Canada Boosts Immigration Targets to 1.2 Million Over Next Three Years

Canada 2021-2023 immigration plan has 50,000 more immigrants in each year over the prior plans. Canaada had only half of its immigration target during COVID in 2020.

Canada new targets are :
401,000 immigrants in 2021
411,000 in 2022
421,000 in 2023.

Canada’s plan is to grow its economy and its population through immigration.

Nextbigfuture covered Canada’s old immigration targets at 4 million from 2021-2030.

The new plan could see 4.5 million to 5 million immigrants into Canada from 2021-2030.

Canada will end 2020 with a population of 38.2 million.

Canada annually will welcome 0.9 percent of its population in immigrants. This is three times higher than the per capita newcomer intake in the United States.

The increased immigration could see Canada track towards the high population growth scenario from Statistics Canada. This would mean 40 million people around 2024 and 43-44 million in 2030 and 50 million around 2040 and 56 million in 2050.

If Canada had this higher population growth and immigration then it would move up from 39th most populous country in the world to about 36th in 2050. Canada would pass countries like Italy, Spain and Ukraine but would get passed by Angola, Afghanistan, Niger and other fast-growing countries.

Canada has about 1.2 times the per capita income of France. Canada’s economy would be about the same as France in 2050 assuming Canada maintained 1.2 times the per capita income. The 56 million people in Canada in 2050 would be only 20% less than the 67 million forecasted for France.

SOURCES- Statistics Canada
Written By Brian Wang,

72 thoughts on “Canada Boosts Immigration Targets to 1.2 Million Over Next Three Years”

  1. How does constraining Canada's population help with the problem of shallow capital pools that drive entrepreneurs like Musk to California?

  2. Really there are a couple pockets of Canada with reasonable density, and massive hinterland. Immigration is mostly just growing those few pockets of density. Canada is among to most urbanized countries in the world. One benefit of a growing population is it gives the country more demographic heft to assert its territorial integrity. China and the US are both going to try to chip away at our territorial rights, particularly wrt the north.

  3. look around at upgrade project for water/housing/sewers. … lol
    idk my hometown got critical shortage of housing since like 5 years ago. whatever they are smoking across the river in Ottawa is got to be good stuff because their "plan" is just looking at numbers in a spreadsheet imo. because the infrastructure is not adequate for the people we got atm let alone that big increase in population.

  4. I guess your point is that high immigration increases the risk of social dysfunction in Canada?

    A major geopolitical risk for Canada is remaining lightly populated. Canada has a lot of resources, and is sandwiched between superpowers.

  5. Think about it in terms of stability and long term probability. Let's use example of a different system than the population. The first cities were built in Sumer, modern Iraq. Pure desert, punctuated by two rivers. Good territory for agriculture-assuming you can master those rivers. Sumerians created an irrigation system that boosted crop production and this catapulted them to levels of civilization unheard of at that time. 80% of the population lived in the cities-this level of urbanization was achieved only in modernity. However what happened when those irrigation systems became neglected? because of war, epidemic, political mismanagement? They stopped working and disappeared. Because they required maintenance. Result:collapse. In comparison, many other places didn't require irrigation. On one hand, this meant that people living there did not have to invent irrigation and complex political systems to maintain it. But on the other hand, it also meant that if something happens that destabilizes society-their food production was not impacted. And the longer is the time considered the more probable is that destabilization will occur. The more artificial is the system, the more maintaince it requires, the riskier it is to have. I'm not saying you cannot have it. Im saying there are limits to what you can do. Is Canada different than the rest of the humanity?

  6. Births per year are irrelevant. Total fertility rate is. Canada is in negative. Secondly-how much of those births are people who recently received citizenship? You should look at native canadian births and TFR.
    What is the difference between 0,9% and 1,1%? The same as between one bullet and two bullets. Its just more of a thing that should not happen.
    As for identity-thats not my point. Humans have several mechanisms for cooperation. Cooperation requires altruism, i.e. irrational assumption that your selfless behaviour will not cause you harm. Humans have evolved to identify their inner group and outer groups. Altruism is directed towards inner group. One of the strongest mechanisms of altruism is kinship, the other reciprocity. On the basis of those tendencies ethnocentrism forms-the more factors of similarity, the easier it is to "trick the brain" to behave selflessly. If the environment is ideal you receive high-trust societies, where transaction costs are low. The more differences the more difficult it is to maintain the illusion that you are part of the same family and society requires more artificial systems to keep cooperation. Sooner or later something will destabilize those systems and then everyone goes back to the default mode. Stability=ethnocentrism. Long term. Not 20 years. Brazil, Canada etc. are so young that the did not manage to experience this. With this imigration-they will.

