Tag Archives: Population Institute of Canada

Why Is Trudeau Hyper-Driving Immigration When Our Economy Is Still In Covid-Shock?

Posted on by

Why Is Trudeau Hyper-Driving Immigration When Our Economy Is Still In Covid-Shock?

https://immigrationwatchcanada.org/2020/11/05/why-is-trudeau-hyper-driving-immigration-when-our-economy-is-still-in-covid-shock/

Why is Trudeau hyper-driving immigration when our economy is still in Covid-shock?

Along with economic devastation and the concomitant social consequences on physical and mental health, the COVID-19 pandemic has starkly shown the downside of urban densification. Dense populations provide viruses with more opportunities for transmission. Hence the directives to maintain social distance in public places and stay home as much as possible. The latter is surely a greater burden for someone living in a small apartment in a densifying urban zone than for someone who has a house on a wooded lot or lives near a park.

The economic shutdowns enforced during the early stages of the pandemic resulted in a peak unemployment rate of 13.7% in July, which fell to a still very high 9% by September. The employment situation for certain age groups is worse. The jobless rate for youth was 20.5% in September, down from 25.6% in August. Many Canadians, especially those in the hardest hit sectors, are dependent on government assistance to survive. With the predicted “second wave” upon us in parts of the country, and restaurants and many businesses forced to close or greatly reduce their activities, the employment situation remains uncertain.

The turmoil of 2020 provided governments with the perfect opportunity to reconsider their priorities, chief among which might be developing a pandemic preparedness plan and establishing, to the extent possible, self-sufficiency in critical supplies. And, not least, to rethink the economic paradigm of continuous growth.

In Canada, for the last several decades, the imperative of economic growth has been met by driving population growth through immigration. Per capita, Canada has the highest intake of immigrants among industrialized countries.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and closed borders, Canada’s intake of immigrants fell dramatically during 2020, and polls show that Canadians are in no rush to return to pre-pandemic levels. But Canada’s government thinks otherwise and, despite high unemployment and economic uncertainties, last week announced its plans to bring in 1.2 million immigrants over the next three years, starting with 401,000 in 2021. The intake would include skilled workers, family members and refugees.

Rather than worry about diversity and economic growth, we suggest that the Government of Canada and lobbyists like the Chamber of Commerce direct their focus on getting unemployed Canadians to fill those labour market gaps and providing training where needed.

Canada’s pursuit of economic growth through population growth is misguided from any perspective. Despite the rhetoric about Canada’s aging population, immigration has not changed the age structure of Canada.

The growth of Canada’s population through immigration has not increased the real earnings of the average Canadian.

Rather than GDP or population size, government policies should focus on equality levels, debt, job quality and life satisfaction. The monetized metrics used to represent growth, such as GDP and tax revenue, are not good indicators of well-being or fiscal viability. Over the past six decades, growth has failed to lower debt and inequality, increase housing affordability, improve job quality, or assure fiscal balance.

On the contrary, Canadians are carrying more debt than ever before and an increasing number are being priced out of the housing market, while low income earners in many communities cannot afford to pay the rent.

Canada’s growth also has negative environmental impacts. Canada is a high resource-consuming country and high per capita user of energy and producer of greenhouse gas emissions. Many immigrants come from countries with relatively low per capita GHG emissions, and the average GHG emissions of newcomers to Canada increase by a factor of four.

Our growing population and increasing urbanization result in the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat.

Growth boosters and those who profit from it tell us that growth is the solution to problems it has never solved.

But continuous population and economic growth are not only unsustainable. Whatever benefits they have go to the few (speculators, developers, bankers, businesses seeking cheaper labour or a larger market), while the social and environmental costs are borne by all.

Madeline Weld, Ph.D.
President, Population Institute Canada
Tel: (613) 833-3668
Email: mail@populationinstitutecanada.ca
www.populationinstitutecanada.ca

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Government’s Proposal to Ramp Up Immigration Levels is Misguided

Posted on by

Government’s Proposal to Ramp Up Immigration                                    Levels is Misguided

