Think tank calls immigrants and refugees huge burden on Canadians

The elephant in the room can be ignored no longer. The metaphor is very appropriate, considering the number of immigrants and "refugees" -- notice the quotes -- allowed to enter Canada from lands full of elephants, such as Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.

According to a report published today by the Fraser Institute, a conservative Canadian think tank, bandaid-like reforms by the Harper government will only make a minor dent in the "fiscal burden" on society imposed by the newcomers unwanted and unwelcomed by the majority of Canadians.

How much is that burden, I hear you ask. It's C$20,000,000,000... per annum! That's $19 billion in real money, a truly huge sum for a country with a population of just 34 million, of whom perhaps a third pay no federal income tax.

In his essay, Herb Grubel -- a former caucus colleague of the Dear Leader -- says Mr. Harpoon's government should take more "radical" steps. He suggests phasing out the sponsorship of parents and grandparents -- the so-called "family class" -- and bringing in an employer-driven system to attract economic immigrants who might actually contribute something to the fiscus, rather than sponge off Canuck taxpayers.

"The economic performance of recent immigrants is substantially below that of other Canadians," Mr. Grubel notes, saying their average total income is 70% of that of other Canadians. Worse still, immigrants pay just over half (54%) of the taxes paid by others.

Mr. Grubel says there’s no consensus on the reason for immigrants’ poor performance, though he noted that both refugees and parents-grandparents clearly didn’t need to pass the government’s test for economic migrants that require certain levels of education, training and language proficiency. No surprise there!

His report praises some of the new federal policies on economic and family-class immigration, and especially Ottawa’s somewhat tougher approach to asylum-seekers. He says it will have some success in reducing the burden caused by immigrants who cost more in social services and general government expenses than they contribute in taxes.

He goes on to state another stone truth, that the "large-scale" intake of immigrants since the late 1980s has raised "serious concerns" over effects on "Canadian culture, religious tolerance and national security". Another non-surprise.

Mr. Grubel argues that Canadians should be allowed to debate the broader question of just how many new Canadians are needed in coming years. Should the Canuck government close the doors completely, or leave them slightly ajar? That's the real elephant in the room. He concludes that a broad public policy debate would at least ensure there is a "better informed and more rational Canadian immigration policy." Now that would be a surprise!