Canada must fully leverage diversity if living standards are to grow, according to RBC's Nixon
Challenges government and business to raise the bar
TORONTO, October 20, 2005 — Canada must do more to capitalize on immigration and unleash the power of diversity if it wants to improve productivity and increase its high standard of living according to Gordon M. Nixon, president and chief executive officer of RBC Financial Group.
"We believe that no country in the entire world stands to gain as much economic benefit from diversity as Canada," said Nixon at the 10th Metropolis Conference, an international gathering focused on diverse cities and hosted by Toronto Mayor David Miller. "If we succeed, we will have an unrivalled advantage. But the flipside is also true. If we fail, we will pay a heavy cost in lost opportunity."
"Unleash the power of diversity"? What does that even mean? What power is he even taking about? Does he know what he is talking about?
Take note how the sky is going to fall if we Canadians do not embrace diversity. How are productivity levels and the Canadian standard of living going to decrease if we fail to "unleash the power of diversity"? This is exemplary of the nonsensical rhetoric and scare mongering that typifies the language of pro mass immigration advocates that should illicit laughter but instead gets serious consideration from the like thinking so-called journalists at The Toronto Star.
And how does diversity give us "unrivaled advantage"? Please, I really do want to know and so would the Japanese and Chinese where the lack of diversity has apparently hindered their technological and economic achievements.
"We believe that Canada must target future workforce challenges, not only by raising immigration targets in key sectors, but also by making a concerted effort to release the untapped potential in our current workforce," Nixon said.
The report highlights that new Canadians currently make up about 70 per cent of the growth in the Canadian labour force, and by 2011 will account for all the growth in Canada's workforce, as Canada's population growth stagnates. While the government is considering increasing the number of immigrants from its current levels ranging from 220,000-245,000, the study recommends raising its target to between 300,000 to 400,000 immigrants per year, if Canada is to continue to grow its living standards.
Again, note how the future health of the Canadian standard of living is tied to increasing mass immigration targets. This is a scare tactic to compel Canadians to accept immigration numbers that they are otherwise uncomfortable with.
According to a Statistics Canada survey, the integration of immigrants is a key barrier to success. "It's no secret that we don't have the best track record in this area," said Nixon. "Our most recent immigrants arrive in Canada better educated and at similar stages in their careers as those born in Canada, but evidence suggests that they have not found jobs that match their skill levels, are earning less than those born in Canada, or are experiencing higher unemployment rates. This represents a direct hit to our economy."
This has been the general trend for immigrants for the past 25 years now. The main reason for this is not the failure to recognize foreign credentials but the fact that there are no jobs for them in the first place. For instance Canada imports just as many engineers into the job market each year as those who graduate from Canadian engineering schools thus doubling the number of job seekers for engineering positions each year.
Furthermore, according to the report, if foreign-born workers were as successful in the Canadian workforce as those born in the country, personal incomes would be about $13 billion higher each year than at present. And if women had identical labour market opportunities available to them as men, then personal incomes would be $168 billion higher each year. All told, if we achieved identical labour market outcomes for men and women, regardless of their birthplace, then personal incomes would be 21 per cent or $174 billion higher, and 1.6 million more working age Canadians would be employed.
Foreign-born workers are doing poorly compared to their Canadian born counter parts because of mass immigration. Most of the immigrants Canada imports do not enter as skilled immigrants. Only 20-25% of immigrants enter Canada this way. Most are the sponsored relatives of landed immigrants and refugees as well as self selecting immigrants posing as bogus refugees. You do not need any pertinent job skills or language skills to get into Canada via these streams. Also, many immigrants enter via the investor class which is essentially a scheme by which they buy Canadian citizenship. By agreeing to "invest" a specified amount in some form of economic activity and employing at least one Canadian then an immigrant can get in this way. This hasn't produced any jobs because the investment can be a corner store and the employee can be a sponsored relative. It's a scam really.
The bottom line is that Canada is flooding its work force with a superfluous population compounded yearly to fill jobs that don't exist and to take jobs that they are over qualified for (the "skills shortage" is really a shortage in counter help at fast food restaurants and as custodial help). This wouldn't be a problem if Canada did not import as many people as it does. This is why Canada's immigration policy hurts immigrants as well.
Canada should be decreasing it's immigrant intake not increasing it as this RBC report suggests but this report is not about tackling Canada's economic future. It's about importing potential RBC clients. As noted in the post below Canada's financial institutions realize that future client growth, thus profits, resides in immigration. No CEO wants to be in charge when share prices decline or remain stagnant. Thus Gordon M. Nixon is not only trying to secure greater market share for RBC, which is his job after all, but he is also looking out for his career.
When reading reports on immigration you have to look at who produced it. You should then ask what do they have to gain or lose when it comes to immigration. This will tell you if the report is unbiased and impartial or if it is not. In this case RBC stands to financially gain as an institution if immigration numbers are increased thus we should take this study with some health skepticism and regard mostly as propaganda.