|
| Research Introduction |
INTRODUCTION
The Government of Canada has commissioned a number of studies on the immigration issue. Two of these were landmark studies which involved very large numbers of researchers. Anyone who is trying to understand the immigration issue in Canada should read these two major pieces of research. Immigration Watch Canada provides highlights of both. We also provide a detailed summary of both.
I. The first of these two was called "Charting Canada's Future". Commissioned by Health and Welfare Canada and conducted between 1986 and 1989, it involved 200 scholars in a wide range of disciplines from all across Canada. Among its major findings were the following:
(1) Despite low fertility, Canada had no need to fear a decline in its population for many years. Even with immigration levels at 130,000 (half of those of the present), Canada's population would continue to increase for about 20 years.
(2) The issue of Canada's aging population cannot be solved by immigration. Immigration has only a short-term effect on Canada's age structure. Increases in immigration to as high as 600,000 per year have, in the long term, no impact on the age structure. Even changing the age structure of immigrants from 23% below age 15 in 1988 to 30% below 18 and then 50% below 15 has little long-term impact on Canada's overall age structure.
(3) A significant increase in Canada's birth rate to 3.1, not immigration, would change Canada's long-term trend toward an older society.
(4) Annual immigration of 200,000 would reduce the dependency ratio (the number of people each member of the labour force supports) to 2.12 in 2031. However, increasing the female labour force participation rate and increasing the 45+ male participation rate would reduce the dependency ratio to 1.9. (In other words, using Canada's own citizens is a statistically and morally superior method of dealing with the aging population issue).
(5) "The questions most often raised about dependency and the aging society concern possible strains on government finance. An IMF study concludes that "Canada would not see a large increase in these expenditures and its position relative to other developed countries would remain excellent." (P.53)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
II. The second of these studies, "New Faces In The Crowd", was commissioned by the federal government and conducted by The Economic Council of Canada in 1990-1991. Among its findings were the following:
(1) The benefits of immigration to Canadian citizens are very small: around a 1% gain in per capita disposable income between 1990 and 2015.
(2) Like the "Charting Canada's Future" study, the ECC did their study because of border pressures from refugee seekers; possible burdensome costs of health and other services for an aging and decreasing population; the prospect of using immigration to maintain the country's population growth.
(3) After examining a large body of historical data, the ECC discovered that immigration has not been necessary for the country's population growth nor for its prosperity. There is no sustained correlation between immigration and economic growth.
(4) For much of Canada's history, natural increase, not immigration, has driven the growth of Canada's population.
(5) No significant increases in efficiency are derived from immigration.
(6) Workers lose as a result of competition from immigrants.
(7) There is no real evidence of spillover effects on the Canadian economy.
(8) Canada's refugee system is being overburdened. Since the 1980's, there has been a very rapid increase in the number of refugees arriving on Canadian soil and claiming refugee status. Despite several "ministerial reviews" (amnesties), the situation is not getting any better. The ECC found that projected costs, which do not even include the cost of the refugee-determination process, are "far beyond the value of any gains in scale economies or savings in tax and dependency costs that might accrue to Canadians from these claimants".
|
|