  7. even if if the kids got jobs they might still be living in a parallel segment of to the main polpulation.

  8. Congratulation to Canada for thinking through what they want as an immigration policy.
    However, it would be wise to consider the likelihood that the future really doesn't need us. Science and technology are the engines of progress, not the service or consumption sectors. Much has been made of how youthful immigrants maintain a population pyramid that supports benefits for an aging indigenous population. However, the long-term track record of Ponzi Schemes does not inspire confidence.
    While it is always possible to choose higher immigration in the future, once you bring more people in the future range of options is narrowed.

  9. That is an interesting line of thought.
    Intelligence is highly (maybe 70%) heritable. So is the household culture of achievement. If immigrants were truly selected for their value to the country they are entering they can be an awesome asset. The typical example given are the atomic scientists who came to the US leading into WWII. What that narrative selectively leaves out are the smart and talented spies that came along too. Some of those atomic spies were not even suspected to exist until evidence was accidentally discovered this century.

  10. Hilarious that countries can only support 4% foreign born population. Canada casually pulls off 22% without any race riots or Parisian banlieue-style ghettos or white flight. Toronto is 50% foreign-born and rated as one of the most livable cities in the world. There is no magic threshold.

  11. It's not true that Canada organic population change is negative. Canada still has more births than deaths.

    I don't see what is magic about 0.9% migration vs 1.1% migration. Seems like a lot of hand waving.

    The second point is valid if you insist that a core part of identity is superficial racial characteristics. Tell it to Brazilians that dark skinned Brazilians are less Brazilian that light skinned Brazilians. Are you even Canadian? I kind of wonder how much you understand Canadian culture/identity. Lazy people assume/assert that we are identical to Americans.

  12. I actually agree with you, Andrew notPorC. The difference between then and now however is the fact that:

    1. Population dynamic is negative, and immigration plans are absurdly high. In past newcomers were arriving into increasing native population which meant that there is increasing amount of interactions on individual level, day-to-day. This allowed to teach, impose, incultrate and demand adaptation of certain norms. This happens naturally, because newcomers arrive at dynamic, thriving net of inter-human relationships. Now, however, Canada native pop is declining, and they physically will not be able to provide the same dynamism. Its like having 2 faucets and one bucket. If 1 faucet gives you hot water and the other cold water, then you can have hot water providing you produce constant amount of it. If you decrease hot but increase cold then the bucket will get cold. This happens irrespective of attitude of immigrants. Its just natural. You need dyad capacity.
    2. Overvhelming majority of previous immigration was european. Europeans have higher assimilation capacity in regards to their own nations and cultures. Also although ethnicities are different, phenotypes are so close that given right circumstances you can switch ethnocentricsm in brain easily. Humans recognize similarities, and good immigration policy should take this into account-the more distant is someone the more difficult it is, the less you can have people from that populations coming in.
  13. A big part of the problem is that most western nations believe in separation of church and state (religious and secular matters), whereas some belief systems do not even admit these can be separated. Out of pragmatism, adherents may live under another system of government, but they are not permitted to accept that as a permanent condition, and they never will until they modify their religion or convert to another. Good luck with either of those.

    In truth, most westerners believe that political belief systems, religious belief systems, and economic belief systems are three entirely different things and that none of them determine the form of the others.

    Whereas some religious belief systems are quite rigid in how the government must operate. For example, in many Islamic countries, it is punishable by death, a penalty that has to be sanctioned by the government, for a Muslim to convert to another religion.

    Some religious belief systems also include dictums on how the economy must operate. Similarly, some systems of government cannot be separated from their economic system (or vice versa).

  14. Finland has taken – from the top of my head – at least 10 times less immigrants per capita compared to Sweden. Their police is much better than swedish police, their policies are better with respect to immigration. Sweden is way "ahead" in terms of political correctness whereas the finnish are much more pragmatic on a political level.

    An interesting example. Both Finland and Sweden has had (small) terror attacks; in Sweden it was by truck in Finland it was by knife. So in Sweden we started blocking all pedestrian zones with concrete structures, making deliveries more difficult. In Finland, they gave automatic rifles to all police cars within 6 months. After several years of successful trials with tazers, it is still not part of the standard equipment of a swedish police officer (and they are extremely reluctant to fire their guns). The number of known heavy criminals outnumber the total number of prison berths by a factor of 4.5 in Sweden, but no efferts are made to rectify the situation. And don't get me started on the judicial system….

    These differenses taken together with the fact that you probably didn't visit any problematic neighborhoods in Finland, most likely accounts for the fact that you didn't see any problems during your visit.

  15. Good points. So much for the Swedish Myth. I was in Finland last year and looked to me like there were no problems. Maybe the Swedes have been like the Left US progressives – make the culture palette broader regardless of consequences. I bet they are paying for their mistakes now.

  16. I think we agree on most things, I'd just like to clarify a few things regarding the nordic countries.. All nordic countries have been accumulating problems for decades so they were never spared anything. Sweden got it much worse than the other nordic countries partly because of taking a much higher amount of immigrants per capita and also because Sweden has had singularly idiotic policies.

    Immigrants have little desire to be assimilated into the "native" culture so they instead form new cultures which are inspired by their "original" culture and sometimes – but not always – by "gangsta culture". In no case, however, do immigrants strive to become Swedish/Norwegian/Finish with a slightly darker hue…

    The pattern repeats itself over all nordic countries, but to a lesser degree in Norway, Finland and Denmark compared to Sweden. In all nordic countries, immigration from non western countries leads to ever increasing problems and it's not a "blip" but a permanent feature.

  17. I don't think I was claiming Europe got it right back in the day. Spain and Italy ended up "regularizing" millions of north Africans who came into the countries illegally. The Nordic countries were spared this invasion (but places like Sweden later paid for it with open borders for Syrians and anyone else who could get on a train).

    Canada is relatively isolated and won't get boat people or refugees wandering across the Arctic and the Latinos generally don't continue all that way. I don't think the strictness of immigration rules is as important as the ability to enforce violations. E.g., try staying in Singapore past your visa, or entering as an illegal.
    If violations aren't enforced you end up with the problems the EU, and US have.

  18. And you are down here now, along with a lot of other Canadians. Seems like it is difficult to get people to move that far North, and to stay there.

    Without a lot of new citizenry to keep the economy running, things fall apart. I've seen a lot of little towns in the US states bordering Canada. In short, they are dying, as you don't see hardly anyone between the age of 18 and folks that are more than twice that old. It's very sad and depressing to see, but the reasons are well understood.

    Meanwhile, looking at the Earth at night you can see by the lights there are only about 4 actual cities in Canada, and three of them are south of the more northern parts of the continental US, while the 4th, Vancouver, is practically hanging over the border.

    It also seems to me that getting lots of immigrants is a way to help blur the divide between the French and the English-speaking Canadians, given the near schism a few years back that almost made Canada into two or three separate countries.

    Don't get me wrong. I love Canada. I intend to see a lot more of it once I retire (because everything in Canada takes lots of time to get to unless you are in a plane). But I expect I will plan those trips for the summer months.

    I even love the idea of Canada. But its policies are not appropriate for every country (and visa versa). Also, be careful of accepting immigrants that will bring their own belief system, in which religion and government cannot be separated.

  19. The only question is what are we going to do when billions of people around the world are displaced by environment and economic collapse?

  20. Brian, is there a particular immigrant mix Canada has been attempting to achieve (successful or not), and would like to achieve from now on? Such as from specific regions, richer immigrants, families vs single immigrants, female biased, etc?

