Canada’s Immigration & Refugee Numbers Should Be Decided In A National Referendum

Let the Canadian people decide.

With Bob Rae recommending that Canada grant refugee status to the Rohingya in Myanmar, and the Trudeau government having apparently agreed to bring in rejected asylum claimants from Israel, the debate over Canada’s immigration refugee policies is set to continue.

Unfortunately, this debate often gets messed up because of political correctness. Despite repeated polls showing Canadians want reduced immigration and reduced refugee numbers, politicians are afraid to say that. As a result, the debate over immigration and refugee policy happens in a very narrow range, often leaving out the views of a majority of Canadians.

That’s why the time has come for a totally different approach to immigration and refugee policy:

Every 5 or 10 years, Canada’s immigration and refugee numbers should be decided in a national referendum.

The reason for this is clear: Because immigration and refugee policy has such wide-ranging and long-term ramifications for the future of our nation, it’s not acceptable for it to be left to the whim of whichever government happens to be in power.

A referendum would give a chance for all viewpoints to be expressed, as “experts” would have to make the argument for why much higher immigration and more refugee numbers are good, instead of just being able to attack people who want different policies as “racists” or “bigots.”

There is a precedent for this. In Switzerland – one of the world’s most democratic countries (not counting the globalist gathering in Davos) – the government regularly puts important issues such as immigration to nationwide referendums:

“In a 2014 referendum, voters narrowly backed upper limits and quotas to reduce immigration from the EU, amid concerns that foreigners who already make up a quarter of Switzerland’s population were continuing to flood into the country. The quotas were then enshrined in the Swiss constitution.”

In Canada, voters could be given a preferential referendum ballot, with choices ranging from a complete stop to immigration and refugees coming to Canada, to a reduction in the numbers, to keeping things the same as current policy, or increasing the numbers.

This would give advocates for all positions the chance to make their argument, and would give Canadians the chance to actually be heard on a very important issue.

After all, an Angus Reid poll from 2017 showed that 57% Canadians believe “Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees.” Yet, the Trudeau government is going in the opposite direction, planning a massive increase compared to the numbers under the previous Harper government.

Why should the government be allowed to go against what the people want? Why aren’t we allowed to vote on it directly?

It’s time to restore some real democracy to Canada, and give our citizens a referendum on immigration and refugee numbers.

Spencer Fernando

*****
SpencerFernando.com will never have a paywall, and I will never charge for content.
If you would like to voluntarily support my journalism, there are two ways you can contribute:
Monthly contribution through Patreon
 Donation through PayPal:



23
Share Your Thoughts

avatar
15 Comment threads
8 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
nona sutterMichelleWendy LushTommy HawkJill Ward Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Canucklen
Guest
Canucklen

First we’ll have to get the boy narcissist out of the big chair, and find an adult to fill it.

Marlin
Guest
Marlin

We have to work quickly, I suspect he and cohorts will do a lot more damage before 2019.

Del
Guest
Del

Peoplekind cause pollution simply by existing. Trudeau and barbie both claim peoplekind change the climate in Canada, therefore it only makes sense to limit our population to those who would give the greatest benefit but least pollution.

Using the above as a criterion, it gives a valid argument to get rid of all Liberals. They create a lot of pollution with little benefit to this Country.

Christine
Guest
Christine

At this point, Canada is unable to absorb more immigrants. And more immigrants mean chaos and less resources for current needs by the existing population. Since Trudeau already said that the country is now short of resources. That is pretty clear.

Vera
Guest
Vera

This is so true, but people of this great country are not being represented by this nclusivevgovernment unless they agree??? Please help our country ! We,are drowning in so many unheard of political rubbish speak! Speaks for no Canadians? NO!

nona sutter
Guest
nona sutter

Amen

Bruce Danyluk
Guest

An excellent idea!

AJ
Guest
AJ

We are allowing too many uneducated/unskilled immigrants/migrants into Canada who have nothing to contribute to the economics benefits to this country and will be burdens on Canadian taxpayers for decades.

Christian Moehling
Guest
Christian Moehling

Fully agree its our will that needs 2 have priority not some narrow mindes pmo ‘s office tha never has our welfare in mind!!!##

Major Tom
Guest

It matters not who we elect……Canadians have not been masters of their destiny since the nation was surreptitiously handed over to the United Nations decades ago….
Canada is the UN’s Judas Goat!
We go through the motions of praising freedom and democracy…..it’s smoke and mirrors….
Every major cultural shift forced on Canadians was imposed without a referendum….
That will not change! The national will sleeps…..

Brian Mellor
Guest
Brian Mellor

Accepting these refugees should not be done without a plan to address the cause of these refugees. Namely the governments of their home countries. Their home countries are just continuing to make more refugees. Accepting these people will require a lot more work and finances than the Syrian refugees. These particular refugees are very primitive, without skills or education. They have health issues physically and mentally. They also produce as many as 17 children per family which is a major cause of their failures. There are many issues that must be addressed before any of these people are allowed to… Read more »

Jill Ward
Guest
Jill Ward

Brian Mellor, the RELIGIONS AND CULTURES of many of these “refugees’ are exactly WHY THEIR COUNTRIES ARE DESTROYED AND THEY ARE INVADING OUR COUNTRIES AS “REFUGEES” , yet they REFUSE TO LEAVE THESE BEHIND WHEN INVADING CANADA AND OTHER WESTERN NATIONS. We ALLOW IT, continue to vote and PAY FOR IT AND THEM and then can’t seem to understand WHY WE HAVE NO SAY , RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, DEMOCRACY OR POLITICAL REPRESENTATION IN WHAT USED TO BE ‘OUR COUNTRY” AS THEY MAKE CANADA THE SAME AS WHAT THEY LEFT BEHIND!

