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
WHEREAS Canada’s population growth has been the highest in the G7 (double the US rate in 2019) because Canada drastically increased immigration rates after 2015, likely to meet the goal of 100 million in 2100, based on the corporate-funded Century Initiative (target of 500,000 immigrants/year, or 1.25% of population) . This is neither environmentally nor economically sustainable.
BE IT RESOLVED that Canada needs to reduce population growth to modest levels (i.e., cut permanent economic immigration, Temporary Foreign Workers & foreign students, after the numbers of refugees and family class immigrants have been determined).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Canada's population should only grow by the minimum or modest amount necessary to meet our demographic and economic needs (maximum 0.5% of population).
Type of Proposal
Public policy that the party would represent
Objective / Benefit
Canada must have an immigration policy that is compassionate, but when people move to Canada, their environmental foot increases, including raising increasing Canada's GHG emissions, increasing our dependence on resource extraction, and increasing urban sprawl and loss of wildlife habitat.
While GDP is a flawed measure, we need to aise Canada's GDP/capita, reduce the cost of living, and be greener (saving farmland, lower emissions, etc.) by cutting immigration to pre-2015 levels or closer to US levels. Canadian might want our country to be more generous than our neighbour, but there is no justification for canada to grow at a rate double that of the US, or more.
Our immigration policy to be designed to reassure Canadians that it:
Is environmentally sustainable
Will not increase unemployment
Will not lead to underemployment
Will not be inflationary
Will not increase home prices or rents
Will not lower GDP/capita, particularly for people already here with permanent status/citizenship.
Will not mean major personal sacrifices by Canadians or see us fall farther behind the US on GDP/capita or their expectation of a middle class lifestyle
Will not add to inequality/make the rich richer at the expense of the rest of us.
If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
N/A
List any supporting evidence for your proposal
Traditionally, environmentalists were opposed to population growth and the idea of perpetual economic growth - read "Limits to Growth" for example, or the work of environmentalists 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.
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
This proposal is being evaluated
Posted on the Continuous Motion Development Vote tab for member review prior to the all-member vote.
Amendments (1)
-
Created at
16/06/2024 -
- 2
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
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Mr. John Boddy
Hi Brian, thank you for the positive input. Of course the policy should be flexible to allow for changing circumstances.
I think a central part of my proposal is that we should plan our population growth - not just leave it up to chance.
Hence my emphasis on studying the environmental carrying capacity of a region, or bio-region, so that we can plan for an optimal population for each region in Canada.
If we want to be good environmental stewards of Canada we need to do this planning. For example, many areas with the best agricultural land, and with low levels of natural land, are also the areas that are facing the most population growth (Southern Ontario, southern Quebec, Vancouver area and others). This is not good planning from an environmental point of view.
So a population policy would need to specify the research that needs to be done so as to protect these agricultural lands and natural lands, as well research ways to reduce overpopulation in these areas.
My goal is to have a detailed population plan for Canada, not to leave it up to random events.
Hi John:
It may be difficult to plan where growth occurs occurs across Canada, given provincial governments, internal migration, Quebec wanting only francophone immigrants, and not knowing which industries will do well. Birth rates are likely to remain low so natural growth is less of an issue, but for years the Atlantic provinces lost people to Ontario, then to Alberta.
The federal government allows provinces to nominate some immigrants, but Quebec wants more control. Nova scotia's government has the crazy idea of doubling population, so we get into messy federal/provincial arguments.
Alberta is growing rapidly, but the Prairies are most prone to drought, have little water reserves, and global warming will make things worse and even less predictable - but we should be planning things like for rising ocean levels and droughts, and yes, there should be a plan at least to shift population away from where it is less viable or we want to protect habitats.
For me the problem is that so much growth is occurring in a a couple of areas - GTA and lower mainland, and should be more spread out even within BC and ON. Employment growth means access to land at reasonable costs and so manufacturing is leaving the GTA - such as aerospace and autos.
But I think we also need to question population growth as an overall economic policy or strategy. Having more people doesn't make us each richer on average, it mainly benefits those who are already rich and in increasing inequality, but there are certainly environmental costs to population growth. Some people want de-growth and question increasing consumption - that is a tough sell with voters but we have to show people we can live better lives without material sacrifices to our standard of living, and we might actually be better off if we plan ahead and don't do things that will cost us more later - like moving people away from places where we exceed local carrying capacity or that are prone to floods, droughts, etc.
The thing with immigration/population growth is this: we can always bring in more people later if we need to - we cannot reduce population once we add people. From an economic and environmental perspective it is better to have lower population growth, without even touching the touchier issues related to social or cultural impacts.
Hi Brian,
you make me smile - not the GPO of 2004. The GPC has changed into a progressive social issues party. It used to be a party where a Green philosophy, or even ideology, was the driver behind all policy.
As a social issues party the Green philosophy has taken a back seat, so we see this opposition to any form of population planning being wrongfully labelled as "anti-immigration" etc...
Rather than inlcude your capitalized statement, I think it would be better to just emphasize that the GPC having a population plan is a central aspect of being Green. That it is violates the core tenets of a Green party to NOT have a population plan.
Just keep the focus on population planning, protecting the environment, maximizing quality of life and standard of living by avoiding over-population, at the national, provincial and local levels (bio-regions).
It is a core Green tenet that to maintain a healthy economy and environment we need to balance population levels with the carrying capacity of the ecosystem.
I think statements like these cut to the heart of what it means to be Green.
Thanks,
John
I generally agree with what you wrote, but here is the real problem.
This is not the Green Party of 2004. Reasoned proposals about population growth don't stand a chance against knee-jerk reactions that any call for reducing immigration is xenophobic or racist, and we have have a wide open door to immigrants out of compassion for people who live in poorer countries. You see this in some of the comments here, so I am not optimistic about it passing if it is made longer, even if the additions make the policy more complete if implemented.
I am almost tempted to put right in the resolution, in capital letters "IT IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY RACIST OR XENOPHOBIC TO CALL FOR CUTS TO IMMIGRATION OR POPULATION GROWTH. IMMIGRATION POLICY SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON VAGUE FEELINGS OF COMPASSION FOR PEOPLE WHO WISH TO COME HERE (WHO ARE LIKELY FROM THE RICHEST CLASSES OF THEIR COUNTRIES, NOT THE POOREST) - OUR POLICY SHOULD BE BASED ON MAKING CANADA SUSTAINABLE AND TO MEET OUR COMMITMENTS TO REDUCE GHGS. LEAVE COMPASSION TO OUR FOREIGN AID POLICY.
Even then, the problem is there are people on both the far left and far right whose ideology is to have open borders, and this might not be enough to overcome the ones in the left who are in the GPC.
Hi Brian,
you will find me agreeing with almost all of what you say. Especially the need to question population growth as an economic policy or strategy. Fundamentally, Green economics cannot be based upon population growth as an economic strategy. Perhaps that should be put into the proposal
By the way, I registered for the June 5 workshop - I guess these are online ? (if so I will have to get my camera audio working !)
John
Loading comments ...