  21. Not really. But the question is if he says "aboot" or not. I don't think I have an answer to that question….

    The older I get, the more grateful I am that Anglo Saxon culture exists and particularly the american culture. It's extraordinary. It's a gift to the world like no other (I am not joking).

    The normal state of affairs is limitations of speech, oppression and poverty. What we see now is more and more limitations being set upon free speech in Europe as well as Canada. You may like or dislike it, but it's a fact that free speech is being lost in the West. And this is of course not statistically unrelated to immigration even though it is our own doing too.

    USA is in a better shape than any other country because of their constitution but they have effective sensor ship from social media and cancel culture. Let's hope that anglo saxon culture will come out on top in the USA, at least….

  22. I wonder what long term experience Canada has with non western cultures? Say you import a large number of bangladeshi programmers that do very well economically and culturally (i.e. no crime neither rapes). They have high IQ's and follow the law.

    But then you have the children of the programmers. Because of the "return to average", they will have an IQ closer to average and their children in turn will be even closer to average. The question then becomes if the children and grandchildren are going to be typical canadians or more in the direction of bangladeshi youth?

    Will the (most likely) liberal culture of the original programmers be past down to the children and grandchildren, or will they trend towards more bangladeshi values and cultural patterns? Or will it be some amalgamate culture? In Sweden, the immigrants have created an amalgamate culture that is worse than their native culture in their original countries of origin. I will not go into the reasons here.

    I am grateful if anyone has any "data points" to contribute.

    What you see in Great Britain is that children of muslim immigrants are significantly more radical than their parents. Then again, these immigrants were not selected for their high education nor IQ as were (are?) immigrants into Canada so the situation may not be the same?

  23. No, Europe got the legal immigration wrong for decades and mostly gets in wrong today. It's not like the problems were created between 2015-18, more like 1980 to 2020.

    Please remember that whereas Canada has had a policy to accept only highly qualified immigrants, Europe has had a policy of accepting anyone. Big difference.

  24. This is something I just don't understand. Why every empty lot of land that could be filled with people must be filled with people. Why?

  25. Well, if you by economic growth means growth of the economy per capita, then most would agree that this is desirable. Growth of GDP without growth of GDP per capita is nothing to strive for.

    Is your immigration resulting in a higher GDP per capita or just higher GDP? Lower GDP per capita is decidedly bad, even if GDP increases; more societal tensions and such.

    Also, what is the common culture of Canadians? What ideas or behaviors do you all agree on, or does no such common traits/ideas exist in Canada? Do you agree on the laws only or are there more commonalities?

  26. That is interesting. Am I correct in assuming that Canada does not have a culture which is distinct from cosmopolitanism? Or was it rather a "bland" mix of european cultures?

    I think the relevant question is if the new immigration is qualitatively different from the previous one. I.e., are you importing more non european cultures compared to today? Are you importing less people with high education or more?

  27. That is interesting. Up until now, you have been taking mostly high education immigrants which probably make integration easier. But are you assimilating the citizens, i.e. just increasing the number of members of the Canadian culture or are you creating parallel cultures in Canada?

  28. Strange that no comment mentions LEGAL immigration as opposed to ILLEGAL. And, predictably, being for or against "immigration" becomes a mudslinging affair. This is about Canada increasing LEGAL immigration.

    LEGAL immigration can be good, or bad, for the economy, as long as criteria and timeframes are managed to fit labor needs (e.g., a temporary shortage of roughnecks vs a general permanent shortage of doctors to fill that gap). Getting the mix right is not easy, but in general it works. In a prolonged economic downturn with high unemployment it makes little sense to increase LEGAL immigration (unless there are sectors that are severely understaffed and existing skills can't be easily re-training, e.g., healthcare). Europe got the mix totally wrong in 2015-18 when they LEGALLY brought in millions of "refugees" (most weren't in the truest sense) that were unskilled and would probably not see jobs in their lifetime. Huge economic costs, social problems.

    ILLEGAL immigration is almost always bad for an economy. It is because illegal immigrants don't pay taxes but use public services, and they are in the country against the law that is supposed to manage labor supply and demand.

    In theory, you could allow open borders, but then it would be LEGAL immigration. No country has an open borders policy. None. There is a good reason for that. Nations who can't control who is in the nation aren't nations.

  29. I agree with most of what you say, but I think you are overestimating the level of immigration that can be supported. In Sweden, the native population starts moving out when 4% of the neighbors are foreign born.

    So, if you make sure that you have at maximum 4% first generation foreign born in the country at any given time, there will be mixing and assimilation. The children of the immigrants will make up – assuming they have the same amount of kids as the native population – 4% of the school classes and they will assimilate into the native culture.

    Long term, this means that you can import 4% of a year cohort, or, assuming 80 years of longevity of the population 0.05% of the population (4% / 80 = 0.05%) per year. Keeping it at this level or below will make it possible to have assimilation, but it is by no means a given. You also need an active policy of assimilation, such as the "melting pot" policy that was formerly employed in the USA.

  30. We're now living in an era of skype and dating websites, and they're working on true-to-life VR avatars with eye tracking, facial expressions, etc. Put the two together and it implies, to me at least, that a lot more international dating could start to happen soon.

    I don't really understand our visa category quotas, but I saw something suggesting that there is no numerical limit to the number of visas that can be issued for spouses of US citizens.

    So what do you think Brett? If marriage became the dominant form of immigration, how would that turn out for us?

    *Edit: I'm not setting up some snark, by the way. Considering the tone of this thread I can see how it might seem that I'm being hostile, but I honestly just think that we're going to have a boom in international marriages and would like to hear about it from someone with experience.

  31. Consider that the world's 5th wealthiest individual first immigrated to Canada, then decided to immigrate to the US, started businesses in California, then finally decided to relocate from California to Texas. Musk chose to make these moves based on the opportunity they offered for his personal and business success.

  32. It's a future oriented technology site. Future technology = progress. So people here are obviously progressives.

  33. Even if things are going swimmingly, I don't think you can really call a newcomer group 'integrated' until their kids haver grown up and gotten jobs. Unless you just have a really weak definition of 'integrated', like no more mass rapes on holidays.

    Calling it after only a few years only weakens your credibility.

  34. I, for one, cannot wait till we get the video of the first human encounter with the martian equivalent of a moose.

    (Grizzly bear, wolverine, skunk…)

  35. And what did the first group of immigrants do? Wipe out the mammoths, wooly rhino and sabretooths*.

    *Sabreteeth? What is the plural here?

  36. What, this again? Here's the full picture my gravitar is from:
    My wife of 14 years, and Filipino. Don't tell her I don't really find the smell of bulad offensive, it's sort of a running joke in our family.

    No, what I mean is that if you bring enough people from a different culture into a country, quickly enough, they don't end up eating poutine, playing hockey, and saying aboot. They just reproduce their home culture in a new place.

    Which is why my son is taking Spanish in middle school, not Cebuano, and I can walk to the nearest Mexican grocery, and have to drive to the nearest Asian grocery. Because illegal immigration has brought hugely more Central and South Americans to the US than Filipinos, so *they haven't been assimilating.* We've been assimilating.

  37. Brian, I have to wonder if you are all concerned that your commenting community is basically just a bunch of right wing xenophobes? Should be a bit more diversity of thought.

  38. You seem inordinately concerned with 'replacing' a population. I'm guessing you would not be as concerned if those immigrants were primarily Polish or German vs Filipino and Chinese. If a person eats poutine, plays hockey and says aboot, does it really matter if he is pale or not?

  39. Just think of Canada as Mars – kinda harsh but lots of land and resources, needs a lot more people to be able to really take advantage of it. (Or the moon, or space in general, but I think the Mars analogy works best.)

  40. I think you may not understand that there was never really 'Canadians' as a dominant group in the way you think of us. Canada has always been in the process of mixing existing population and new population. If we were having this conversation 60 years ago you would be fretting that we are replacing Scottish/English Canadians with Italians, Germans and Ukrainians. They're all basically the same now, and the idea that Italians or Irish are 'ethnic' is kind of laughable in Canada, now. We still play hockey and say 'aboot'.

  41. “Culture-less slurry of randomized humanity”

    If this is supposed to be a derogatory description, you have failed.

