The key to rural immigration in New Brunswick

Lawrence Solomon
Keynote address to the Rendez-vous 2004 Immigration Conference, New Brunswick
June 24, 2004

As many of you know, most western countries are facing serious population decline because they have a low birth rate and are unable to attract immigrants. For example, demographers predict that Italy’s population may drop by 28% by the middle of this century, leading to great fears there of a declining economy and an inability to maintain social services. Germany and France and other European countries are also set for declines. The European Union’s population could drop by 80 million due to what Europeans call Fortress Europe – their bias against immigrants.

Europeans are not alone in being unable to come to grips with these fundamental economic and social dangers facing them. Japan’s population faces a similar decline because of its inability to accept immigrants. These countries not only face an uncertain future, they also suffer today because of their stagnant or declining population, as can be seen in their stagnant economies.

New Brunswick’s government has recognized this danger. It doesn’t want this province to be a Fortress New Brunswick, and it is taking steps to head it off. Hats off to New Brunswick’s government, and to the organizers of this wonderful gathering!

And hats off to all the participants in this room. You understand better than most the challenges awaiting us.


We have all learned in our history books that Canada’s openness to immigration has made us a great nation, and that without immigration we would not have developed as we have, into one of the most prosperous citizenries in the world, and into one of the world’s largest economies.

Everyone in this room has learned of the importance of immigration to our nation’s development, but we forget the type of immigrant that has made Canada great, the type of immigrant to whom, above all, we owe our prosperity.

It is the poor immigrant. Poor and mostly unskilled immigrants from the British Isles; poor and mostly unskilled immigrants from Continental Europe, poor and mostly unskilled immigrants from Russia and eastern European countries, from China, Japan, India and other Asian countries.

Poor and mostly unskilled immigrants came to this country in the millions in the late decades of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th. Accepting so many people led to numerous upsets, yet in hindsight it has become clear that we absorbed these waves of poor immigrants with remarkable ease, and in short periods of time, although they sometimes came into this country at an astounding rate, in numbers that today would seem to be overwhelming.

The immigrants came to our cities and they came to our rural areas, and they were settled without the benefit of the major government programs that are now available.

How were so many so successfully settled? Here is one account from almost a century ago, 1907, from Dr. Peter H. Bryce, Chief Medical Officer of the Department of the Interior in Ottawa. As students of Canadian history in this audience might know, Dr. Bryce would go on to become one of Canada’s most celebrated citizens. Here, in a speech to the Empire Club of Canada, he described what happened to newcomers whose skills were in great demand – these were artisans such as mechanics and wood workers – and he described what happened to others, who had little but strong backs to offer the new country. Here is how he explained it:

. . . the British who were not artisans have been sent to the farmers of the country, the artisans have been found work here [in the city] and in many other places, and the community is constantly crying out for more help. The Italian has almost wholly gone out on to railway work. We have then left 2,000 Hebrews, and some of these have gone into the [northern forested] Temiskaming district and begun settlements there. The balance have, we assume, remained in this or other cities.

The short answer for where the immigrants went – those with fewer skills were streamed to the rural areas, as farm hands or manual labourers; those with more skills, found city jobs. Immigrant communities largely stayed together.

In part, this division of immigrant by skills as well as ethnicity suited the needs of society – the skilled artisans were needed in cities and could find ready work there while the unskilled would have had more difficulty.

But this division of labour also made a virtue of necessity, because most of the skilled people wouldn’t have remained on the farm – most of them wanted to be in the cities. Even the unskilled immigrants sent to the farms often left the farms, on pain of deportation if they couldn’t find work elsewhere. And, of course, many Canadian-born farmers also were migrating to the cities.

That was, in fact, one reason that new immigrants were sent to the farm. Rural depopulation was then underway, even more than we see today. The authorities reasoned, quite correctly, that poor unskilled immigrants, grateful to be in a country that offered them opportunities, could find work in the rural areas, and might actually stay there.

