Tag Archives: IMMIGRATION

The Cold Hard Truth about Canada by Tim Murray Canadian Shield Canadian Shield To listen to Canadian federal leaders speak of their ambitions of boosting our immigration intake from its absurdly high level of a quarter million migrants a year to 1% of the country’s population level and beyond one would think that Canada is the Garden of Eden. A tropical cornucopia needing only greater input of cheap labour and capital to liberate a treasure trove of resources. Green Party leader Elizabeth May is among the most ardent advocates of this all-party gospel of denial, and on September 14, 2008 on CBC radio, she made a remarkable revelation that exposed her ignorance of Canada’s reality. In answering a critic about the stress that immigration was placing on our major cities, she offered the opinion that New Canadians could simply be deflected to the depopulated regions of the country like rural Nova Scotia or northern Saskatchewan, conjuring up the image of Canada as a capacious hotel fit for many permanent guests. No Room at Canada’s Ecological Inn The sad fact is, however, there is no room at the Ecological Inn called Canada. Many of our “rooms” are bogs, marshes, wetlands, frozen permafrost unfit for construction, fens, taiga shields, boreal forests, mountains and lakes. If Canada attended an NHL hockey training camp and had to submit to that body fat composition test, it would be flunked out of camp the first day. The “fat,” that portion of our country deemed unfit for human habitation, is far too high. And even if we did have the “space,” space is not carrying capacity, is it? Antarctica has space. How many people can it support? Wetlands comprise 14% of Canada. Lakes 7.6% Together with permafrost tundra, the boreal forest upon which the global climate depends and mountains, they combine for over 94% for the “other” category that Wikipedia lists as opposed to “arable cropland.” The Canadian Shield covers 48% of the country’s surface, and even if the Arctic Shield is excluded, it makes up 32% of the land surface. If you want an image of it while sipping your latte with your open-borders, politically correct friends, think of undulating hills of spongy swamps, decaying peat, between thick taiga forest on top of rock dotted with thousands of lakes — not an ideal site for social housing. Those millions of refugees that Elizabeth would wave into this country would have to look for alternative digs. The most compelling statistic though, is the pitifully small portion of our land base that is arable, 5.2% And 80% of that land is farmed in the prairie provinces. It gets more scary. Of the 5.2% that is arable, only .5% is classified as “Class 1,” and more than half of that is found in the province of Ontario. And guess where in Ontario? Close to the beacon of mass immigration, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Nationally, we have lost close to one fifth of our Class 1 farmland to development. Residents of B.C.’s Fraser Valley can bear witness. While the provincial government boasts that there are as many protected acres in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as there were when it was introduced more than four decades ago, much of rich farmland in the Fraser Valley has been released for development in exchange for bringing land up north with poorer soil amidst a harsher climate into the ALR. Such is the power of big money and the developer lobby. It stands to reason that as Canada has fallen victim to the immigration madness of the last two decades, it has been precious farmland that has paid the price. As the Ontario Farmland Trust put it, “Flat, cleared, agricultural land is not only easily developed, it is also very affordable to developers who are seeking to meet the demand for land to accommodate urban growth. It is often financially profitable in the long term for a farmer to sell his or her land knowing that it may be converted to some non-agricultural land-use, than to continued farming.” “Smart Growth” Strategies Cannot Stop Farmland Shrinkage Of course, for Green and progressive politicians, the scapegoat is “sprawl” rather than immigration, and their panacea is “land-use planning.” But as history has shown, even the strongest urban growth boundaries can’t stand up to explosive population and development pressures. Portland, Oregon — once the poster boy of this “smart growth” strategy — is an object lesson in the failure of planning to contain growth. Stay tuned for the corrosion of Britain’s famed Greenbelts. There is only so much “brownfield” urban land available to absorb relentless in-migration. Former Ontario Environment Commissioner Gordon Miller’s warning must be heeded. Unless Ottawa reverses course and reduces immigration, he said, the Golden Horseshoe will see another six million people in two decades. If you want to see what that future Ontario looks like, you need only look in the rear view mirror. The Ontario Farmland Trust informs us that …farmland area in Ontario totals only 12.67 million acres — less than 5% of Ontario’s entire land area. The vast majority of this land is found in Southern Ontario, which is also home to over 1/3 of Canada’s population. Ongoing population growth and urbanization is fueling the conversion of much of the country’s best agricultural land to non-farming uses. 1/3 of Canada’s Class 1 farmland can be seen from the top of the CN tower in downtown Toronto, and a large portion of this is now covered by houses, industry and highways. Between 1976 and 2011, 2.8 million acres, or 18%, of Ontario’s farmland is no longer being farmed — much of this land resource urbanized or converted to some other non-agricultural use. This is the amount of land required to feed to the City of Toronto’s entire population. The latest 2011 Census of Agriculture data indicates that we continue to lose over 350 acres of farmland every day in Ontario. Once farmland is designated or developed for non-farming uses it is unlikely that it can be restored to productive agriculture. It can take thousands of years to produce just one centimeter of new topsoil needed to sustain food and farm production. And it should be pointed out that the rapid incremental loss of farmland not only impacts our self-sufficiency in food, but the viability of our ecosystems. Subdivisions do not control flooding, protect wetlands, watersheds, nor absorb and maintain waste water. Nor do they provide food and habitat for wildlife. That is why more 500 species-at-risk are found just at the perimeter of those urban areas of Canada that are bursting with immigrant-driven population growth. Elizabeth May speaks of “the rich texture of cultural diversity.” But it clearly is coming at the expense of our “rich texture of biological diversity.” Illogicality of Avoiding Sprawl by Filling Up the ‘Big Empty Spaces’ It is curious and paradoxical. On the one hand Ms. May argues that newcomers should be concentrated with other Canadians in urban centres by “smart” growth, packed closely together out of harm’s way from greenbelts. Sorry. As previously stated, it won’t work. On the other hand, her story is that New Canadians can be steered in their millions to those empty cold places that others before them found undesirable and left. She didn’t intimate how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be over-ridden to oblige them to go north, or how money could be found to entice them in that direction, or once having arrived there, what would compel them to stay. Climate There is a reason, other than economics, why 90% of Canadians live within a stone’s throw of the US border. Climate. Let me illustrate. The average latitude in Canada is 61 degrees. Let’s select Yellowknife, latitude 62 degrees, 47 minutes as a fair inland example. Yes, it is cold in central Saskatchewan in the winter. But if you live in Saskatoon in December at latitude 52 degrees, and your average day is minus 19, and you decide to take a job in Yellowknife 1223 miles northward, your days are going to be, on average, 9 degrees colder. That is why it takes a whole lot of money to get people to establish lives in the far north. Green Policies Imply Exploiting Immigrants Is Elizabeth May proposing a kind of apartheid for this country then? Canadian-born and the earlier wave of immigrants enjoy the amenities of the milder south but the newest citizens swat black flies in the inhospitable north? I think that Elizabeth May’s “Great Multicultural Project,” her euphemism for the mass immigration policy which all federal parties and leaders support with mindless enthusiasm, is best imposed on the Penguins of Antarctica. They at least know the cold, hard facts about the environment in which they live. And if any of them should object, I am sure a Penguins’ Rights Tribunal could be established on the Canadian model to stifle and silence them into submission. Antarctica is a big place with lots of room for lots of people.

