The journalist who wrote the article, must have been well informed. Your analysis mentions a lot of the things she wrote too. ( So you are also well informed. :) What she didn't write was about the pensions (or was that mentioned solely by Alan Popov).

As I understand it, the current immigration rules stem from the sixties, when it were merely well-educated Europeans who came to Canada. These days they mainly come from other areas, esp. Asia and third world countries. For those countries it's a brain drain, I guess.

Immigrants in Europe are mainly low-educated, if not illiterate, and also initially don't speak the language of the immigrated-to country. Also, we no longer invite them to come, that is, there is no 'point system' or so. We are not immigration countries, but nevertheless are confronted with immigrants. That is a huge difference. I think it is good to realize that. The kind of problems is different.

But it surprised me that Canada thinks to need 250,000 (educated) newcomers each year on a population of 30 million inhabitants! That is almost one percent a year. I know it is a big country, but most of those newcomers (80 percent) seems to go to cities like yours (2.5 million inhabitants, 5 million including the regions around it) and as you said there are probably already enough doctors in those cities. But as I understand it now, a 'doctor in Kuala Lumpur' still can't be a 'doctor in Canada', not even outside the cities.

I can confirm your remark that 'Canada is getting a bad reputation for this fact', that is, to a certain extend. Each country seems to have its own more or less unique problems and ways of coping with them.




>I'll take a shot at this... mainly opinion and guesswork.
>
>I think it is a major tragedy that primarily only highly educated 'specialists' (like doctors (of many specialties), engineers (of many specialties), pharmacists, lawyers, etc) are accepted for immigration yet when they get here they are not PERMITTED to work in their field. Even though we have shortages in those types of fields!!!
>Canada is getting a bad reputation for this fact, and it is HIGHLY DESERVED.
>
>We also accept people with large cash reserves and we do have some "family reunification" immigrants who may be poor or rich or in between, educated or illiterate, etc. Finally we have considerable numbers of "refugees", though this number will apparently fall since a new agreement between U.S./Canada (many refugees enter Canada via the U.S. and these now have rules that apparently prevent acceptance).
>
>From a purely selfish point-of-view, I *guess* we NEED immigrants for things like keeping our Social Security system afloat ($$$) and doing the work that many natives (not 'Indians', but folks born here) seem to prefer not to do.
>
>It seems that the root of the problem is that most of the fields for which we have been accepting immigrants have CONTROL by professional associations. These professional associations are separate entities in each province/territory and they doubtless have 'protecting' their existing members as an objective too.
>These professional associations are very powerful in Canada, even having the power to have their own invetigations/rulings/penalties replacing any action by police authorities. Not in all cases, but in far too many in my opinion.
>
>We have shortages of doctors, especially outside of our (few) major cities. We apparently have shortages of some engineering specialties too. But there is every indication that the professional associations go out of their way to make it very difficult for most of the like-educated immigrants to qualify for membership. And since these are monied professions, they have big influence in governments.
>
>Most of the highly qualified immigrants can only find work as taxi drivers or janitors or security guards or garbagemen, etc. In my building a janitor is a nuclear engineer who did such work in Communist countries.
>
>We apparently have big shortages in virtually all of the construction trades, yet our current immigration policies seem geared to keeping such skills out.
>
>I don't know why we don't address the situation for immigrants already here beyond my speculation above. But it is clear to me that we need LOTS of change through the whole system. From the little I've heard about the changes planned this time, I don't hold much hope for serious improvement.
>
>cheers
>
>
>>Hi Jim AND all other Canadians here,
>>
>>Today I've read an informative article in my newspaper about Canada and immigration. One of my thoughts was: But do they really need so many immigrants (as I understand, you prefer the word newcomers)? Why do they not try to deal with the economic problems with the potential of those who are already in Canada? Perhaps you Canadian guys here can elaborate on this a bit.