  42. Clueless. Both the left and right in Canada are pro-immigration. The Conservative Party does quite well with immigrants. What you're saying could be been true decades ago when there was not so much a popular consensus on immigration in Canada, but these days there is little daylight between left and right on immigration. Refugees might be more controversial, but that is a small percentage of immigration.

  43. Totally clueless. Vast majority of the population of Canada is first, second or third generation immigrants. At one point a century ago, Canada was growing its population by 5% annually through immigration.

    It is quite natural to be Canadian and to be an immigrant. Canadian identity is inclusive of immigrants, and most immigrants identify strongly with Canada. Other countries struggle when they otherize newcomers and fail to integrate them into society.

  44. 60% of immigrant quota is for economic immigrants (selected based on point system). The other 40% is 'family reunification' (spouses, parents, etc.) that must be sponsored by someone who will support them if needed, and refugees.

    There is a broad consensus on the left and mainstream right in support of immigration, and Canadians broadly support it and believe immigration is a positive force for the country. See polling:—immigration/focus-canada-fall-2020—public-opinion-on-immigration-refugees—final-report.pdf?sfvrsn=bd51588f_2

  45. That’s a one dimensional analysis of what is happening in Europe. In Germany, even after receiving millions of Syrians and suffering a period of discomfort those people have largely been integrated because of state policies to achieve that end. France has conflict because while it took in people from its former colonies, it pursued policies that maintained exclusion even after generations. The problem is not the immigrants, it’s how you treat them.

  46. I’m afraid there’s a lot of Americans here commenting on Canadian immigration policy who are ignorant. Canada needs immigration as a condition of economic growth. Thankfully, while there remain pockets of rural Canada that fear immigrants, in the cities and suburbs it is just normal life to have a mix of cultures and languages surrounding you. Our conception of citizenship is civic, not ethnic – or at least less and less so from the bad old days. You think this is diluting us as a country – yet we have longer lives, less violent crime, a less toxic political discourse (outside of Alberta, which is a declining petro state). Canada has its share of problems, thankfully vitriolic identity politics around immigration isn’t one of them.

  47. btw, I, Brian Wang, was born in Canada and lived there for about 30 years.
    Over 6 million immigrants since 1990 Mainly skilled workers.
    In 2018, the top 5 invited occupations were: software engineers and designers, information systems analysts and consultants, computer programmers and interactive media developers, financial auditors and accountants, and administrative assistants. In 2018, Canada admitted more than 92,000 new permanent residents through the Express Entry system, an increase of 41% over 2017

  48. Canada has had tripartisan pro-immigration policies for many decades.
    in 2016.
    On Census Day, 21.9% of the population reported they were or had ever been a landed immigrant or permanent resident in Canada. This proportion is close to the 22.3% recorded during the 1921 Census, the highest level since Confederation.
    In 2016, Canada had 1,212,075 new immigrants who had permanently settled in Canada from 2011 to 2016. These recent immigrants represented 3.5% of Canada's total population in 2016.
    The majority (60.3%) of these new immigrants were admitted under the economic category, 26.8% were admitted under the family class to join family already in the country, and 11.6% were admitted to Canada as refugees.
    For the first time, Africa ranks second, ahead of Europe, as a source continent of recent immigrants to Canada, with a share of 13.4% in 2016. Asia (including the Middle East) remains, however, the top source continent of recent immigrants. In 2016, the majority (61.8%) of newcomers were born in Asia.
    Toronto, Vancouver and Montréal are still the place of residence of over half of all immigrants and recent immigrants to Canada.

    Economic immigration pts (ed, work, etc..)

  49. That makes so much sense! lets have less Canada inside Canada! This is what happens when a state replaces nation in your mind, people. For state it is irrelevant who lives where, they need only to pay taxes and obey the law. But from point of view of nation – paying taxes and obeying the law is irrelevant. It seems that current education of elites somehow made them believe that people are interchangeable cogs without any qualities, and there is no such thing as culture or ethnocentrism, only individuals exist and you can dump anybody anywhere. The problem is-country is not state, or laws or taxes. They do not make even 1% of what makes society thrive, functional. What makes everything work is culture and identity. Culture without identity is useless though because identity makes loyality and there are limits to assimilation. Rule of thumb: you can take maximum 1/2 of your birthrate above population stability level. If your stability level requires 100k births, and you have 120k, then you can have 10k imigration per year. Otherwise mass of interactions between newcomers and natives has destabilizing dynamic, and dyads cannot be formed properly between them. In short: you replace one pop with other.