Posted on by

The Cold Hard Truth about Canada

by Tim Murray

Canadian Shield
Canadian Shield

To listen to Canadian federal leaders speak of their ambitions of boosting our immigration intake from its absurdly high level of a quarter million migrants a year to 1% of the country’s population level and beyond one would think that Canada is the Garden of Eden. A tropical cornucopia needing only greater input of cheap labour and capital to liberate a treasure trove of resources.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May is among the most ardent advocates of this all-party gospel of denial, and on September 14, 2008 on CBC radio, she made a remarkable revelation that exposed her ignorance of Canada’s reality. In answering a critic about the stress that immigration was placing on our major cities, she offered the opinion that New Canadians could simply be deflected to the depopulated regions of the country like rural Nova Scotia or northern Saskatchewan, conjuring up the image of Canada as a capacious hotel fit for many permanent guests.

No Room at Canada’s Ecological Inn

The sad fact is, however, there is no room at the Ecological Inn called Canada. Many of our “rooms” are bogs, marshes, wetlands, frozen permafrost unfit for construction, fens, taiga shields, boreal forests, mountains and lakes. If Canada attended an NHL hockey training camp and had to submit to that body fat composition test, it would be flunked out of camp the first day. The “fat,” that portion of our country deemed unfit for human habitation, is far too high. And even if we did have the “space,” space is not carrying capacity, is it? Antarctica has space. How many people can it support?

Wetlands comprise 14% of Canada. Lakes 7.6% Together with permafrost tundra, the boreal forest upon which the global climate depends and mountains, they combine for over 94% for the “other” category that Wikipedia lists as opposed to “arable cropland.” The Canadian Shield covers 48% of the country’s surface, and even if the Arctic Shield is excluded, it makes up 32% of the land surface. If you want an image of it while sipping your latte with your open-borders, politically correct friends, think of undulating hills of spongy swamps, decaying peat, between thick taiga forest on top of rock dotted with thousands of lakes — not an ideal site for social housing. Those millions of refugees that Elizabeth would wave into this country would have to look for alternative digs.

The most compelling statistic though, is the pitifully small portion of our land base that is arable, 5.2% And 80% of that land is farmed in the prairie provinces. It gets more scary. Of the 5.2% that is arable, only .5% is classified as “Class 1,” and more than half of that is found in the province of Ontario. And guess where in Ontario? Close to the beacon of mass immigration, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Nationally, we have lost close to one fifth of our Class 1 farmland to development. Residents of B.C.’s Fraser Valley can bear witness. While the provincial government boasts that there are as many protected acres in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as there were when it was introduced more than four decades ago, much of rich farmland in the Fraser Valley has been released for development in exchange for bringing land up north with poorer soil amidst a harsher climate into the ALR. Such is the power of big money and the developer lobby.

It stands to reason that as Canada has fallen victim to the immigration madness of the last two decades, it has been precious farmland that has paid the price. As the Ontario Farmland Trust put it, “Flat, cleared, agricultural land is not only easily developed, it is also very affordable to developers who are seeking to meet the demand for land to accommodate urban growth. It is often financially profitable in the long term for a farmer to sell his or her land knowing that it may be converted to some non-agricultural land-use, than to continued farming.”

“Smart Growth” Strategies Cannot Stop Farmland Shrinkage

Of course, for Green and progressive politicians, the scapegoat is “sprawl” rather than immigration, and their panacea is “land-use planning.” But as history has shown, even the strongest urban growth boundaries can’t stand up to explosive population and development pressures. Portland, Oregon — once the poster boy of this “smart growth” strategy — is an object lesson in the failure of planning to contain growth. Stay tuned for the corrosion of Britain’s famed Greenbelts. There is only so much “brownfield” urban land available to absorb relentless in-migration. Former Ontario Environment Commissioner Gordon Miller’s warning must be heeded. Unless Ottawa reverses course and reduces immigration, he said, the Golden Horseshoe will see another six million people in two decades. If you want to see what that future Ontario looks like, you need only look in the rear view mirror. The Ontario Farmland Trust informs us that

…farmland area in Ontario totals only 12.67 million acres — less than 5% of Ontario’s entire land area. The vast majority of this land is found in Southern Ontario, which is also home to over 1/3 of Canada’s population. Ongoing population growth and urbanization is fueling the conversion of much of the country’s best agricultural land to non-farming uses. 1/3 of Canada’s Class 1 farmland can be seen from the top of the CN tower in downtown Toronto, and a large portion of this is now covered by houses, industry and highways.

Between 1976 and 2011, 2.8 million acres, or 18%, of Ontario’s farmland is no longer being farmed — much of this land resource urbanized or converted to some other non-agricultural use. This is the amount of land required to feed to the City of Toronto’s entire population.

The latest 2011 Census of Agriculture data indicates that we continue to lose over 350 acres of farmland every day in Ontario. Once farmland is designated or developed for non-farming uses it is unlikely that it can be restored to productive agriculture. It can take thousands of years to produce just one centimeter of new topsoil needed to sustain food and farm production.

And it should be pointed out that the rapid incremental loss of farmland not only impacts our self-sufficiency in food, but the viability of our ecosystems. Subdivisions do not control flooding, protect wetlands, watersheds, nor absorb and maintain waste water. Nor do they provide food and habitat for wildlife. That is why more 500 species-at-risk are found just at the perimeter of those urban areas of Canada that are bursting with immigrant-driven population growth. Elizabeth May speaks of “the rich texture of cultural diversity.” But it clearly is coming at the expense of our “rich texture of biological diversity.”

Illogicality of Avoiding Sprawl by Filling Up the ‘Big Empty Spaces’

It is curious and paradoxical. On the one hand Ms. May argues that newcomers should be concentrated with other Canadians in urban centres by “smart” growth, packed closely together out of harm’s way from greenbelts. Sorry. As previously stated, it won’t work. On the other hand, her story is that New Canadians can be steered in their millions to those empty cold places that others before them found undesirable and left. She didn’t intimate how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be over-ridden to oblige them to go north, or how money could be found to entice them in that direction, or once having arrived there, what would compel them to stay.

Climate

There is a reason, other than economics, why 90% of Canadians live within a stone’s throw of the US border. Climate. Let me illustrate.

