Nanos-Policy Options Poll - Immigration as Nation-building (Video Blog Post)

Canada's recent immigration policy, or lack of policy, has often been driven by heart and little head while the decision makers were often vulnerable to vocal interest groups. The number of illegal immigrants who have tied up our court systems for years is disgraceful and the number of illegal immigrants who have literally "disappeared into the woodwork" by shiploads is an indictment of the whole Immigration Department and the Government of Canada.

Canada needs immigrants and Canada has figuratively "stolen" foreign trained professionals rather than face the costly training of our own citizenry for example, doctors, engineers, teachers and a host of others. We have a huge talent pool in Canada that should be addressed through minimal cost post secondary technical schools, night schools, retraining institutions, universities etc. We ignore this costly route and take the Wal-Mart cost cutting route called immigration. Do not misread me-----we need immigrants, select immigrants, as our social/educational policies,federal and provincial, do not adequately address or ignore training of the Canadian gene pool. This widely held attitude is disgusting in a wealthy country.

It seems that family reunification and "specific needs" is an affordable programme and a defensible programme for the present if the Federal Immigration Department has the skills to make it work----skills they have not demonstrated too well in the last couple of decades. This should not preclude some LEGITIMATE immigrants in other categories.

As I have said many time before, I believe an immigrant MUST demonstrate functional competence in either French or English (reading, writing, speaking) before citizenship is granted. I oppose the multicultural approach whose time has passed.

[updated Fri Jun 06 04:20:06 EDT 2008]

Nik, In Northern Alberta, contractors have been given the ability to bing in guest workers. These guest workers are mostly from Eastern Europe and are generally young married men who come with the idea of making enough money to build a house etc. back home.

One feature of this program is that if the guest worker obtains Canadian certification in his trade during his guest worker visa period and if he gets good marks from his employer,learns sufficient English, he can then automatically apply for landed status. This progam as opposed to the farm worker guest program encourages the person to become one of us and has been wildly successful so far..

This, in my opinion is one of the best channels for reaching out to qualified immigrants. They get to see us as a country and a people, help us through a manpower shortage,get Canadian qualified in their trade or profession and gain landed status for their efforts.

As the Country gets more and more desperate for qualified people that approach should also be applied in other sectors.

[updated Fri Jun 06 04:43:48 EDT 2008]

Hi Nik,
In your piece you say that "only" 2 out of three consider being a refugee a good reason to admit someone into Canada. That is still 67% in favour which means only 33% opposed. These are pretty solid numbers in favour of a liberal refugee policy. The numbers supporting other categories of immigrant are less surprising, as filling needed skills is a win-win situation.

One of the critical things that Canada must do if we wish to attract skilled immigrants in the trades and professional groups is to find a way to fast track qualification equivilancy. We don't need another 500 mechanical engineers driving cabs, or Heart specialists changing diapers in a seniors home.

I am not suggesting that we weaken our standards, but if additional training is needed to have skilled immigrants meet Canadian standards, we should provide a navigable road map to get there.

I would be willing to invest tax dollars to make this happen, if in return we could make a requirement that those receiving assistance in acheiving Canadian certification were then willing to put in three years of practice in remote communities and high need areas, rather than in the relatively over serviced urban areas.

[updated Fri Jun 06 10:18:10 EDT 2008]

It's interesting that the existing immigration policies and procedures as well as the wholesale refugee acceptance would now be supplemented with military deserters if our three opposition parties' views could rule. We can't deport criminals in less than years (if we can locate them). It seems that those who are desirable and follow the rules will see years pass before consideration can be given yet those that will pick loopholes to their best advantage receive expedited consideration. Is this how we have imported gangs of criminals?

Parnel's view has great merit. In essence, if there is a "fit" and we learn they are good people they are welcome. Otherwise, go away.

Family reunification is fine for spouse and children and perhaps parents (the latter means medical and support cost's). Any set of rules that could be written regarding refugee's landing at our door is so open to abuse (as we have experienced) that they are impossible to administer. This means we must take a tough stance and consider only the very exceptional cases.

[updated Fri Jun 06 11:47:11 EDT 2008]

This is my message to candidates and should apply to those in Ottawa also:

No Support or Votes

This applies to all candidates in Metro Vancouver, You will not get any support if you are Pro China and have any plans to invite the [EDITED BY MODERATOR] (EDITED in Beijing) to any Gala events in Vancouver for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

Vanoc has already proven it is a [EDITED BY MODERATOR] organization and all current Board Members must be removed.

Go the Globe and Mail for recent developements in China proving we do not need or want these people, this includes any candidates who have relatives in China and relatives who are Pro China supporters in Taiwan.

