From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Colin Alexander

Newly arriving immigrants require housing, infrastructure and services right away. But even including other construction workers with the 2 percent who are qualified, working-age artisans, immigrants don’t come close to building the housing they occupy. Along with paying taxes to support new arrivals, oppressive housing and living costs then deter procreation for many would-be parents in the existing population.

The relationship between GDP, productivity, and immigration

It is almost universally accepted that Canada needs immigration and the corresponding population increase to keep the economy going. That is how experts say we are supposed to get economic growth along with improvements in productivity and higher per capita GDP.

But how much of that is true?

First, GDP as a measure of economic activity and national prosperity has limitations. Adjusted for both inflation and the increase in Canada’s population, per capita GDP was in free fall in 2022 and 2023—at minus 2.6 and minus 3.9 respectively.

GDP says nothing about its distribution among the population. Inflation enriches those who own housing and other hard assets, but leaves behind those who do not own them. Notably, with demand overwhelming supply, immigrants’ housing needs and other requirements generate inflation and widen the gap between rich and poor.

It is also necessary to consider what GDP comprises. There is a rough and ready distinction between investment and consumption although the distinction is fuzzy. Broadly speaking, new and more efficient machinery improve productivity, enabling workers to deliver more value for the time they spend working. The consumption part of GDP includes a long list of activities necessary for sustaining life—everything from buying groceries to fixing broken windows, retailing goods made in China, and maintaining the superstructure of government.

Conventional wisdom is that immigration is necessary to make up for the decline in the home-grown population resulting from the birth rate below replacement. But that represents a vicious circle. Much of Canada’s GDP involves building homes and infrastructure, and supporting immigrants—all consumption components. Newly arriving immigrants require housing, infrastructure and services right away. But even including other construction workers with the 2 percent who are qualified, working-age artisans, immigrants don’t come close to building the housing they occupy. Along with paying taxes to support new arrivals, oppressive housing and living costs then deter procreation for many would-be parents in the existing population.

Many employers and politicians promote immigration. That is because immigrants tend to be more industrious and reliable than young home-grown Canadians. Immigrants and their children are generally prepared to work at current pay rates without clock-watching. And there is less pressure to install labour-saving equipment when a pool of people is ready and willing to work for what they get paid.

It’s also necessary to consider that for decades, technology, robots, and more efficient use of labour have been eliminating jobs. Some estimates have it that up to a third of all current jobs will disappear over the next 10 to 15 years. All this said, I look to history and other countries for how changes in population impact productivity and community well-being. In recorded history, the biggest advances in real per capita income occurred in Europe after the bubonic plague killed about half the population between 1347 and 1352. The shortage of labour made workers much more valuable. Feudalism ended and there was a huge surge in wages rates and women’s rights.

In recent times, the population of Japan has been expanding only slowly, and is declining now. In 2023, business capital investments hit a record high at US $223 billion, up 17 percent from the previous year. The question now is whether productivity gains will be enough to sustain its ageing and shrinking population. For Canada, in contrast, per capita business investment, adjusted for inflation and population, has been declining and was sharply lower in 2022-23.

There is another problem. Too many immigrants expect to take advantage of our generous welfare. It may cost $1,000 per person per month to support an immigrant who does not immediately get a job. That must be many times more than it costs to keep that person in a refugee camp.

Of course, Canada has the duty to take in refugees at risk of persecution. And, as Singapore does, employers should be able to hire immigrants for specific top-end jobs where Canada does not have the home-grown expertise.

It is no long-term answer to support people in camps. Troubled countries—Haiti, for example—need security and business investment to enable their self reliance. Countries like Canada need to generate their own wealth to make that possible and not just for the good of our own citizens. This requires diverting GDP back to the non-residential business investment that is the lifeblood of a healthy and sustainable economy.

Colin Alexander’s degrees include Politics, Philosophy, and Economics from Oxford. His latest book is Justice on Trial.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk

Drug use and violence have become common place in hospitals. Drug-addicted patients openly smoke meth and fentanyl, and inject heroin. Dealers traffic illicit drugs.  Nurses are harassed, forced to work amidst the toxic fumes from drugs and can’t confiscate weapons. In short, according to one nurse, “We’ve absolutely lost control.”