The average latitude in Canada is 61 degrees. Let’s select Yellowknife, latitude 62 degrees, 47 minutes as a fair inland example. Yes, it is cold in central Saskatchewan in the winter. But if you live in Saskatoon in December at latitude 52 degrees, and your average day is minus 19, and you decide to take a job in Yellowknife 1223 miles northward, your days are going to be, on average, 9 degrees colder. That is why it takes a whole lot of money to get people to establish lives in the far north.

Green Policies Imply Exploiting Immigrants

Is Elizabeth May proposing a kind of apartheid for this country then? Canadian-born and the earlier wave of immigrants enjoy the amenities of the milder south but the newest citizens swat black flies in the inhospitable north?

I think that Elizabeth May’s “Great Multicultural Project,” her euphemism for the mass immigration policy which all federal parties and leaders support with mindless enthusiasm, is best imposed on the Penguins of Antarctica. They at least know the cold, hard facts about the environment in which they live. And if any of them should object, I am sure a Penguins’ Rights Tribunal could be established on the Canadian model to stifle and silence them into submission.

Antarctica is a big place with lots of room for lots of people.

The Conservative Leadership Race

Posted on by

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2017

The Conservative Leadership Race

As one whose lifelong Toryism is a matter of principle and conviction rather than partisan allegiance the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada has been of only tertiary interest, if that, to me. The party has compromised, sold-out, and otherwise betrayed the principles and ideals to which its name alludes time and time again.

Unfortunately, while the Conservatives cannot be trusted to live up to their own principles you can always count on the Grits to live down to our worst expectations of them as they do everything in their power to impose the latest version of their ever-changing insane ideology upon our country while feathering their nests, enhancing their power, and displaying the utmost arrogance and contempt for ordinary Canadians. The Liberal Party of Canada began its sordid existence as the party advocating selling out the heritage of honour and loyalty upon which our country was built for filthy American lucre and has spent a century and a half trying to undo Confederation, strip us of our traditions and legacy, rob us of our rights and freedoms and turn Canada into a pathetic, third-world, police state that hides the sheer nastiness of its politically correct oppressiveness behind a thin outward veneer of toxic niceness. Now, under the leadership of an intolerably arrogant, empty-headed and black-hearted coxcomb, the Grits have placed an onerous debt burden upon the backs of future generations of Canadians for centuries to come with their present extravagance, taken a gigantic first step towards the subjection of Christians, Jews, and all other non-Muslim Canadians to dhimmitude by passing, against widespread objection, a motion condemning Islamophobia, while seeking to shove the most recent gender insanity down all of our throats and, in complete disregard for the safety, well-being, and wishes of Canadians, thrown out the welcome mat to all those who pose enough of a security risk to be rejected as immigrants and asylum-seekers by our southern neighbour.

Therefore, while it is too much to hope that the Conservatives, returned to power, would actually put Tory principles into practice in their governance, such a return is to be wished if for no other reason than to rid the country of the disastrous misrule of the vile and loathsome gang of miscreants presently holding office. For a number of reasons – several decades worth of neglect in the teaching of Canadian civics in our schools and our having been swamped by Yankee pop culture in the same period being the chief two – the Canadian electorate treats our general elections as if they were the equivalent of American presidential contests and votes according to who the party leader is. Who the leader is, therefore, matters and so this race demands our attention.

Sadly, the quantity of the candidates seeking the leadership is far more impressive than the quality. Indeed, it is much easier to decide which candidates ought not to be allowed anywhere near the leadership than to pick one who stands out as deserving to win. Foremost among these is Kevin O’Leary. The Dragon’s Den star has been compared to American President Donald Trump but the comparison is cosmetic and superficial and has nothing to do with policy matters. O’Leary is a free trader and an immigration enthusiast, as well as being the most socially liberal candidate to ever seek the Tory leadership. He is most like Donald Trump in his personality – in his policies he is much closer to Justin Trudeau. It is hard to imagine a worse combination in a prospective Conservative leader.

The other Irishman, Erin O’Toole is also disqualified in my books. A Kisaragi Colour, the founder of the blog The Maple Monarchists, has surveyed the leadership candidates on their views of Canada’s constitutional monarchy. All who replied, either personally or through their staff, indicated their support of the institution to some degree or another, except O’Toole and Lisa Raitt, both of whom declined to indicate their position. This is a disqualifier. Royalism is a sine qua non of Canadian conservatism and someone who refuses to commit publicly to support of the monarchy has no business even running as a Conservative candidate much less for the leadership.

If the leadership were to be decided on that sole issue alone, Andrew Scheer would clearly be the best candidate as he indicated the most enthusiastic support for the royal institution by far of all the candidates in his response.

There are other issues to be considered, however, and here things become complicated because different candidates stand out as being the strongest on different sets of issues.

Take “social conservatism” for example. This commonly denotes the sort of moral and social positions that evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox, and other religious conservatives would support. This would include being pro-life, i.e., opposed to abortion and euthanasia, a supporter of traditional one man/one woman marriage, and an opponent of the alphabet soup gang agenda, of feminism, and often of the legalization of recreational drugs such as marijuana. For a couple of decades the conventional wisdom has been that no party running on a socially conservative platform stood a chance of winning because Canadians are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. In fact the opposite is the case. Opposition to moral and social breakdown will always be more popular than tightening the purse strings and anybody with an ounce of sense knows that. The conventional wisdom exists to browbeat the major parties into not putting it to the test by running a socially conservative campaign. On social conservatism, the strongest of the candidates would be Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon-University. Trost is an evangelical Christian, who has been outspoken on socially conservative issues throughout his political career, and who has opposed the shift towards social liberalism taken by the party under the interim leadership of Rona Ambrose.

On culture and immigration there is no good candidate. A good candidate would be one who takes the position that immigration, legal and illegal, should not be allowed to change the character of the country, that our government and not the immigrants themselves will select who is allowed in and that it will place the needs of our country first in doing so rather than those of the prospective immigrants, that we will not admit large numbers of either immigrants or refugees in periods of high unemployment and economic recession, that illegal immigration will not be tolerated and will result in the permanent disqualification of the queue-jumper for even legal immigration, and that our refugee admission policies need to be reformed to recognize the reality that the vast majority of asylum seekers are frauds. A good candidate would denounce the toxic cultural atmosphere of ethnomasochism and oikophobia that liberalism spent much of the last fifty years creating. No candidate dares to take this position, of course. The closest thing to it is Kellie Leitch, who is not close at all but who merely wants prospective immigrants to be screened for values that conflict with Canadian values, by which she means the values of the multicultural, feminist, progressive, liberal, left that has been denouncing her as a bigot for wanting newcomers to hold to their values. On this, as with social conservatism, a platform much further to the right that provided Canadians with a real alternative to liberalism for a change would garner much more support than the conventional wisdom would acknowledge.

