Another day, another expert calling for a return to the good ol' days of immigration
I promised I would not beat this issue to death but yet another economist or policy wonk (this time from the U of Waterloo) demanding that we go back to a ‘points-based’ approach to immigration and focus only on the highest skilled talent recruitment into the country.
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of immigration will know that the point-based system was biased against small provinces and small urban/rural areas even in the big provinces.
If you look at the pathways to permanent residency in Canada, there are many that do not come with skills requirements - notably family class and refugees but others as well. Because of its existing immigrant base, a place like Toronto has attracted the lion’s share of its immigrants through pathways without skills (or ‘points’) or limited requirements. New Brunswick, by contrast, had not attracted many through those pathways.
Look at the following chart - just for fun. Toronto attracts more immigrants into lower wage occupations than in higher wage occupations. Immigrants, as a reminder, were not born in Canada so this doesn’t include the children of immigrants born here and in the workforce.
What has been done in recent years was trying to level the playing field - but that seems to be gone.
We need to think about immigration as a way to help address long term demographic challenges. The current, short sighted approach risks Canada’s economic future and, as I have said before, sets us up for what has happened in the U.S. where whole regions of the country feel deeply shafted.
Curtail immigration into places like Bathurst, Summerside, Corner Brook and Brandon and come back in 10 years. Get ready for your own version of Appalachia.
Thanks for this. I think the smaller province perspective is being lost in the national conversation.
I’m having trouble understanding your prescription—are you suggesting the Maritimes should focus on attracting low-paid workers? temporary residents?
Three things that don’t quite add up:
• NB consistently has around 14,000 people aged 25-54 unemployed and another 38,000 not in the labor force—likely some are disillusioned.
• NB is lacking in capital investment. Joël Blit argued in the Globe that readily available cheap labor disincentivizes capital investment.
• Housing affordability and access to social services have declined.
Shouldn’t our first priority be to get citizens into productive, well-capitalized jobs with wages that allow them to buy a home and raise a family (contributing to population growth), while also ensuring access to public services?
Once we achieve that, we can more confidently invite new residents to live here.
Some economic developers, not mentioning any names, championed strategies focused on population growth for their regions. Those strategies have been unusually successful for urban and rural areas. Now, some folks want to reverse that and return to a time of stagnation and decline. What am I missing?