Immigrants Need More Financial Support, Study Says

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Before 1980, immigrants got about zero in govt support, now they get about $3000 per head per year, or about $800 million dollars for settlement and language costs, and that's not enough. They need more. I say no more, in fact, much much less.

The following quote from the article means people from Asia and Africa who don't speak English well enough to get jobs and or may be uneducated family members.

"Federal and provincial settlement programs have not caught up with changing immigrant
settlement patterns, including a growing shift to suburban communities," the report says.

The study states that currently the federal govt has three year settlement plans, the study suggests this be increased to ten years. Before 1980 when immigration was part of Manpower and Immigration the fed govr had no settlement programs for immigrants, they found work upon landing and paid taxes rather than consumed them. Call me old fashioned if you like.

That said, the fed govt ought to be more involved in social housing as the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.



Immigrants need more affordable housing, transit: study - CTV News



Immigrants need more affordable housing, transit: study

.slideImage{filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Fade()}


A TTC subway train pulls into a station in Toronto on July 21, 2011.



.fb_share_count_top{font-size: 15px!important; font-weight:bold} .fb_share_count {font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif!important} .storyUserTop {border-top: 1px solid #cecdcb; border-bottom: 1px solid #cecdcb; border-left: none; border-right: none; background-color: #edecea; height:60px} .storyUserTop a:hover {text-decoration:underline!important} .storyUserTop a {color: #006699!important; font-size: 11px} .fbtw {margin-left: 195px; position:absolute}
The Canadian Press

Date: Wednesday Sep. 14, 2011 10:34 AM ET

OTTAWA — The federal emphasis on integrating immigrants through language training and recognition of foreign credentials is far too narrow, says a new paper.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is proposing a new strategy for integration that would broaden the focus to include affordable housing and public transit.

"Federal and provincial settlement programs have not caught up with changing immigrant settlement patterns, including a growing shift to suburban communities," the report says.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is in the midst of public consultations on how to best reshape the intake of immigrants, so that the country attracts the kind of people it needs to sustain its workforce.

The federation hopes to play into that process with its paper, released Wednesday after months of research.
But the paper also comes as Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto, the country's largest city, eyes cuts to some of the key services newcomers rely on -- social housing, libraries, transit and childcare.

The thrust of the report and the political turmoil engulfing Toronto are no coincidence, says Michael Shapcott, a social policy researcher at the Wellesley Institute in Toronto.

Cities find their finances strained by years of downloading from other levels of government, he said. And at the same time, mounting poverty among a growing population of immigrants increases the pressure.

The federation's policy proposals are "an enlightened response" to the pressure, while the turmoil in Toronto "is a much more sharpened response," Shapcott said.

Newcomers take longer and longer to catch up to the standard of living of the rest of the population at a time when the country's labour force needs fresh blood, the paper points out.

A traditional, short-term policy focus is no longer sufficient, the researchers argue.

Federal settlement plans usually assume a three-year time frame, but in reality, newcomers need five to 10 years of help before they find their feet, the report says.

Plus, settlement services are often concentrated in urban cores, far from their targeted population and they don't focus enough on the immediate needs of the newcomer population, the paper argues.

It points out that newcomers are far more likely than long-time Canadians to be "core housing need" -- spending more than 30 per cent of their income on shelter.

That's because almost two-thirds of newcomers are renters and they often say it's difficult to find and qualify for affordable housing.
The paper points to research by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp., showing that 44 per cent of recent immigrant renters are considered to be in core housing need. For non-immigrant renters, less than a quarter are in that danger zone.

"Without stable housing, immigrants and their families experience even greater difficulties finding jobs, enrolling children in school, participating in language training and becoming part of community life," the paper explains.

Affordability for newcomers is especially severe in York Region, north of Toronto, and in Ottawa, the report says.
But at the same time, the federal commitment to supporting affordable housing has been spotty.

The federal stimulus program helped build new social housing, and federal and provincial governments recently signed a three-year pact for more spending. But Ottawa is also allowing other operating agreements to expire -- a move that will mean $1 billion less per year in federal funding by 2020, the report.

As for transit, newcomers are about twice as likely as long-time Canadians to take the bus. But bus routes don't necessarily follow the flow of the immigrant population, with so many jobs and newcomers moving to the suburbs, the report says.

"Federal and provincial governments must provide long-term, reliable funding so that transit systems have the financial certainty they need to meet the needs of all Canadians, now and in the future," the report urges.

The federation argues that municipal governments are on the front lines of a crumbling system to integrate immigrants, helping out with housing, recreation, library services, child care and public transit.

And yet they are not included in policy deliberations and direct funding agreements, nor do they have the money to pay for these services in a way that keeps up with demand, they point out.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83



That study is correct, by the way.

Immigrants are the lifeblood of our economy. We need to sustain them.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
That study is correct, by the way.

Immigrants are the lifeblood of our economy. We need to sustain them.

Lots of people in Canada need access to affordable housing besides immigrants, I believe there is already a 5 year wait period for subsidized housing in Toronto.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
The money saved by getting fewer, cheaper and better immigrants could instead be used for social housing across the country. I vote for that. There's over $1 billion available from all all levels of govt that now goes to immigrants that could go to housing.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Or they could use those immigrants to staff the oil sands (you know, that whole petroleum boom thing we have in Canada), and where we will undoubtedly have labour shortages for the next 20 years....
--

Historically, Canada's unusually high immigration rates for a high rate of immigration, can be traced to the nation's unique economy. One factor is that Canada has one of the world's largest supplies of natural resources such as oil, metals, and lumber. It also has a sparse population spread over a vast landscape. Canada has thus faced acute labour shortages and has responded by actively searching for immigrants.[11] In the late 19th century this included bringing Chinese migrants to build the Canadian Pacific Railway and actively advertising in Europe to find farmers with the Last Best West campaign. Today similar recruitment efforts are needed to staff the oil sands projects in Alberta.[12]

Another factor that may lead Canadians to support high immigration levels is Canada's low birth rate (see List of countries by birth rate). The theory is that new residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities.

A wide array of scholars and organizations have supported Canada's immigration policy. In 1995 economic research firm DRI-McGraw Hill Inc. react with alarm to proposed reductions in immigration levels. They acknowledged that immigration comes with short term costs, but argued that in the long run immigration boosts employment and economic output.[16] One of the most ringing endorsements of a high immigration rate came from the 1991 report by the Economic Council of Canada, the first detailed analysis of Canadian policy. It called for immigration to be increased to eventually bring Canada's population to 100 million. While it found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large. The report concluded that "it would be hard not to recommend an increase when immigrants can gain so much and Canadians not only do not lose but actually make slight economic gains."[17][18] In 2005 a report by the Royal Bank of Canada called for boosting Canada's immigration rate by 30% to 400,000 per year to ensure continued economic growth.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
It doesn't help our natural resource industries when most of the imigrants flock to Toronto or Vancouver.

What gets me is a large percentage of immigrants are coming to Vancouver and the region needs new trainsit, the growing population of immigrants is not an asset here. The proposed Everygreen line to Coquitlam needs about $400 million more to go ahead. The federal govt could supply this money to Vancouver one year, and other cities in other years by cutting immigration. The benefits of immigration are in the ivory tower, not on the ground.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
Before 1980, immigrants got about zero in govt support, now they get about $3000 per head per year, or about $800 million dollars for settlement and language costs, and that's not enough. They need more. I say no more, in fact, much much less.

Getting future taxpayers costs money now if abortion was illegal or more women chose to keep and raise their babies it would cost a lot less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Before 1980, immigrants got about zero in govt support, now they get about $3000 per head per year, or about $800 million dollars for settlement and language costs, and that's not enough. They need more. I say no more, in fact, much much less.
Don't you feel the wee-est bit of shame crying about other people suckling at the gov't teat, while you sit at home and do the same damned thing?

The money saved by getting fewer, cheaper and better immigrants could instead be used for social housing across the country. I vote for that. There's over $1 billion available from all all levels of govt that now goes to immigrants that could go to housing.
Could it be redirected to the financial obligations the Crown has to the First nations?

Getting future taxpayers costs money now if abortion was illegal or more women chose to keep and raise their babies it would cost a lot less.
Interesting thought. Can you supply some figures?
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Getting future taxpayers costs money now if abortion was illegal or more women chose to keep and raise their babies it would cost a lot less.

No, we don't have to pay hardly anything to get future taxpayers, there are people in Europe who speak very good English and could become new taxpayers for about nothing. You've drunk the multiculturalism lemon-aid, so sad.

Before 1980 immigrants got about nothing upon arrival, and they came from Asia, Africa, Europe, USA, and Latin America. There were not fancy-schmancy govt programs to endlessly assist them upon arrival. They found work right away and got on with becoming Canadians. The same could happen today.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Before 1980 immigrants got about nothing upon arrival, and they came from Asia, Africa, Europe, USA, and Latin America. There were not fancy-schmancy govt programs to endlessly assist them upon arrival. They found work right away and got on with becoming Canadians. The same could happen today.
Do you have some proof to support these claims?
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Before 1990 or so, immigration was part of Manpower and Immigration, so immigration was set according to the economic needs of the country. Immigrants knew there was work here they could do immediately and got to it. Immigration rose and fell, it was not kept steady like it is now despite an economic slowdown.

The term ESL was barely known then, only in the past few decades has it become a big business.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Before 1990 or so, immigration was part of Manpower and Immigration, so immigration was set according to the economic needs of the country. Immigrants knew there was work here they could do immediately and got to it. Immigration rose and fell, it was not kept steady like it is now despite an economic slowdown.

The term ESL was barely known then, only in the past few decades has it become a big business.
So in other words, no.

Well at least you're consistent in that respect.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
So in other words, no.

Well at least you're consistent in that respect.

I can tell you are a person who doesn't read much. No poster will contradict what I have said. I read one book where European farmers were dropped off a train in Saskatchewan and told the vacant plot of land was theirs and they had to get to work. No house no nothing.

I have better things to do than dig up links about Canada's history I know very well. Consider this a project for yourself.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I can tell you are a person who doesn't read much.
And yet I've managed to prove you wrong consistently, in regards to Canadian history, First Nations, Law, Democracy and well, reality in general?
I have better things to do than dig up links about Canada's history I know very well.


Consider this a project for yourself.
Not that I need a history lesson like you, getting you to support your claims, is project enough thanks.

No poster will contradict what I have said. I read one book where European farmers were dropped off a train in Saskatchewan and told the vacant plot of land was theirs and they had to get to work. No house no nothing.
A minute ago, you were talking about pre 1980, then you moved it to pre 1990. Now you want to talk about a story from Saskatchewan's land rush days that occured around the turn of the century?



BTW: You know why there was nothing there? The Natives that owned it, made a deal so those early settlers could have it.

A deal you now want to rescind.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Perhaps we could reintroduce the Land Grants for homesteaders like back in the day. This time north of 60. That's a big chunk of help right there.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Before 1980, immigrants got about zero in govt support, now they get about $3000 per head per year, or about $800 million dollars for settlement and language costs, and that's not enough. They need more. I say no more, in fact, much much less.

.

Shouldn't we take care of our own before taking on more? (I do believe in supplying aid to the starving but in their own country)