Immigration – Too much of a Good Thing

Patrick Gossage • September 17, 2025

Welcoming newcomers, especially those fleeing wars, has been a widely accepted Canadian virtue. Now, after 25 years of a very open door. there is increasing evidence that we have too much of a good thing. And admittedly, it has been pre-PM Carney Liberal policies which have us in this situation. Where we are now was exemplified by PM Carney recently at the caucus retreat in Edmonton where said recent levels have not been "sustainable" and a more "focused" approach is required. "It's clear that we must improve our overall immigration policies," he said.


It had been easy to be caught up in Justin Trudeau’s unabashed enthusiasm for high immigration levels exemplified by his warm personal welcome of the first Syrian refugees in December, 2015. On the fifth anniversary of his memorable event he happily announced: “In the years since, the Government of Canada has worked closely with Canadians, the business community, and civil society to resettle nearly 73,000 Syrian refugees in more than 350 communities across the country.” Few questioned our generosity and thousands of ordinary Canadians sponsored families. 


But opening our doors wide soon got out of control. In 2021, more than 8.3 million people, or almost one-quarter (23.0%) of the population, were, or had been, a landed immigrant. Canada’s population grew from 38 million to 41.5 million, representing the highest annual population growth rate since the post-war boom of 1957. Immigration now accounts for virtually all of Canada’s net labour force growth.


It then became of public concern that temporary residents, including record numbers of temporary workers and foreign students accounted for 3 million of that number. In total, since 2015 we admitted 15 million temporary foreign workers in agriculture, hospitality and some manufacturing and processing jobs. They were seen to be exploited with lower wages and few rights. Foreign students with limits on hours they could work swelled these huge numbers.


Inevitably, public support for high immigration levels dramatically flipped, where 58% of Canadians now believe there are too many immigrants being admitted to Canada. An Environics Poll in 2024 showed that for the first time in a quarter century, a clear majority of Canadians say there is too much immigration, with this view strengthening considerably for the second consecutive year. Canadians’ express concerns about the arrival of so many newcomers contributing to the country’s problems with housing availability and affordability; this view is much more prominent than a year ago. Immigrants placing pressure on public finances, taking jobs from other Canadians, over-population, and insufficient screening are less prominent. Along with rising concerns about immigration levels, an increasing number of Canadians are expressing doubts about who is being admitted to the country and how well they are integrating into Canadian society.


The new Carney government took action, gradually reducing permanent resident admissions to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027; introducing caps for temporary residents, including students and workers at 673,650 in 2025, a notable decrease in new international student admissions with only 163,000 new study permits projected for early 2025. This has led to serious financial shortfalls in many post-secondary institutions. There will be a decline in the overall Canadian population in 2025 and 2026 due to the projected outflows of temporary residents.The number of new temporary residents arriving in the country — made up of international students, foreign workers and refugee claimants — declined in the first six months of 2025, compared to the same period last year. These immigration statistics have been closely watched, with critics arguing the Liberal government’s high immigration intake has contributed to Canada’s runaway population growth and is straining the housing market and health-care system. In response, the government slashed the 2025 intakes of new permanent residents by 21 per cent to 395,000; new study permit holders by 10 per cent to 305,900; and new work permit holders by 16 per cent to 367,750.


Accommodating the needs of refugees for resettlement and shelter has become a major issue and embarrassment. In the summer of 2023 many asylum seekers in Toronto ended up sleeping on the street. What a way to welcome them to Canada! Since September 2021, the number of refugee claimants housed in Toronto shelters has increased more than tenfold, from 530 per night to a peak of almost 6,500 per night by August 2024. Recently there were about 3,500 refugee claimants in the system, about 40 per cent of all clients. The mayor recently wrote a letter warning that Carney’s government had agreed to cover only 26 per cent of Toronto’s estimated costs for housing asylum seekers in its shelter system this year. Refugees are a federal responsibility, yet reduction in federal support leaves the municipality $107 million short. We still welcome asylum claimants unreservedly. From January-June 2015 over 57,000.


The leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, is now determined to make immigration a major political issue. He is calling for a tougher stance, saying he wants to see "very hard caps" on the number of newcomers allowed into the country. Poilievre says the country has struggled to integrate newcomers and he wants to see more people leaving than coming in "while we catch up." "We have millions of people whose permits will expire over the next couple of years, and many of them will leave," he said. "We need more people leaving than coming for the next couple of years. He would scrap the Temporary Foreign workers program altogether.


BC Premier David Eby also calls for the end of Canada's temporary foreign worker program — blaming Ottawa's flawed immigration policies for filling up homeless shelters and food banks. "The temporary foreign worker program is not working. It should be cancelled or significantly reformed," Eby said. "We can't have an immigration system that fills up our homeless shelters and our food banks. We can't have an immigration system that outpaces our ability to build schools and housing. And we can't have an immigration program that results in high youth unemployment,“ 


Despite these concerns, there is a bedrock of strong support for immigration which was manifested recently in Torontonians where over 150 teachers,.labour union members and families organized a noisy counter demonstration against about 50 right wing flag waving Canada Fist anti-immigrant demonstrators. They chanted “there is no space for hate at Christie Pits”, the site of the clash which led to many arrests. 


Torontonians enjoy the benefits of living, the world’s most multicultural city with its amazing variety of foods and cultures, and daily evidence from immigrants that their children are doing very well, thank you. But we await the end of the hopelessness that is apparently part of the lives of so many new arrivals, particularly refugees, and the needless exploitation of many other newcomers in menial and low paying jobs.. 

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts