Saskatchewan wants Ottawa to allow more immigrants

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Saskatchewan Immigration Minister Rob Norris says there is a "healthy tension" between the provincial and federal governments over a cap Ottawa has put in place that limits the number of immigrants allowed into the province.

"We're not going to be discouraged, nor are we going to be dissuaded," Norris said Thursday in response to comments made by federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

"There is a real momentum here to make sure that (federal leaders) understand that Saskatchewan needs to continue to move forward on immigration."

Among the province's requests of Ottawa is an increase in the number of nominations allocated to the province for the Saskatchewan immigrant nominee program, Norris said.

"We're capped at about 4,000 right now," he said. "What we've said is we'd like 6,000. We can handle that. - With more than 11,000 jobs open and available today, we see that there are broad-based needs - we know there are more improvements we can be making here, but quite candidly, many, many sectors are firing on all burners."

While there is "no intention" to reduce Saskatchewan's allocation, Ottawa doesn't have immediate plans to increase it, Kenney said in a phone interview Thursday.

"Certainly, Premier (Brad) Wall and minister Norris have strongly advocated for that and we take their perspective very seriously," he said. "Our first priority is to address some of the weaknesses in the provincial nominee program."

Those include the nominations "creeping into" areas where other federal immigration programs apply and the need for minimum language requirements, which Norris endorsed earlier this month.

"Provincial programs play an important role," Kenney said. "But we do think there's an important nation-building dimension to immigration and we do want to maintain a significant federal role in selection."

"Once we've seen improvements in the provincial nominee program and once we've reformed our federal programs, we'll certainly be open to looking at possible further increases to the provincial nominee allocation," Kenney added. "It's not easy, though. Every province wants more allocations and overall, Canadians don't want us to raise immigration levels."

Kenney cited polling data indicating 10 to 15 per cent of Canadians support increasing immigration overall.

"For too long we've seen declining economic results for immigrants - bringing in newcomers to face unemployment and underpayment," he said.

But Norris said "the broad brush strokes probably don't apply here in Saskatchewan, because certainly what we've heard from employers, what we've heard from newcomers and what we've heard from communities is actually a very, very consistent spirit of welcome.

"We're seeing the reinvigoration of communities that - were having challenges of decline. Now we know there are challenges associated with growth, but those are the challenges that we welcome."

Kenney said the "employer-driven" federal reforms "will be disproportionately beneficial to a high-growth province like Saskatchewan," with programs to court "economic immigrant" investors, entrepreneurs, skilled workers and graduates of the province's two universities.

With the potential for more federally selected immigrants coming to Saskatchewan, Kenney said he does "anticipate that we'll continue to see an increase" in immigration in the province - though "not as quickly as in the past five years, because you can't sustain that velocity of growth."

We should scrap all quota systems when it comes to immigration, and instead focus on a points system. In other words, if you meet certain criteria such as pass the French or English language test, prove that you have a job already (and this is where free labour movement agreements could come in so as to allow a person to find work in Canada before even applying for citizenship) or have enough money to prove your ability to support yourself, I'd say Welcome to Canada.

How do quotas determine such qualifications. If we allow one person into the country and he can't funcion in our society, he's one two many. If we allow in a billion and they can all find work, there we have a billion new taxpayers.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
A billion new Quicky Marts

Like I said. They'd first have to prove that they already have amployment. There is no way the economy could support a billion new Quickie Marts... Unless there's something I don't know?
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
The issue is matching people on EI up with jobs they are qualified for-something the gubmint has never managed to do.

It'a fine to say "Go Here and Do This" but employers want a say in the process and that's the fly in the ointment.

These are for unskilled jobs that healthy young people can do easily like in a fish processing plant or warehouse. I don't like seeing people who should be working, sitting around doing nothing, living off the govt. Use your own resources.

If I quit my job I get zero EI. So, I am against those who game the system by working half the year. I'm in favour of increasing benefits, up to 60% say.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
These are for unskilled jobs that healthy young people can do easily like in a fish processing plant or warehouse. I don't like seeing people who should be working, sitting around doing nothing, living off the govt. Use your own resources.