On fiscal and economic policy if any of the candidates stands out it is probably Maxime Bernier.

Ideally, the next Conservative leader would be strong on all of these issues, but such a person does not appear to be present among the current candidates. Practically, the next leader will also have to be someone around whom the party can unite and who can generate enough popular support to oust the Liberals. Although this quality is harder to gauge, here too there is no name jumping off of the candidates list as the obvious choice.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that whoever the Conservatives choose as their leader will win by default simply because everyone will finally be sick to death of Justin Trudeau.

Playlist of Paul Fromm’s podcasts on immigration and free speech topics.

Posted on by

Playlist of Paul Fromm’s podcasts on immigration and free speech topics.

Paul Fromm’s political experience goes back 50 years and he has a great memory and intelligence and speaking ability. He is one of Canada’s truth treasures.
 
Paul Fromm is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) since 1983, at: http://cafe.nfshost.com/.
 
Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/
 
Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.
 
You can join Paul’s email list by contacting him at paul@paulfromm.com .
 
 
Inline image 1
 
 
The host is Brian Ruhe. Go to my website at: http://www.brianruhe.ca/in-the-news/ to see what I’m up to these days. If you love this content, love that it’s free for everyone, please consider making a donation on my website to support my work.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoTeOxXTeSV1hk1hjABDmGqMjNI53TM1x

Paul Fromm — The Trump Phenomenon

Posted on by

Paul Fromm — The Trump Phenomenon

https://youtu.be/HzBeipaGP78

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presented
Paul Fromm on “The Trump Phenomenon” in Vancouver, BC, Canada, Sunday, December 18, 2016

See More

Part 1 The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presented Paul Fromm on “The Trump Phenomenon” in Vancouver, BC, Canada, Sunday, December 18, 201…
Part 2 The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presented Paul Fromm on “The Trump Phenomenon” in Vancouver, BC, Canada, Sunday, December 18, 20

TRUMP Victory for the Real America and Canada

Posted on by
TRUMP Victory for the Real America and Canada
Published on Nov 10, 2016
Paul Fromm and Brian Ruhe, amongst Canada’s leading Alt-right figures, dance with elation and celebration over President-elect Donald Trump’s victory!! Paul is the Director of the Canada First Immigration and Reform Committee.
 
 
Inline image 1
 

Joe Biden: “Whites will be a Minority in US by 2017 – and that’s a good Thing”

Posted on by

https://youtu.be/kAGhyFHnuv8

By 2017, those of us of European stock will be an absolute minority in the United States of America,” Biden said at a State Department luncheon for Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Biden added that that’s “not a bad thing, that’s a good thing” because it means the country is becoming more “diverse

This mixed-up “waste case” hails the replacement of Whites in America as a “ggod thing” and greater “diversity” due to “unrelenting immigration” is a good thing. He’s a little premature: Whites will not become a minority by 2017 but by 2041. But still, he represents the anti-White treason at the very top of American society.

“By 2017, those of us of European stock will be an absolute minority in the United States of America,”…
LikeShow more reactions

CommentSh

 
 

This mixed-up “waste case” hails the replacement of Whites in America as a “good thing” and greater “diversity” due to “unrelenting immigration” is a good thing. He’s a little premature: Whites will not become a minority by 2017 but by 2041. But still, he represents the anti-White treason at the very top of American society.

“By 2017, those of us of European stock will be an absolute minority in the United States of America,”…
YOUTUBE.COM

https://youtu.be/kAGhyFHnuv8

By 2017, those of us of European stock will be an absolute minority in the United States of America,” Biden said at a State Department luncheon for Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Biden added that that’s “not a bad thing, that’s a good thing” because it means the country is becoming more “diverse

This mixed-up “waste case” hails the replacement of Whites in America as a “good thing” and greater “diversity” due to “unrelenting immigration” is a good thing. He’s a little premature: Whites will not become a minority by 2017 but by 2041. But still, he represents the anti-White treason at the very top of American society.

Acadians and the Minimal Role of Immigrants Before the Conquest/1763

Posted on by

Acadians and the Minimal Role of Immigrants Before the Conquest/1763

by Ricardo Duchesne

Acadians building dykes

It has been established at CEC that the current portrayal of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds should be seen as nothing more than an act of deception orchestrated by academics in wilful disregard of the historical evidence for the sake of legitimizing the leftist/global corporate goal of creating a race-mixed Canada against its European heritage.

The record shows, rather, that ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain, that it was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from the Third World started to arrive in large numbers, that Canada was 96 percent ethnically European as late as 1971, and that immigration itself was not even the most important factor in Canada’s population history but the high fertility rates of true born Canadian pioneers.

It has also been established at CEC that the French Canadiens were practically a new people born in the soil of New France, or within lands inside present-day Quebec, driven by the “exceptionally high” fertility rates of women, 5.6 surviving children on average, coupled with honourable patriarchal respect for women with children, the hard work and self-reliance of farmers.

In this article we will show that before the conquest, from Canada’s origins up until the 1760s, immigrants played a very small role demographically in the making of Canada. Not only the Quebecois, but the Acadians as well, were a newly created people in the soil of North America. Native born Quebecois and Acadians were the main historical protagonists in the settlement of Canada for almost the first two hundred years.

Another Misleading Text about Canada’s “Diverse” History

Don’t you believe current historians who tell you that “New France was a multicultural society, with a considerable First Nations population and an African community”. This is the message advocated by one of the most widely used texts in Canadian universities, consisting of two volumes, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, and Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation, by R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith. This very successful text, now in its seventh edition, claims that it is a major improvement over “the older texts,” not only in incorporating “new historical research,” but in showing that “anyone seeking to understand our diversitytoday must first examine the pre-Confederation era” (Origins, pp. 108, viii, Fourth Edition).

The two volumes seek to imprint upon students an image of Canada as “diverse” and “multicultural” from the beginning. Needless to say, Amerindians were the first inhabitants of territories that came to be identified as “Canada” only through the establishment of French and Anglo institutions during the 1600s to 1800s. But the “first peoples,” the Hurons, Algonquins, Cree, Iroquois, and others, were organized in tribes spread over territories that can in no way be identified as part of “Canada” before Europeans arrived. They were territories actually contiguous with the United States rather than neatly located within Canada. Only in retrospect, through the European science of geography, have they been, and can be, demarcated in the continent of North America for pedagogical instruction, but not as actually existing tribal nations with definite geographical boundaries, since none of these tribes were organized as nations with marked boundaries.

European geographers, not the Amerindians, have classified the natives of Canada in terms of six cultural areas, “Northwest Coast,” “Plateau,” “Plains,”Subarctic,” “Arctic,” and “Northeast”. Indians had an intimate knowledge of the land, the soil, migration pathways of animals, weather, location of rivers, lakes, mountains, upon which the first European settlers and fur traders relied for survival. It was the Europeans, however, who mapped these territories and eventually created our modern institutions from the ground up.

