Insightful. I especially like the "injecting a pathogen" analogy.
I've been saying for years that we also need to get the 'best-and-brightest' Canadians to start having more kids.

With no immigration stats can says
our population will grow for over 20 years.

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=15

Immigration not needed for decades,

Canada’s population will increase every year until 2030 with no immigrants whatsoever says StatsCan.
Course people like to fall back on immigration for all it's flaws even though in the last 40 years our population has gone up 13 million we've needed immigration because at every step no one is having babies yet somehow the population grows.

Nations populations rise and fall all the time. If they did this after the plague hit europe there would be no europeans. In 100 yrs there will not be much of pre 1967 canada left either.

Sounds like propaganda to me.

Without unrestricted abortion (except when a medical necessary or in sexual assault cases) and even the most barbaric late term abortion where the living fetus is literally ripped into pieces, instead of educating and encouraging citizens on the use of the many forms of legitimate birth control available, Canada would not be forced with choosing between immigration and the death of our Canadian identity. 100,000+ abortions each and every year for no other reason than, uh...well, just because. Every year 10's of 1000's of refugees the vast majority with zero job skills and zero education who never intend to assimulate into our society just to feed off the overgenerous government teat, collect welfare and eventually become Canadian citizens because this is the only country in the entire world where they would be able to do so, and who we have no idea who they really are and where they might really be from arrive on the wide open doors of our nation because many destroy all identification before arriving here - but we make them citizens anyway. The result is helping to destroy Canada and Canadian society as we know it. The vast majority of Canadians apparently could case less. Sad, very sad indeed.

The ludicrous left keep crying about an environmental holocaust, demanding that we shrink our environmental footprint while cutting back on greenhouse gasses. Then, they turn around and demand that we increase immigration. Don’t these people realize that immigrants use up much more energy and generate far more pollutants here in welfare rich, consumerist Canada than they ever would back in Africa or Pakistan. Here, they drive cars, ride gas guzzling busses, shop at Walmart, and use copious amounts of water and electricity in their multi bedroom apartments. Back there, many do not drive and shop at the local market. They also don't have running water and live in much smaller dwellings, often with no electricity. If we really want to save the environment, perhaps it would be better if these people remain in their homelands, where they will use the least resources and do the least environmental harm. Anyone who puts the environment first should surely see that mass immigration to the west and environmental protection are conflicting priorities.

......more

Apprently there are alot of vegans out here!

Total nonsense.

After the black plague Europe did just fine. The people who were left ended up better off than before.

The difference between then and now is unsustainable welfare and handouts.

The solution is not to bring in more people unless it is economic class. Family class and fraudulent so-called "refugees" are a drag.

I'm all in favour of open economic class immigration but it isn't necessary - a re-think of the deadbeat welfare-state is.

DrWright: "Sounds like propaganda to me."
I have to concur. The immigration population has much the same demographics as our Canadian born does. The recent school shooting illustrates the fallout of our slack immigration selection process. And it won't take a 100 years for our indigenous culture to dissappear. Canadians seem complacent to the challenges from Eastern immigrants to our way of life. Immigrant activists understand that this is a cultural contest or culture war; the Canadian born do not, and so will loose the war.
In 50 years, Canada will be a place that most of our present immigrants would not choose to come to.

I can remember when Canada only had twenty million people; apparently we were living in some kind of shadow land. Strange, because it was fun to drive to Toronto without a non-stop traffic jam, or to see fields and orchards instead of cookie cutter "upscale" housing. And, on a day like today, it was beautiful summer weather instead of a smog warning day.
Don't recall anybody getting shot at my high school, either, unless it was a water gun fight.
I think this "dying" Canada crap has more resonance in less populated areas, and you're welcome to it. Of course, none of the new comers want to live there.

The wast majority of immigrants have no, one or two children. I am at a loss to understand how immigration is going to fix up Canada.
Should not we look at reversing the child benefit from ever decreasing while the child's demands increase? What a joke: the more kids you have, the less money you get from the government for every next one. The older they get, the less money for the parents. It's enough to buy them diapers in the first years, but absolutely not enough for a set of roller blades and some pants and shirts later on.
Ask your elected representative, why it is such. Ask your leaders, why the Canadian jobs get outsourced to India. It's ridiculously hard to bring an immigrant worker to Canada, but it's easy as 123 to outsource your entire call centre.
Who's going to afford to have 3 children and let his wife to stay home facing a perspective that one day his job will go down the toilet thru no fault of his?

It is also ludicrous that immigrants pollute more in Canada than in the 3d world. You should walk the streets of Karachi or Bombay one day w/o a gas mask to realize, that a mix of gasoline and kerosene that they use in their cars is pretty effin' deadly for the lungs.

Latest fertility rate is 1.53.

Abortion rate is about 100,000 per year and represents 31 per 100 live births, that is, if all abortions were prevented and were successfully carried to a live birth there would be 1.53 * 131/100 = 2.00 fertility rate.

Question would remain whether there would be as many pregnacies, that is, how many abortions are really a birth control method of choice.

But . . but, .. Gore and Suzuki and Strong have been telling us about a calamity called 'population explosion'.

Mankind's population, and so-called carbon foot print, is growing astronomically. That is what the Kyoto Kult tells us.

Countries such as Italy, Spain, France, Russia are much, much lower. Some down around 1.1 live births per family.

The world's pop may well start declining in 25 years or so.

Just think, Paul Watson's 'Human Cull'

//www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html

of 'down-to-a-Billion' will not be necessary. (No wonder Patrick Moore dumped him)

What will be necessary will be for the Kyoto Kroud to find work late in life as their pension plans will no longer be funded by any young people.

Previous poster was correct. The biggest problem with declining pop is with pension funding, ect.

If I was a 'Twenty Somethin' I would be lying awake at night wondering how n' hell I can ever carry the load of 'defined benifits' pension plans AND a health care load that will be crushing. Especially in light of the fact that the 'fifty somethin's saving rate is negative.

IMO, scarier than a Canadian's winter day that, in a hundred years, may, may be -25.8 instead of -25.0 ... sigh. Back in simpler times, Kool-Aide was so innocent and fun.

The burning question IMO, is why don't people WANT to have children?

