Canada needs to double the flow of immigrants into the country to build up its population and drive economic growth, Liberal leadership candidate Maurizio Bevilacqua said yesterday.
In a bold proposal to throw open the doors to the country, Mr. Bevilacqua proposed that Canada expand its immigration system beyond filling holes in the labour market, bringing in far more foreign relatives of Canadians to expand the population.
His proposal calls for Canada to increase its immigration rate immediately to 1 per cent of the population, or about 325,000 people, rather than the roughly 240,000 a year it brings in now. By 2016, he would increase immigration to 1.5 per cent of the population, which would be about 490,000 people a year based on the current population.
While I appreciate the need for robust immigration, both on moral and practical terms, I find these types of proposals simplistic, and somewhat dangerous to be frank. There is an element of pandering in some of the candidates proposals, that fails to attach a practicality to how we view immigration. The question of immigration rarely factors in the environmental costs. With infastructures already over-extended, you could argue that in fact we need a pause to catch our breath.
In Ontario, municipalities are already so strapped for basic things such as water that they are draining the Great Lakes to quench their thirst. We are already at crisis stage with issues such as urban sprawl, garbage disposal, energy needs and basic transportation infastructure. In other words, the system doesn't have any more "potential" for growth. So, it is fine to favor robust immigration on a philosophical note, but it is equally foolhardy to advocate a policy that amplifies the core problems.
What I find particularly disturbing is this notion that zero population growth is a bad thing. I see nothing attractive in continued encroachment on "virgin" land as population expands. I see nothing attractive about increased use of resources to fuel a ballooning population. A new strip mall here, a new golf course there, a new subdivision over there- where does it end? While Mr. Bevilacqua's proposals may be popular, it guarantees out of control expansion, while the environment suffers the consequences. I think we need to slow down and not look at immigration as simply an economic question, that fails to recognize the underlying costs.
2 comments:
I have very similar qualms that you have, but agree with the overall principle behind Bevilacqua's proposal. Our core workers are heading into retirement and will push our ability to handle the heavy burden on our health and pension plans. But certainly a progressive federal gov't can increase immigration which reward municipalities and provinces for wise growth -- build density, recycle and rebuild on already settled land. Here in BC there is a proposal now that would see half a very fertile farming island turned into an industrial park. Instead, the local gov'ts should be forcing the developers to lay their plan in a more transport friendly and decaying business section of the same town. Its all about smart planning, but unfortunately developers and politicians at all levels are tangled up too closely.
" Its all about smart planning, but unfortunately developers and politicians at all levels are tangled up too closely."
That really is the root of the problem isn't it.
Post a Comment