It is extremely anachronistic and misleading to tell students that these tribal groups were members of a multicultural Canada. The French and English, for one, inhabited separate cultural lives, and in respect to the Natives, they inhabited totally different worlds. Their interactions with Natives are best described as interactions between separate peoples, commercial and military interactions, which affected both sides, but which essentially involved the modernizing encroachment of the Anglo-French side upon the Native cultures, leading to a situation in which, by the time of Confederation in 1867, only 1 percent of the racial population of Canada was Amerindian.

This reduction was of course tragic for the Aboriginals. But it is only by identifying them as a separate people that we can acknowledge their distinctive heritage instead of falsely assimilating them into a “multicultural Canada” as co-creators of a nation that only became multicultural in 1971 and in which, to this day, most Natives remain apart.

It is outlandish for Origins and Destinies to tell students that “in 1867″ the Natives peoples were one of the three “major groups” that made up “Canada’s multicultural society” (Destinies, Third Edition, p. 1). How can one percent of the population living in “lands reserved for Indians” — to use the official designation of the British North America Act — be identified as a “major” cultural group in Canada, equal to the French and the British, which made up 99 percent of the population?

The historians of these volumes want to have it both ways: an image of a European Canada that “decimated” the Natives through diseases, and an image of “First Nations” as co-partners in the creation of Canada’s parliamentary institutions, legal system, schools and universities, churches, and modern economy. They want students to believe that the Natives were the “first peoples,” followed by the French and English, as the next two “major groups,” followed by the arrival of “non-British and non-French immigrants,” as a fourth major group. This fourth group is portrayed as a multiracial lot, even though the statistics contradict any such picture.

The facts about the ethnic composition of immigrants, which this text cannot hide altogether, show that, at the time of Confederation, the English constituted about 60 percent of the population, the French 32 percent, and the remaining “non-British and non-French immigrants” about 8 percent. The non-British and non-French were all whites from Europe and the United States.

There was no “considerable” African community in New France. The facts stated in Origins, which are the only facts that can be legitimately used, contradict this contrived interpretation: from its origins to 1759, only about 1,200 African slaves were brought to New France (p. 111). Another source says that “from 1681 to 1818 there were approximately 4100 slaves in French Canada, representing less than one per cent of the population”.

The facts Origins has to rely on, since they are the only historically documented facts, contradict not only its claim that Canada was created by diverse racial groups but also the claim that the Europeans generally were “immigrants”. In the case of New France (and let us not forget that the history of New France is basically the history of Canada up until 1763), the text offers a detailed table on the number of French immigrants “by decade” from 1608 to 1759, from which we learn that the total number of immigrants throughout this period was only 8,527 (p.93). By contrast, the population of New France in 1759 was about 60,000. These numbers are consistent with the numbers I offered in The Canadiens of New France: A People Created Through the Fecundity of the Women — Not Immigration.

Since the French were the first Canadians, and the English proportion in Canada as a whole, before the Conquest of 1763, was scattered and incidental, it behoves us to conclude, on the basis of the above numbers, that immigrants played a minimal role from the time Samuel de Champlain planted the first permanent settlement at Quebec in 1608 up until 1763.

The Acadians

This point can be further accentuated through a consideration of the Acadians. In the calculation of the demographic history of French Canadians, the Acadians are sometimes included without a clear identification of their own demographic identity. The Acadians were another newly created people in the soil of America, not in present day Quebec, but in the maritime part of New France, or in the province of present day Nova Scotia.

The beginnings of the Acadians closely resembles that of the Quebecois; they too began as a small colony of men, or wooden buildings constructed in Port Royal in 1605 by Champlain, but these colonists were forced to return to France in 1607. In 1611, 20 new colonists, including a family, were brought back to Acadie, but this settlement failed as well.

It was only in 1651 that a demographic dynamic was set in Acadie, when about 50 families, or about 500 settlers, were brought in. After 1671, 40 more families were recruited from France, leading to a population of 800+ by 1686. By 1710, there were around 2,000 Acadians, “most of them born in North America” (J.M. Bumsted, 2003, p. 39). The text Origins likewise informs us that the “average Acadian couple usually married in their early twenties and had ten or eleven children, most of whom survived to adulthood” (p. 140).

Without any more French immigration, “the Acadian population multiplied by nearly 30 times between 1671 and 1755″. By 1750, “there were more than 10,000,” and “in 1755, more than 13,000 (excluding Louisbourg” (Origins, p. 141-44). J.M. Bumsted tells us that Louisbourg’s Acadian population was 3,500 in the 1750s (2011, p. 67).

The British gained control of Acadia in 1713, and in 1750-51 they recruited about 1,500 German Protestants, if not more, depending on the sources one examines, possibly as many as 2500, settled at Lunenburg. This population, however, has not been counted in the above Francophone numbers. We will be writing about British immigration/birth rate patterns in a future article.

In the context of a full-scale war between France and Britain, and the refusal of the Acadians to give a formal pledge of loyalty to the British rulers in Acadia, in 1755-58 the British deported about three-quarters of the Acadian population. By 1762, they had expelled another 3000. However, in 1764, the British allowed about 3000 Acadians to resettle back in Nova Scotia, and by 1800 the Acadians numbered 4000.

It should be noted that in the 1740s there were about 700 Acadians in Prince Edward Island (PEI), then known as Île St-Jean, and categorized as part of Acadia (Nova Scotia). In 1757, approximately 2,000 Acadians had fled to PIE as refugees, which increased the population to about 4,500, but the British expelled many of these Acadians in 1758. A census of 1803 showed a population of nearly 700 in PEI. In New Brunswick, a territory carved out of former Nova Scotia in 1784, there was a population of 4,000 Acadians in 1803, a “result of high birth rates rather than the return of more exiles” (Origins, p. 153; Bumsted, 2011, p. 109).

The conclusion we must reach is quite self-evidential: the Acadians began as a small group of immigrant families, only to grow into a people with blood ties firmly set in Acadia, through a very high fertility rate, with its own unique Francophone identity, with speech patterns quite different from the Quebecois, in a very harsh environment that required the harvesting of salt from the salt marshes, the clearing of forested uplands, the building of dikes to reclaim land from the Bay of Fundy’s strong tides; yet establishing themselves with a “far higher standard of living than all but the most privileged French peasants,” coupled with a spirit of independence and refusal to submit to external authorities, which led to their expulsion, though not their demise, constituting today about 11,000+ in Nova Scotia, and 25,000 in New Brunswick.

The claim that Acadians were just immigrants no less different to the making of Canada than Sri Lankan Tamils, corrupt Chinese real estate millionaires, andSomalis is patently absurd, a discreditable claim that only academics who are out of touch with historical reality, and shamelessly unburdened by their traitorous attitudes towards their ancestors, would make.