This lesson from history holds the key to understanding immigration to New Brunswick’s rural areas today, especially when we remember that immigrants are not passive inputs to an economy but active, thinking human beings – in fact, they are unusually independent human beings, because unlike most of their countrymen, they had the gumption to leave behind the familiar surroundings of their upbringing – their friends and families, their possessions – all to cross an ocean in the hopes of finding a better life.

When the great waves of immigrants came to North America a century and more ago, most weren’t coming to escape religious persecution, and they didn’t choose North America randomly. They were coming to a continent that paid the highest real wages in the world. That is why they came here. Europe was stagnant, Asia was stagnant, North America was booming.

Immigrants came here on fairly reliable information. Yes, we did recruit Europeans to come to Canada, yes, we did send lecturers across the ocean to speak of our virtues, we did advertise “Free Homes for the Millions” for those who would come.

But the best advertisements were the immigrants themselves, immigrants that had already settled in Canada and wrote home saying that this truly was a promised land, and that anyone who wasn’t afraid of work could prosper here. Those in Europe who were considering crossing the ocean trusted the reports that they were getting and they came here in the knowledge that they could prosper. They traveled, then as now, from poor region to rich region to prosper.

Today, those poor people mostly have nowhere to go. The few affluent countries that remain open to immigration – and these are mostly the English-speaking democracies, Canada, the U.S., Australia, the U.K. – all discriminate against the poor and unskilled. Everyone wants rich immigrants, or investor-immigrants or business immigrants or well-educated immigrants or highly skilled immigrants – we call them economic immigrants, as if those who work as labourers or farmers or domestics don’t contribute to the economy.

We have forgotten that it was the poor and unskilled immigrant, more than all others, that made our country great through their back-breaking work, through their entrepreneurial talents, and through the dreams they instilled in their children. The mass markets that immigrants created gave our industries a growing market, and created a self-sufficient economy. The poor and unskilled immigrant played a defining role in our nation’s development.

For Canada as a whole today, discriminating against poor immigrants limits our potential. By shutting out the majority of potential newcomers – many if not most people in this room would not be worthy enough to satisfy Ottawa’s point system – we have made it difficult for ourselves to attract immigrants – in fact, Canada has difficulty meeting our immigration quotas because we discriminate against the poor.

As bad as this is for Canada as a whole, for New Brunswick, this policy is much worse. For New Brunswick, the policy of discriminating against poor immigrants not only makes it difficult to attract immigrants in any numbers, it makes it all-but impossible. As it is, the affluent or skilled people who do come overwhelmingly settle in cities, chiefly in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and with Alberta’s growing wealth, also in the Calgary-Edmonton corridor.

Under current immigration policy, the less affluent cities of New Brunswick are more or less shut out, and New Brunswick’s rural areas fare even worse. All told, New Brunswick attracts about one-third of one percent of Canada’s immigrants. The rich and the skilled haven’t been making New Brunswick their destination – such immigrants tend to go to places that are more affluent, or that have large markets for their skills. Under current immigration policy, New Brunswick is slated for eventual population decline, just like European countries, because New Brunswick also has a low birth rate.

One reason for this conference is to improve the economy of New Brunswick. As we have heard this afternoon, New Brunswick faces a serious shortage of skilled workers, a shortage that is expected to grow worse in future as the population ages and retires. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates 15,000 jobs are going begging in the small business sector alone. New Brunswick’s youths, who traditionally provided new entrants to the labour force, are declining in numbers. Young workers are especially hard to find in rural areas, because young people in rural areas are doing what young people have always done – gone to the cities looking for better opportunities. This is one reason that New Brunswick farms have had difficulty getting the help they need.

We have also heard this afternoon that skilled immigrants can help meet our demand for skilled workers, if we can only devise programs to bring skilled immigrants here, and in this I agree.

But unskilled immigrants can also ease the problem of too-few-skilled workers, and much more easily and quickly, by freeing up the time of existing New Brunswickers who have skills but are out of the workforce for one reason or another: These already skilled New Brunswickers may have children or ailing parents to look after, and no one to turn to for help. They may be tradespeople who can’t find low-cost assistants to do their heavy work, and so are themselves unemployed or underemployed. They may be talented youngsters who are staying on the family farm until their parents can get the help they need. Increasingly, they will be retired people in their sixties and seventies, who with a personal assistant could return to the workforce.

All these problems in the workforce can be eased today by allowing low-skilled immigrants to come to New Brunswick, in the same the way that low-skilled immigrants have historically eased labour shortages elsewhere.

Let immigrants come as house cleaners, as nannies, as cooks, as gardeners, as personal servants, as caregivers – immigrants have long played domestic roles, looking after households while releasing a family member to do higher value jobs that require more skill, or that require familiarity with the culture, as might be the case in a retail position that requires dealing with the public.

Let immigrants come in as farm hands, freeing youths and others from the rural areas. Let immigrants come in as labourers, to work in construction, or as blue collar workers on assembly lines.

Let poor and uneducated immigrants come in and make a new life for themselves, and most will do what most poor and uneducated immigrants have always done – they will upgrade their own skills, and also scrimp and save to put their children through school, producing the next generation of skilled workers.

This is what happened a century ago, and this is what happened a half century ago, after World War II, when Canada welcomed large numbers of unskilled immigrants from poor European countries such as Portugal, Greece and Italy. Seventy-five percent of these immigrants filled low-income jobs – the women became seamstresses and domestics, the men worked in construction or in maintenance. This generation was uneducated, often agricultural workers and other rural folk from small villages. Today these immigrants have become affluent, more affluent than Canadian-born citizens, and their children have university educations in the same proportion as the rest of society.

The knock against poor and unskilled immigrants is that they might get sick, or go on welfare, or otherwise not generate the revenue to justify the social services that they might require. This is a familiar concern – in fact, when Dr. Peter Bryce in 1907 described how recent immigrants were being settled, he was answering those who objected to immigrants on similar grounds. Immigrants often had tuberculosis and other ailments, immigrants often required relief, immigrants often lived in crowded conditions, and couldn’t speak the language and came with strange customs. “Those foreigners . . . have proved themselves very good citizens,” Dr. Bryce found, “and have come up very largely to our ideals of thinking and doing. . . . We have absorbed, perfectly I think, the thousands [of foreigners who have come here.]”

What Canada could do perfectly then, when it absorbed huge numbers, it can certainly do perfectly today, when the challenges are far less daunting. For New Brunswick, this is not an option but a necessity – without immigrants, New Brunswick’s population will surely shrink and its prospects in future will surely diminish. Without large-scale immigration in the past, in fact, New Brunswick has had a tougher time than other provinces. New Brunswick’s last large wave of immigrants came before Confederation, and after Confederation, well into the 20th century, the federal government programs that provided free land and otherwise encouraged people to come here focused on settling central and western Canada, depriving Eastern Canada of the economic activity that accompanies immigrants and putting Eastern Canada at a disadvantage relative to other regions in Canada.

It is time that New Brunswick got its share of immigrants, so important to making an economy grow. But it won’t happen if New Brunswick limits its sights to high-skilled immigrants. Today, the whole world is competing for high-skilled immigrants. Getting them to come to New Brunswick, especially to rural New Brunswick, is easier said than done.

But none of the affluent countries competing against us for immigrants want the low-skilled immigrant as a citizen. Canada, and New Brunswick, would have the field to themselves by opening the doors to poor immigrants.

The benefits to New Brunswick would be many. Economic growth would be spurred, not only because labour shortages would be met but also because the immigrants come with wants that need to be met. International trade will also be enhanced – study after study shows that immigrants use their contacts in their home country to establish trading relations.

