Basics 2

We provide more basics below:

(1) Canada’s corrupt high immigration intake was introduced by the Progressive Conservatives, but no other federal party has tried to end the corruption. For example, the Liberal Party was in power for most of the post-1990 period. However, Liberal Party PM Jean Chretien did nothing to reduce immigration. Since he has left office,  Canada has had minority governments which depend on the support of Canada’s small federal parties such as the NDP and Bloc Quebecois. These two parties could have pressured to end the corruption, but they too did nothing.  In opposition, the Liberal Party has continued to do nothing to end the immigration corruption and immigration madness.

Why did none of these parties try to end the corrupt high intake? The blunt answer is that since 1990, all of Canada’s federal political parties have subscribed to the policy of competing for the immigrant vote.

In order to get their share of the immigrant vote, all of our federal parties are now afraid to reduce current high levels. All fear a backlash from ethnic groups and the rest of Canada’s immigration industry. In other words, the ethnic group and immigration industry “tail” now wags the mainstream Canadian “dog”.

One of the more damning examples of the immigration tail  wagging the Canadian “dog” happened in the Leaders’ Debate before the May 2, 2011 election. Prime Minister Harper boasted that his government had maintained high immigration levels in the past recession. To us, it is disgraceful for any political leader to brag that his party has maintained high immigration when a recession has caused hundreds of thousands of Canadians to lose their jobs. It is equally disgraceful that none of the leaders of our other 4 political parties objected to government inaction.

The Prime Minister’s statement and the failure of the other parties to challenge him are also a clear indication that the votes of recent immigrants count more to that Prime Minister and our other political leaders than do the lives of many Canadians.

Furthermore, two of our federal parties actually have policies to bring in even more immigrants. For example, the Liberal Party has a policy goal of raising Canada’s intake to 1% of its population annually. If that 1% policy were adopted, around 340,000+ immigrants would enter Canada every year. The NDP has pressured for a 1%+ goal. This would permit even higher numbers to enter Canada.

(2) Despite clear evidence to the contrary, politicians at all 3 levels, the immigration industry, the CBC, much of the private media and a significant part of the public compare current high immigration to the past as if  post-1990 immigration is normal.

Even a quick look at the above graph, however, shows that post-1990 immigration is an abnormality in Canada’s immigration history.

The abnormality is so clear that many Canadians feel that an immigration tsunami has struck Canada. However, they feel that our government and the country’s immigration industry have so badly distorted immigration information that most people do not know what is going on.

To make sure that their deceit remains concealed, both self-interested politicians and the immigration industry have constructed a protective wall around the immigration issue. They have conditioned many Canadians to think that all immigration is good and that, therefore, no criticism of immigration should be tolerated. In fact, criticism of immigration has become a societal taboo. Many Canadians have seen that those who speak out are ostracized. As a result, many feel intimidated and remain silent when the most absurd things are said to defend immigration.

Today, no other Canadian public policy issue arouses as much irrationality as does the immigration issue. No other issue gets as muddied by irrelevant arguments as does immigration policy.

(3) To justify high immigration, all parties have invented excuses. All are either unaware of or have ignored the results of excellent government research on immigration.

For example, at different times, all parties have claimed that Canada is bringing in large numbers of people to stimulate Canada’s economy, to stop an alleged population decline, or to prevent problems created by an aging population.

However, the federal government’s own research in the late 1980’s told it that if it was looking for a way to stimulate Canada’s economy, it should not expect immigration to do it. Immigration’s benefits were around zero. With regard to population decline, in 1990, when Canada had a population of 26+ million, Health and Welfare Canada’s demographic research told the federal government that Canada’s population would continue growing until 2026 with half (130,000) the immigration we have today, so it was not necessary to be concerned about population decline. The same Health and Welfare study concluded that Made-In-Canada alternatives (such as making use of 45+ year old unemployed males and encouraging more females to enter the workforce) were superior to immigration in dealing with an aging population.

In other words, the federal government’s research contradicts the excuses many politicians have invented. (See highlights of the major federally-sponsored studies entitled “Charting Canada’s Future” and New Faces In the Crowd” in the “Research” section of this web site.)

(4) Desperate to justify their actions, all parties have resorted to excuses like, “Canada has a widespread worker shortage”, but that claim is not true.

For example, Canada continues to have close to 2 million people  unemployed. Anyone who is familiar with unemployment statistics knows that many of the country’s unemployed are not even counted in the figures that Stats Can publishes.  Furthermore, the number that are underemployed is probably much higher.

For another example,  see a 2013 study done by TD bank. You might expect it to be concealing the economic truth about the negative realities of immigration, but it stated that there is no “Worker Shortage” in Canada. Another bank said something similar.