Madeline Weld, President
Population Institute of Canada
The Canadian government announced in October that it would significantly increase the intake of immigrants to Canada for each of the next three years, with minimum levels of 300,000 each year. Since 1990, Canada has been accepting approximately 250,000 – and sometimes more – newcomers each year. In 2017, 75% of Canada’s population growth resulted from immigration.
Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen argues that the government’s proposal for even higher levels of immigration would promote economic growth, overcome skills shortages and meet the demographic challenge of an aging population.
Population Institute Canada believes that economic and demographic arguments for growing Canada’s population are on shaky ground, while the negative environmental consequences of its rapid growth are very much in evidence, and growing. We contend that there are no good reasons to grow Canada’s population and many compelling environmental reasons to stabilize and reduce it.
It is true that Canada’s growing population over the past few decades has resulted in a bigger economy. There has, however, been no growth in per capita wealth. The real earnings of the average Canadian worker have not changed, while those of the poorest Canadian workers have fallen.
Economists Herb Grubel and Patrick Grady have calculated that immigrants cost the government $30 billion more in services each year than they pay in taxes. And Immigration Minister Hussen admits that his proposed increase in immigrant intake will cost at least an additional one billion dollars in resettlement expenses each year.
Already, large numbers of young people, many with significant debt loads, face a very challenging job market, one which Finance Minister Bill Morneau has called a “job churn.” Many job seekers, especially young and new Canadians, have few prospects of secure employment and must work multiple contract or part-time positions. They can only dream of better wages, a steady schedule and paid sick days. How, PIC asks, will adding hundreds of thousands of additional job seekers improve the prospects of these Canadians, when increasing automation, the loss of factory jobs to developing economies, and outsourcing are already putting significant pressures on Canada’s workforce?
It has also long been recognized that the problems associated with an aging population cannot be solved through immigration. Among studies showing that immigration, even at high levels, has little effect on Canada’s age structure is a 2006 analysis by the C.D. Howe Institute (No Elixir of Youth: Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young). It found that to keep a constant dependency ratio, Canada would have to have an unrealistically high intake of immigrants and by 2050 would be taking in 7 million immigrants per year and have reached a population of 165 million. Due to the rapid and unsustainable growth of the human population during the 20th century, all countries will have to deal with an aging population during the coming decades.
In addition, the dependency ratio as currently calculated (number of workers for every person 65 years and older) merits re-examination. No doubt many retired grandparents over 65 years old are helping to subsidize their grandchildren. The fees paid by elderly people in retirement residences support many workers and economists anticipate a large intergenerational transfer of wealth as aging baby boomers die. All these factors complicate the issue of the dependency ratio and suggest that it is simplistic to use number of people over 65 versus the number working as a sole determinant.
Furthermore, many people 65 years of age and older still work, some because they must, others by choice. Thus, designating every person a dependent at 65 is not realistic. It is also relevant to note that significant numbers of newcomers – and of the proposed increase in intake – are in the family reunification category. Many of these are the parents or grandparents of earlier immigrants and are therefore older than the average Canadian and more likely to require the healthcare services paid for by working Canadians.
Clearly, the economic arguments for relentlessly driving population growth through high levels of immigration do not hold up to scrutiny. There is also an increasing awareness that the size of a country’s economy or its GDP is an inadequate measure of its people’s well-being. As Canada’s population grows, more Canadians are having to contend with ever more crowded cities, increased traffic congestion, densification that has eliminated greenspace but not urban sprawl, increasingly stressed infrastructure, rising housing costs, and longer waiting times for healthcare and other government services. The resources of the cities in the southern belt of Canada where most Canadians live, and almost all immigrants settle, are as overstressed as those in cities anywhere in the developed world. What’s more, a growing population is putting enormous pressure on our irreplaceable farmland and very limited fruit-growing areas.
It is wrong to consider Canada as an “empty” country when so much of it is unsuitable for human habitation or incapable of supporting a dense population. The very high per capita “ecological footprint” of Canadians has already badly eroded our biocapacity per individual. For example, the latest (2017) Living Planet Report by the World Wildlife Fund shows a serious and significant decline in wildlife populations as our growing population and demands for space and resources convert wildlife habitat to human uses.
Our finite planet cannot support a continuously growing human population and expanding economies. Canada, too, is finite. And yet as a direct result of government policy, our population is growing as rapidly as the global average of 1.12% annually. The policy to keep expanding our economy by growing our population through immigration is no more sustainable than any other Ponzi scheme. Nor is the government’s planned immigration policy supported by a majority of Canadians – an Angus Reid poll conducted in 2017 found that 57% of Canadians thought that Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees (see page 15 of document).
Before increasing immigration levels, PIC believes it incumbent on government to assess the impact of current levels of immigration and the impact that higher levels would have, not only on the economy and the revenue and costs for the government, but also on the environment, climate
Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,