The rural sector would especially benefit, as farmers start producing for a larger local population, and as they start producing the niche crops that immigrants need for their traditional dishes. To give you an idea of how big an economic factor those niche crops can become, consider this: The farms in the Greater Toronto Area produce 80% more agricultural produce than does all of New Brunswick. Those small farms don’t export commodity crops, they mostly produce for niche markets, none of which is more important than the immigrant market. The farmers in the Greater Toronto Area grow wheat, but not the kind seen on the Prairies. The Toronto area farmers grow varieties that Toronto’s Ethiopians and Somalis can’t get in the local supermarkets. The farmers near Toronto grow cabbages, a variety that Romanians and other eastern European immigrants were accustomed to in their homeland. Products such as these, which start off selling only in ethnic stores, then find their way into ethnic restaurants and specialty shops, creating new markets for local farmers.

Family farms do well where immigrants congregate. Family farms are on the increase in Alberta near Edmonton, Calgary and Red Deer because of the immigrants who have been coming to Alberta. Family farms have been on the increase in British Columbia, thanks largely to Chinese and Punjabi farmers who settled near Vancouver in the fertile Lower Mainland. Chinese-speaking farmers own more than half of the province’s mushroom farms and more than one-quarter of its vegetable farms.

Farmers need large markets. Rich immigrants, by themselves, can’t provide them. We need poor immigrants too, and poor immigrants, unlike the rich variety, are available in great supply. They will help our rural areas prosper and they will help our urban areas prosper.

And they will help our country prosper.

Thank you.

Related articles and speeches:
Remitter revolution
Elitist immigration policy bars poor, unskilled workers
New immigrants enrich Canadian cities
Adding immigrants will improve the environment
Mongrel nations
The next great power
Give us your healthy, your wealthy, your wise

Posted in Immigration | Leave a comment

Remitter revolution

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
June 10, 2004

Our generosity to the Third World grows and grows, with more money leaving our shores each year to do good works abroad.

Miraculously, this new aid is delivered with very little waste or overhead – not the 30% to 50% all too common to aid delivered via governmental aid agencies or even the 20% in overhead that worthy charities such as Oxfam manage – but 10%, 5% or even less. Even more miraculously, virtually all of the money goes precisely where it does great good. None of this money is squandered on showcase projects named after the local despot, none of this money is lost to corruption, all of it goes to recipients at the grassroots, to pay for medical or educational needs, to help with housing and other living costs or as micro-loans to help them start small businesses.

This successful method of delivering aid occurs through what are called remittances – the cash transfers immigrants send to their loved ones in their country of birth. These remittances have been growing rapidly over the last decade and now reach about US$100-billion a year, according to figures released at this week’s G8 Summit, dwarfing the $50-billion in foreign aid Western governments send to poor countries.

In many developing countries, in fact, foreign aid is either negligible or entirely absent. Remittances, in contrast, have been life-savers. A recent study produced by the Inter-American Development Bank that focused on remittances from the United States – by far the largest source of such funds – highlights the difference remittances make. The study found that the 10 million regular remitters among U.S. Latinos on average send about 10% of their household income to their country of birth. That 10% makes all the difference in the world for the recipients.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, remittances represent 50% to 80% of the recipients’ household income, depending on the country. Counting just the official figures transmitted through banks and other lending institutions, this region received $38-billion in 2003, mostly from Canada and the United States (large amounts are also transferred informally, via friends and other informal networks).

Remittances now underpin the economies of many countries. A World Bank study last year of 74 low- and middle-income countries found remitters reduce the proportion of people living in poverty in a Third World country by about 1.2% for every 10% increase in the country’s remittances. Other studies estimate that every dollar of remittance injected into a local economy leads to an increase in local GDP of $2 to $3, as recipients spend the money buying local goods and services and meeting their basic needs.

Remittances come partly from recent immigrants who plan to return to the country of birth but mostly from permanent residents – “New Americans” or “New Canadians,” as they call themselves on this continent – who often continue to send money back to their birth countries more than a decade after making North America their home. Typically they send money back home regularly, often monthly to replace the income they would have provided had they remained in their former country. But when disaster strikes their homeland – as happened earlier last month when the Dominican Republic was deluged with floods – immigrants open their often meager wallets further, to provide a collective outpouring of emergency relief for their countrymen back home.

