Collaborative Proposal Creation
Create, improve and sponsor proposals in a respectful, fully bilingual environment. Grow proposals in the "Hothouse", for promotion to the "Workshop", to become official GPC policy.
- Proposal text
- Traditionally, environmentalists were opposed to population growth and the idea of perpetual economic growth - read "Limits to Growth" for example, or the work of environmentlists like Herman E Daly who proposed that eventually we had to have a "steady state economy". Yet, Canadian elites in business, media and government seem to think that bigger is better. Canada has a low birth rate rate, but so does the US and most other developed countries and even Japan and Italy are shrinking. Yet, the trudeau government has taken immigration policy to an extreme - doubling the already high 250,000 immigrants in 2015 under Harper to 500,000 in 2025, and in fact, we brought in 1.05 million in 2022. This seems in line with the goals of the Century Initiative, a bank and corporate funded group founded by Dominic Barton, thar want Canada to have 100 million people in 2100 - on the basis that bigger is better. Yet, global population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064 then drop by a billion by 2100. Canada has committed to a 30% cut in GHGs from 2005-2030 - we are behind this for 2 reasons - the expansion of oil & gas industry, and population growth. We would need a 50% per capita cut in GHGs instead of 30% because of growth, and the idea of a 45% total make is even harder and more expensive and likely impossible. Meanwhile, population growth has other impacts - particularly high housing prices and rents. We saw in 2020 what closing the borders does to rends and condo prices. But on top of this, adding more workers reduces wage growth, unemployment and productivity. The best way to increase productivity is through capital investment in business and R&D - but with high population growth, more capital goes into housing, infrastructure and growth. Canada grew by 1.4% in 2019, the US by half that at 0.7% and the other G7 countries were lower. We benefit from some immigration, but there are decreasing returns. High population growth leads to urban sprawl, more pollution and more need for canada to exploit natural resources for exports. Each immigrant we bring in is not poor but is usually educated or from the upper classes of poorer countries, but even so their environmental footprint could be 3 or 4 times higher. The world might need more Canada, but as the 2nd highest per capita GHG emitters, the world doesn't need more Canadians. Time for the GPC to oppose high immigration on economic and environmental grounds.
- Type of Proposal
- Public policy that the party would represent
- Objective / Benefit
- Raise Canada's GDP/capita, reduce the cost of living, and be greener by cutting immigration to pre-2015 levels or closer to US levels.
- If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
- N/A
- List any supporting evidence for your proposal
- On housing prices, see https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canadas-next-wave-of-homebuyers-set-to-add-more-fuel-to-overheated/ or https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-housing-and-immigration-policies-are-at-odds/ and see https://financialpost.com/news/economy/economists-not-politicians-immigration-alarms
- Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
- N/A
- Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
- Yes
- Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
- English
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Reference: PVC-PROP-2023-08-4126
Version number 1 (of 1) see other versions
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Trudeau's surge in immigration seems very badly planned, mainly because it was not accompanied by anything to encourage more housing construction, let alone smart housing construction (e.g. construction near transit lines, and using higher density to reduce costs). Normally such things are decided at a more local level, but an immigration surge of this magnitude needed a coordinated nationwide effort. Ironic that Trudeau, a big supporter of immigration, has so quickly destroyed support for immigration!
But given a well-executed plan for new homes, schools etc., I think it could have been fine. We should not be against improving living standards for potential immigrants, a European standard of living is sustainable for everyone on Earth if we build enough clean energy, and Canada itself is resource-rich. Skilled immigrants raise GDP, and could even raise GDP per capita if there's a well-executed plan to use that expertise to strengthen Canadian industries.
So yes, immigration should be slowed immediately because Trudeau was foolish. But housing shortages are not an _inevitable_ consequence, and third-world people do not need to be impoverished to save the planet.
How a surge could work: first prioritize immigrants skilled in construction and clean energy / decarbonization-related fields, in order to build housing, schools and sustainable industry -- and only once that's on track, increase immigration quotas.
On a personal note, wife and my brother in law were both denied visas to visit me in Canada. I could only get my wife here as a permanent resident (a longer process) and my brother-in-law was forced to come on a long-term student visa (a very expensive alternative!). We assume the reason for the denials was financial: while I have money, my family from the Philippines has little. The reason given is failure to "prove" that the person will return home after their visit, but a return flight is not considered "proof", my wife leaving her child behind wasn't considered "proof", and you are not allowed to post a bond as proof either. The "proof" they accept (though not consistently) seems to be that you have a lot of money or an expensive house or a high-paying job back home. So the system is structured to secretly discriminate on the basis of nationality, income and wealth -- secretly, as this is not written in law nor documented anywhere except in statistical patterns of denials. The government denying family get-togethers is a dick move; it's capricious and unfair. So I would like to see a resolution or bill to allow a suitable bond to be posted to bring in a visitor. e.g. I put $10,000 in a special account and get it back when my visitor leaves. This still discriminates against the poor, but less so than the current system (assuming a bond is only required if the visa would otherwise be denied), and when it comes to visitor visas I don't know if we can do much better than that.
Loading comments ...