Immigrants, let's not let them down

  

It’s an interesting conundrum Canada finds itself in, with population growth exceeding expectations. 

In some ways, we’re the envy of the industrialized world, where falling birth rates are causing population decline. Unlike some countries, we attract immigrants from all over the world to make up for an otherwise aging population. 

China is facing a demographic disaster because it chooses not to welcome immigrants. Last year its population decreased by two million people. Based on current trends, the country will decline from 1.4 billion today to under 400 million by 2100, making it a smaller than the U.S. At Canada’s current rate of growth, we could have a population of over 100 million by 2100. 

While it’s better than a decline, this growth rate may be too fast. From what we’re hearing, unlimited student and temporary worker visas are driving up numbers past what Canada can ideally absorb – at maximum, 500,000 newcomers per year – given our infrastructure, economy and social supports. Canada’s population grew by more than 430,000 in the third quarter of 2023 alone, a phenomenal population explosion. With increased pressure on housing, healthcare and education, provincial and municipal governments are doing everything they can to keep up. 

 Canadians have generally viewed immigration in a positive light, but that could be changing. Even among immigrants, over 60% now favour fewer immigrants being allowed into the country. When you think about it, this isn’t that strange. A newcomer to this country is in direct competition with others for work and housing, so the fewer that come, the better chance of success.  

It takes sacrifice to leave one’s home to live in a foreign country. Newcomers should be able to begin their lives here knowing they will have access to affordable housing and the services necessary to make their lives successful. At this rate of growth, we appear to be letting them down. 

Most importantly, we don’t want to create anti-immigrant sentiment, which may seem unlikely in Canada, but as we know with cultural issues, could change with the flip of a switch. 

No one could have foreseen the xenophobic wave that spread across the U.S. when Donald Trump became president in 2016. The country went from being a progressive bastion of hope – after re-electing its first black president – to a fortress of fear that invoked a travel ban on “Muslim countries” in Trump’s first year as president. 

Unlike the U.S., Canada doesn’t have a southern border issue. We have the luxury of controlling almost all aspects of our immigration system that’s designed to attract the cream of the crop from other countries – those who are likely to be the most successful at adapting to our society. 

And if they don’t reach their full potential here in Canada, it’s likely that their kids will. The same sense of urgency that leads people to leave their country to live in a frigid country called Canada influences their children's life choices. 

As someone married to an immigrant, I understand the mindset: Take nothing for granted. Get a good, if not great, education! Although there’s no pressure on our daughter to become a high-paid surgeon, we not-so-secretly hope for something more than becoming an arts major. Maybe an immigration lawyer? 

I'm thankful we live in a country that recognizes the benefits of immigration. Let’s work hard to keep it that way. 

Netflix is slowly influencing my diet

  

Coke Zero may be the answer. 

This drink may just let me have my proverbial cake and eat it too – to cut back on sugar while enjoying the fizz-filled sensation of a corporate icon. Let’s forget for a moment this is Diet Coke re-packaged for people who have an aversion to anything “diet” in the labelling. The deception is working. 

And after watching a documentary on Netflix about artificial sweeteners, I no longer fear their consumption. As it turns out, they sometimes cause cancer in rats. As for humans – so says the Netflix experts – no worries! 

It would be nice to cut out sugar altogether, but it’s a tough go. A year ago, I gave up sugar for a month and life was barely tolerable. 

Even my wife called it stressful. I’m still not sure what to make of this. Was it because of my moodiness or because she didn’t like me refusing her baking? She made baking a priority during the pandemic which helped us all deal with feelings of emptiness and isolation. (We also took up online aerobics, which didn’t last as long.) 

While I returned to my sugar-eating ways, there’s merit in giving something up for even a short time period. Many people give up alcohol in January, another comfort drink during the pandemic. My sister-in-law gives up meat for the entire Lenten season.  

According to another Netflix documentary we just watched, abandoning meat is the be-all and end-all to achieving optimal human health. As you can tell, I’m a little skeptical. I don’t doubt that vegans are, on average, healthier than your typical North American meat-eaters, but to what degree and at what cost? I would venture a guess that consuming enough calories from vegan foods is costlier and more time-consuming than eating some meat every day. Meat is jam-packed with juicy calories that last long into the night. 

The health risks of red meat in particular appear to be overblown with more research needed. Nevertheless, cutting down on meat holds merit, particularly on the environmental side of things. 

