by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
august 13, 2004
Tom Kent, a former advisor to the late Prime Minister Lester Pearson, penned an article that appears in the current issue of Policy Options, a publication that he helped found. Entitled, In the National Interest, Kent outlines what he sees as necessary social policies that Canada needs for the 21st century. although he writes about medicare, taxation and a host of other issues, his suggested immigration policies have received the most attention.
Kent argues that Canadian immigration policy should focus on younger people, especially young families with children as well as orphans. He makes a good point that children, although they will initially cost the federal government more, will have long lives in which to contribute to Canadian society. In addition Kent argues, undoubtedly correctly, that children are better at adapting to new situations than there elders are.
Tom Kent at least acknowledges what the Canadian government and immigrant and refugee advocates never will--that not all immigrants are equal. While the government and their "stakeholders" argue about increases in immigration being beneficial, they disregard the age factor. To the government, it is only the totals that matter--an immigrant is an immigrant is an immigrant. The reality is that there is a large economic difference between a skilled worker in his or her 20s or 30s and people who are sponsored as grandparents. as long as the Family Class is given the prominence that it is, any increase in the numbers will be neutral at best when it comes to the effect of immigration upon the Canadian economy.
Kent makes the argument that is often made about the numbers of immigrants. He believes that immigration is needed because our birth rate is declining and the baby boom generation is nearing retirement and more people are needed to keep Canada productive and sustain our quality of life. Many people make this argument with absolutely no facts to back up the need for greater numbers.
If economic and social development were dependent upon numbers, the best countries in the world to live in would be India and China. and we know from empirical evidence that population per se does not affect the quality of a country. as well, citizens and permanent residents have a constitutional right to reside anywhere in the country. We know that the vast majority of people who come to Canada choose to live in major cities--Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. People from other countries could be allowed to come to Canada on the condition that they reside in a certain area of the country and if they comply with the condition, they could be eligible for landing. But the government does not have the will to set up such programs. In any event, those who came to designated areas would have to be allowed to apply for permanent residency status at some point and then they would be free to move to where they wanted to go in the first place. So merely increasing the size of the population for the sake of increasing it will not necessarily achieve the objectives that Kent and others are trying to obtain.
Kent makes no mention of any technological changes that will take place in the future. as we become more of an information-based society, less people will be required. To ignore changes in technology is what the proponents of global warming do. They paint doom and gloom scenarios of what the end of this century will be like without any consideration of technological changes that will occur in the next 95 years. It is not necessarily true that the country will need to keep the population levels up. But it is easy to ignore technology. as Saudi Sheikh Zali Yamani said in the 1970s when speaking about the oil crisis--the Stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.
Kent would also like to see more refugees and "victims of conflict" brought to Canada. While this is admirable from a humanitarian point of view, it does little to make up for a lack of potential workers. Skilled workers who have led stable lives are the ones who would make the greatest contribution to the economy--not legitimate refugees who lived under appalling circumstances.
From a political point of view, the Liberals will never go for concentrating on children as a source of immigration. The Liberals want people who can obtain citizenship as soon as possible so they can vote for the Libs. Bringing in three-year-olds will not do the current crop of MPs any good.
and naturally, as a good Liberal and liberal, Tom Kent doesn’t say a word about terrorism, crime or Canada’s security when discussing his vision of immigration. Typically Canadian, eh!