Seeing spoiled children demanding and demeaning their parents is enough to tell me that that could be the reason. As soon as a child enters school - daycare/preschool/kindergarten- they become a parent's worst nightmare. From a loving little child to a demanding, sulking, know-it-all in one year! The media plays a big hand in this by portraying parents and grandparents as fools and idiots often 'saved' from their own stupidity by a street smart kid. Parents and grandparents are not treated with any consideration unless they are not senile and have mega assets. Who would want to work for the likes of these mean, uncaring little people? It is far less stressful to not reproduce.

Just to clarify, not ALL children are mean and ungrateful but many are and parents have an uphill battle trying to instill some respect in even the most intelligent , loving child because the media, the schools, the bureaucracy and the cultural 'mindset' are all geared to demote parents to the status of foolish but faithful workhorses.

I think taxes should be revised to give parents tax breaks so they can afford to keep their kids at home where they can be supervised and disciplined by an adult that loves them enough to make them respectful and appreciative.

I do not have any children (not by choice) but if I did have little ones I know that they would not go to daycare and they would not watch T.V. (except on RARE occasions) because I can see what the collective mind-set does to the personalities of malleable minds. I do not enjoy visits from my friends with demanding children because I become a side bar item for my friend as she/he cheer leads for the sulky kid(s) who will not leave us alone to visit about adult issues!

Glad my kids are both dual US/Canadian citizens so they can get out if the Canadian ship sinks.

At least in the US more people there have a sense of purpose, and they are having more babies.

Canada is mostly a wishy-washy sort of country that has sucked on the teat of Liberalism for so long that she has lost any sense of get up and go.

The number of young brainwashed kids in Canada is truly scary. No minds any more. They just follow the state's instructions.

Blogs like Kate's help keep me sane, but I'm not sure they can save the country.

Ron in Kelowna:

I thought Paul Watson's article was pretty good. I'm a believer in most aspects of the capitalist system, but I get sick and tired of hearing the theory that we need more and more people for the world to prosper.

At least Watson puts his money where his mouth is, and I can respect that. On the other hand people like Gore and the Fly Man are nothing but pure hypocrites.

Check out the article in today's Globe - Banks give Sharia a second look.

TJ

More people in the US have a sense of purpose?

Get a grip. No, instead, take the kids and head south--those with commitment to this country will stay and fight for it.

And by the by, Kate's blog has obviously not worked in the sanity department.

"With a birthrate of 1.6 children per family, Canada will collapse as a modern WELFARE state if immigration is not accelerated."

Fixed. So, what's the problem with the collapse of the welfare state?

To him:

How do you plan to fight for it?

Are you one of these anti-American types? That's another fashion of the Canadian left.

By the way, I've been "...staying and fighting for it" for the last 40 years.

I'm just glad my kids have as many options as possible for their future.

And by the way, when I graduated with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering in Canada, not one, let me say it again, NOT ONE, Canadian company had any interest in hiring me - over qualified you see.

But those people south of us who have no sense of purpose hired me in a second and I got a hell of start to my career, worked with some of the best people ever.

"On the flip side, if Canada pursues a policy of extending open doors to regions of the world that have populations which, either religiously or culturally, are loath to adapt to Western Liberal Democratic ideals..."

This is problematic too. Liberal democracies a) are Liberal; b) have not stood the test of time. Are you sure you're not a socialist?

The problem is not the total population, it is the increasing growth of the older proportion not working, and needing ever-more health care, relative to the proportion working and using comparatively limited health care reasources.

Mark
Ottawa

The carbon footprint of an aborted baby is very, very small. It is probably no coincidence that Al Gore, who views C02 as a moral crusade, is also passionately in favor of abortion rights.

"Down to a billion souls".

Didn't say it would not be better.

But who's first on the sacrificial alter.

Who decides who can have children, ect ??

Right on Andrew. The pattern of more is better is ludicrous. Lower taxes, give less, manage better and keep the country less populated, that’s my Canada, not some overcrowded European look alike. I love open spaces and long empty roads. Lucky for me that most people want to live like animals together in large cities.
Pension plans where paid for by the working folks there whole life, not the young workers of today, so where is the money? if it's not there, then someone stole it. In 30 years when the young ones get old the big pot will smaller, but it will be their money, unless someone steals that too...
I’m beginning to feel this country is lost with no turning back. Opposition in Quebec voted down a billion $ tax cut and the “people” are agreeing. It’s like just wow. Why can’t people just think a little bit more and “fix” the issues, giving a billion more to healthcare only gives them more to mismanage and lose. Seems like the socialist has already won.

It will take 2 more consecutive Conservative Gov't's to reverse the Liberal Mindset in Canada as all the senior Civil Servants in decision making positions today where put there by successive liberal gov't's dating back to the time of P.E.T.. It will also be about 8 years from now with the advent of digital cable, satilite and direct view type tv that CTV and CBC will be gone from main stream TV in Canada or privatised to stave off the bleeding of Gov't funds that can be better spent elsewhere...has anyone in Canada ever watched a Canadian produced TV show other then Hockey Night in Canada???

I would say some time in the next 8 years there will be another incident like 911 and Canadians will realize that enough is enough. We'll also see our dollar pass the USA green back and then fall back to sub USA$'s when the USA gets out of the middle East and their own economy has a rebound.
Hybrid cars will become the norm and our gas will rise to $2 a litre... but I'm off on a rant...

Somewhere along the way some very bright political leader will realize that if you want to fix child crime, killings in the school yard, get drugs out of the school yard, eliminate the generation of psyciopaths being raised by TV and unskilled daycare because parents need to work 2 jobs and leave the kids in daycare 12 hours a day to aford food and maintain a roof over their heads,... we as a country need to place family's ahead of special interest groups and the welfare state... We need to start valuing our next generation, nurturing them, enabling parents to care for them like the "good old days" when Dad worked and mom stayed home... maybe Mom can work and Dad stay home... but regardless, an enabled parent is the best way to raise a well adjusted and polite child provided the parent has the skill set to do the job... Social programs should be focused on enabling parents to gain those skills... and we need to recognise that we're not raising children...we're raising the next generation of adults that will look after what ever we leave them of this country where we at one time long ago sang the song found on the following link that ment something much more to the generations before us today ... a promise and a hope of better times ahead and a strong and free land where you could let your children play un attended and without fear until the street lights came on, a school yard fight ended with a fat lip or a black eye and not a body bag, or they could walk home from school without fear of abduction...

http://www.lieutenantgovernor.ab.ca/document/canada(long).pdf

Next to law/order and security - the Refugee/Immigration/Heritage files are pretty much totally out of control.

