Maxime Bernier

[Bern]

For those wondering if immigration is an important issue to voters. I went looking and could find no poll that showed it was a top 3 concern much less top 5. This is from Huff post but it's talking about a Abicus poll which seems pretty indicative of the ones I saw referenced.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/climate-change-canada-election-2019_ca_5d2cb2c6e4b08938b0990248

conclusion. While it's an issue, it's not high on people's concerns generally.

It is in Bernier's context if you are a complete ****ing racist!
Not in Canada, this bull-s-h-i-t stops!

[SeanAvery2point0]

Ironically that was PET's position.

Understanding that there were/are two distinct Canadian identities those of French Canada and those of English Canada and that these 'two solitudes' have never and could never be reconciled PET consciously set out to create a new Canadian identity, replacing the bi-cultural divide with new a new post-national multicultural Canadian identity. One that celebrated everything that all Canadians had in common.

Yet the very 'conservatives' who fought against and complained about this process are now the ones clamouring for 'one Canadian identity,' which is exactly what PET was aiming for.

Bernier didn't get involved in politics until 2005.... he was still a teenager when PET left office.

[Bern]

Asking whether you had a problem with minority identity politics isn't whataboutism nor is it a false equivalency. It was asked to decipher whether your logic was consistent or whether it was malleable dependent on the identity of the target group. It turns out to be (predictably) the latter.

Regardless, the conversation was about Bernier's billboard. Which requires a pretty big leap of faith to call it identity politics. Most rational people see it as his belief that immigration at it's current levels is too high. That's not racist. To see it as racist, you have to WANT to see it that way.

edit: Most rational people don't care which country immigrants come from and support multiculturalism in much the same way as you. It is generally the volume and economic class of immigrants that is debated. Liberals want more, they don't know how much, but they want more, and they don't care whether it is skilled or unskilled, rich or poor, because they believe every immigrant is beneficial to Canada in their own unique way. Conservatives (which Bernier was up until last year) want less immigration, they can't agree on how much less, but they want less, but in contrast to the liberals they generally prefer a mixture of poor unskilled immigrants/refugees and skilled immigrants that can support themselves.

I won't vote for Bernier because I think he is too far to the right fiscally, and I don't think he has even the slightest chance of winning - not because I think he is a racist white supremacist.

Reporter: “What will you do for the Muslim community?”
Bernier: "Nothing. I won’t do anything for the Muslim community, for the Jewish community, for the Christian community. I will do everything for YOU as a Canadian."

I am amazed how people think comments like these come from a person who's political beliefs are rooted in racism.

Utter nonsense and you know it. It's the same dog-whistle politics we see from Trump and it's beneath us as Canadians. We have always had a managed immigration policy in Canada and it has worked. We have one of the best qualities of life on the planet. The uptick in immigration is due to US policy which we do need to manage and we are. On a global scale, we will need to manage mass migration or millions will die. That's the reality of climate change, the situation in North and Sub-Saharan Africa will not get better over the coming decades, nor will the situation in Central America. The 'first world' is responsible.

[pudubny]

It is in Bernier's context if you are a complete ****ing racist!
Not in Canada, this bull-s-h-i-t stops!

I am not conceding that point as yet. Some things he's expressed concern me and his economic concerns are not very comprehensive (ie, cherry picked) but...if he gets a reaction and uptick from right wing groups then increases the rhetoric to create an issue (anxiety and fear) then I would be concerned. We can discuss skilled vs unskilled (already doing) and sustainability (long term economic gains vs short term costs) in the context of immigration and not offend me. But we should have room for taking refugees because that's a humanitarian issue. The numbers have to be sustainable.

[Bern]

I am not conceding that point as yet. Some things he's expressed concern me and his economic concerns are not very comprehensive (ie, cherry picked) but...if he gets a reaction and uptick from right wing groups then increases the rhetoric to create an issue (anxiety and fear) then I would be concerned. We can discuss skilled vs unskilled (already doing) and sustainability (long term economic gains vs short term costs) in the context of immigration and not offend me. But we should have room for taking refugees because that's a humanitarian issue. The numbers have to be sustainable.

