Friday, 15 August 2008

James Bissett and "Toward a Canada First Immigration Policy".

Here is a worthwhile read care of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. You can download the pdf file here.

Here are some highlights.

It may surprise Canadians to learn that, in fact, Canada has no comprehensive immigration policy. Instead, we have a patchwork of policies that have been developed in isolation from one another, each intended to addresses a specific issue, but none of which were designed to be part of a coherent whole. As a result, despite the many rules and procedures governing immigration and the existence of a large bureaucracy to enforce those rules and procedures, Canada has lost control over immigration.

Each year the number of immigrants that we admit under various categories
equals a little less than 1% of Canada’s total population. This is a staggeringly
high number
. To illustrate just how high, consider that the United States admits
a number equaling about 0.4% of its total population annually while Australia
admits a slightly higher percentage at 0 .44%.

As a point of interest, Australia is the only industrialized country that has a foreign born population higher than Canada's. Where Australia has a foreign born population of 22%, Canada has a foreign born population close to 20% but it is only a matter of time before Canada has the largest foreign born population in the whole of the industrialized world, that is if we continue with the current immigration system.

‘Ghetto-ization’ of immigrant communities is hardly a new phenomenon. Earlier generations of immigrants also tended to congregate with one another in the same neighbourhood. What is different today is that some newcomers can and do actually transplant their home countries here in Canada. Children are being effectively cut-off from broader Canadian society, making the medium and perhaps even the long term prospect of successful integration much less certain. Strategies to encourage integration and assist in the process have not kept up with these changes.


The percentage of migrants who come to Canada because of their education, training or occupation is only approximately 25%. The rest are either relatives of these or previous immigrants, or they are refugees or other humanitarian cases. These latter immigrants do not have to meet any selection criteria other than to comply with health and criminal/security standards. Many are parents and grandparents of successful applicants.

This is the major reason immigrants over the past twenty years, and to this day, continue to do poorly than post war cohorts. They do not meet Canada's needs and got into the country only because a relative sponsored them or they entered as a refugee. Also, due to the sponsoring of aged relatives, this is why the average age of immigrants has been increasing over the years and why immigration is actually adding to Canada's aging population instead of alleviating it. This is also why immigration threatens the solvency of Canada's cherished public health care system.

Canada is the only country that allows any person who arrives to claim asylum, including not only those who are traveling through safe countries, but actual residents, and even citizens, of safe countries such as the United States, Germany or England. This practice undermines efforts on the part of the United Nations and other international bodies to provide assistance to legitimate refugees. It encourages aspiring immigrants to bypass the system and facilitates the activities of criminal gangs engaged in human trafficking.


It is widely believed that Canada needs more immigrants to counterbalance our aging problem, that a larger population through immigration will guarantee economic prosperity, or that we face dire labour force shortages that must be met by more immigration. The fact is that none of these statements can be backed up by evidence. No credible demographer believes the aging issue can be solved through immigration. In fact, as noted above, current immigration practices may be compounding the problems associated with an aging population. Economists may argue among themselves whether or not immigration is good or bad for the economy, but none argue that its impact either way is significant. On the question of addressing Canada’s labour needs, no serious study has ever concluded that increased immigration of selected skilled workers is the best way of resolving labour shortages.

I recommend you download the pdf and save it for future reference. I am glad people like James Bissett are doing what they do becuase the myths that are continuously circulated ad nauseum actually hold no water under scrutiny and need to be exposed.


Toronto Real Estate Agent said...

Immigration and immigration policy, that is a great issue, not only for people focused on e.g. the Toronto condos and the rise of sales, but also for common people. Lost control over immigration is not a sole and most serious problem I suppose. Immigration can´t be stopped in the globalized world, it is a continual and long-term phenomenon, however, there should be effective assimilation policies developped. Let´s take two exaples. The EU has enormous problems with its immigrants as many sociological studies confirm, mainly in context of their Muslim immigrants who tend to be more and more isolated (yes,"ghettos") which might be and is stimulating future disasters. The second exaple is US immigration policy that is rather praised as most of immigrants, according to studies, consider themselves (but rather next generations) Americans, which minimalize some of the serious problems connedted with immigration ... Although, I´d be glad to read the study, I am convinced immigration is not the problem itself, but rather the way how immigrants fit into the country´s way of life...