Liberal immigration/refugee policies for the last 12-15 years have been aimed primarily at pandering for block votes amongst ethnic groups. Now the Conservatives are going down the same pathway.

The point system in vogue has been known for some time to be out of sync with the skills/abilities/linguistics that will be of huge benefit to Canada. However, it has been great to garner votes. Fix it - and it doesn't take a majority government to do this.

Family class immigration of the elderly has and is bound to do nothing but ring up huge medical/social expenditures on behalf of far to many people who have basically contributed nothing to this country (except of course to allow Canada to be Centrist ruled)).

Refugees with no English (but French is o.k.), children with no English, no skills, that expect the government to feed/house/clothe them forever are continuing to come in. The number of Citizens of Convenience in Lebanon alone is going to eventully come back to haunt the financial/social coffers, not to mention the medical coffers.

This whole immigration nonsense pounded at us via the MSM is no different from the hysteria that has been/still is being pounded at us as regards Kyoto & all things green.

Close the doors right now and get whatever backlog processed that must be processed. We are deporting two old Nazies (maybe) and this on top of a few Portuguese fisherpeople. Yet young criminals, terrorists, illegals, and really bad actors we cannot seem to get out of the country (no supreme court intestinal fortitude).

Apparently there are about 150 foreigners now in QC who have written all of their Canadian/Provincial medical exams to the point of being residency-ready in OC (but probably not transferable to other provinces). Apparently there are 64 residency positions available right now in QC that must be fill by July/07 or they will not be filled at all. Why is this! QC is apparently going to allow these placements to languish because...... and not take on the 150 group of ready-to-go people. Perhaps they don't speak the right language (French or better yet Quebecois).

There are a whole lot of issues like those above that we already have in Canada, some because of restrictive provincial professional bodies. Importing more of the same is simply dumb. The scream for fast tracking foreign workers has to many caveats that have more to do with allowing large industries to reduce the dollar amounts of their payrolls than shortages actually existing. The U.S. experience with illegals should have told us a whole lot about this by now because we are headed in exactly the same direction.

Just because the dumb Liberal government has allowed foreign professionals to come to Canada and they cannot find work in their chosen field - does this absolve them of doing their due diligence before they get here and then make choices based on this. No - far to many new arrivals are seeing it as a right to make it into the high paying professional jobs straight away and have both the money and the education to use the Charter of Rights to do it.

There simply are not enough of those high paying professional jobs in Canada for the people here already nor places in universities for our own students. Canadian universities are not after the brightest and the best (as is their cry) - they are after huge tuition dollars/student spending and foreign financing of entire departments within their universities. They are not really interested in what happens to the foreign students once they graduate.

We are into the second Immigration Minister - how many more is it going to take to get change. It isn't going to happen so the provinces have to do much of what QC has done - take over these files on their own.

Andrew: Demographically, Canada will be a population of "old" people if something isn't done ASAP. Old people don't work, pay very few taxes, and tax the system in healthcare costs. You need young working families to sustain the standard of living for the aging population, unless that aging population has enough cash of its own on hand to completely pay its way. By welfare, I mean "all" social support systems including infrastructure.

"And, as the number of grandparents of Canadians begins to exceed grandchildren, Canada's rich welfare state will ring the cash register dry if new blood does not pour in from the developing world."

So we either need more immigrants or less welfare.

Hm.

Okay, I've made my choice, and it involves closed borders.

I am a 37 year old, educated, MWM in Canada and do not want to have children here because of these facts.
All my life, I was told that if you work hard and participate in the system you will prosper. And when things get tough the system will be there to help you through the rough spots.
It just isn't true.
I was unable to qualify for educational assistance when I made the decision to go to college because my parents combined income was to high. They were expected to pay my way even though they were barely able to cover the costs of living with three kids.
When I had to collect EI one winter, a clerical error was made by the EI representative and I was overpaid; unbeknownst to me. 18 months later, when they caught the mistake, they accused ME of fraud, demanded the overpayment in full plus a %100 fine. All when I had finally scraped together enough funds to put myself through college. Long story short, they withdrew the funds from my account and left me to struggle through my final year of college.
I was turned down for several federal government jobs because I wasn't fluently bilingual and gave the positions to a French speaking person who had english worse than my french.
I was overlooked for promotions because I wasn't a visible minority even though I was the better candidate for the job.
When I did finally land a well paying job, I ended up in the hole because of the tiered taxation system the federal government uses.
When my parents were diagnosed with cancer the health care system failed them both. I lost both of them.
When the insurance and pensions for my parents were paid out to the three kids, Revenue Canada deemed it "insurable income" pushed me into the next tax bracket and set me back another $7500. All at a time when still dealing with the grief of losing a parent.
I watched both my parents lose thier jobs due to cutbacks and downsizing caused by poor government decisions.
I have been attacked, assaulted, robbed, and vandalized and have never seen justice served but drive 16km over the speed limit and...watch out!
I have to prepare for my retirement 'cause the CPP looks like it won't be around, unemployment 'cause I've already seen how THAT works, training and upgrading costs when they introduce a carbon tax and my job is lost, and health care costs 'cause we all get older and the system is gonna strain under the pressure of the boomers coming into retirement.
...and they want us to do all this plus maintain a household, continue working into our 60's and pay taxes? Add children to the mix and you have to start thinking about educational costs.

Albert4 said "I've been saying for years that we also need to get the 'best-and-brightest' Canadians to start having more kids."

Well Albert4, the problem is that the 'best and brightest' can see the writing on the wall and are smart enough to know that there is alot more at stake then the average person realizes. The 'best and brightest' have long memories, are inciteful people, are responsible citizens and are doing more than thier share to keep this country afoat.

They just don't understand why we aspire to the lowest common denominator instead of inspiring them to higher levels.

I think Warick and Andrew have a point. The black plague survivors prospered, it ended serfdom and drove up wages.

Doesn't quality of the population count for more than quantity?

