Canada To Bring in 1 Million Immigrants In Next Three Years - One Of Most Aggressive Increases Ever

[Rounoush]

Canada: Not a serious country. We are so done.

[RUPERTKBD]

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

While I 100% agree with you (having grown up in a rural community). Job opportunities might not allow that for a lot of careers. Then there comes an issue commute vs family time.  

 

I think maybe a small number of jobs absolutely dictate that one lives in Vancouver, (or other large Canadian city) however, I'm pretty sure the argument being put forth was that "young people" cannot afford housing....

 

It may be hard to believe, but there are people living in my city of 12,000 or so, who are in IT, finance and medicine.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I think maybe a small number of jobs absolutely dictate that one lives in Vancouver, (or other large Canadian city) however, I'm pretty sure the argument being put forth was that "young people" cannot afford housing....

 

It may be hard to believe, but there are people living in my city of 12,000 or so, who are in IT, finance and medicine.

I’m not so sure about that. I’m from Calgary and there is next to zero opportunity for jobs outside the city in a large various industries. Again me and my friends grew up outside the city and its a popular discussion about how we all would love to move back to our home town to raise a family but there just isn’t any opportunity for us to do so in each of current lines of work. 

[CanuckinEdm]

11 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Immigrants are necessary if Canada is to  keep wages low and stop workers from getting a living wage.

Cheap labour.  Big business demands low labour rates.  Too bad if young canadians can no longer afford housing...

Young Canadians can afford housing there are plenty of places outside of the lower mainland to live. That being said I'm not a huge fan of this i think internally we need to fix stuff in Canada before we allow 1 million immigrants into the country many who will wont be able to work and will need financial aid, healthcare ect. 

[lucky_nucker]

The Government is looking to solve a very complicated problem with a very simple solution. Simply bringing in 1 million immigrants is a short sighted solution...

Not against immigration, but perhaps looking into why Canadians are having less children and why we need to have a working population a certain size larger than the population that draws services is a better solution. Our Government services as they are now are not sustainable, let's fix this instead of compounding it more.

[luckylager]

1 hour ago, riffraff said:

Lucky lucky lucky.

 

i kinda like the way the island is. Quiet, free of crowds, litter.  More firewood, fish and lagers for me.

 

i hear Biggar, Saskatchewan needs more people;).

Riff, we could develop the east coastline heavily and it would have little to no impact on the actual wilderness and recreational areas of the Island.

Duncan to CR has existing infrastructure, moderate terrain and a reletively sparse population. It's a good area to target for growth.

 

That way the best places on the Island remain wild, too. 

[DADDYROCK]

If you look at the news we already have immigrants walking across borders to escape the good ol' US of A. This I assume is costing millions to monitor with border guards and RCMP involvement.

I hate to say it, but we can't even house our own people never mind people we have to pay for to come here.But then soon we will have a cash cow of marijuana taxes to spend.

As long as we work hard to help these new Canadians to assimilate into becoming Canadians and following CANADIAN LAWS AND PRACTICES (NO RELIGIOUS SHENANIGANS.). we will grow and prosper as a nation.

We are very tolerant and will always be a kind and generous country,this is why I AM CANADIAN AND PROUD OF IT.

[riffraff]

35 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Riff, we could develop the east coastline heavily and it would have little to no impact on the actual wilderness and recreational areas of the Island.

Duncan to CR has existing infrastructure, moderate terrain and a reletively sparse population. It's a good area to target for growth.

 

That way the best places on the Island remain wild, too. 

I'm a stickler for pristine wilderness and environmental impact.

 

the Cr area boarders on strathcona park as well as all the shorelines.

 

having grown up on the mainland on the north shore there is no denying the impact I've seen from the early 80's until now.  From deepcove to whistler had totally changed relative to access to wilderness areas which leads to significant human impact.

 

simply put: build a trail and find litter.

 

ive spent hours and days humping garbage out of trails and now since living on the island, off the beaches from comox to cape Scott.

 

it seems like "no impact" until you're out there.

 

at best, current locals are lax in their commitment to the environment let alone those who have not had the mindset for generations.

 

the island is a small place.

[luckylager]

9 minutes ago, riffraff said:

I'm a stickler for pristine wilderness and environmental impact.

 

the Cr area boarders on strathcona park as well as all the shorelines.

 

having grown up on the mainland on the north shore there is no denying the impact I've seen from the early 80's until now.  From deepcove to whistler had totally changed relative to access to wilderness areas which leads to significant human impact.

 

simply put: build a trail and find litter.

 

ive spent hours and days humping garbage out of trails and now since living on the island, off the beaches from comox to cape Scott.

 

it seems like "no impact" until you're out there.

 

at best, current locals are lax in their commitment to the environment let alone those who have not had the mindset for generations.

 

the island is a small place.

Agreed. But you can't stop what's coming. If the growth is restricted to certain corridors, environmental impact can be reduced.

 

Let's just say the Island doubles in population over the next 20 years. We'd have a population of about 1.5m.. 

