I’ll comment on the native issue. The difference between utilizing them as an untapped labour pool vis a vis immigration - immigrants, when they move to Canada, have the expectation of work (in general), and do not expect substantial government support. Whereas, aboriginal populations have been raised in a situation where they are guaranteed an income and all kinds of other subsidies simply for being aboriginal. Why work when you don’t have to? I am not saying all aboriginals think this but I think it is fair to say that a larger percentage than the general population does. Hence, it is harder to actualize them into job training and direct employment than immigrants.

I think this is even true of aboriginals versus mainstream Canadians. Natural progeny of mainstream Canadians do not expect to have college paid for by the government. They don’t expect to have a home, and living stipends provided by the government. Maybe from their parents, but not from the government. Hence, it is easier to actualize them into the workforce than it would be for aboriginals.

I know these are sweeping generalizations, but I can’t think of another reason why they wouldn’t be actualized.

One of the topics I like to think about, and write about, is the drivers or demands for more people in Canada. Labour force shortages are by far the main factor. There is a large school of thought out there that if Canadian inddustry is not growing at x% each year that there is a problem. Sadly, this growth far outstrips any reasonable forcasts for population growth (babybooms aside), and so we look elsewhere for people.

Indusry in Canada cannot bring people in fast enough to fill the demands. And yet, they often ignore one of the largest sources of untapped human capital (and the only young and still growing population) in Canada. On average, Aboriginal people are 10 - 15 years younger than non-Aboriginal Canadians. They are also still having children at a rapid rate (one might say, it is there turn to have a babyboom after the residencial school war/disease). Yet governments and employers look elsewhere for their needs. I often wonder why we encourage people to cross oceans to work here, when we could drive a few hours north and find 1000s of young people who just need a little help and someone to take a chance on them. Again, if you are looking at cost reduction, well, it doesn’t cost anything to process the immigration applications of people who are already born here - and who are incidently still having children.

Yes, people are ageing, and eventually they will die, just like everyone else. The babyboom was a phenonena of unprecidented population growth following two world wars. Steady population growth, otherwise, has been the trend for centuries. Demographers like to talk about the effect of the babyboom on population ageing because they have never seen it before. First, this is the longest war free period for our population, second, advances in health care and safety measures in the work place have all contributed to the longevity of our citizens. Sure, our population will start to decrease when they all begin to die, but won’t that trend be the same as, say, another war or plague? The only difference is that this time people will die from old age, instead of machine guns and disease.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am all for governments spending money now to improve the outcomes of children in Canada. If the research is right, spending on early childhood development is the most efficient investment possible - considering the returns are better health and education, and lower poverty and crime.

I guess what I take issue with is the simplistic way the argruments were framed above when there are so many other factors at play. Encouraging Canadians to have more children is overly simplistic (just as the push to bring in more imigrants). In fact, one could make a very good argument against encouraging more Canadians to have children given labour market shortages (playing devil’s advocate here), because women would, by necessity, have to remove themselves from the labour force for X number of years in order to do that (right when the demand for labour is at its peek). Indeed, another factor that has been left out of your thinking is the financial independence women have gained through making strides in the labour force over the past 20 years. This has impacts on a many of the topics you have raised, to name one, divorce rates.

What is needed is a good hard look at whether or not our labour force growth is sustainable, what the pros and cons of allowing national demographics to determine the size of the labour force (and therefore Industrial growth) or whether we should put measures in place to encourage the migration (be that from heaven or India) of newcomers to Canada to meet a demand that is in most likelyhood not sustainable at all.

Secondly, immigration will only be a stopgap as within 30 years, there will be no more surplus population in the 3rd world to immigrate here. What then? Attitudes and patterns have to change before then.

So again, if your goal is the cheapest, then look no further than China, India, and South East Asia for immigrants. There is no shortage of people wanting to come to Canada.

Is this what you mean by pragmatic and more efficient?

Just throwing that out there.

I have nothing against homosexual couples per se, but looking at the situation of a gay couple raising a child, it has much the same problem as a single parent. If the child only experiences one gender in their primary growing environment, it will stunt their growth socially. Yes, this could be overcome with exceptional steps, but that is the point. If there are extra steps, extra costs involved in socializing the child, then that is a pragmatically wasteful proposition.

But to your earlier point, vis a vis IVF, this is an expensive treatment that would not be necessary in many cases if women were encouraged to look at embarking on childbearing earlier in life. Hence, pragmatically, society (and government) should look at means of encouraging earlier pursuit of children, for there to be the cheapest total cost of production of human resources.

As to the specifics…you would disqualify those taking fertility treatments? Most couples have to pay the full costs of IVF out-of-pocket, so I fail to see the difference after that. The no-gays clause wouldn’t survive the first Constitutional challenge.

So other than the whole second-last paragraph, I would support moves in this direction. Ironic though that you’re calling on liberals to ’start scaling back’ - the Cons are the ones who have bloated the government to its current size.