Let's start with no more Muslim immigrants with dicey attitudes and a religion that is a lethal virus. Is it really worth, just to add more bodies, importing that liability. Islam is going to be a menace for probably another century before it burns itself or blows us all up sooner.

The recent Pew poll with 26% here approving civilian homicides to advance the jihad ends all lefty smears of racism with that. A 1 in 4 attitude like that should disqualify any group from entry.

TJ--I said get a grip, not a gripe....

I think you and Jan should go for coffee at Timmy's.

And Jan--you were lied to "all those years" and perhaps were a bit naive. Sounds like you've had quite a few knocks since then and have enough cynicism to get you through the remaining years.

You've at least got that going for you...which is nice...

The recent Pew poll with 26% here approving civilian homicides to advance the jihad ends all lefty smears of racism with that. A 1 in 4 attitude like that should disqualify any group from entry.

Penny, from where in the report did you get 26 percent from?

Nevermind, I found the relevant page.

Mr. Ed: I don't care if you are a horse---that was the best rant I have read today.

Upward mobility ...

From the time we're very young children we are raised to seek a better life than our parrents were able to obtain. The problem with this is the undesireable jobs have to be filled by someone. Historically speaking the 'lower classes' had a higher birth rate so they were generating the people at the lower end of the spectrum to fill these positions; with a shrinking population these people have to come from somewhere.

Regardless on how it is sold to them, people who have been brought to this country were brought to fill these positions that are 'undesireable' to most Canadians. This is how the system works, we find respected professionals (doctors/engineers) and recruit them to become taxi drivers, janitors and sales clerks so that your children can have the opportunity to become doctors or engineers.

The problem isn't the quantity of people we have comming to this country, or even where they're from, the problem is that we have large groups of people who are comming to our country together and are able to maintain much of their social structure inside of our country. Large cities have communities that are entirely from one country, where (besides the weather) people can maintain their lifestyle from their mother country.

2 words... "Soilent Green"...LOL

Okay, seriously. Make it affordable for people to have children with Tax cuts meaning it's not a burden to the taxation system as they simpley retain the tax dollars they'd be feeding into the system, they'll still need to work to have money to pay for their own kids, show that we value our youth and people by giving real Canadians preference for jobs over immigrant labour and in our schools, ELIMINATE THE IMMIGRATION CLAUSE THAT 25% MUST BE FRENCH AND MAKE IT 100% MUST SPEAK 1 OF OUR 2 OFFICIAL LANGUAGES FLUENTLY, ELIMINATE MULITICULTURALISM, and in a generation we'll have a Canadian society that has actual values and is proud to be called Canadian and purely Canadian.

Mr Ed: ...enabling parents to care for them like the "good old days" when Dad worked and mom stayed home... maybe Mom can work and Dad stay home...

And what if both parents want to work?

if you want to fix child crime, killings in the school yard, get drugs out of the school yard, eliminate the generation of psyciopaths being raised by TV and unskilled daycare because parents need to work 2 jobs and leave the kids in daycare 12 hours a day to aford food and maintain a roof over their heads,... we as a country need to place family's ahead of special interest groups and the welfare state...Okay, seriously. Make it affordable for people to have children with Tax cuts...

If indeed you want to improve children's quality of life, reduce youth crime, violence, and drug use, etc., I'm not sure that a US-style approach (i.e., lower tax burdens; encouraging stay-at-home parenting) is the way to go. Sure, they've got a fertility rate over 2 children/woman (unique among highly advanced nations) but comparatively-speaking, those kids don't do so great -- the US has among the worst infant and child health profiles in the developed world, and among the highest rates of youth violence, drug use, criminal activity, teen pregnancy, and teen abortion. Life expectancy is among the lowest in the OECD.

Sweden also decided in the 1930s to support families in its government policies, but went the other route -- higher taxes, but stronger social welfare system. The fertility rate (1.6 or so) is lower than the US but among the highest in W. Europe. Moreover, the country ranks among the top in terms of infant mortality, child health, life expectancy, and other health indicators, and among the lowest in terms of teen violence, drug use, pregnancy & abortion rates. So, the kids they produce are among the healthiest and safest in the world. All the while, Sweden has among the highest rates of female workforce participation and dual-income households. Parental leave laws are among the Western world's most generous. Daycare is universal and tax-funded, as is education right up through university.

Your first instinct may be antagonism towards a social democratic welfare state model, but if we leave aside the ideological/political partisanship for a moment, surely the stats alone indicate that there are at least a few lessons to be learned from Scandinavia, no? If what's important here is healthy kids and healthy lives, then by all accounts, Sweden's approach trumps that of the US.

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html

"We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion."

...

"curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach"

Paul Watson

So that means we need to eliminate some 5 Billion people from the planet?

Thanks to Paul Watson and fellow travellers, humans are now viral contagion. Yes, its the radical and invasive approach that has me worried.

And what sort of anti-viral agent does Paul Watson have in mind?

Thanks but the Mengele approach has been tried and rejected. Apparently, it didn't work out that well according to all accounts.

We already have the Morgentalers and Kevorkians running around eliminating as much of this 'virus' as they can.

Gee with a project like that, Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined, will have to take a back seat as we eliminate 5/6 of the entire human population.

Paul Watson may need to up his dose for anti-psychotic tendencies.

To him:

You still have no answered how you plan to "fight for it".

That's typical, people saying they want to fight for the country but not real idea how to do so.

A'dam, I think your comparison of US vs Sweden is a bit too simplistic. The US may be having a baby boom right now but it is not the right kind of boom. The highest birthrate is amound young single unwed mothers who are on the social welfare system and will continue to f*** like rabbits knowing that they don't need a job or a father 'cause the system will take care of them. While some do try to break the cycle you will also find that a lot of these single moms were raised by single moms so they are brought up in the entitlement syndrome. Kind of like a lot of aboriginals today.

In the quoted story, that should be liberal and not Liberal. There is nothing liberal about the Liberals.

Rubbish! (Which is nicer than saying that the third-world dogmeat/jeasusfreaking/IMMIGRATION LAWYERS have run out of wetback HIV positive refugees to shovel into this country, at taxpayers expense)!