Miles Lunn
Guest

We are a representative democracy and asides from constitutional changes we generally avoid referendum. The current system of politicians deciding and then if voters dislike it they can boot them out works fine. It’s true Canadians may be less enthusiastic about immigration than Trudeau, but there is nothing stopping a party from running on a platform of reducing immigration and then doing so if elected. I suspect rather the fact it is not a top priority in issues for many and amongst those who it is tend to favour more is probably why parties are reluctant to touch it. Maxime… Read more »

chris malmstrom
Guest

you don’t need to follow politics to have an opinion on an issue.

Miles Lunn
Guest

That is true but I also want people with informed opinions. Once you open up to referendums in one area, you can have them in every area and I know from past sometimes governments have to make choices that are not popular in the short-term but right for the long-term. Case and point is trying to tackle a large deficit. The tax hikes and/or spending cuts will likely be very unpopular so if budgets were done by referendum we would likely go bankrupt by Greece since people would vote for unsustainable spending without the taxes to cover (Or would support… Read more »

Nancy
Guest
Nancy

We used to belong to the Canadian Federation of Small Business back in the eighties and would receive these letters from them that told us what things our government was doing that would affect businesses, and this Federation would go to argue are case for or against the laws or taxes, depending on how we voted as a group and had our comments as well, it was very democratic and very Canadian but expensive and unfortunately was not listened to by our governments, but at least we tried. We lost democracy a long time ago, it would be nice to… Read more »

Tara
Guest
Tara

I almost have to laugh at the term “Political Correctness”…aka Fascism…Re: Immigrants..Not one single one more until all that are here have proper housing and Jobs.. In Hamilton Ontario where I live endless old Canadian Men and Immigrants are homeless..cold. ..rely on Food Banks/Shelters, dig through garbage..Crime is skyrocketing in this “Sanctuary City”translation”:..no papers, no questions asked…no Visa requirement for Mexicans, Romanians…One Ugly Picture…People so uninformed in their own city don’t even know it is designated “Sanctuary”

Del
Guest
Del

Miles, we have a dictatorship lightly disguised as democracy. Only being able to fire them every four or five years is almost useless. In between elections, they can do virtually whatever they please, just like Trudeau is doing. He ignores Laws, ignores Canadians, ignores advice from Government departments and advisers ad we have no way to do anything legal about it. He takes costume holidays, is intellectually incapable of responding with a relevant answer and yet gets extreme pleasure at giving us the finger. An arrogant mentally and emotionally immature narcissist.

Miles Lunn
Guest

I don’t like Trudeau, but I think having referendums makes a problem just worse. Most politicians want to get re-elected so they have a strong incentive to not to do things too unpopular. Also we are a country of 36 million and what we may want may not be how most feel. While polls show Trudeau is not too popular now, who knows but he will be judged in 2019. 4 years is long enough so governments can think long-term (as some decisions like budgets, dealing with aging population, infrastructure etc. require long term thinking not short term), without having… Read more »

Terry Black
Guest
Terry Black

Yes, we need a Referendum, let Canadians’ decide who may be possible neighbors’ in the community in that, they should be at least compatible with Canadian culture and willing and able to acclimate to our Canadian lifestyle! Canadians do not wish to have neighbors’ that Practice Barbarous activities living beside them and their families – we also do NOT need people the likes of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, George Soros, Ted Turner and the Rockefellers’, Globalists’ deciding who and what is to live in our communities! I very much want Canadians to have a Referendum and say about this as… Read more »

Tommy Hawk
Guest

As always, sir, your comments are most timely, as well as well thought out. Unfortunately, we are blessed with a government which sees itself as the ‘all knowing’ entity who, only because they can, will dictate, as do all dictators, what is ‘good’ for the country. This attitude can and historically has proven to be extremely dangerous and has often led to unnecessary upheaval and bloodshed. I realize that to mention this to our present government would simply be ignored because, in their narrow vision of reality, the cannot understand it. Not unlike trying to find out what the safety… Read more »

Wendy Lush
Guest
Wendy Lush

“Canada’s Immigration & Refugee Numbers Should Be Decided In A National Referendum”

Sounds great, but referendums are a rarity in Canada, compared to other democracies. As far as I know there has been only three referendums in since Confederation:

-The Canadian Prohibition Plebiscite (1898)

-The Plebiscite on Conscription during WW2 (1942)

-The Charlottetown Accord Referendum (1992)

Anyhow, the Liberals would decide on any referendum taking place, so don’t hold your breath.

Michelle
Guest
Michelle

Exactly my first thought when Wynne announced a $10 million settlement scheme for ON alone over the next 2 years. Not a word of this to the people of Ontario until the decision was made, never mind ask our thoughts on how we wish to see our hard earned tax dollars spent. I agre with this wholeheartedly. If you want to bring that amount of people here from anywhere in the world, fleeing wars or economic migrants, the current population should have a say in the restructuring of their current sociopolitical landscape. We can look to the rapidly changing faces… Read more »