[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Immagration and the Welfare state...[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...ation+policy+costs+canada&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]1967:The Liberals bring in the Point System by PC 1616 on October 1. Minister Jack Pickersgill was pleased with the political finesse it took and stated that these provisions were “…the greatest change in immigration policy since Mackenzie King announced the resumptionm of immigration in 1947 and they had gone into effect without approval or even debate in Parliament.” The necessity of “sotto voce” in immigration politics is evident. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1978:April 10 saw a new Immigration Act introduced by the Trudeau government. in which family members and refugees were given top processing priority and Canada was committed to bring in a substantial number of refugees each year---not just in emergency situations.The [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]legal framework and priorities in this Act set the basis for emergency visas [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]for Soviet Jews. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1985:Trudeau’s stress on a compassionate and inclusive international immigration policy was a lasting legacy.June of this year saw a position paper of the Mulroney government which demonstrated that economic benefits of increased immigration were really quite limited,but the government would continue to support the “social and humanitarian ideals” that the Government of Canada had committed itself to since 1978. Indeed immigration in the Mulroney years grew from 83,000 in 1985 to 250,000 in 1993. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]http://www.iapm.ca/newsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=227&z=22[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Multiculturalism was another immigration-related issue that surfaced during the 1970s. The concept was thrust into the political limelight on 8 October 1971, when Pierre Trudeau announced in the House of Commons that his government would adopt a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]When he made this warmly received announcement, Trudeau failed to explain why his government was officially adopting such a concept. He carefully refrained from mentioning that multiculturalism was intended to persuade non-English and non-French Canadians to accept official bilingualism, the federal policy that had been instituted in 1969 with the passage of the Official Languages Act. Designed to promote the equality of French and English in all federal government operations, official bilingualism had been urged by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (the B&B Commission), which had been established in 1963 to inquire into the use of French and the status of French Canadians in Canada. To its sponsors, the policy of bilingualism seemed to be a logical response to the tumultuous nationalism that shook Quebec in the 1960s. Nevertheless, it never received widespread support.[/SIZE][/FONT]
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/legacy/chap-6b.html
Something can be said for the old adedge, "Quality over quantity". But don't get me wrong, as I'm sure your trying to. Immagration is benefitial, but it has to be conducted with responsible measures to protect the host Nation. In Trudeau's case, he saw an opertunity to use it politicaly and thus removed safeguards that were necessary to ensure immagration be proctive, not counter productive.
But I do stand corrected, the cost of official Bilingualism and Multiculturalism, would take their shares of the pie as well. At any rate, no matter how much you bleat, the fact remains Trudeau's actions were felt financialy by the next Adminitration. It's a fact of the motion of politics. The country is not automatically reset, when our dear leader is changed.
That has me laughing. I find it humours, that politicians always point out the failures of the past policy makers, but fail miserably to acknowledge any benefitial actions.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...ation+policy+costs+canada&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]1967:The Liberals bring in the Point System by PC 1616 on October 1. Minister Jack Pickersgill was pleased with the political finesse it took and stated that these provisions were “…the greatest change in immigration policy since Mackenzie King announced the resumptionm of immigration in 1947 and they had gone into effect without approval or even debate in Parliament.” The necessity of “sotto voce” in immigration politics is evident. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1978:April 10 saw a new Immigration Act introduced by the Trudeau government. in which family members and refugees were given top processing priority and Canada was committed to bring in a substantial number of refugees each year---not just in emergency situations.The [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]legal framework and priorities in this Act set the basis for emergency visas [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]for Soviet Jews. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1985:Trudeau’s stress on a compassionate and inclusive international immigration policy was a lasting legacy.June of this year saw a position paper of the Mulroney government which demonstrated that economic benefits of increased immigration were really quite limited,but the government would continue to support the “social and humanitarian ideals” that the Government of Canada had committed itself to since 1978. Indeed immigration in the Mulroney years grew from 83,000 in 1985 to 250,000 in 1993. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]http://www.iapm.ca/newsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=227&z=22[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Multiculturalism was another immigration-related issue that surfaced during the 1970s. The concept was thrust into the political limelight on 8 October 1971, when Pierre Trudeau announced in the House of Commons that his government would adopt a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]When he made this warmly received announcement, Trudeau failed to explain why his government was officially adopting such a concept. He carefully refrained from mentioning that multiculturalism was intended to persuade non-English and non-French Canadians to accept official bilingualism, the federal policy that had been instituted in 1969 with the passage of the Official Languages Act. Designed to promote the equality of French and English in all federal government operations, official bilingualism had been urged by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (the B&B Commission), which had been established in 1963 to inquire into the use of French and the status of French Canadians in Canada. To its sponsors, the policy of bilingualism seemed to be a logical response to the tumultuous nationalism that shook Quebec in the 1960s. Nevertheless, it never received widespread support.[/SIZE][/FONT]
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/legacy/chap-6b.html
Something can be said for the old adedge, "Quality over quantity". But don't get me wrong, as I'm sure your trying to. Immagration is benefitial, but it has to be conducted with responsible measures to protect the host Nation. In Trudeau's case, he saw an opertunity to use it politicaly and thus removed safeguards that were necessary to ensure immagration be proctive, not counter productive.
But I do stand corrected, the cost of official Bilingualism and Multiculturalism, would take their shares of the pie as well. At any rate, no matter how much you bleat, the fact remains Trudeau's actions were felt financialy by the next Adminitration. It's a fact of the motion of politics. The country is not automatically reset, when our dear leader is changed.
That has me laughing. I find it humours, that politicians always point out the failures of the past policy makers, but fail miserably to acknowledge any benefitial actions.