"Pension plans where paid for by the working folks there whole life, not the young workers of today, so where is the money?
Posted by: m at May 25, 2007 4:53 PM"

Yes, a proper pension plan is plan which is fully funded with respect to its actuarial obligations. That will provide income for a retiree to live on, and if it is well designed it should provide sufficient income. But not all pension plans are fully funded. Federal and most provinicial civil servant plans are quite generous but only the employee contributions are funding these plans. The rest of the retirees pension is coming from general taxes. This is the part that may be more difficult to maintain as the demographics shift.

Further, many of the benefits retirees receive, health care being a very significant one, are paid by the state. As you know, older folk tend to need a lot more health care than younger ones, and when there are a lot more of them, it will become more difficult to fund.

Finally, even if all pension plans were adequately funded and well-designed, the goods and services that pensioners must buy need workers to produce them. If the ratio of pensioners to workers keeps increasing, the cost of goods and services will rise, unless productivity increases sufficiently to both keep prices in line and provide for the wage increases to compensate the workers for the additional burdens they will be incurring.

If immigration were halted or reduced, over time it would become a lot more difficult to support the boomer generation of retirees. But immigration isn't the only solution. Family friendly policies that allow, for example income splitting, might encourage more family formation and increase the birth rate. Also means need to be considered to encourage older workers to remain in the work force, even if only part time. And we may need to consider means testing some social benefits.

A country that relies on immigration to provide workers and funding of social programs is likely going to be looking at more serious problems than one which tailors its social programming to its means and encourages more natural population growth. The pool of potential immigrants from parts of the world where values may be more compatible with ours is probably shrinking; the greatest population growth is occuring in countries which may be presumed to harbour at least some cultural or religious animosity toward western values.

"If what's important here is healthy kids and healthy lives, then by all accounts, Sweden's approach trumps that of the US.
Posted by: A'dam at May 25, 2007 6:58 PM"

Are you talking about this Sweden?

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-rape-wave-in-sweden.html

I have a liberal voting friend who is convinced that to save Canada we need to execute the union leaders and outlaw the unions. Dunno what he found in the LPC - the other part makes perfect sense. Teachers' union goes first.

Whether you like it or not, immigration is critical to Canada's economic survival. Why? Because Canadians are shrinking their numbers at a rate of 1.6 children per family

This is poppycock. The existence of Canada will not be threatened by a period of shrinking population, not even a long period. Several decades ago the country had only half the population that it does now. The country was not "collapsed" then. It still had roads, railroads, airports, cities, factories, parks and schools. Here's the thing about population: a smaller population produces less, but they need less. Free markets can adapt to any size of population.

It is the welfare state which will collapse unless the population continues to increase at an exponential rate. It's a pyramid scheme. There is every incentive to suck tax money out of your fellow citizens, and no incentive to produce new taxpayers. Costs too much. Not enough after-tax income left to pay for food, clothes, vehicles, tuition, etc. if you raise a large family. Job markets wrecked by socialist intervention so there is a high chance kids will have to move away to find work and won't be around to help you in your old age. Inflation wipes out the money you try to save for tuition. Why bother? Better to spend your money as quickly as possible on something fun, before it gets taxed away and inflated away.

if Canada pursues a policy of extending open doors to regions of the world that have populations which, either religiously or culturally, are loath to adapt to Western Liberal Democratic ideals

Canada already destroyed its ideal of freedoms when the welfare state was constructed. The majority of immigrants are anxious to find freedom and to nurture it in Canada - kind of like Canadians used to do, back in the day. Show me an immigrant group whose leaders are injecting "pathogens" into their brains, and I'll show you a bunch of people who came to Canada with high hopes of freedom and economic opportunity who are getting their nuts squeezed by high taxes and anti-work regulations intended to keep people dumb, broke and dependent on politicians for survival. Vote slaves and tax slaves. You can't inject poisonous ideas into the minds of people who are happily occupied working, saving money and raising a family all on their own. But it's pretty easy to turn a bored, underemployed, frustrated but intelligent young man into a terrorist. Idle hands are the devil's you-know-what. And idle hands are the welfare state's specialité.

If you want to see what's wrong in Canada right now, check out the weasly socialists who are using the Conservative Party to pick your pockets and expand the Trudeaupian state.

Err why did we go from a healty birthrate to a dismal one in this country in the first place? Liberals and certain special interests plotted the downward spiral of this country's culture decades ago and now they pretend that immigrants are the only solution to the problem. In fact immigrants really are the problem and the solution is the liberals and the special interests must go.
(real conservative)

What bugs me is that my fiancee has a Masters degree in Architecture from one of the better known schools in Argentina, and yet she has to go through the same wait as someone trying to enter the country with no education, even though architects are in demand... makes little sense to me.

Too many babies and the so called population bomb you know how it irritates wackos like PAUL EHRLICH

real conservative: good point; the solution is liberals must go, licences of the MSM and CBC must be yanked when reporting lacks balance, state funded higher education must stop producing pseudo intellectuals like 'the fruit fly counter' and must review all areas that produce 'social engineers'. I would like the BNA back, I would like the red ensign back, and I would like 'God save the queen' as our national anthem back. I would like the supreme court of Canada to become accountable to the people of Canada (see excellent article by that title in the Western Standard).

Joanne (TB): thanks for the tip; I am considering closing my accounts with the TDCanada Trust and changing to a financial institution that does not give Sharia a second look.

"Canada will inject into her veins a pathogen that will kill her as sure as the EU is killing itself today."

We already have a pathogens injected into this country, it's called the Neoconservative movement and the Christian Right.

"good point; the solution is liberals must go"

It must really bother you that the left outnumbers the right two to one.

Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!

I

Regarding all this US vs. Sweden comments and who's got the better system, aren't these statistics an average of the entire population of each country? Here's an anecdote I'm paraphrasing from memory, something along the lines of: A Swedish politician/bureaucrat was bragging to an American politician/bureaucrat about Swede's low crime rate, low drug use, longevity, quality of life etc.

The American's response? In America, the Swedish also have low crime rate, low drug use, longevity, quality of life etc.

Get it?

No, felis corpulentis, I'm referring to this Sweden: 3w.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select.cfm (select 'Sweden', 'Canada,' & 'US' > 'submit' > 'group by indicators'). Feel free to include other OECD countries as well. Note the often linear trend in the majority of the indicators that countries with stronger welfare traditions perform better than countries with weaker welfare traditions.