This was a test on Bernier's part to see how far he could incite the far right and if it could give him votes. I'm not playing politically correct on this. We do a great job of managing immigration, the mass immigration rabbit-hole fallacy is ugly and we can avoid it if we overwhelmingly call the rhetoric out for what it is.

[pudubny]

This was a test on Bernier's part to see how far he could incite the far right and if it could give him votes. I'm not playing politically correct on this. We do a great job of managing immigration, the mass immigration rabbit-hole fallacy is ugly and we can avoid it if we overwhelmingly call the rhetoric out for what it is.

Like I said, if he sees an uptick then starts trying to grow that base, we have a problem. Their are definetely votes to be had by stirring up white resentments if the US is any indication. The question Max should ask himself is not CAN we do this to get more support. It's "SHOULD" we do this....
The answer to that question is a clear "NO" but that doesn't stop some.

[Bern]

Like I said, if he sees an uptick then starts trying to grow that base, we have a problem. Their are definetely votes to be had by stirring up white resentments if the US is any indication. The question Max should ask himself is not CAN we do this to get more support. It's "SHOULD" we do this....
The answer to that question is a clear "NO" but that doesn't stop some.

We have a problem if he even thinks that is a viable strategy. We need to shut this crap down now. We need the press to tell Trump, Bernier and their ilk to stop blatantly lying. I continue to be incensed that the press don't call Donny out on his lies. He literally said 757s full of cash yesterday, it was a complete fabrication.

[SeanAvery2point0]

Utter nonsense and you know it. It's the same dog-whistle politics we see from Trump and it's beneath us as Canadians. We have always had a managed immigration policy in Canada and it has worked. We have one of the best qualities of life on the planet. The uptick in immigration is due to US policy which we do need to manage and we are. On a global scale, we will need to manage mass migration or millions will die. That's the reality of climate change, the situation in North and Sub-Saharan Africa will not get better over the coming decades, nor will the situation in Central America. The 'first world' is responsible.

the dog whistle argument is almost as tired as the notion that anybody who disapproves of our current immigration policy must be a racist.

immigration levels are historically high, and have been since the early 90's. last year we welcomed 320,000 newcomers. That's the highest in a single year since 1913 when we were settling western Canada. Are there global pressures to justify this? Well, the global poverty rate is at its lowest point in human history at 10%. The world relatively speaking is the safest it has been in human history - homicides + war deaths. More than half the world's population is living in democracy. Could our fiscal position justify this? Hardly - since the 1970s we've accumulated $700BILLION in federal debt and I'm not saying unskilled immigration is solely or even largely to blame, just highlighting how historically poor our finances are. In order to balance the budget and eventually pay down the debt, spending cuts have to take place across the board, up to and including immigration.

[Bern]

the dog whistle argument is almost as tired as the notion that anybody who disapproves of our current immigration policy must be a racist.

immigration levels are historically high, and have been since the early 90's. last year we welcomed 320,000 newcomers. That's the highest in a single year since 1913 when we were settling western Canada. Are there global pressures to justify this? Well, the global poverty rate is at its lowest point in human history at 10%. The world relatively speaking is the safest it has been in human history - homicides + war deaths. More than half the world's population is living in democracy. Could our fiscal position justify this? Hardly - since the 1970s we've accumulated $700BILLION in federal debt and I'm not saying unskilled immigration is solely or even largely to blame, just highlighting how historically poor our finances are. In order to balance the budget and eventually pay down the debt, spending cuts have to take place across the board, up to and including immigration.

How many of those 300,000 thousand Immigrants are deadbeats? After all, they need to pass criteria for admission to our country? Or are you referring to the 12,000/year coming in seeking refugee status that resulted in an uptick in the last two years? So now the number is divided by 25, half are refused entry within months. So divided by 50. So what is the real number of people that are a burden to Canada? Get a grip.

