bats

Well if they made recognition of foreign credentials more straightforward then a large proportion of those could be doctors, nurses. That would help.

DigitalGhost

Not enough Good Post emoticons in the world for that one. Canada seems very adept at bringing in good people from other countries and then wasting their talents due to a combination of arrogance and bureaucracy.

DigitalGhost

Dangerous game if that's their goal. Even with the citizenship eligibility loosened, you wouldn't get enough new voters in before the next election.

macadian

I think the term you seek is "protectionism" be it by unions, professional bodies and the like.

Former Lancastrian

But in certain occupations cant that be a good thing? Hey Im a surgeon and I will be operating on you. I have my diploma issued by X governing body in X country.
Let me rewire your house for you, should I go on.
Now granted many professionals have to jump through certain hoops to prove their competency but are you prepared to have nobody prove their credentials.?

Vulcanoid

Not even close. Canada took more immigrants a hundred years ago than it does now (400k). America takes in over 1m a year, never mind over 3 years.

macadian

Not at all, however I believe the process of ratification of qualifications can be achieved more effectively and efficiently than is currently the case....once some of the needless red tape can be dispensed with. Other countries in the West seem to be able to do this, why not Canada? Canada is riddled with such choking red tape. For example we have it between the provinces for nurses, and some of the trades, not to mention teachers...qualified in Ontario but having to re qualify to work in another Province. A case of empire building Provincially...it's just plain daft. Reminds me of the US and they're "States Rights". Gotta be a more efficient and stream lined methodology, all that's missing is the will to find it and in many cases, (by no means all) as a consequence of protectionism nothing changes.

scilly

It's attainable ......... if people are willing to move away from the border region and actually live in those lightly populated areas.

We have relations and friends who have lived for years, 50+ in some cases, in areas more than 100km north of the 49th, and love it.

There are even jobs and houses in those regions.

What about insisting that new immigrants have to live in those smaller towns and villages, no new arrivals to be allowed in places within 100 km of the border?



and before anyone asks, yes we have in the past considered living permanently much further north!

jimf

Clearly Canada doesn't need any more immigrants any more than the UK does. Presumably for every Nenshi story there are 100 or 1000 that get dumped in a high rise and stay there.

Other than very highly selective importation of skills the case for immigration is very thin, however, if you own a Tim Hortons franchise and need a ready supply of cheap labour than mass migration makes sense certainly. Mass immigration fodder jobs will be the first to be automated.

DaveLovesDee

Maybe allow smaller Provincial towns to have their own version of nomination programs.

Former Lancastrian

Well some provinces do ask their smaller communities like the Morden initiative under the Manitoba PNP. Its not like Saskatchewan and Manitoba have mega cities to choose from and some of the Atlantic provinces have struggled to bring in Immigrants (not refugees).
You only have to look on this forum in the Immigration section about questions regarding thinking of moving to Canada. Its either the GTA or Vancouver and there used to be a few for Calgary. Sure the odd one Regina, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Halifax.
80% of the Canadian population lives within a 2 hour drive of the border.

DigitalGhost

Again, America doesn't target 1mn a year though. America's closest thing to a target is the DV program and that's capped at 50k visas per year and may have seen its final run at this point.

Outside of DV every immigrant application to the US is formally a petition. America isn't actively recruiting any of those people. The sponsor is arguing a case for why the US government should bend the rules and let the applicant live there.

Additionally America's population is 10x that of Canada so proportionally Canada is probably still the highest in the world by quite a large margin.

DigitalGhost

There's been a lot of controversy in Australia regarding abuse of the immigration system at Subway franchises.

https://m.hcamag.com/hr-news/subway-franchisee-facing-court-for-exploiting-employee-238524.aspx

Probably wouldn't have been a problem in Canada when PR was harder to obtain and more people need an LMO but it could become a much more realistic issue now.

DigitalGhost

Unfortunately they would probably just be abused by those who want to get to the more popular areas but don't qualify under any other stream.

I heard earlier today that QC has by far the worst immigrant retention rate in Canada. A high percentage of those who land on the super visa either end up returning home or migrating to the other provinces. And arguably QC can offer far more to prospective immigrants than many other parts of the country, especially immigrants with French skills.

Vulcanoid

An annual 'target' is an unusually Canadian thing - it's not as though the target and reality are in some way out of whack. Some of the streams go slightly over annual targets, others are some way under. Claiming 'other countries might not want what they get' is pretty meaningless - in 2016 we looked for 305,000 and got 320,000. The plan is to increase that slightly. Towards numbers that were achieved a hundred years ago, when Canada was a much smaller country.

Whether or not America 'asks' for 1m people has nothing to do with anything - you asserted that Canada was going to "want 1Mn immigrants over the next 3 years, far higher than any other developed country on Earth". The figure, of around 330,000/year, is around 1/3 of the southern neighbour. It's true, that per capita, this means welcoming approximately 0.8%, instead of 0.3%. Per capita, Canada still has lower immigration than Cyprus, Spain, and Norway, coming in 19th according to US CIA World Factbook (I'm guessing you're writing off Qatar, the UAE, and Singapore as undeveloped, and would call special cases Aruba and Luxembourg). https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2112rank.html. Canada's on a par with Australia, another nation built on immigrants, and Belgium and Sweden.

Of course, if you're truly worried there are too many foreigners here, I'm sure IRCC would take back your CoPR if you wanted to send it to them.