The point is, a strong social welfare system does produce measurable population health benefits. Politically, Canada sits somewhere in the middle between social-democratic nations like Scandinavia and neoliberal nations like the US. Our choice, as it were, is to either go left or right. The question to ask is this: should maximizing and ensuring the health of our future generations be our central societal goal, or should other considerations -- e.g., lowering taxes, maximizing individualism, minimizing government, amassing personal or national wealth -- be given higher priority?

By the way, after controlling for different classification criteria for forcible rape, and even despite 75+ percent decline since the 1970s, the per capita rate in the US is still higher than in Sweden.

Jan in Alberta = good comment.

We need to claw back pensions and old age benefits of all kinds on high income/net worth seniors. That's fair and reasonable.

Seniors were the only age group to prefer Liberals over Tories last election, btw.

The American's response? In America, the Swedish also have low crime rate, low drug use, longevity, quality of life etc. Get it?

I'm not sure what your American bureaucrat's point is. That Swedes, wherever they are, are biologically predisposed and/or socioculturally well-equipped to better health? Possibly, but studies tracking immigrant families in the US over multiple generations finds that, as time spent in the US increases, the initially better health of immigrant families drops either to or below the national average.

Health outcomes are also highly correlated with socioeconomic status and other social determinants. I suspect that Swedish immigrants are generally located in the middle- to upper-ranks of American society.

Or is he arguing that Sweden is healthier simply because it's more ethnically homogeneous? It's true that cultural homogeneity is an important factor in understanding the development of welfare systems, but that relates primarily to process (i.e., implementation) rather than outcome.

Anyway, it's obvious that not all health differences between countries can be attributed to differences in welfare traditions. Still, the weight of international data indicates certain configurations are more health-enhancing than others. The choice to pursue one model rather than another is political and ideological, not empirical.

Ummmm....maybe the Swedes are more healthy because of their lifestyles? i.e....more inclined to be outdoors,atheletic,etc? Oh. And their health care system is something called two-tier by the fear mongers here. Also their gubbermint ACTUALLY uses the tax money to help their citizens,not line their friends and their pockets, like the socialists/leftards do here. You are comparing apples and oranges.

So basically you are saying the welfare state knows better and it's "children" are safer, therefore it must be better. Nonsense, same thinking that has all the kids here on ridling or some other meds. Life is not supposed to be like that. We can force everybody to take a magic pill to remove all emotions and have a perfectly safe and easy to control population too.

North america, is built on go getters, if you aren't, you suffer..simple. I'll take the less goverment model anyday. Everything the goverment touches turns to crap. Health care, education are only 2 examples of services given at bloated costs and low quality.

In other words maximizing individualism, lowering taxes, minimizing goverment and allowing people to live their own life is the only model that works. Anything else is going to fail in the long run. Humans just can't take it...damn rambling again. Oh well.

"Yes, a proper pension plan is plan which is fully funded with respect to its actuarial obligations. That will provide income for a retiree to live on, and if it is well designed it should provide sufficient income. But not all pension plans are fully funded. Federal and most provinicial civil servant plans are quite generous but only the employee contributions are funding these plans. The rest of the retirees pension is coming from general taxes. This is the part that may be more difficult to maintain as the demographics shift."

Again a case of Gov mismanagement. Anybody in canada that lives to retiremnt paid or was part of a famely that paid taxes heavely. Some of that money is supposed to go in the "plan". with interest compounding the money should be there. So now to hide the fact the money is stolen, they need to import more taxpayers very quickly, and hide the issue a bit longer. Why is there no independent control on tax money? Why is health care a monopoly and is so expensive?

If changes are allowed to health care, then we will find a way to be more efficient to treat the seniors. You are not allowing for change and improvement in your future thinking. Sure seniors pay less taxes, but damn it they paid their whole fringing life, eventually mom and dad dies and the kids have to look out for themself. So now we are in a situation where health care delivery needs an order of magnitude improvement in efficiency and cost...we the amount of cash we spend there in this country, you would think we could rise to that chalenge...or maybe we'll just build another cancer reaseach facility out of marble...yeah thats the ticket.

Justthinkin: Ummmm....maybe the Swedes are more healthy because of their lifestyles?

And those lifestyles are enabled and supported by a commitment to developing healthy public policies. This requires the active involvement of government, not its retrenchment. The Swedish understanding of public health, focused as it is on equity and the social and economic preconditions for population well-being, are significantly more sophisticated and upstream than ours (see 3w.fhi.se/templates/Page____617.aspx)

Oh. And their health care system is something called two-tier by the fear mongers here.

In terms of promoting population health, the quality and structure of the health care system is, along with lifestyles and risk behaviours, of relatively less importance than upstream social and economic conditions. I've seen estimates that the relative contributions of medicine, lifestyle, and socioeconomics are something in the ratio of 1:1:2. Whatever the actual numbers, it's widely agreed among health historians that the massive population health improvements (e.g., higher life expectancy) seen over the past century or so are due largely to public health interventions rather than biomedical innovations.

Having said that, you're right that Sweden's HC system allows private insurance and private service delivery. But keep in mind that their system is far more comprehensive, covering drugs, dental, rehab, etc, so in the end, privately insured Swedes still pay less out-of-pocket expenses than Canadians do. Social policies -- free education, minimum 5 weeks of vacations, generous parental leave, etc. -- also lead to healthier citizens, creating a lesser burden on the HC system.

Also their gubbermint ACTUALLY uses the tax money to help their citizens...

On that point, I agree. Except that the net trend in Canada over the past several years has been a reduction in health and social spending and an a push for more tax breaks, which, if the US model is any indication, does nothing to improve the health of its citizens.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Well, yes and no. The welfare system models in Canada, Sweden, and the US are very different indeed, so in that sense, they appear as apples and oranges. But these systems are also based on policy decisions and institutional designs, which can be actively shaped in whatever way we choose. The point is, we could take the best lessons of Sweden while avoiding the mistakes of the US, and through better policymaking choices, morph the Canadian welfare apple so that it more closely resembles the Swedish welfare orange.

M: So basically you are saying the welfare state knows better...