Those small sums immigrants send add up to a large slice of the GDP for many countries. Nicaragua is an extreme case, with 24% of its GDP coming from remittances. But many countries also log substantial levels of remittances. In the fast-modernizing Philippines, for example, remittances have been increasing at a rate of about 5% per year, making them the country’s single biggest source of capital and accounting for about 10% of the Filipino GDP. The Philippines are on track to pull in about $8-billion in remittances in 2004.

Because Filipinos understand the importance of remittances to the Philippine economy – these transfers are credited with maintaining a stable peso and spurring economic growth and prosperity – the Philippines treats remitters as heroes with a mission. Political leaders from the Prime Minister on down laud remitters’ service to the country. And to prepare the next generation of remitters, potential emigrants are encouraged to upgrade their skills at home, the better to market their services abroad. Where once the ranks of remitters were dominated by low-skilled nannies and factory workers, higher-paying remitters have become common. Nurses, lab technicians, engineers, teachers, and other professionals – typically trained in the Philippines – now account for 35% of Filipino remitters.

The country with the highest proportion of professional remitters, however, is India. And those remitters, many of them in software and other high-tech industries, send home more money than any other country. This sophisticated group of remitters – two-thirds of Indians in North America do their banking online – has just pointed the way to more progress in encouraging remittances.

Although the cost of sending remittances has come down dramatically, in some countries the cost remains high, discouraging many remitters, or leading them to postpone remittances until a travelling friend can relay them in person. To increase the usefulness of the remittance system and put more money in the hands of recipients, yesterday’s G8 meeting struggled with the challenge of lowering remittance costs.

Also yesterday, on the other side of the globe, the Indian Overseas Bank showed the G8 how to do it: It launched “e-Cash Home,” an Internet-based online remittance service that will allow Indians abroad to remit money back home – to any bank account in India – for as little as $4. Rather than the 40- to 60-day wait that is now customary, Indian recipients will now receive their remittances in just four days. The Indian service will start in the United States, then roll out to Canada and other nations with Indian remitters. Look for similar rollouts to occur in the Philippines and other remittance-receiving nations. And look for remittances to do ever more good, as more of the remittances make it to recipients and as immigration continues to increase.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe

Related articles and speeches:
Thank immigrants for real estate gains
How immigrants improve our economy and environment
The key to rural immigration in New Brunswick
Elitist immigration policy bars poor, unskilled workers
New immigrants enrich Canadian cities
Adding immigrants will improve the environment
Mongrel nations
The next great power
Give us your healthy, your wealthy, your wise

Posted in Immigration | Leave a comment

And now ‘e-Cash Home’ for NRIs

June 9/2004The Indian Overseas Bank on Wednesday launched an Internet-based online remittance product ‘e-Cash Home,’ providing a fast channel for United States-based non-resident Indians to remit money back home.

Rediff.com

Posted in Immigration | Leave a comment

Tuesday’s G8 Summit Briefing

 
Press briefing by Jim Wilkinson and Barry Bennett
The White House
June 8/2004
“The President and the G8 will endorse an initiative known as Ending the Cycle of Famine in the Horn of Africa – that’s the title. It will, as I said, improve worldwide emergency assessment and response systems to help combat famine.”
Posted in Immigration | Leave a comment

Invest your vote

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
June 5, 2004

Voting in federal elections will never be the same again, not once it sinks in to voters that the new voting rules let our votes count twice – once at the ballot box, in determining the immediate contest for member of parliament, and once as an investment in our favourite party, to financially strengthen it between elections and ready it for the next. The biggest potential winners under the new rules in the election campaign underway: the Conservative Party and the Green Party. The biggest potential loser: the New Democratic Party.

