CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
NOVEMBER 3, 2014 - MACLEAN’S
Scott Gilmore makes a sound case for boosting immigration to Canada. (“Why it’s time for
Canada to grow up,” National, Oct.20). One hundred million Canadians by the end of the century
is certainly possible and desirable.
In 1913, Canada admitted 400,000 immigrants. At the time, Canada’s population was around
seven million. Today, we have almost five times the population; hence we should be able to
absorb the 444,000 immigrants per year quoted in Gilmore's article.
Of course, today's economy is much different than it was in 1913. A 21st-century immigration
policy needs to be tailored to the knowledge-based economy of the future. We also must work
harder to eliminate barriers that prevent immigrants from fully employing the skills that they
already possess. All of this is doable, if we can muster the political will and leadership.
JULY 21, 2011 – THE GLOBE AND MAIL
Re The Newcomers Numbers Game (July 20): I respectfully disagree with Minister Jason
Kenney when he says that we do not have the resources to integrate a million new immigrants a
year.
Almost a century ago, in 1913, Canada admitted 400,000 immigrants. At the time, Canada’s
population was around seven million. Today, we have almost five times the population, and we
can’t absorb more than 250,000 immigrants?
Granted, Canada’s 1913 economy was much more labour intensive; a 21st century immigration
policy needs to be tailored to the knowledge based economy of the future.
But the means available for integrating new arrivals have grown exponentially. Radio, television,
newspapers, magazines, the Internet, all provide vastly superior access to information and
various programs that assist immigrants in adapting.
We also have the technological know-how to build living, working and transportation systems
that are much more energy efficient and environmentally responsible.
I say, let’s think big. Let us imagine 100 million Canadians celebrating our bicentennial in 2167.
FEBRUARY 9, 2011 – THE OTTAWA CITIZEN
Janice Kennedy’s lament offers an unduly pessimistic portrait of Canadian federalism. While it
is possible, as she has done, to select specific examples to demonstrate that “the centre is losing
its grip”, it is also possible to select other examples that point to a significant centralization of
power in the prime minister’s office, as other pundits have done.
The reality is somewhere in between. Canadian federalism has always worked through a
pragmatic set of compromises, based on the rule of law. The presence of Quebec separatists in
Parliament is a direct consequence of the democratic process.
Without suggesting that we live in some kind of utopia, I invite Kennedy to tell us what country
has been more successful than Canada in achieving a high level of prosperity while peacefully
accommodating a population with such diverse linguistic, ethnic and cultural roots.
As I look around the rest of the world, I feel very lucky indeed to be Canadian.
OCTOBER 9, 2010 – THE GLOBE AND MAIL
Renouncing all other citizenships should be a condition for obtaining Canadian citizenship. This
would go a long way towards ensuring that new Canadians understand very clearly that, while
there are no legal obstacles to their retention of cultural ties to their country of origin, citizenship
is a different matter. It carries rights and responsibilities. And one of those responsibilities is
exclusive loyalty to Canada.
JUNE 2, 2010 – THE OTTAWA CITIZEN
Your editorial drawing attention to Canada's problematic demographic trend dismisses too
quickly the positive contribution that immigration could make. Your position may be valid for
current levels of immigration (250,000 per year). But Canada has demonstrated the capacity to
absorb much higher numbers of immigrants. In 1913, for example, over 400,000 immigrants
were welcomed to Canada, whose population was then slightly greater than 7 million. Today,
Canada's population is about 34 million, which means that we could absorb close to 2 million
immigrants per year if the 1913 experience were repeated.
While I am not advocating increasing the number of immigrants to 2 million, there is merit in
considering much higher levels of immigration than we currently allow. Provided the new
immigrants have the mix of skills required by our economy, and fall within an appropriate age
category, immigration can be a very effective tool for managing our demographic challenges.
We should not under-estimate our capacity to attract highly skilled immigrants. Canada has
much to offer them. We have weathered the financial hurricane of the past two years much better
than most other industrialized countries. Our crime rate is relatively low and we are the second
largest nation on earth. A good place to start would be the US, where millions of Canadians now
live and could be lured back to Canada.
JULY 24, 2006 – THE GLOBE AND MAIL
I agree with your editorial position that, during the current crisis facing Canadian citizens who
happen to be in Lebanon, Canada should not make any distinction based on factors such as
whether these individuals hold dual citizenship or have resided in Lebanon for many years (In
the rescue, Canadians are Canadians, Full Stop – July 22). In fact, I would support accepting non
Canadians who want to flee Lebanon as refugees, in accordance with our long standing tradition
of doing what we can to alleviate human suffering wherever it takes place.
Given the current situation, this is not the best time to debate Canadian policy on dual
citizenship. But, since you raised it, a response is in order. You say that "we shouldn't ask people
to renounce their other citizenship when they become Canadians". Renouncing all other
citizenships should be the first requirement for acquiring Canadian citizenship.
I understand very well the attachment that many immigrants have to their native country. As an
immigrant, I feel a strong attachment to my native Italy. No one should be denied the opportunity
of maintaining ties with their country of origin.
But citizenship is a different matter. It implies a sense of loyalty, and while it does confer a
number of benefits, it also includes (or ought to) acceptance of responsibilities to become
involved in Canadian life, including Canadian political processes. In this sense, dual citizenship
is an oxymoron. You are either Canadian or not. There should be no ambiguity on this issue.