If I quit my job I get zero EI. So, I am against those who game the system by working half the year. I'm in favour of increasing benefits, up to 60% say.
Fish processing, in Sask? Even then the trend should be to change the unskilled jobs into machine jobs, if you are in a motel and you want clean sheets you take them off the bed, deposit them in a chute on your way out and grab a new set when you come in. Chamber Maid service eliminated and the rooms are $30 a day less. That might not fit into your world but who cares making guests do the same thing they most likely do at home is a cost saving device so everybody gets to chip in.


Just to be clear, do you think there are jobs available because people will not apply for them? Or are you willing to admit that when there are 11,000 jobs available there are likely 20,000 people that are unemployed?

I'm quite sure the same job is not there for months on end yet the numbers stay relatively the same. I believe the national job bank keeps track of the number of times an ad has been viewed.

Should nurses and such be disqualified from taking jobs that are receptionist orientated so a lower educated person could have the job as they do have the education for doing that task?

This may surprise you but having 60% unemployment and everybody having a moderate lifestyle is the sign of an affluent society not one that is a bunch of lazy bums. The problem is the 40% would think they were more important and conclude they deserved more than the 'unemployed'.

So, I am against those who game the system by working half the year. I'm in favour of increasing benefits, up to 60% say.
Like in seasonal employment? How about to 100% and then we have the same vacation time as the full-timers? Oh yes, the full-timers should be required to take their act away from home for a portion of that 1/2 year. Sounds like you have a lot of envy for those who can have a vacation months long, perhaps you should try it before you hit retirement and then don't have a clue as to what to do with yourself.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Fish processing, in Sask? Even then the trend should be to change the unskilled jobs into machine jobs, if you are in a motel and you want clean sheets you take them off the bed, deposit them in a chute on your way out and grab a new set when you come in. Chamber Maid service eliminated and the rooms are $30 a day less. That might not fit into your world but who cares making guests do the same thing they most likely do at home is a cost saving device so everybody gets to chip in.


Just to be clear, do you think there are jobs available because people will not apply for them? Or are you willing to admit that when there are 11,000 jobs available there are likely 20,000 people that are unemployed?

I'm quite sure the same job is not there for months on end yet the numbers stay relatively the same. I believe the national job bank keeps track of the number of times an ad has been viewed.

Should nurses and such be disqualified from taking jobs that are receptionist orientated so a lower educated person could have the job as they do have the education for doing that task?

This may surprise you but having 60% unemployment and everybody having a moderate lifestyle is the sign of an affluent society not one that is a bunch of lazy bums. The problem is the 40% would think they were more important and conclude they deserved more than the 'unemployed'.


Like in seasonal employment? How about to 100% and then we have the same vacation time as the full-timers? Oh yes, the full-timers should be required to take their act away from home for a portion of that 1/2 year. Sounds like you have a lot of envy for those who can have a vacation months long, perhaps you should try it before you hit retirement and then don't have a clue as to what to do with yourself.

Fish processing on the coasts.

EI has been worked over by fraudsters, I don't like that. So benefits for those who deserve them have been sharply reduced.

If you are young and healthy, you work, end of story, if your pride is hurt, tough. The market will sort things out. The govt's EI plan is already brutal on those who quit jobs, they get zero, nothing. Unfair. chronic offenders get money forever. Unfair.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Point is a society grows and not everybody is going to have a job, let alone one that is a high income one. Do those ones get as little as they need or so much that they don't work and they don't get bored. It isn't like we can ever pay our national debt anyway so who cares how big it gets, should be clear now that no nation gets to be a debt free one so you have nothing to lose by maxing out the credit, that means the least get more as the rich already have enough.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Point is a society grows and not everybody is going to have a job, let alone one that is a high income one. Do those ones get as little as they need or so much that they don't work and they don't get bored. It isn't like we can ever pay our national debt anyway so who cares how big it gets, should be clear now that no nation gets to be a debt free one so you have nothing to lose by maxing out the credit, that means the least get more as the rich already have enough.

That's the kind of question job seekers or EI need not worry about, they need to be focused on getting an abled body person a job. Muddled socialist/anarchist/fabian stuff just costs us more tax money. Atlantic (white) Canadians and rural (aborginal) Canadians need to get work. It's better for them, and the country.