The new rules benefit any federal party that garners 2% of the national vote, or 5% of the votes obtained in fielding a limited slate: Each vote received is worth $1.75 a year, or as much as $10 per vote over the life of a mandate. Unlike the past, no vote cast for a mainstream party, or even an upstart such as the Green Party, will ever be “wasted” again on a candidate sure to lose. We voters will know that our trek to the ballot box, at a minimum, will do our favourite party financial good, even if our pick has no chance of winning the riding. More importantly, the vote payments will discourage the common habit of “strategic voting” – voting for someone other than our first choice.

Say you are a committed conservative living in a left-leaning riding such as Toronto’s Danforth, where the leading contenders this year are soft-left Liberal Dennis Mills and hard-left New Democrat Jack Layton, the party leader. Your conservative candidate has not the slightest chance of pulling off an upset. If past election rules applied, you would have puzzled over whether your conservative cause was best furthered by denying Layton and the NDP a seat, in which case you’d vote Liberal, or whether the Liberals must be punished at all costs for the sponsorship scandal, in which case you’d vote NDP. In past elections, people in your predicament across the political spectrum have held their nose and voted in large numbers against their true preference. In the 2000 federal election, for example, almost half the supporters of the NDP and the PCs voted strategically.

This year, many voters will shun strategic voting, and just partly to provide their party with cash. Strategic voting has become doubly heinous: Not only does it provides a disliked candidate with symbolic support, it finances the disliked candidate’s party, helping to arm it against their own party in the next election.

Such calculations will be occurring across Canada among voters of all political persuasions, whether they be Liberals in lost-cause Alberta ridings or NDPers in Quebec. Increasingly, Canadians will vote their hearts as well as their minds. Look for uncompetitive candidates in all parties to appeal to their supporters to cast their votes on June 28 with an eye to the good of their party. Look for less of a spread between top contenders and runners-up. And look for tempers to flare between the NDP, the party that most stands to lose, and the Greens, a party that stands to gain greatly.

Political parties are coalitions, often ones that have merged uncomfortable allies. This is true of the recently united Conservatives, whose members broadly agree on economic policy but are bitterly divided on social issues such as abortion and capital punishment. And it is true of the NDP, which long ago united large-S socialists, in the form of Big Labour, with small-S socialists, in the form of community-minded citizens, many of whom are driven by a concern for the environment. One big difference between the Conservative and NDP coalitions: Dissenters within the Conservative coalition have no place to go; dissenters within the NDP who have environmental leanings, in contrast, have a credible new party in the Greens that will let them vote their hearts without wasting their votes.

Once environmental voters understand their options, the outflow from the NDP could be considerable. In disputes between Big Labour and the environment – whether to maintain logging and mining jobs, whether to subsidize the building of more highways and more auto plants – the NDP invariably backs Big Labour, to the dismay of its environmental supporters. Many environmental voters have already bolted the party of hard hats, helping to explain why the Greens now poll 6% nationally and 13% in British Columbia. Little wonder that the NDP – to stave off further defections to the Greens – heavily emphasizes its environmental credentials in its platform and in television advertising, all the while happily excluding the Greens from the televised leaders’ debates.

Apart from hurting the NDP and helping the Green Party, the new voting rules stand to help the Conservatives as well, so much so that party leader Stephen Harper may rethink his long-standing wish for proportional representation, a voting system that gives parties electoral seats in proportion to their popular vote. Proportional representation would surely fragment the right-of-centre alliance into social conservative and economic conservative camps, and likely a libertarian splinter group as well. With the status quo, if the Conservative Party now wins the popular vote, it would have a chance to prove itself as a governing party and it would have a good funding base for the next election. For Conservatives, this may be as good as it gets.

The calculus is the opposite for the NDP, which also demands proportional representation. Because it has already been split by the Greens, it has much to gain from a proportional representation system likely to provide it with an entrenched share of power. Layton will not rethink his support for proportional representation, not least because he stands to personally lose from the current system: The Green Party leader, Jim Harris, is running as a candidate in the same riding that Layton and Mills are bitterly contesting. When people vote with their hearts, unexpected heartbreaks can occur.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Toronto-based Urban Renaissance Institute. www.urban.probeinternational .org

Posted in City states | Leave a comment