  50. Since this is a science and technology future oriented site, I will point out that climate change will make Canada a nicer place to live, and somebody is needed to fill up that space. The current fertility rate is only 1.51 births per woman, which is well below replacement. Without immigration, their population will fall rather than rise.

  51. These two graphs are all you need to know about the legitimacy of governments that enact policies that cause the economy to outbid men for the fertile years of the most economically valuable women, and then fill the demographic chasm blown in the population with immigrants.

    Anyone who immigrates to the West under these conditions to "help" is seriously stupid.

  52. Canadians are hopelessly brainwashed by globalists. Their future as a cultureless slurry of randomized humanity is assured.

  53. Until 2008 I lived in Michigan, 20 minutes from Canada, and visited quite frequently. My family even had a beach cottage there until your country passed a law levying an immediate lump sum tax on it we couldn't afford. So, yes, I'm fairly familiar with Canada, spent a good deal of my childhood there, and routinely watched/listened to Canadian stations even while not in Canada.

    I said nothing at all about it being "partisan". It's the government replacing the people, just as it is here. The only difference here is that one of the parties is open about doing it, and the other lies. In Canada nobody bothers lying about it.

    And, sure, you import a better class of replacement people, because you have the luxury of bordering on the US, not Mexico, so it's kind of tough for poor, uneducated Central and South Americans to just walk across your border.

    But you're still replacing the actual Canadians, and in time the land and maybe the name will remain, but Canada will be gone.

  54. Lived here much?

    The actual governments, (both Conservatives and Liberals, aka GOP & Dems) are all compromised of immigrants and have had pro immigration agenda for decades, its not partisan as in the murika.

    Since large sector of our economy is now construction, wealthier immigrants who invest in the real estate have been keeping the construction/condo/real estate growing for the past 30 years.

    aka the economy has been booming BECAUSE of immigration, hence the anti-immigrant vote in the last national election was 1.6%.

    Dont compare apples to a flaming dumpster fire

  55. I don't think you understand immigrants. They are not refugees, fleeing because they have no choice. These are people who are willing to give up what they are comfortable with for a change to do better for themselves and their family. They are strivers. If you look at their per capita income you will see that they far out pace native born.

    In my village we have what most think are the worse immigrants, Central Americans. I have watch them over the last twenty years. Most were day laborers. I saw them every morning when I walked to the train station waiting to be picked up. Many of them couldn't read or write in Spanish much less English. My daughter taught a class to teach them how.

    Let me cut to the chase. After twenty years, a lot of them have their own landscaping business now. Some have open their own businesses: restaurants, bakeries, and shops. They have taken over the business that the previous generation of immigrants, the Italians, have run.

    The only thing an immigrant needs is the drive to better himself. And almost all of them have that in plenty. They aren't all perfect but a vast majority of them are willing to work hard.

  56. Canada is currently governed by the Liberal Party. They seem to be borrowing some ideas from the American Left & Democratic Party, who want to ensure their party's dominance by legalizing illegal aliens and declaring open borders. US Democrats even want to make Puerto Rico and District of Columbia into full states. It's all part of political desperation, of course. So Canada's ruling liberals are likewise pulling out all the stops to ensure their party's future dominance. The existing citizenry are then thrown under a bus, as Left-wing politicians scramble to lock in their own interests.

  57. Immigration is good, as long as you vet who comes. Many European countries let in anyone, and now they have big problems with radical extremists.

  58. Man, the Canadian government is in a real hurry to elect a new people. Are they that concerned that the old people are getting tired of them?

  59. This says nothing about the actual plan. Is that 1.2 million going to be people who have something to add to the country, or is it bolster the welfare ranks and political desires for a dependent populace that will vote to attack the producers.

Comments are closed.