I never said it knows better. I'm not advocating authoritarianism, nor am I anti-capitalist or anti-wealth. I said a strong social welfare system within a politically social-democratic, economically capitalist state can better create conditions and environments that support optimal population (including child) health and social equity than can a weak social welfare system within a politically neoliberal, economically capitalist state. The Swedish model of public health is less interested in telling people not to smoke or in forcing people to wear bike helmets and more interested in ensuring that everyone is on equal footing and has access to social supports when needed. There is little curtailing of daily individual freedoms for the purpose of social engineering.

...and it's "children" are safer, therefore it must be better. Nonsense...[M]aximizing individualism, lowering taxes, minimizing goverment and allowing people to live their own life is the only model that works.

I'm advocating that investing in a stronger social welfare system is "better" in the sense that it will improve population health. I've backed up this assertion with quantitative health and social indicators data. Do you have any objective evidence showing that "maximizing individualism, lowering taxes, minimizing goverment and allowing people to live their own life" is the "better" model, other than simply claiming that it's, well, better?

Observation:

The degree of socialism/welfare statism seem to correlate hightly and negatively to birthrates.

Higher the Socialism, lower the birthrate.

French speaking immigrants: You realize that in canada practically this = haitians, north africans and west africans, right?

Sweden: Sweden was a "high trust" cultural/ethnically homogenous coutry with a strong work ethic and fairly egalitarian outlook since the noble class was pretty well crushed by an absolute monarchy and the fact the Sweden was a poor country. They traded the monarchs for a democratic government, and education and technology made them rich. The "high trust" and social cohension made the welfare state work, people didn't cheat it too badly and social expectation kept things going.

However, if you look at the Brussel Journal Blog and Fjordman's articles there you will soon see that importing a generation of low trust society immigrants reponsible for a great proportion of crimes and social problem in sweden.

In addition, the corrosive effect of socialism is destroying the the social cohesion.

....

Albert4, would that we could "...get the 'best-and-brightest' Canadians to start having more kids."

Unfortunately, this hasn't been a priority of any level of government in Canada for far too many years, at least from the '60s forward.

Priorities seem to be to get as many young people into the workforce as possible, to benefit big business and big government. For years, the governemnt, under the Liberano$ and under the Mulroney Conservative government, have punished families with children, especially those who have chosen to have a parent home to care for the kids.

The taxation system has not given preferential treatment to couples with children, to encourage them to have more children and, frankly, has "frightened" couples from having children.

BIG BUCK$ seem to be the motivating factor of big government and industry, a trend the CPC is slightly turning around by offering $100/month/child six and under, to help with day-to-day expenses. To those who would guffaw at that figure, to my family, already living on a limited single income, this amount would have seemed like Manna from heaven when my two children were small.

Add to the revenues generated by two-income couples, with mega-buck$ to spend because they don't have children, our cavalier attitude towards abortion (over 100,000/year in Canada' that's about 1.5 million in the past 15 years alone), and the Librano$' happily bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants because of our population "crisis," which plays right into their re-election plans at every election, and we've got a toxic stew, guaranteed to poison our integrity and quality of life as a nation.

Our population crisis is a manufactured one, which has worked very well for the Librano$, and this is the solution:

Encouragement of children + discouragement of abortions = no crisis

But that would be too easy, wouldn't it? The Librano$ like to keep everything in crisis, a chaotic mess, so they can keep plying "solutions" onto the uninformed, easy-to-lead Canadian public, which principally benefit themselves and their friends.

Canada's definitely going down the slippery slope towards chaos and total dysfunction. Encouraging immigration of groups who are "either religiously or culturally...loath to adapt to Western Liberal Democratic ideals," as cjunk points out, rather than encouraging young Canadian couples to have children, is the road to disaster.

And, guess what? We've already nearly reached the end of that road, thanks to the tunnel vision and greed of our so-called "leaders."

Sad Canada. Bad Canada.

Mad 'been around the block

Read Mark Steyn's "America Alone" It is a book of demographics that will scare the pants off you. If the trend continues Canada will adopt Sharia Law as the people in Eurabia will ultimately have to do.

Besides impossible to assembly furniture, what, pray tell, have the Swedes contributed to the world in the last 50 years?

What is the point of having healthy, long lived people who don't DO anything useful? 5 week vacations? No wonder their productivity sucks. I get itchy after 5 days vacation and so does every decent person.

Fewer 'out of pocket expenses'? This is a good thing because? I have lots of out of pocket expenses for stuff like food and rent. Should that be subsidized too? Wouldn't out of pocket expenses teach people not to use the emergency room as their doctor's office, for one thing? Why is the notion of people paying for their own stuff so unthinkable?

There's a reason Silicon Valley is in America and not Europe.

"We already have a pathogens injected into this country, it's called the Neoconservative movement and the Christian Right."
- Alby

Actually, pecker head, 80%+ Canadians are Christian. The Judeo/Christian faith is the faith the country was founded on - you'll still find reference to the Christian God in our national anthem.

'Neoconservative' is not applicable to Canadian politics and never has been.

The true pathogen is the newest virus on the scene, otherwise known as socialism (bordering on communism) - of which you, bird brain, are an exhibit.

Penny, from where in the report did you get 26 percent from?

Hint: 26%, Pew poll, "1 in 4", Ace of Spades blog, scroll down to the original posting and work from there. Is it possible for you to find the story, use Google, whatever, and do your own fact checking or what?

batb, "The Librano$ like to keep everything in crisis, a chaotic mess, so they can keep plying "solutions" onto the uninformed, easy-to-lead Canadian public, which principally benefit themselves and their friends."

Nail on the head !!

It is an old socialistic/communistic/social engineering trick. It has been used for centuries.

Encourage/allow crisis and chaos to fester in the populance. Promote the "idea" that only the govmit can fix things. Then the people will be clamoring for the "Savior" to, well, .. "save" them.

The Master of this was Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

The Quebec Crisis (War Measures Act)
The National Energy Crisis of the 80s (NEP)
The Immigration Crisis (Wecome thugs)
The Unity Crisis (Charter of Rights)
The Youth Crime Crisis (More basketballs))
Health Care Crisis (Medicare)

Canada has seen lots of "Saviours". The latest being Suzuki, Strong, Gore.

Kathy Shaidle: What is the point of having healthy, long lived people who don't DO anything useful?