 

I can totally sympathize with your environmental stance though. I agree with it. I just don't think we can stop growth, it's coming from the mainland already, so it's best to target specific areas. Duncan to Naniamo could be quite the "city".

 

[Standing_Tall#37]

I think it’d be a great opportunity for the lower mainland if 500-600,000 people decided to settle down there in the next 3 years  

[Kragar]

1 minute ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

I think it’d be a great opportunity for the lower mainland if 500-600,000 people decided to settle down there in the next 3 years  

Maybe then we'd be able to drown out the Leaf fans when they are in town  

[Nucker 67]

Sorry, but we can't say no eh?

[riffraff]

32 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Agreed. But you can't stop what's coming. If the growth is restricted to certain corridors, environmental impact can be reduced.

 

Let's just say the Island doubles in population over the next 20 years. We'd have a population of about 1.5m.. 

 

I can totally sympathize with your environmental stance though. I agree with it. I just don't think we can stop growth, it's coming from the mainland already, so it's best to target specific areas. Duncan to Naniamo could be quite the "city".

 

So would Hinton, Alberta to Toronto

[luckylager]

Just now, riffraff said:

So would Hinton, Alberta to Toronto

FTW! Sounds good to me.

[Warhippy]

Maybe JUST maybe if the government over the past 25+ years had worked to make childcare affordable, ensured proper Maternity and paternity leave and pay, created more assitance for family dcotros/dentists and not screwed over young families we'd have more families.

 

Watching so many benefits be stripped away, seeing how hard it is to simply have 1 child, knowing the cost of any kind of pre school or day care

 

It's no wonder that people have opted to have a pet instead of a family

 

Maybe if this country would have shown mroe compassion to its citizens instead of its party sponsors we wouldn't be debating this

[Kragar]

44 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Maybe JUST maybe if the government over the past 25+ years had worked to make childcare affordable, ensured proper Maternity and paternity leave and pay, created more assitance for family dcotros/dentists and not screwed over young families we'd have more families.

 

Watching so many benefits be stripped away, seeing how hard it is to simply have 1 child, knowing the cost of any kind of pre school or day care

 

It's no wonder that people have opted to have a pet instead of a family

 

Maybe if this country would have shown mroe compassion to its citizens instead of its party sponsors we wouldn't be debating this

Not sure I agree here.  Many of the "better" (bigger, well known, more affluent...???)  Euro countries get good government support for childcare and parental leave, but they also have birth rate issues, even worse than what we deal with in Canada/US, IIRC.

 

IMO, it's more of a social thing.  Consider what millennials spent their teens and twenties doing compared to what people our age did, and then compare that with our parents.  As a society, we have become increasingly self-indulgent, spending more and more on the latest and greatest computer, phone, gadget, car, travel, restaurants, etc.  Raising kids takes a crapload of work, even after some people pawn some of that off on daycare operators, and spending that time (and money) on children gets in the way of having fun people grew up having.

[Kragar]

Regarding the OP, it seems like a pretty large number to try to take on, especially if there are language issues.  Is there any confidence that they can be integrated quick enough?  If there aren't enough resources to support them, this could backfire.  Overall, I can see the value in it, especially given the birth rate concerns.  It will be interesting to see how the economy adjusts.

 

For those seeing this as a stepping stone to global greatness something has to be done with the underlying economy first.  It's great to have all the natural resource jobs, but there needs to be more and more branching out, on top of that.  The resources are still needed, but the more that can be done with those resources at home, the better.  And, most of those 1M people coming in will need jobs.  If there aren't jobs for them, labor costs will go down pretty harshly as many of them try to compete for existing jobs.

[kingofsurrey]

5 hours ago, lucky_nucker said:

The Government is looking to solve a very complicated problem with a very simple solution. Simply bringing in 1 million immigrants is a short sighted solution...

Not against immigration, but perhaps looking into why Canadians are having less children and why we need to have a working population a certain size larger than the population that draws services is a better solution. Our Government services as they are now are not sustainable, let's fix this instead of compounding it more.

Young Canadians are no longer having children.

You wonder why ?   It is because of the low wages offered  (  too often no benefits )    in Canada combined with expensive housing and childcare  .  Young Canadians can not afford to have kids.  Sad but true.    

[riffraff]

People talk about all the real estate that will drive the economy meanwhile the cost of the housing goes up but the wages of those doing the building are stuck in the 80's......

 

 

[DonLever]

There is a political aspect no one has touched on yet.   The Liberal Party of Canada for the last 40 years has used increased immigration as a platform to gain votes among ethnic minorities.  It was under Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals that the laws for immigration were relaxed.   Ever since then,  ethnic voters tend to vote for the Liberal Party.

Remember the last election when the Liberals promised increased immigration and easier family reunification.  It worked pretty well as the Liberals swept most urban ridings in Metro Vancouver and Metro Toronto.  The Liberals grabbed all of Surrey with its large South Asian community except for one riding.  In Richmond, where there is a strong Conservative base,  the Conservatives  managed to hold onto only one riding where the incumbent almost lost.