Isabel Gibson

Richard is raising an economic question Canadians should have been asking years ago: Who benefits from mass immigration, who bears the costs, and what incentives are we creating? Economics teaches us to look beyond political intentions and examine actual consequences. When governments rapidly expand the labour supply without corresponding investment in housing, infrastructure and productive capital, the costs and benefits are not distributed equally. Employers gain access to a larger pool of workers. Property owners benefit from stronger housing demand. Meanwhile, young Canadians, renters and lower-income workers face greater competition for jobs and housing. That doesn’t mean immigration is inherently harmful. Skilled immigrants, entrepreneurs and productive workers contribute enormously to Canada. The issue is the scale, composition and economic capacity to absorb newcomers. We spent years celebrating GDP growth while neglecting GDP per capita. A bigger economy means very little if the average Canadian isn’t becoming more prosperous. There is another problem economists have warned about for generations: incentives. When employers can consistently access inexpensive labour, some have less incentive to increase wages, invest in equipment, train employees or improve productivity. Cheap labour can become a substitute for innovation. And when governments rely on population growth to generate economic activity, they can postpone the difficult structural reforms required to improve living standards. The consequences fall disproportionately on those with the least bargaining power. The Bank of Canada’s research supports concerns about the changing composition of temporary immigration and its effect on aggregate wages. Its housing research also identifies the pressure rapid population growth places on an already constrained housing market. This is where I believe Canadian immigration policy went badly wrong. We confused population growth with economic progress, labour availability with productivity, and rising aggregate GDP with rising prosperity. Now we’re discussing increasing immigration again before demonstrating that we’ve corrected the underlying problems. My position is straightforward: Immigration should serve Canada’s long-term economic interests, respect our capacity to accommodate newcomers and improve living standards for the people already here, including earlier immigrants. Measure success through real wages, productivity, GDP per capita, housing affordability and private investment. Not simply the number of people arriving. Because the purpose of economic policy should be improving people’s lives, not making the numbers on a GDP spreadsheet look bigger. Prosperity is something you produce, not something you import by increasing the population.

CBC seems increasingly fascinated with American politics while some of the most important accountability stories in Canada deserve far more sustained attention. I have no objection to covering the U.S. midterms. American elections affect Canadian trade, investment and foreign policy. But CBC is Canada’s publicly funded broadcaster, and its first obligation should be to keep Canadians informed about what’s happening in their own country. Consider what Auditor General Karen Hogan reported on October 29. Canada’s military has serious gaps in its ammunition stockpiles. The Public Health Agency wrote off $331 million in expired or damaged medical supplies. The federal dental-care program exceeded its budget commitments by $1.1 billion in its first two years. FINTRAC has serious weaknesses in combating money laundering. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects continued federal deficits exceeding $63 billion annually through 2030–31 and warns that Ottawa’s fiscal rules impose limited discipline on government spending. These are documented findings, not partisan talking points. Yes, CBC has reported on some of them. The question is whether they receive the sustained attention and scrutiny they deserve. Canadians are struggling with housing affordability, living costs, productivity problems and government services. Yet we’re treated to extensive discussions about American congressional districts, Democratic prospects and Trump’s approval ratings. Here’s a thought. How about giving Canadian taxpayers the same sustained attention CBC gives American voters? And while we’re discussing political accountability, Canadians deserve to know who advises the Prime Minister, what influence they exercise and how government decisions are made. I don’t need to believe CBC is taking instructions from the PMO to question its editorial priorities. Public funding creates a public obligation. Journalism should challenge whoever holds power, regardless of political affiliation. The next American election matters to Canada. But the performance of the Canadian government matters even more to Canadians. CBC should spend less time obsessing over who might control Washington and more time holding the people who actually govern Canada accountable.

I have two daughters and a granddaughter, and I’ve seen this firsthand. Little girls will turn almost anything into a baby, cradle it, care for it and pretend to put it to sleep, often without anyone encouraging them. To dismiss this behaviour as nothing more than social programming ignores the possibility that natural instincts play a role. Of course, that doesn’t mean every girl will want to become a mother. Individual differences matter, and motherhood should always be a choice. But pretending biology has nothing to do with human behaviour is just as misguided as pretending biology determines everyone’s destiny. And there is another truth here: how a society views motherhood shapes how it views children. If motherhood is consistently portrayed as a burden, children risk being viewed as burdens too. If raising a family is treated as the death of freedom, ambition or personal fulfilment, we shouldn’t be surprised when fewer people see it as something worth pursuing. I am proudly pro-motherhood. I believe raising children is among the most valuable and meaningful contributions anyone can make to society. Motherhood deserves respect, encouragement and recognition, just as women who choose different paths deserve respect. Being pro-motherhood doesn’t mean being anti-career, anti-choice or anti-woman. It means recognizing that raising the next generation is important work, worthy of genuine appreciation. A healthy society should celebrate motherhood, value fatherhood and recognize children as a blessing rather than an inconvenience. There is nothing old-fashioned about valuing the very people who make our future possible.