“Defining deviancy down” is a cultural philosophy that emerged in the United States during the 1990s.

It refers to society’s tendency to adjust its standards of deviancy “down,” so that behaviours which were once unacceptable become acceptable.  Over time, this newly- acceptable behaviour can even become society’s norm.

Of course, the converse must also be true — society looks down on those who label social behaviours “wrong,” deeming them moralistic, judgemental or simply out of touch with the realities of modern life.

Thirty years later, this philosophy is entrenched in British Columbia politics and policies. The province has become a society that cannot say “no” to harmful or wrong behaviours related to drug use. It doesn’t matter if you view drug use as a medical issue, a law-and-order issue, or both – we have lost the ability to simply say “no” to harmful or wrong behaviour.

That much has become abundantly clear over the past two weeks as evidence mounts that BC’s experiment with decriminalization and safe supply of hard drugs is only making things worse.

A recently-leaked memo from BC’s Northern Health Authority shows the deleterious impact these measures have had on BC’s hospitals.

The memo instructs staff at the region’s hospitals to tolerate and not intervene with illegal drug use by patients.  Apparently, staff should not be taking away any drugs or personal items like a knife or other weapons under four inches long.  Staff cannot restrict visitors even if they are openly bringing illicit drugs into the hospital and conducting their drug transactions in the hallways.

The public was quite rightly outraged at the news and BC’s Health Minister Adrian Dix quickly attempted to contain the mess by saying that the memo was outdated and poorly worded.

But his facile excuses were quickly exposed by publication of the very clearly worded memo and by nurses from across the province who came forward to tell their stories of what is really happening in our hospitals.

The President of the BC Nurses Union, Adriane Gear, said the issue was “widespread” and “of significant magnitude.” She commented that the problems in hospitals spiked once the province decriminalized drugs. In a telling quote, she said, “Before there would be behaviours that just wouldn’t be tolerated, whereas now, because of decriminalization, it is being tolerated.”

Other nurses said the problem wasn’t limited to the Northern Health Authority. They came forward (both anonymously and openly) to say that drug use and violence have become common place in hospitals. Drug-addicted patients openly smoke meth and fentanyl, and inject heroin. Dealers traffic illicit drugs.  Nurses are harassed, forced to work amidst the toxic fumes from drugs and can’t confiscate weapons. In short, according to one nurse, “We’ve absolutely lost control.”

People think that drug policies have no impact on those outside of drug circles – but what about those who have to share a room with a drug-smoking patient?

No wonder healthcare workers are demoralized and leaving in droves. Maybe it isn’t just related to the chaos of Covid.

The shibboleth of decriminalization faced further damage when Fiona Wilson, the deputy chief of Vancouver’s Police Department, testified before a federal Parliamentary committee to say that the policy has been a failure. There have been more negative impacts than positive, and no decreases in overdose deaths or the overdose rate. (If such data emerged from any other healthcare experiment, it would immediately be shut down).

Wison also confirmed that safe supply drugs are being re-directed to illegal markets and now account for 50% of safe supply drugs that are seized. Her words echoed those of BC’s nurses when she told the committee that the police, “have absolutely no authority to address the problem of drug use.”

Once Premier David Eby and Health Minister Adrian Dix stopped denying that drug use was occurring in hospitals, they continued their laissez-faire approach to illegal drugs with a plan to create “safe consumption sites” at hospitals. When that lacked public appeal, Mr. Dix said the province would establish a task force to study the issue.

What exactly needs to be studied?

The NDP government appears to be uninformed, at best, and dishonest, at worst. It has backed itself into a corner and is now taking frantic and even ludicrous steps to legitimize its experimental policy of decriminalization. The realities that show it is not working and is creating harm towards others and toward institutions that should be a haven for healing.

How quickly we have become a society that lacks the moral will – and the moral credibility – to just to say “no.”

Susan Martinuk is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health-care Crisis.