[Arthur Dailey]

the dog whistle argument is almost as tired as the notion that anybody who disapproves of our current immigration policy must be a racist.

immigration levels are historically high, and have been since the early 90's. last year we welcomed 320,000 newcomers. That's the highest in a single year since 1913 when we were settling western Canada. Are there global pressures to justify this? Well, the global poverty rate is at its lowest point in human history at 10%. The world relatively speaking is the safest it has been in human history - homicides + war deaths. More than half the world's population is living in democracy. Could our fiscal position justify this? Hardly - since the 1970s we've accumulated $700BILLION in federal debt and I'm not saying unskilled immigration is solely or even largely to blame, just highlighting how historically poor our finances are. In order to balance the budget and eventually pay down the debt, spending cuts have to take place across the board, up to and including immigration.

You recognize that your first statement is incorrect. Immigration numbers pre-World War I were much higher than now.
And since the Canadian population was approximately 1/3rd of what it is now, then the ratio and percentages were much higher.

Secondly, you and many others supporting your beliefs/statements don't seem to recognize, that Canada has an official immigration policy.

In 2020 the number of immigrants admitted is to equal 1% of the total Canadian population.

There are 3 classifications for immigrants.

1. Economic. Those investing money in Canada, or who have 'skills' that meet the identified requirements of the labour market. This is interpreted popularly as 'the point system'. People who by definition are a benefit to the economy. So why complain about them? If we do have any complaints it would be that we are taking the 'best and brightest' from underdeveloped nations, the very people those nations need most to improve their economy and/or living conditions. And often when they come to Canada they are not even allowed to partake in the profession they have been trained in.
2. Family. These are immigrants sponsored by family members who have legal status in Canada. Their family members are financially responsible for them when they arrive, and they already have links to the community? So again, why complain?
3. Refugees. This is probably the source of the complaints/concerns/worries. Although they do not need to meet the requirements of the first 2 classes, they must still appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board and prove their case. Now some may argue that the definition of 'refugee' may be too loose. Economic, political, fearing for their life, escaping homophobia, escaping spousal abuse, escaping threats from cartels. We can discuss that at a later point. However the hypocrisy is that the politicians/pundits who want this form of immigration closed/reduced are also the ones that are against spending money on foreign aid, and are against spending money on programs to combat climate change. Yet as the weather near the equator becomes more volatile, we will witness the largest migration of humans in recorded history. The only way to prevent it is to reduce the impact of climate change. No walls or borders or immigration policies will prevent it. As for political/economic refugees, the best way to prevent that is through foreign aid which will improve the quality of life in their home nation.

There is another class of 'immigrants' which is officially overlooked. Those are 'foreign students'. And this is now an issue on campus. Students who live in multi-million dollar residences and drive 'exotic' cars. They take spots away from domestic students. A significant number have little to no interest in graduating. And changes to the rules now allow those on a foreign student visa to work, even during the academic year. Many of these foreign students wish only to reside in Canada long enough to qualify for permanent status. After that they may even apply to sponsor members of their family. However much of this problem is again the result of Conservative policies. Foreign students pay from 3 to 6 times the fees of domestic students. And as governments cut back on the funding of post-secondary schools, they are increasingly turning to foreign students to increase their revenues.

Another major issue with those opposing 'mass immigration' as demonstrated by the Harper government's proposed 'Canadian values' test, is that they do not "look like us".

Well the inhabitants of the historical sources of immigrants, northern Europe, Italy, Portugal and white South Africans no longer wish to immigrate in large numbers. Immigration is now largely from the nations of Africa and Asia. Yet the fear of 'others' is not new. Irish, Italian and Ukrainian immigrants were feared and discriminated against. Finns and Russians were rounded up and deported after WWI.
My father was a Toronto police officer when a large wave of Hungarian 'refugees' arrived after their failed revolution. They were widely discriminated against and blamed for bringing the concept of 'smash and grab' crimes to Toronto.

