Remember the kerfuffle about Canada's sinking birthrate and what should be done about it? All solutions proposed involved some form of government intervention, but while some seemed to prefer their social engineering to be about convincing more Canadian women to have babies, others argued that it should be about removing the barriers to meeting our current immigration targets.
Well, as of today it seems pretty clear which side of the fence our new Conservative government is coming down on:The previous Liberal government's target of 300,000 new immigrants to Canada each year was too high, Immigration Minister Monte Solberg said Wednesday.
If the issue is not wanting to overstrain immigrant-heavy cities like Toronto and Montreal, then why not provide incentives for new immigrants to move to places like Calgary--places that are just clamouring for more skilled workers? Perhaps the esteemed minister thinks the monthly $100 baby bonus from the new budget will make lots of women want to get a piece of the action, so we won't have to bother. It's a pity their kids won't be starting work for another nineteen or twenty years.
Appearing before a House of Commons committee, Solberg did not reveal exactly how many new immigrants he believes should be allowed into the country.
However, he said last year's level of about 260,000 new permanent residents was acceptable.
Also related: it sounds like there's a baby boom currently going on in Edmonton. Maybe we'll just have to start relying on the City of Champions to populate the rest of the country.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
More on birthrates and immigration
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It is a baby bonus in every sense of the word.
tdhstrategies has a good take on the immigration levels.
www.tdhstrategies.com/home.html
That "immigration talk" is nothing but BS:
http://patels-on-politics.blogspot.com/2006/05/john-ibbitson-riding-his-hobbyhorse.html
There is a hint of the old Reform Party rhetoric about lowering immigration targets. They weren't exactly keen on the increased targets instituted back under Sergio Marchi's tenure in the early Chretien years.
That said, there is also a certain irony that, having lambasted the Liberals for failure to meet their set immigration targets, their solution is to simply lower the desired number.
Also, to add my two cents. It's definitely a baby bonus - there are absolutely no strings on how that money will be spent, merely wishful thinking that it will be spent on childcare.
Don't be silly. What makes you think she has anything against stay at home parents?
Incidentally, when you say "There have been countless studies...", would you please care to cite some? There have been countless studies that children benefit from strong early education, and when parents are capable of doing that, that's a benefit. But if they aren't, a daycare program could help get these children the stimulation they need - an investment that would pay great dividends a few years down the line.
Why is it either-or in terms of debating daycare versus stay-at-home parents? Ideally we should be helping both or neither.
Jolinar,
I'm with James--why do Conservatives insist that helping stay-at-home parents on their terms precludes helping working parents on theirs? Why can't we come up with a programme that fits how different people choose to live, rather than trying to socially engineer people into one box?
Oh, and if you don't get what daycare has to do with immigration, you might try reading the post of James' that I linked to. Or even the post you responded to.
Jolinar,
Don't you realize that when you draw spurious connections between daycare and crime, you completely negate any lipservice you've paid to "if you want to send your child to daycare then no prob"? It's not "basic psychology"--this is a very complex issue that social scientists have been working on for decades and still don't have all the answers on. If you're really interested in being able to make generalized statements about this issue, you might want to familiarize yourself with the literature on the subject first. Your ridiculous oversimplifications aren't convincing anyone; they're making your side look like judgmental fools.
As for it not being a baby bonus, I'd love to hear the rationale for that one. Compare and contrast, please.
Post a Comment