[updated Fri Jun 06 18:28:55 EDT 2008]

I believe that immigration is critical to any nation building strategy and indeed to the very survival of our nation. We cannot survive and prosper as a nation either economically or socially without it. That said it should not be confused with the import of refugees. One is an act for the good of the nation; the other is an act done because the nation is good. One an act for the good of the country and the other an act of compassion. That is not to say that both are not of great benefit to those entering the country and to Canada. Nor is it to say that we should not be actively doing both. We should be doing both because one is an economic necessity and the other is a global humanitarian responsibility. It is just to say that we should not confuse one with the other. While both programs have a net effect on each others capacity, they are different and have differing goals.

In both cases Canada’s best interests must come first so Immigration and the needs of Canada must take precedence over the acceptance of refugees. This will allow Canada to continue to prosper economically and as a result allow us to accept refugees on an ongoing humanitarian basis. To give refugees precedence over immigrants only serves to harm our economy by limiting our capacity to attract and effectively employ skilled labour and causes social problems, particularly with regards to our ability to deliver health care due to a severe lack of skilled medical personnel. One negative effect of the current policy of mixing both programs together and giving refugee’s precedence over immigrants is to actually limit our ability to accept refugees because the economy does not have the capacity to accept them and governments do not have the economic capacity to care for them. This why the current policy is flawed and in need of reform. For the good of both Canada and those wishing to enter this great nation.

[updated Sat Jun 07 10:33:05 EDT 2008]

One of thie other issues on immigration is the fact each province has input into immigration. They can decide on their own who gets in and who doesn't if they follow some simple federal guidelines. This leads to some immigrants coming to Canada via provinces that have easier "tests" so to speak for entry. Quebec was noted for accepting "economic immigrants" some time back, and once in, most of these moved either to Ontario or the western provinces.
While I agree there are differing regional needs for types of immigrants I think the guidelines should be tighter in certain respects.
In Canada's immigration boom of the 50's and 60's we accepted mostly hard done by Europeans like Italian workers from then the very poor region of Calabria or refugee Hungarians who escaped communism. In both cases the system worked well in aasimilating both types of immigrants and they all became great Canadians.

I'm not sure how or if either of these types would make it in under our proposed new laws.

My point is that if we get too specific over who we accept we could miss out on some very good potential citizens.

[updated Sun Jun 08 03:42:38 EDT 2008]

Nik, I have also come to believe that Canada has nothing to fear with an expansion of free trade to include full labour mobility between Canada and the US and eventually Mexico. Welfare and medicare laws may need some adjusting to make this cost efficient to Canada so that migrants from the south will have to work to live here but in general it would be accreditive to Canada's prosperity.

[updated Sun Jun 08 14:06:55 EDT 2008]

This is off topic and more relative to the last discussion regarding the Bernier incident but just watched Duffy and it seems that reports are surfacing in the Quebec media that Madame Coulliard was introduced to Bernier by and is on the payroll of the Liberal Party. If these accusations are true they will be explosive to say the least and have a devastating effect on Liberal fortunes in the Province and to a lesser extent nationally. It must be stressed though that they are, at this point, only accusations. They are being made by a La Presse reporter but it remains to be seen if there is any validity to them.

[updated Mon Jun 09 22:43:55 EDT 2008]

well it seems we might need a new topic for discussion. i don't know if all that can be said has been said but i can't seem to get any rebuttals to any of my posts. am i on the s..t list and nobody wants to try to convince me i am wrong. i guess if we stick to the topic people don't really have much to say. our biases seem to take us off topic pretty easily.
i need to know where to find the people on your leaders list since in 2 weeks i have yet to see any of their posts.

[updated Fri Jun 13 16:37:48 EDT 2008]

Nik is behind in Topics: Canadians organizing to bring Chretien and Max Teitelbaum to Justice, this time a panel of Judges a total of 20 in all, selected at random from across the country, they do not have to Federal Judges, British Columbians will not allow the Federal Judges in Quebec to make a Mockery of the Justice in Canada. We stand behind Gomery all the way. Quebec is an on going trouble spot in Canada, we are going to put an end to it, with Chretien and Teitelbaum in front of this Panel, which have enforment powers.

[updated Fri Jun 27 15:24:43 EDT 2008]

I Just read some of the comments on the CTV website from BC regarding the provincial carbon tax which took effect today. If this is any indication of how the Dion Tax Shaft will be received nationally the Liberals are in for a very rough time.

[updated Tue Jul 01 23:34:31 EDT 2008]