[Arthur Dailey]

Bernier didn't get involved in politics until 2005.... he was still a teenager when PET left office.

That comment is disingenuous.

Those that support Bernier and Bernier himself have either in the past or currently oppose the very measures that PET undertook to create a unique Canadian identify.

Their can be no Canadian identity based on historical norms as Canada has/had two distinct linguist/cultural groups, who do not even use the same legal system (common law v civil code).

[SeanAvery2point0]

You recognize that your first statement is incorrect. Immigration numbers pre-World War I were much higher than now.
And since the Canadian population was approximately 1/3rd of what it is now, then the ratio and percentages were much higher.

Secondly, you and many others supporting your beliefs/statements don't seem to recognize, that Canada has an official immigration policy.

In 2020 the number of immigrants admitted is to equal 1% of the total Canadian population.

There is another class of 'immigrants' which is officially overlooked. Those are 'foreign students'. And this is now an issue on campus. Students who live in multi-million dollar residences and drive 'exotic' cars. They take spots away from domestic students. A significant number have little to no interest in graduating. And changes to the rules now allow those on a foreign student visa to work, even during the academic year. Many of these foreign students wish only to reside in Canada long enough to qualify for permanent status. After that they may even apply to sponsor members of their family. However much of this problem is again the result of Conservative policies. Foreign students pay from 3 to 6 times the fees of domestic students. And as governments cut back on the funding of post-secondary schools, they are increasingly turning to foreign students to increase their revenues.

Another major issue with those opposing 'mass immigration' as demonstrated by the Harper government's proposed 'Canadian values' test, is that they do not "look like us".

Much of this wasn't relevant to the points I was making, thus I have removed the parts I thought were unrelated.

My point was this: the world as a whole is a much better place for the overwhelming majority of the global population today than it has ever been by almost every metric, and our financial position is historically poor. This combination provides no justification for our current immigration level.

As to your statement that my first point was incorrect - it is exactly what you said. Our immigration levels in 2018 are the highest they've been in absolute terms since 1913 when we were promoting the settlement of western Canada.

I don't think anybody disputes that we have an official immigration policy, I do think that many people disagree with that policy under current circumstances both domestic and global. In fact, according to polls, roughly half of Canadians want less immigration.

As to your moral argument that anybody on the right who opposes current immigration policy must be an xenophobe or agree with Harper's proposed values test or barbaric practices hotline... its an egregious argument. There is plenty of diversity in opinions on this topic, the idea that just because you're a conservative you must agree with all past conservative proposals is asinine. Do you agree with every policy that is proposed by the liberal party? Does an individual member of the liberal caucus accurately portray the entire liberal voting base?

Do we need immigration to sustain our economy because of an aging population? Absolutely. Which is why we should be targeting young and highly skilled economic immigrants. At the same time we should be restricting/reducing family-based immigration for parents and grandparents of our current immigration population, who when they arrive will almost uniformly have a lower income and an equal or higher consumption of social benefits (like healthcare) compared to our citizen population. In terms of immigration as a whole, our immigrant population is having a more difficult time experiencing upward economic mobility compared to immigrant groups of the past (pre-1980), which is usually measured 10 years after arrival. Meaning each new immigrant is contributing less to our overall tax revenues compared to the citizen population while consuming similar social services. Thus, the citizen population is expected to essentially make transfer payments to the immigrant population.

On the extreme's of the spectrum with regards to research on the cost per immigrant, it ranges from $30B/year ($6,000/immigrant) to $2B/year ($450/immigrant). Let's assume that the $30B is inflated for partisan reasons and the $2B is deflated for equally partisan reasons. If we were to meet in the middle at $16B/year, that is a sizable chunk of our current annual deficit spending. Now I'm not saying reforming our immigration policy will solve our budgetary woes, but it will definitely be one place that we can find some fiscal relief that will affect all three levels of government.