Sources

  • Bumsted, J. M. A History of the Canadian Peoples (Oxford, 2011, Fourth Edition)
  • Bumsted, J. M. Canada’s Diverse Peoples (ABC CLIO, 2003)
  • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation (Harcourt, 2000, Fourth Edition)
  • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation (Harcourt, 1996, Third Edition)
  • K

    Acadians and the Minimal Role of Immigrants Before the Conquest/1763

    by Ricardo Duchesne

    Acadians building dykes

    It has been established at CEC that the current portrayal of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds should be seen as nothing more than an act of deception orchestrated by academics in wilful disregard of the historical evidence for the sake of legitimizing the leftist/global corporate goal of creating a race-mixed Canada against its European heritage.

    The record shows, rather, that ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain, that it was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from the Third World started to arrive in large numbers, that Canada was 96 percent ethnically European as late as 1971, and that immigration itself was not even the most important factor in Canada’s population history but the high fertility rates of true born Canadian pioneers.

    It has also been established at CEC that the French Canadiens were practically a new people born in the soil of New France, or within lands inside present-day Quebec, driven by the “exceptionally high” fertility rates of women, 5.6 surviving children on average, coupled with honourable patriarchal respect for women with children, the hard work and self-reliance of farmers.

    In this article we will show that before the conquest, from Canada’s origins up until the 1760s, immigrants played a very small role demographically in the making of Canada. Not only the Quebecois, but the Acadians as well, were a newly created people in the soil of North America. Native born Quebecois and Acadians were the main historical protagonists in the settlement of Canada for almost the first two hundred years.

    Another Misleading Text about Canada’s “Diverse” History

    Don’t you believe current historians who tell you that “New France was a multicultural society, with a considerable First Nations population and an African community”. This is the message advocated by one of the most widely used texts in Canadian universities, consisting of two volumes, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, and Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation, by R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith. This very successful text, now in its seventh edition, claims that it is a major improvement over “the older texts,” not only in incorporating “new historical research,” but in showing that “anyone seeking to understand our diversitytoday must first examine the pre-Confederation era” (Origins, pp. 108, viii, Fourth Edition).

    The two volumes seek to imprint upon students an image of Canada as “diverse” and “multicultural” from the beginning. Needless to say, Amerindians were the first inhabitants of territories that came to be identified as “Canada” only through the establishment of French and Anglo institutions during the 1600s to 1800s. But the “first peoples,” the Hurons, Algonquins, Cree, Iroquois, and others, were organized in tribes spread over territories that can in no way be identified as part of “Canada” before Europeans arrived. They were territories actually contiguous with the United States rather than neatly located within Canada. Only in retrospect, through the European science of geography, have they been, and can be, demarcated in the continent of North America for pedagogical instruction, but not as actually existing tribal nations with definite geographical boundaries, since none of these tribes were organized as nations with marked boundaries.

    European geographers, not the Amerindians, have classified the natives of Canada in terms of six cultural areas, “Northwest Coast,” “Plateau,” “Plains,”Subarctic,” “Arctic,” and “Northeast”. Indians had an intimate knowledge of the land, the soil, migration pathways of animals, weather, location of rivers, lakes, mountains, upon which the first European settlers and fur traders relied for survival. It was the Europeans, however, who mapped these territories and eventually created our modern institutions from the ground up.

    It is extremely anachronistic and misleading to tell students that these tribal groups were members of a multicultural Canada. The French and English, for one, inhabited separate cultural lives, and in respect to the Natives, they inhabited totally different worlds. Their interactions with Natives are best described as interactions between separate peoples, commercial and military interactions, which affected both sides, but which essentially involved the modernizing encroachment of the Anglo-French side upon the Native cultures, leading to a situation in which, by the time of Confederation in 1867, only 1 percent of the racial population of Canada was Amerindian.

    This reduction was of course tragic for the Aboriginals. But it is only by identifying them as a separate people that we can acknowledge their distinctive heritage instead of falsely assimilating them into a “multicultural Canada” as co-creators of a nation that only became multicultural in 1971 and in which, to this day, most Natives remain apart.

    It is outlandish for Origins and Destinies to tell students that “in 1867″ the Natives peoples were one of the three “major groups” that made up “Canada’s multicultural society” (Destinies, Third Edition, p. 1). How can one percent of the population living in “lands reserved for Indians” — to use the official designation of the British North America Act — be identified as a “major” cultural group in Canada, equal to the French and the British, which made up 99 percent of the population?

    The historians of these volumes want to have it both ways: an image of a European Canada that “decimated” the Natives through diseases, and an image of “First Nations” as co-partners in the creation of Canada’s parliamentary institutions, legal system, schools and universities, churches, and modern economy. They want students to believe that the Natives were the “first peoples,” followed by the French and English, as the next two “major groups,” followed by the arrival of “non-British and non-French immigrants,” as a fourth major group. This fourth group is portrayed as a multiracial lot, even though the statistics contradict any such picture.

    The facts about the ethnic composition of immigrants, which this text cannot hide altogether, show that, at the time of Confederation, the English constituted about 60 percent of the population, the French 32 percent, and the remaining “non-British and non-French immigrants” about 8 percent. The non-British and non-French were all whites from Europe and the United States.

    There was no “considerable” African community in New France. The facts stated in Origins, which are the only facts that can be legitimately used, contradict this contrived interpretation: from its origins to 1759, only about 1,200 African slaves were brought to New France (p. 111). Another source says that “from 1681 to 1818 there were approximately 4100 slaves in French Canada, representing less than one per cent of the population”.

    The facts Origins has to rely on, since they are the only historically documented facts, contradict not only its claim that Canada was created by diverse racial groups but also the claim that the Europeans generally were “immigrants”. In the case of New France (and let us not forget that the history of New France is basically the history of Canada up until 1763), the text offers a detailed table on the number of French immigrants “by decade” from 1608 to 1759, from which we learn that the total number of immigrants throughout this period was only 8,527 (p.93). By contrast, the population of New France in 1759 was about 60,000. These numbers are consistent with the numbers I offered in The Canadiens of New France: A People Created Through the Fecundity of the Women — Not Immigration.

    Since the French were the first Canadians, and the English proportion in Canada as a whole, before the Conquest of 1763, was scattered and incidental, it behoves us to conclude, on the basis of the above numbers, that immigrants played a minimal role from the time Samuel de Champlain planted the first permanent settlement at Quebec in 1608 up until 1763.

    The Acadians

    This point can be further accentuated through a consideration of the Acadians. In the calculation of the demographic history of French Canadians, the Acadians are sometimes included without a clear identification of their own demographic identity. The Acadians were another newly created people in the soil of America, not in present day Quebec, but in the maritime part of New France, or in the province of present day Nova Scotia.