I'm sure a handful of Swedes have managed to parlay their good health and long life into successful careers as freelance authors, editors, and writers for print & web, which I'm sure you'll agree are VERY useful things.

But seriously, are you actually rejecting the entire Swedish welfare system model simply because you don't think the Swedes have contributed enough to the global stage?

5 week vacations? No wonder their productivity sucks.

Actually, I'm looking at the 2007 OECD Factbook and it turns out Sweden's labour productivity is well above OECD average and is literally only a smidge behind the US. I think a longer life, a healthier life, and about 3-4 more weeks of holidays is worth the price of a smidge. Wikipedia also has a page listing nations by "GDP per capita per hour" worked in 2006. Sweden's in 9th spot, behind the US but ahead of the UK and Canada. Incidentally, the US #4, behind Norway, Luxembourg, and France.

Wouldn't out of pocket expenses teach people not to use the emergency room as their doctor's office, for one thing?

Actually, studies from the US indicate that OOP expenses teach those with limited incomes to delay seeking medical attention even when its necessary and warranted. This is in fact part of the reason why the US's population health profile is so relatively poor. Also, your argument assumes that the average person is a fairly good judge of medical necessity, which they're not. Oh sure, a cold is (usually) just a cold, but what about that slight bulge on the side of one's breast, or that nagging but manageable ache in one's lower abdomen? As well, folks go to the ER when they don't have access to a GP, another problem that is worse in the US and Canada than in Sweden.

Why is the notion of people paying for their own stuff so unthinkable?

Because health isn't a commodity the way a car or a TV or even food is. A compassionate argument can be made that if you spend your life working and responsibly paying your taxes, then should you fall ill (and you surely will), you (and/or your loved ones) shouldn't also have to deal with the burden of figuring out where the money's going to come from.

But since compassionate arguments have a history of falling on deaf ears here, an economic argument can also be made that it's in society's best interests to keep its people healthy and productive, and better yet, to prevent them from getting sick in the first place through investments in healthy public policies.

A'dam - Where did you go to school? Governments are not human beings with emotions, people do not belong to governments, governments belong to people.

People is a collective noun, only an person can experience compassion.

No wonder Kathey Shaidle is bothering you, she has a proper understanding of the English language and she uses common sense to make her arguments.

My question for you is ; Why are you so afraid of looking after yourself? Are you really old or really young or are you lazy?

"No, felis corpulentis, I'm referring to this Sweden: 3w.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select.cfm (select 'Sweden', 'Canada,' & 'US' > 'submit' > 'group by indicators'). Feel free to include other OECD countries as well. Note the often linear trend in the majority of the indicators that countries with stronger welfare traditions perform better than countries with weaker welfare traditions."

So there are some marginal differences on some key (and some not-so-key) health indicators among western countries. The similarities among western countries (ie. all life expectancies around 78 for males, 83 for females; infant mortality rates in low to mid single digits) are due to good public health systems and developed economies in all of them. I doubt that you can attribute the minor differences to more versus less socialism in the country.

In any case, the point of discussion on this thread has more to do with trends in demography, ethnic makeup and culture, not reams of bland WHO statistics. On that basis, where would you rather be: in a country in which at least some parts of the existing population have the confidence and the support to reproduce or in one that is dependent on immigration by folks who appear to be disinclined to accept western values?

Would you rather be in country where family friendly taxation and policies encourage families to raise their own children, or in one where the nanny-state indoctrinates them into "progressive" ideals?

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/05/sharia-supporters-and-transvestites-of.html

"By the way, after controlling for different classification criteria for forcible rape, and even despite 75+ percent decline since the 1970s, the per capita rate in the US is still higher than in Sweden."

But isn't it the opposite trends that are more telling? 75% decline in US since 1970s and tripling in the last 20 years in Sweden, or more than tripling if you consider only rapes of females under 15?

http://simulev.blogspot.com/2005/11/rape-jihad-in-sweden.html

"Actually, pecker head, 80%+ Canadians are Christian. The Judeo/Christian faith is the faith the country was founded on - you'll still find reference to the Christian God in our national anthem."

Pecker head? And I was so nice to you dirt bag. More like 20% openly to being something other than christian, you'll find that 80% considerably lower in Canada. Oh and that national anthem thing, I may have to start a petition to get all referances to gods removed. We live in Canada, not Fantasy Island.

"'Neoconservative' is not applicable to Canadian politics and never has been."

Two words for you, Stephan Harper. Want two more? Preston Manning.

"The true pathogen is the newest virus on the scene, otherwise known as socialism (bordering on communism) - of which you, bird brain, are an exhibit."

I'm an exhibit now? Hey I thought I was a Peck Head. Oh well. Actually socialism has been for quite a while now.

The world needs less people and Canada needs no more people. We are one of five countries who allows 'open" immigration. The others are the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. We have to start looking after Canadas welfare by only allowing immigrants who apeak the language, are healthy, have money or a profession or trade required.
We should immediately repeal our rediculous multiculturalism law and status. It is a purely political word, multiculturalism and it means NO culture.
We are on,y living off out natural resources, Twice the people mean 1/2 the return to each. Think why Norway is one of the richest -percapita- in the world. And Switzerland.

Hey KLATTU and GORT when seen can you come over here to earth and take GORE,SUZUKI and STRONG off our hands they would keep your planet nice and warm with their combined HOT AIR

Peckerhead39a,

The 80% was from Stats Can - your source is?

Look, you've proven over and over that you do not have the intellectual ability to debate on this blog. Are you a masochist, or just a fool?

Perhaps you're simply an intellectual benchmark for the left, in order to make a clear distinction between socialist ignorance and stupidity vs. real world logic and reason.

If that's the case, keep up the good work.

Joanne (TB): thanks for the tip; I am considering closing my accounts with the TDCanada Trust and changing to a financial institution that does not give Sharia a second look.

The interesting thing will be when we see a clash of cultural values erupting in economics; such as banks trying to woo gay customers at the same time as Muslims...

The interesting thing will be when we see a clash of cultural values erupting in economics; such as banks trying to woo gay customers at the same time as Muslims...

Not to mention homophobes and Islamophobes.

Maybe PAUL WATSON should have a up close and personal relationship with a killer whale im sure the whale will have a interesting time with that dweeb