[pudubny]

Much of this wasn't relevant to the points I was making, thus I have removed the parts I thought were unrelated.

My point was this: the world as a whole is a much better place for the overwhelming majority of the global population today than it has ever been by almost every metric, and our financial position is historically poor. This combination provides no justification for our current immigration level.

As to your statement that my first point was incorrect - it is exactly what you said. Our immigration levels in 2018 are the highest they've been in absolute terms since 1913 when we were promoting the settlement of western Canada.

I don't think anybody disputes that we have an official immigration policy, I do think that many people disagree with that policy under current circumstances both domestic and global. In fact, according to polls, roughly half of Canadians want less immigration.

As to your moral argument that anybody on the right who opposes current immigration policy must be an xenophobe or agree with Harper's proposed values test or barbaric practices hotline... its an egregious argument. There is plenty of diversity in opinions on this topic, the idea that just because you're a conservative you must agree with all past conservative proposals is asinine. Do you agree with every policy that is proposed by the liberal party? Does an individual member of the liberal caucus accurately portray the entire liberal voting base?

Do we need immigration to sustain our economy because of an aging population? Absolutely. Which is why we should be targeting young and highly skilled economic immigrants. At the same time we should be restricting/reducing family-based immigration for parents and grandparents of our current immigration population, who when they arrive will almost uniformly have a lower income and an equal or higher consumption of social benefits (like healthcare) compared to our citizen population. In terms of immigration as a whole, our immigrant population is having a more difficult time experiencing upward economic mobility compared to immigrant groups of the past (pre-1980), which is usually measured 10 years after arrival. Meaning each new immigrant is contributing less to our overall tax revenues compared to the citizen population while consuming similar social services. Thus, the citizen population is expected to essentially make transfer payments to the immigrant population.

On the extreme's of the spectrum with regards to research on the cost per immigrant, it ranges from $30B/year ($6,000/immigrant) to $2B/year ($450/immigrant). Let's assume that the $30B is inflated for partisan reasons and the $2B is deflated for equally partisan reasons. If we were to meet in the middle at $16B/year, that is a sizable chunk of our current annual deficit spending. Now I'm not saying reforming our immigration policy will solve our budgetary woes, but it will definitely be one place that we can find some fiscal relief that will affect all three levels of government.

Your first paragraph assumes that immigration is both a short term and long term expense. I think most research shows that within ten years immigrants on average are contributors. I think the average is less than five years. So the question I see is really this, "how much should we invest in immigration to get the benefits (increased tax base, economic growth) and what is the expected return?".
We already have a skilled worker program, they get preferred treatment. By the number economic immigrants make up roughly 50% of the targeted number for 2019.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2018/report.html

As for family immigrants, before making hasty decisions, how many skilled workers are going to immigrate if they cannot bring one or more family member? Not many I would think. And most would be men which would create its own long term problem. Assumptions about family immigrants include that many are old and past working age, not true especially for Asian (India/Philippines are the two largest groups) countries who typically marry and have children at younger ages. We (Bernier) also assumes that wives will not work but that is not true in many cases.
The unemployment rate for immigrants who have have been in Canada for 10 years is at or below the rate for native born Canadians.
The 2018 number includes 44k refugees, many from Syria and North Africa which definitely are in very stressed situations. Do we have an obligation to do something for some of these people? I think so. The number can be debated but the idea that the world overall is a "better place" doesn't exempt it from having a few very bad situations. Yes, they will be a short term financial burden (like the Boat People were) but within a generation, they will be productive citizens, so again we can look at it like an investment or strickly the short term expense.
Your post discusses only expense, have you looked at the impact on economic growth and tax revenue that immigration has long term? If the $30b expense becomes an investment that yields $40b in growth over 20years is it worth it?
What is a reasonable number of refugees?
Also, this fact check page on how Bernier and his cherished "studies" make assumptions.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bernier-immigrants-fact-check-1.5225422