Anonymous said...

Immigration can´t be stopped in the globalized world, it is a continual and long-term phenomenon, however, there should be effective assimilation policies developped.

Of course it can. Just look at Japan or Finland.

As this article notes:

"Pro-immigration campaigners who tell the people of Europe that “mass immigration cannot be stopped, so it must be welcomed” are adopting the policies of despots through history of quelling opposition by telling opponents that resistance is futile. The evidence is otherwise. All that is needed is political will."

Anonymous said...

Taken from the above link:

"There are more citizens of either India [1,130,000,000] and China {1,319,000,000] than all the people of Europe, North America and Australasia put together."

Just speaking on behalf of Canada's plight of relentless mass immigration, we are being colonized by foreigners who have strong tribal interests very unlike our own, plus the numerical means to overtake by their sheer numbers.

There was a lot of fear-mongering sponsored by the Trudeau era when the Americans were going to "take us over". Today, in contrast, when 85% of today's immigrants are NON-white, we really are being usurped by the 3rd world peoples and yet we read nothing about this unraveling catastrophe in the MSM. This blog and others similar to it, are trying to sound the alarm, but mass media has a lock on the majority of Canadians by using clever brainwashing techniques to suggest that all is well in utopia, nothing to worry about here, move on.

Further to "Elli", I would suggest you have a strong bias in filling up our country with an unlimited flow of immigrants simply because it has short-term benefits for your real estate industry. But what happens when a major economic collapse occurs and we're stuck with multiple tribal interests competing for scarce resources in our city streets? And, on the subject of "assimilation", we haven't even managed that feat with the Aboriginal peoples in the past 141 years since confederation, so, do you think your wealthy clients are going to drop their encultured behaviours simply to assimilate into ours? No ...because they didn't arrive here for the "love of Canada", but to partake of the hard-won benefits of a wealthy first-world nation.

Andrew White said...

The difference being, vis-a-vis Australia & Canada, is that Australian foreign born are still, apparently, 51% of European origin.

Canada, on the other hand...

"The 2006 Census enumerated 6,186,950 foreign-born people in Canada. They accounted for virtually one in five (19.8%) of the total population, the highest proportion in 75 years.

Between 2001 and 2006, Canada's foreign-born population increased by 13.6%. This was four times higher than the growth rate of 3.3% for the Canadian-born population during the same period.

The census estimated that 1,110,000 immigrants came to Canada between January 1, 2001 and May 16, 2006. These newcomers made up 17.9% of the total foreign-born population, or 3.6% of Canada's total population of 31.2 million.

Recent immigrants born in Asia (including the Middle East) made up the largest proportion (58.3%) of newcomers to Canada. This was virtually unchanged from 59.4% in 2001. In contrast, in 1971, only 12.1% of recent immigrants for this period were born in Asia.

Newcomers born in Europe made up the second largest group (16.1%) of recent immigrants. Europe used to be the main source region of immigrants. In 1971, they accounted for 61.6% of newcomers to Canada."

If immigration is good for Canada then why discriminate against European immigrants? On the face of it, the only answer is that it's racially motivated.

PaxCanadiana said...

I am convinced immigration is not the problem itself, but rather the way how immigrants fit into the country´s way of life...

No, it is immigration. Or rather we accept too many immigrants which affect how they "fit into the country´s way of life." I understand your position becuase you are a real estate agent and your opinion is influenced by the potential for monetary gain. Having said that, I find what you said insincere. You aren't the first real estate agent to post on this site with a pro mass immigration stance and I doubt you will be the last. Who bites the hand that feeds them?

The difference being, vis-a-vis Australia & Canada, is that Australian foreign born are still, apparently, 51% of European origin.

Canada, on the other hand...

You're right about that and with U.K. immigration we should look more closely at who from the U.K. is immigrating here. I do not remember the figure off hand, I think it's 30-40% range, but a significant segment of U.K. immigrants to Canada are of South Asian and Middle Eastern origin.