Martin Collacott's
"Canada's Immigration Policy: The Need for Major Reform"

reviewed by Paul Geddes
December 2002

In October, the Fraser Institute published Martin Collacott’s "Canada’s Immigration Policy: The Need for Major Reform", Public Policy Sources, Number 64. Martin Collacott served with Canada’s Department of External Affairs for nearly thirty years rising to the position of High Commissioner to Sri Lanka and Ambassador to Syria and Cambodia. Now living in Vancouver, he has been appointed a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute.

My first thought was that the Fraser Institute was going to add a necessary free market perspective to the immigration issue as they have done with recent commentaries on other social issues such as gun control, gambling, education and drug usage. The traditional debate in Canada has been paternalists from the right and paternalists from the left, both of whom feel that it is the duty of good government to regulate and control people’s choices to achieve desirable social outcomes. But on economic issues, the Fraser Institute has spoken for an entirely different perspective... that of individual choice and individual responsibility for the choices made. And, who better than a former insider to bring this free market perspective to bear on the bureaucratic mess of Canada’s immigration programs.

So imagine my disappointment at this paper. Yes, I recognize that the Fraser Institute’s publications "do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the members or trustees of the Fraser Institute" and I appreciate that there are interesting and fruitful differences of opinions between proponents of smaller government/freer market outlook BUT, I still think this paper does not fit into the general philosophy of the Fraser Institute. Yes, immigration control is usually considered a "conservative" position, but if you examine just the economics of Mr. Collacott’s paper, it seems more of the type that one would expect from the likes of the David Suzuki Foundation than from the Fraser Institute. Let me explain.....

1. Can you think of any other Fraser Institute paper which condemns the Canadian government for not having a proper government plan for some sector of the economy? (See Collacott’s Specific Recommendation #a p. 41). What is different about immigration that would make the Fraser Institute think that government planning of it would be any more successful than government planning for any other sector of the Canadian economy? If you don’t believe that bureaucrats can properly tweak the oil and gas industry with the proper mixture of taxes, subsidies and regulations, why do you think that this type of economic management will deliver better results for immigration?

2. Do you believe there is some way to determine the "goal" of population policy? The small government/free market outlook usually distinguishes between means and ends. Ends are personal --- about people’s individual likes and dislikes. Means are about how each of us with our different likes and dislikes can get together to achieve our different goals to mutual advantage. It would seem very strange to see a Fraser Institute publication setting a goal for the achievements of Canada’s oil and gas industry. What is so different about population that permits a "free market" institute to possibly determine the values that permit us to set the proper goal for our population? In fact isn’t this way of thinking the very antithesis of what free market thinking is all about?

3. Has any other Fraser Institute publication ever condemned the government for not spending enough resources in some program of bureaucratic control? (See Collacott p. 26) As free market economists have discovered in every sector of the economy we have studied, when regulations interfere in the mutual self-interest of traders, people (unlike machines) have brains and will find ways around the interference. The bureaucratic response is to add new laws and more enforcement and we get the same racketing up of government waste and black market profits in immigration as we have seen with drugs, rent control or wage and price controls. What is different about immigration that would allow a Fraser Institute publication to fail to recognize this same dynamic with immigration control? And what is different about immigration that would allow a Fraser Institute publication to support even more government resources thrown into the wasteful and Sisyphean task of controlling mutually beneficial self interest? Was the Fraser Institute solution for the failure of wage and price controls to hire more bureaucrats?

Over the last twenty five years, I have heard Michael Walker speak (more than once) with great pride about facing up to some of his early sponsors on the issue of wage and price controls. I think I remember him labelling this a battle for the soul of the Fraser Institute. It was a question of whether he was going to be serious about his free market point of view or was going to pull his punches on an issue dear to some of his conservative supporters.

I believe that this immigration issue is a similar battle for the soul of the Fraser Institute. Immigration control is very popular in many segments of the Canadian population and particularly on the conservative side of the debate (although it is also evident in many green positions too). But the Fraser Institute has always stood for opening up (often in the face of popular opinion).... for free trade, for the withdrawal of popular government subsidies, for eliminating popular government regulations and even for pricing of health services.

I am not opposed to accepting a less bad idea (i.e. vouchers) when the best idea (a complete free market) is not going to be easy to achieve. But my problem with Mr. Collacott’s paper is not that it is an unacceptable compromise but that its essence is on the wrong side of the "opening up" debate.

Paul Geddes 703-1180 Falcon Dr., Coquitlam, BC V3E 2K7 PH: (604)944-2845

E-mail: gedswest@shaw.ca

Copyright © 1999 West Coast Libertarian. All Rights Reserved.