    The beginnings of the Acadians closely resembles that of the Quebecois; they too began as a small colony of men, or wooden buildings constructed in Port Royal in 1605 by Champlain, but these colonists were forced to return to France in 1607. In 1611, 20 new colonists, including a family, were brought back to Acadie, but this settlement failed as well.

    It was only in 1651 that a demographic dynamic was set in Acadie, when about 50 families, or about 500 settlers, were brought in. After 1671, 40 more families were recruited from France, leading to a population of 800+ by 1686. By 1710, there were around 2,000 Acadians, “most of them born in North America” (J.M. Bumsted, 2003, p. 39). The text Origins likewise informs us that the “average Acadian couple usually married in their early twenties and had ten or eleven children, most of whom survived to adulthood” (p. 140).

    Without any more French immigration, “the Acadian population multiplied by nearly 30 times between 1671 and 1755″. By 1750, “there were more than 10,000,” and “in 1755, more than 13,000 (excluding Louisbourg” (Origins, p. 141-44). J.M. Bumsted tells us that Louisbourg’s Acadian population was 3,500 in the 1750s (2011, p. 67).

    The British gained control of Acadia in 1713, and in 1750-51 they recruited about 1,500 German Protestants, if not more, depending on the sources one examines, possibly as many as 2500, settled at Lunenburg. This population, however, has not been counted in the above Francophone numbers. We will be writing about British immigration/birth rate patterns in a future article.

    In the context of a full-scale war between France and Britain, and the refusal of the Acadians to give a formal pledge of loyalty to the British rulers in Acadia, in 1755-58 the British deported about three-quarters of the Acadian population. By 1762, they had expelled another 3000. However, in 1764, the British allowed about 3000 Acadians to resettle back in Nova Scotia, and by 1800 the Acadians numbered 4000.

    It should be noted that in the 1740s there were about 700 Acadians in Prince Edward Island (PEI), then known as Île St-Jean, and categorized as part of Acadia (Nova Scotia). In 1757, approximately 2,000 Acadians had fled to PIE as refugees, which increased the population to about 4,500, but the British expelled many of these Acadians in 1758. A census of 1803 showed a population of nearly 700 in PEI. In New Brunswick, a territory carved out of former Nova Scotia in 1784, there was a population of 4,000 Acadians in 1803, a “result of high birth rates rather than the return of more exiles” (Origins, p. 153; Bumsted, 2011, p. 109).

    The conclusion we must reach is quite self-evidential: the Acadians began as a small group of immigrant families, only to grow into a people with blood ties firmly set in Acadia, through a very high fertility rate, with its own unique Francophone identity, with speech patterns quite different from the Quebecois, in a very harsh environment that required the harvesting of salt from the salt marshes, the clearing of forested uplands, the building of dikes to reclaim land from the Bay of Fundy’s strong tides; yet establishing themselves with a “far higher standard of living than all but the most privileged French peasants,” coupled with a spirit of independence and refusal to submit to external authorities, which led to their expulsion, though not their demise, constituting today about 11,000+ in Nova Scotia, and 25,000 in New Brunswick.

    The claim that Acadians were just immigrants no less different to the making of Canada than Sri Lankan Tamils, corrupt Chinese real estate millionaires, andSomalis is patently absurd, a discreditable claim that only academics who are out of touch with historical reality, and shamelessly unburdened by their traitorous attitudes towards their ancestors, would make.

    Sources

    • Bumsted, J. M. A History of the Canadian Peoples (Oxford, 2011, Fourth Edition)
    • Bumsted, J. M. Canada’s Diverse Peoples (ABC CLIO, 2003)
    • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation (Harcourt, 2000, Fourth Edition)
    • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation (Harcourt, 1996, Third Edition)
    • Kenneth Donovan, “Slaves and Their Owners in Ile Royale, 1713-1760″ Acandiensis, Vol. XXV, No. 1 Autumn/Automne 1995
    • Cole Harris and John Warkentin, Canada Before Confederation: A Study on Historical Geography (McGill-Queen’s Press, 2005 [1974])
    • Sally Ross, The Acadians of Nova Scotia (Hignell Printing, 1992).

    Posted at 07:32 Be the first to comment enneth Donovan, “Slaves and Their Owners in Ile Royale, 1713-1760″ Acandiensis, Vol. XXV, No. 1 Autumn/Automne 1995

  • Cole Harris and John Warkentin, Canada Before Confederation: A Study on Historical Geography (McGill-Queen’s Press, 2005 [1974])
  • Sally Ross, The Acadians of Nova Scotia (Hignell Printing, 1992).

 

The Loyalists Were Not Immigrants: 1763-1815

Posted on by

The Loyalists Were Not Immigrants: 1763-1815

by Ricardo Duchesne

We have seen that up until the British Conquest of New France in 1763, the vast majority of Canadians were francophones, Quebecois and Acadians, born in the soil of North America. The total number of immigrants who came to Quebec and Acadia, from the first settlements Samuel Champlain established in the first decade of the 1600s until 1763, was very small. In Quebec, only 8,527 immigrants arrived during this entire period (from 1608 to 1759). In Acadia, a few hundred settlers arrived in the first half of the seventeenth century, and thereafter it was the high fertility rates of Acadians that engendered a population of roughly 13,000 by the 1750s.

How about the role of immigrants from “diverse” places after the Conquest? Was not the English-speaking Canada that emerged after the Conquest, in Ontario and Nova Scotia, created by arrival of immigrants “from many ethnic backgrounds”, as standard college textbooks religiously inform their students today?

Don’t you believe them. The immigration time line from 1760 to 1815, which is the subject of this article, and which includes the Loyalists as the principal new settlers in Canada, can only be categorized as a period of “many new diverse immigrants” through the manipulation of words.

What this period actually witnessed was:

  1. a massive growth in the population of Quebec through the continuation of high fertility rates with zero francophone immigration, and minimal arrival of British individuals.
  2. an internal migration of New Englanders and Loyalists from some regions of British North America to other regions of British North America, principally to Upper Canada and Nova Scotia. Both New Englanders and Loyalists were long established native born British settlers in the American colonies, not immigrants.
  3. the arrival of immigrants from the British Isles (with the exception of some Whites from Germany) should also be identified as movement by internal migrants, from the British Isles to other British lands.

High Fertility Population Growth in Quebec 1763-1815

The English population in New France/Quebec numbered only about 500 in 1765. When the British conquered Quebec they anticipated that significant English-speaking families would move from the British American colonies to the British Canadian colonies. They hoped that in this way Quebec would be gradually Protestantized and Anglicized. But only “a few hundred English-speaking, Protestant immigrants, largely merchants” had arrived by 1774. The number of English has been estimated at 2000 in 1780.

