Doesn't "the basic interplay of supply and demand" hold that a 500,000 person annual shock to demands on social infrastructure will have corresponding impacts on the price / availability of those goods and services? If Canada indeed has a social infrastructure deficit (a 'stock' problem) which requires time and investment to rectify, should government not also look at the 'flow'?
Essentially, you write that the problem is not immigration levels but is, instead, a problem with social infrastructure. I suggest that they are one and the same insofar as if we had a lower immigration level our social infrastructure would be adequate. Put differently, if the immigration levels remain high then the social infrastructure must be increased dramatically. In other words, they are essentially the same issue expressed from either end.
By contrast, I start from a somewhat different premise. I start from the idea that immigrants to this country must be able to get an understanding of what Canada is and the core values of our society. We must encourage - nay, require! - immigrants to leave their old country hostilities and intolerances in the old country and to accept our diversity and tolerance. No acceptance of those values, no admission! As just one example, the recent intolerance toward our Jewish population is, well, intolerable. Yes, resident Canadians have sometimes participated in that intolerance but, apparently, so have many newcomers.
For years, I have said that I would, all other things being equal, like to open our borders to all immigrants who wish to come that we can reasonably accommodate. Note: "that we can reasonably accommodate." That means that we have quality jobs to offer newcomers while we offer quality jobs to Canadians; that means that we have to offer appropriate medical and education to newcomers while we offer appropriate medical and education to Canadians; that means that we have to offer acceptable housing to newcomers while we offer acceptable housing to Canadians. And so on and so forth.
To me, that means that until we are a larger country we simply do not have the resources to be able to handle the current rate of newcomers. That is not intolerance but is, instead, the desire to ensure that both newcomers and current residents can receive acceptable levels of services. If there is a shortfall in the level of services, the level of immigration must decrease. Again, not intolerance but simply recognition that we cannot bring in the world if we cannot provide housing, medical care, jobs, etc. for newcomers and Canadians alike.
Doesn't "the basic interplay of supply and demand" hold that a 500,000 person annual shock to demands on social infrastructure will have corresponding impacts on the price / availability of those goods and services? If Canada indeed has a social infrastructure deficit (a 'stock' problem) which requires time and investment to rectify, should government not also look at the 'flow'?
Essentially, you write that the problem is not immigration levels but is, instead, a problem with social infrastructure. I suggest that they are one and the same insofar as if we had a lower immigration level our social infrastructure would be adequate. Put differently, if the immigration levels remain high then the social infrastructure must be increased dramatically. In other words, they are essentially the same issue expressed from either end.
By contrast, I start from a somewhat different premise. I start from the idea that immigrants to this country must be able to get an understanding of what Canada is and the core values of our society. We must encourage - nay, require! - immigrants to leave their old country hostilities and intolerances in the old country and to accept our diversity and tolerance. No acceptance of those values, no admission! As just one example, the recent intolerance toward our Jewish population is, well, intolerable. Yes, resident Canadians have sometimes participated in that intolerance but, apparently, so have many newcomers.
For years, I have said that I would, all other things being equal, like to open our borders to all immigrants who wish to come that we can reasonably accommodate. Note: "that we can reasonably accommodate." That means that we have quality jobs to offer newcomers while we offer quality jobs to Canadians; that means that we have to offer appropriate medical and education to newcomers while we offer appropriate medical and education to Canadians; that means that we have to offer acceptable housing to newcomers while we offer acceptable housing to Canadians. And so on and so forth.
To me, that means that until we are a larger country we simply do not have the resources to be able to handle the current rate of newcomers. That is not intolerance but is, instead, the desire to ensure that both newcomers and current residents can receive acceptable levels of services. If there is a shortfall in the level of services, the level of immigration must decrease. Again, not intolerance but simply recognition that we cannot bring in the world if we cannot provide housing, medical care, jobs, etc. for newcomers and Canadians alike.