion,  one of the most valued members of our Advisory Board. Jack, as he preferred to be called, had a long and  distinguished career with the public service of Canada.  During his time in government he served for 26 years with the Department of Immigration, the latter part as Deputy Minister, and subsequently as Secretary of the Treasury Board and Associate Clerk of the Privy Council. In recognition of his contribution he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada and awarded the Outstanding Achievement Award of the Public Service of Canada. 

Following his retirement he spoke out clearly and forcefully about the need for major changes to  immigration and refugee policy. He was particularly adamant about the fact that poor drafting of a section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had provided the basis for a Supreme Court decision that gravely eroded Canadian sovereignty and made it possible for anyone setting foot on Canadian soil to bypass or frustrate Canadian immigration policy and laws. He raised this issue in letters to ministers of immigration and to the prime minister as well as in testimony before a Parliamentary committee in which he described Canada’s current immigration situation as a shocking and scandalous mess. Read his Standing Senate Committee presentation plus his letter to Minister Elinor Caplan.  

Jack was deeply committed to the formulation of policies that would serve the best interests of Canadians while at the same time ensuring that those who were invited to come here as immigrants or as refugees could become happy and successful citizens of their new homeland. He will be warmly remembered by his colleagues at the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform for his friendship and dedication and for his understanding and insight into the issues at hand. Our deepest sympathies go to his wife, Sylvia and all of his family. 

  -30-

THE CENTRE FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM HIGHLIGHTS

The Muddle of Multiculturalism by published by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies

, a member of the CIPR/CRPI Advisory Board, teaches in the department of political science at the University of Western Ontario. He also writes columns for the Toronto Sun and Sun newspapers across Canada and publishes widely in academic journals. Born in Calcutta, India, Dr. Mansur, now a Canadian, completed his studies with a doctorate at the University of Toronto, and is active in public affairs through his writings and on radio and television.

Subtitled ‘a liberal critique’ , with the word liberal used in its classic sense based on its root ‘liberty’, this very interesting and readable paper is well summarized near the end of the paper:

“This understanding of why a liberal democracy cannot be improved on by the flawed logic of multiculturalism needs to be re-discovered, restated and reaffirmed without apology or equivocation if freedom and democracy are to remain secure ...”

Along with many other matters, he describes how multiculturalism has undermined liberal democracy by creating a wedge between new immigrants from the third world and the settled Canadian population. Issues associated with shari’ah are discussed together with the politicization of immigration, the weakening of Western confidence in its own cultural inheritance, and the importation of quarrels from distant lands.

To read this paper, click here.

THE CENTRE FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM PRESENTS

Immigration and the Solidarity-Diversity-Security Nexus by

is a distinguished Canadian academic - an economist, journalist and TV commentator, university administrator, author and ironist. He is a member of the Order of Canada and is a past president of the Royal Society of Canada. His Deep Cultural Diversity: A Governance Challenge was published in 2008. He is a member of CIPR's Advisory Board and one of three official spokesmen.