Wayne Pfaff - March 18, 2006 EST (#39 of 39)
As I read the previous discussion,several things come to mind that I wish to put forward. The low birthrate in Canada (I believe) is a natural progression from economic pressures (try buying a house ), cutural values (my new car,family values). A fairly easy fix would be to eliminate manditory retirement entirely. While there should be safeguards on immigration for security/criminal reasons,there should not be standards. If you consider, within 3 years of landed status, I understand that these people could now bring into Canada any family without reguarding to standards. Also, could we not approach immigration with a graded approach eg. Work Visa for specific areas (matching immigrant to region)in Canada for a certain time (yrs) resulting with citizenship. Once settled into a region for a time, I feel most people would stay instead of moving to urban communities. Any restrictions on their rights of movement (which they have agreed to) would not be any worse than the restrictions to work placed on our citizens who have reached the age of 65. We could also subsidize them for small farming or industry.

Keith Mottram - March 16, 2006 EST (#38 of 39)

Immigration, Geopolitics and Canada’s Military Strategy

Certainly the global balance of power will change as global demographics change. Rising populations in Asia, the Middle East and Indo-China will tip the balance away from the American mercantilist empire. Some strategists predict a showdown between these rising nations and the American Forces. In such an event, Canada would once again have to determine its foreign policy obligation. As a democracy, that determination must necessarily reflect the ethno cultural makeup of Canadian society, which is a product of long-term immigration strategy. To give an example, Canada would be less likely to fight a war against China if a larger portion of the Canadian population was Chinese. For that reason, increasingly liberal immigration from China could lead to a more pacifist and multilateral foreign policy in the future.

There is another reason why changing demographics will impact Canada’s foreign policy. The International policy coordination from Citizenship and Immigration Canada suggests that conflicts arise out of scarcity; moreover, increasing global population (especially in the developing world) would increase competition for scarce resources. In the future, therefore, we can expect to see major conflicts fought over resources.

Canada’s role, if it is to be preventative, must be to help these countries experiencing population boom to increase production of survival goods. If Canada is going to prevent a war over drinking water in the Middle East, it can most easily do so by planning to deliver new supplies of fresh water to the region on the long term.

As a veteran of the Canadian forces I am especially sensitive to conflicts that occur in other parts of the world. Canada is a force for peace that must plan to tackle the problems of the future. Clearly, our immigration and our foreign development strategies have to be part of our strategy for global security.

Keith Mottram - March 16, 2006 EST (#37 of 39)
The only constant in the world is change. I am quite comfortable with the idea that the world of the future will not look like the world today.

The readings suggest that the third world's population growth is the largest. Western developed countries aren’t making enough babies. The center of power in the world may shift away from the United States. The world is changing and so are the people on it.

From a policy perspective, however, it is important not only to focus on the world and what will become of it, but also on Canada and what it should be doing. While the Government of Canada surely has some influence in the world, it can more readily effect change in the future of Canada and Canadians. What I certainly don't want to see is a competitive immigration system in the world. Many seem to view national population as a competitive sport, where indo-China is quickly catching up with Team America.

A possibility is that continuing globalization will make the state increasingly less important in the future. As the idealist school assumes, more trade and less regulation by governments on trade will increase the dependence of markets on each other. The power struggle between countries may not exist in the future the way it does now, and our policy choices should reflect our desired global outcomes as well as our national outcomes. One way to do this is to focus on human rights and refugees in our immigration policy. Canada can be a leader in the international push for a rule of law and human rights. It can do so through an immigration policy that removes people from the worst areas in the world. Our immigration strategy can be related to our foreign policy goals and our international leadership.

Whatever we decide to do, we should bear in mind that Canada is an idea. Countries come and go. As we determine the legacy of our country, we should decide what we want Canada to do to the world as it evolves.

James Bowie - March 16, 2006 EST (#36 of 39)
Immigration policy strategy offers a great opportunity for Canadian unity in two ways. Firstly, new Canadians tend to have a stronger national identity than old Canadians. Without getting into the causes for the lack of homegrown nationalism, this means that a large number of immigrants in Quebec can help the federalist side in a referendum.

(Jacques) Parizeau understood this well. He attributed his loss to "money and the ethnic vote." If the Government of Canada considers national unity to be in its national interest, then certainly it can use immigration policy to its advantage.

Secondly, the two solitudes have changed. John Ralston Saul, in a recent interview for 'Tout Le Monde En Parle,' said that the real division in Canada today is no longer a linguistic one. The division of Canadian society is rural/ urban. Increased urban population and agricultural struggles have resulted in a new national divide.

Paul Martin introduced a "new deal" for cities. Perhaps immigration policy offers the potential for a "new deal" for rural Canada related to immigration policy. If Canada's youth is flocking to the big cities, perhaps we can find people who will move into their positions.

Immigration, thus, offers Canada an opportunity to achieve unity through diversity. An increase in the number of new Canadians will help Canada achieve the harmony it has long aspired to.

James Bowie - March 16, 2006 EST (#35 of 39)
I've enjoyed reading the discussion so far. I'm happy to see that most people are very immigration-friendly and recognize the contributions that new Canadians make.

Canada needs immigrants. While I agree with a previous poster (February 20, 2006) that there is a hypocrisy in the policy of "Cherry Picking" professionals, it is a necessity of our current healthcare system. If we look at Ontario alone, 25% of practicing physicians have foreign credentials. Canadian doctors don't stay in Canada, yet Canada still needs doctors.

Health care is just one example of a field where we need foreign professionals. One of the priorities of the federal government over the last decade has been to form bilateral agreements with foreign governments to coordinate professions. This is very difficult, as training differs from country to country, and professional associations tend to be very territorial in order to regulate market supply of trained workers.

While we need to be egalitarian and just in our immigration policy, we need to continue to encourage skilled and qualified applicants to serve in needed areas. The focus of policy makers should not focus solely on how many immigrants Canada admits. It should also focus on how to serve Canada's interest with every new immigrant who arrives. This is a painstaking process that involves an analysis of professional associations country by country, but it is worthwhile if we want to have a competitive labour force.