[SeanAvery2point0]

Your first paragraph assumes that immigration is both a short term and long term expense. I think most research shows that within ten years immigrants on average are contributors. I think the average is less than five years. So the question I see is really this, "how much should we invest in immigration to get the benefits (increased tax base, economic growth) and what is the expected return?".
We already have a skilled worker program, they get preferred treatment. By the number economic immigrants make up roughly 50% of the targeted number for 2019.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2018/report.html

As for family immigrants, before making hasty decisions, how many skilled workers are going to immigrate if they cannot bring one or more family member? Not many I would think. And most would be men which would create its own long term problem. Assumptions about family immigrants include that many are old and past working age, not true especially for Asian (India/Philippines are the two largest groups) countries who typically marry and have children at younger ages. We (Bernier) also assumes that wives will not work but that is not true in many cases.
The unemployment rate for immigrants who have have been in Canada for 10 years is at or below the rate for native born Canadians.
The 2018 number includes 44k refugees, many from Syria and North Africa which definitely are in very stressed situations. Do we have an obligation to do something for some of these people? I think so. The number can be debated but the idea that the world overall is a "better place" doesn't exempt it from having a few very bad situations. Yes, they will be a short term financial burden (like the Boat People were) but within a generation, they will be productive citizens, so again we can look at it like an investment or strickly the short term expense.
Your post discusses only expense, have you looked at the impact on economic growth and tax revenue that immigration has long term? If the $30b expense becomes an investment that yields $40b in growth over 20years is it worth it?
What is a reasonable number of refugees?
Also, this fact check page on how Bernier and his cherished "studies" make assumptions.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bernier-immigrants-fact-check-1.5225422

First the bolded text - I believe (from the way I read it) the $30B (or $2B) figure represents the cost associated with ALL immigrants, not just those who come in a given year.

Secondly, I'm not against family reunification for spouses and children, but there is no economic benefit to bringing the parents or grandparents of immigrants to Canada who are likely in the latter half of their working career or seniors. These are people who will inevitably use more social services than their tax contribution. If we were posting surplus budgets it would be a different story, but why do we feel the need to provide care for foreign born adults/seniors when our system is already struggling to care for our own senior citizen population? Should I tell my grandmother that she needs to sacrifice her quality of care to ensure somebody from Iraq receives healthcare?

[Bern]

First the bolded text - I believe (from the way I read it) the $30B (or $2B) figure represents the cost associated with ALL immigrants, not just those who come in a given year.

Secondly, I'm not against family reunification for spouses and children, but there is no economic benefit to bringing the parents or grandparents of immigrants to Canada who are likely in the latter half of their working career or seniors. These are people who will inevitably use more social services than their tax contribution. If we were posting surplus budgets it would be a different story, but why do we feel the need to provide care for foreign born adults/seniors when our system is already struggling to care for our own senior citizen population? Should I tell my grandmother that she needs to sacrifice her quality of care to ensure somebody from Iraq receives healthcare?

Again your concern is unfounded.

Sourced from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/...011001-eng.cfm

Let me do the math, that's 0.025% of our population who immigrate as a senior. Recent immigrants were relatively young

People tend to migrate when they are relatively young. In 2011, 58.6% of people who came to Canada since 2006 were in the core working age group between 25 and 54. A small proportion, 4.4%, was in the older working age group of 55 to 64.

Immigrant children aged 14 and under who came in the last five years accounted for 19.2% of the newcomer population, and another 14.5% were between the ages of 15 and 24. Seniors aged 65 and older represented relatively smaller proportion, 3.3%, of all recent arrivals.

The median age of newcomers in 2011 was 31.7 years (the median age is the point where exactly one half of the population is older and the other half is younger). In comparison, the median age for the total immigrant population was 47.4 and for the Canadian-born population, 37.3.

Top of Page