In the 1780s, a few thousand Loyalists did arrive. There are no precise estimations as to how many Loyalists settled in Quebec proper, rather than what would become Upper Canada or Ontario, which was carved out from the western side of New France in 1791. In any case, when this partition occurred, the English population in Quebec proper, or Lower Canada, was about 10,000. Meanwhile, the total non-Aboriginal population of Quebec in 1791 had increased substantially since the Conquest from about 60,000 to about 160,000.

Now, assuming that all the English speaking inhabitants, the 10,000, were immigrants, we can safely say that Quebec’s francophone population increased by 150,000 souls solely through a high fertility rate without any immigration. It has been estimated that the English population in Lower Canada/Quebec reached 30,000 by 1812. The francophone population, meanwhile, increased to 335,000 by 1814.

Again, assuming that the 30,000 English speakers were all immigrants (hardly the case, since after the Loyalist influx of the 1780s there was little immigration from the English world), it follows that the history of one of the two founding peoples of Canada, the Quebecois, was a history without any significant immigration from 1608 up until 1814. Therefore, it is simply an act of malicious deception to identify the Quebecois as immigrants.

The Internal Migration of New Englanders and Loyalists

Between 1758 and 1762, before the arrival of the Loyalists, about 7000 to 8000 New England “Planters” settled in Nova Scotia in the lands previously occupied by the Acadians who had been expelled in the 1750s. But half of these Planters left within a few years, finding Nova Scotia too scarce in resources and good lands. These New Englanders were British-Americans who moved from one British-ethnic land (New England) to another British-ruled land (Nova Scotia), which was fast becoming Anglicized after the expulsion of Acadians.

The estimated number of Loyalists who came to Canada has been estimated at 50,000. About 14,500 Loyalists went to the new territory of New Brunswick, which was partitioned from Nova Scotia in 1784. About the same number went to Nova Scotia, 400 to Cape Breton, and some 500 to PEI. Roughly about 14,000 Loyalists went to Lower and Upper Canada, mostly to the latter territory, during the 1780s and 1790s.

The popular textbook, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, by R. Douglas Francis, et. al, refers to the Loyalists as immigrants who came “from many ethnic backgrounds” (p. 233). It notes that “as many as 500″ “black Loyalists” (p. 237) were brought to Upper Canada and some 3000 to Nova Scotia). A History of the Canadian Peoples, by possibly the foremost historian of Canada, J.M. Bumsted, likewise refers to the Loyalists as “quite a disparate group” that included “well over 3000 blacks”, as well as 2000 Aboriginal “loyalists”, who settled in Upper Canada (p. 101). He notes, though, that nearly half of the Blacks soon emigrated to Africa.

There is no way around the fact that, as the text Origins eventually admits, the “overwhelming majority of the Loyalists were white”. Even if we were to accept the rather wishful claim that blacks and Aboriginals were “Loyalists” (Americancolonists who remained loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War), the total non-White proportion was only 7 percent.

Moreover, it is more accurate to identify Loyalists as “internal migrants” rather than immigrants, since they actually moved from colonies that were thoroughly British to territories rule by Britain that were becoming, Nova Scotia and Upper Canada, increasingly Anglicized. It was essentially a movement by Brits within the Anglo mainland of North America.

Some may reply that this argument only holds for the New England “Planters” but not for the Loyalists, since the Loyalists were leaving the newly independent American lands of post-1776. They were Americans rather than British. But this is not a good argument for two reasons: the Americans were indeed a new people created in the soil of North America, but they were still racially British, and the Loyalists were called “Loyalist” precisely because they remained loyal to British rule, rather than American rule in the thirteen colonies.

Immigrants from the British Isles

The texts I have examined don’t always provide consistently precise numbers, but only indicate that from 1790 to 1815 immigrants from the “British Isles” came to Upper Canada, mainly from the Scottish Highlands and Ireland. One estimate has it that between 6000 and 10 000 immigrants came in the early 1800s from the Highland to the Maritimes and Upper Canada. Another text says that in the 1760s and 1770s Nova Scotia saw some 2000 settlers arrived from Ireland, 750 from England, and, in 1773, 200 Scots.

Before these immigrants from the Isles, Nova Scotia saw the arrival of some 1500 German Protestants in the early 1750s. Taking into account these immigrants, Bumsted portrays (p. 86) Nova Scotia in the late 1760s, that is, before the arrival of the Loyalists, as a land characterized by ethnic and religious diversity. He sees the arrival of Loyalists as adding more to this diversity, with the “black Loyalists”. But we already saw that Blacks were a very small proportion of the total population, and that the Americans, both the New England “Planters” and the Loyalists, were internal migrants.

It can also be added that the immigrants from the Isles were all English-speaking, very closely related genetically and culturally, moving from the British Isles to an increasingly Anglicized Nova Scotia and a newly-created Anglicized Upper Canada. The Acadians added, and I suppose all the different groups did as well, an intra-European ethnic diversity, a French-British diversity combined with some German Aryans.

Conclusion

The most reasonable conclusion we can reach about immigration patterns in Canada’s history from 1763 to 1815 is that it was an internal migration movement within a British world in mainland North America, and across the Atlantic from the British Isles to British North America. The demographic growth that Upper Canada experienced from the 1760s, when it was barely populated by Europeans, to 1815, was quite substantial, from 14,000 inhabitants in 1791, to 70,718 in 1806, to 95,000 in 1814. The Loyalists undoubtedly played a key role in this demographic expansion. For example, in Upper Canada, in 1812, American inhabitants, or with American ancestry, made up about 80 percent of the population of 136,000. It is not exaggeration to say that the Loyalists were the original founders of Ontario, and the original internal migrants who did the most in the introduction of British culture and political institutions to Canada.

Similarly, in Nova Scotia, immigration from the British Isles, and internal migration from British/America contributed, to the demographic growth of Nova Scotia after the expulsion of the Acadians. We will see in a future article that immigration from the British Isles was to increase substantially after 1815. We will see, too, that these immigrants are best identified as pioneers or settlers. Outside the francophone communities, Anglo pioneers were creating a world of Canadian Anglo ethnicity, British rule of law, language, and religions, not a world of multiple cultures and races.

Sources

  • J.M. Bumsted, A History of the Canadian Peoples, Oxford, 2011, fourth edition
  • J.M. Bumsted, Canada’s Diverse Peoples, ABC CLIO, 2003
  • J.M.S. Careless, Canada: A Story of Challenge, St Martin’s Press, 1965
  • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, Harcourt, 2000, fourth edition
  • The Canadian Encyclopedia, Loyalists

Related posts:

Paul Fromm — “The Case Against Immigration”

Posted on by
Paul Fromm — “The Case Against Immigration”

https://youtu.be/Preview YouTube video Canada First Immigration Committee

Canada First Immigration Committee