Cattle in particular release a horrendous amount of methane into the air which is a contributor to climate change. Livestock feedlots pollute the local environment. But perhaps the most significant impact of our meat-eating ways is on the oceans.

         If you can stomach it, I encourage you to watch Seaspiracy, another, yes, Netflix documentary. This one didn’t come across as overly preachy or biased, but I could be wrong. Maybe our oceans aren’t being pillaged for everything that lives in them.  

There appears to be no easy answer to the environmental degradation of the oceans other than not eating seafood. Watching this documentary felt like the time I visited a slaughterhouse; I didn’t want to eat pork for a while. 

With seafood, I truly want to stop, but alas, the flesh is weak. When everyone else is chowing down on shrimp, it’s hard to resist. 

The problem is (yes, this is the problem), none of my family members or friends are vegetarian or vegan. I live on the Prairies, where it’s first nature to kill and eat. Over time, I suspect more people will become vegetarian, making it easier for us weak-willed omnivores to come on board. Don’t get me wrong, the vegetarian revolution has begun. Mostly in California, but it has begun. 

Like I’ve said many times before, I’ll start with a meatless meal every now and then and see how it goes. With my Coke Zero. Small steps. 

 

In search of a woman president

  

One wonders if it’s even possible. Will the most powerful nation on earth ever be ruled by a woman? 

I don't mean to sound sexist; I’m just pondering what it would take. Typically, to become president one must have name recognition (helps to be a celebrity), charisma (helps to be a celebrity), and a seemingly perfect wife.  

Perhaps it’s the third element that's holding women back. Most female candidates have a husband who would inevitably become the first first gentleman, and American society doesn’t know what to do with that. 

I bring this up because if (and it’s a big if) at least half of voting Republicans would turn on Donald Trump due to some unforeseen event, Nikki Haley could become the Republican nominee for president. 

I can’t comment on whether Haley would be a good president, but at the very least, she has a sense of decency that few Republican candidates have shown as of late. (Note: I wrote this before her comments on the cause of the American Civil War where she avoided all mention of slavery – a sad commentary on what it takes to win the Republican nomination.) 

 Based on national polls, she has a much better chance of beating Joe Biden than Trump. But that’s all hypothetical at this point. Because as we know, as soon as it comes closer to reality that the U.S. could have its first woman president, all kinds of faults may be found. 

We’ve heard some of them already. She’s past her prime (she’s only 51, but I guess for a woman that’s comparable to a man in his 80s?). She too soft on Trump (valid, but also impossible to do without alienating half of all Republicans). She wears high heels. That third one might be the biggest issue. Americans don’t know what to do with leaders in high heels. 

Being a woman is itself problematic, not only in the U.S., but in Canada too. The general population will vote in the most controversial white man to office (think Rob Ford and Trump), but a woman must overwhelmingly exceed expectations to obliterate that proverbial glass ceiling. 

Hillary Clinton came close. If she was a man, I can almost guarantee she would have won the 2016 election. She had baggage, she lacked charisma, and she was a woman. All three worked against her, but in such a close election, her gender may have made the difference. 

It’s not easy to reshape societal attitudes. Men still rule the clergy. Men still dominate politics, the military and law enforcement. In religious parts of the U.S., men are viewed as head of the household.

With male dominance, comes a neglect of female empowerment and family benefits. Women are the most likely to be caregivers, to give up some of their earning power to take care of children or family members. This is the least compensated sector of society. 

Under U.S. federal law, women are granted a mere 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave. The U.S. trails Canada and most European countries in parental benefits, yet this postnatal issue rarely comes up in their elections – it's almost always about one prenatal issue: abortion. 

I would like to think a woman as president would focus more on these issues, but they too are beholden to their base. A Republican woman president may or may not move the needle much when it comes to women’s rights. One has only to look at Margaret Thatcher’s tenure as the prime minister of the U.K. to see how little opportunity can be offered to women when one is in charge. 

But the reality of a woman president could have a lasting impact. The influence Barack Obama’s presidency had on the Black community was immense. Similarly, a woman as president would leave a positive impression on girls and women worldwide, with the understanding that the sky is the limit when it comes to female empowerment. Think of the message it would send to countries like Iran, where women are still fighting for basic rights like the freedom to travel abroad without their husbands’ permission. 

Particularly when one considers the political alternatives (ahem, two old white men), choosing a woman to head the White House – Democrat or Republican – would surely be a positive one.