Canada's Immigration Policy and possible future consideration.
I am not an expert in this area, so many of the things that I am going to write about are compiled through media sources and observation. I'm hoping that this does not lead to a discussion on the refugee crisis, or religious or ideological differences that perhaps should be kept in the thread on the horrible incident in Paris, or other threads dedicated to those kinds of discussion.
There are a couple of issues that pop up from time to time in other conversations, concerning immigration, that I thought may deserve it's own place to talk about. I'll touch on a couple of issues, and what I think may be a reasonable change in policy, to create discussion, because I am honestly curious to see the differing viewpoints.
1) Jobless Rate versus Increasing worker base
I have been a proponent of linking the Jobless Rate to Immigration for some time now. There is an ebb and flow to access to employment in Canada, that isn't represented in the rate of immigration, which is static. This not only puts pressure on the jobless, unemployed and underemployed already searching for work, but there is a promise to immigrants arriving in Canada that they will have gainful employment upon arriving.
Would a system that raises immmigration levels when workers are needed, and lower them when work is scarce make more sense when trying to sustain and increase the standard of living, for both existing citizens and immigrants?
2) Global Proportional Representation
Canada is a multicultural society. We pride ourselves on integration of culture into the fabric of our nation. The policy of immigration in Canada is based on global population, and not geographical representation. That some countries have a higher population base on which to apply for citizenship in Canada, seems to be dominating the multicultural nature of new Canadians. To be truly multiculural, and have that as a strength in the future, as it has been in the past, should we look at geography being the basis of immigration selection?
For example, would five areas, each with an equal quota on immigration, give us the diversity that we covet, and to some extent lack?
(Europe and the former Soviet)
(Asia)
(Mexico through South America)
(Africa, Australia and the Pacific Rim)
(The Grandfather set of America, Britain and France)
I was shocked to discover that Mexico was so far down on the list of countries from which we recieve immigrants. Brazil is even lower.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resourc...rmanent/10.asp
3) Targeting, and the Family
During and after World War II, there was an influx of scientists from Germany, and the rest of Europe into America, which had the effect of jump starting the States into an economic powerhouse of innovation. (This is a simplification, but one of the factors) Would it be wrong to target individuals that have skill sets that we require, as we require them? We do this already, to some extent, but I am reminded of the time, only a few years ago, that Calgary was in need of Police Officers, and we had an immediate influx of officers from the U.K. to fill the void. Can we target specifc skillsets in this way? We need far north mining operators, so throw them to the front of the immigration list, for example.
The other side of this argument is the definition of family. Immediate family would include wife, husband, children. Are we comfortable stopping there, in favour of specific immigrants that would add immediate benifit to the Canadian economy?
This would mean no more parents and grandparents, and some hard decisions by potential immigrants.
4) The Aging Population issue
Let us look at this practically. Baby Boomers are reaching the age of retirement, and for the next 20 years, there is going to be an increase in medical care and supportive services that come with a decrease in the worker base.
And in 20 years (I hate to be harsh) that problem kind of takes care of itself (I'm putting that delicately). Think about how fast the Harper reign in federal government went by. We are talking about the time between Jean Cretien, and now, being 23 years. Is it possible we are over reacting, and not thinking about what comes after?
If there is no control on immigration increase in the timeframe of 20 years, we are talking about (250Kx20) 5 Million, plus many of the children of those immigrants will be reaching employment age. The current number of baby boomers is around 9.5 million. The projection is that the loss to mortality will be slightly overcome by the immigration pool over this timeframe. This is where they got the original 250K number that we are working with. They are also estimating a continued decline in birthrate.
How big do we want our country to be in 20 years? I'm thinking the current number is fine, and slight increase or decrease based on occupational needs should dictate the number. There is also the issue that the vast majority will be of working age, and we will need to grow the economy to accommodate, when a large industry, that being the care of the aging population, will be radically shrinking.
Current vs. Future Immigration Policy
