The industrialized western nations of the United States and Canada share a common problem and a common solution. Both nations are experiencing a trend of aging right now which currently offers a bleak, even terrifying outlook on the immediate economic future for both.
The scale of the baby boomer generation, which in the aftermath of World War II began to be birthed into the greatest population explosion of the modern era, would be followed by a significant downtrend in births. The outcome today is a generation entering and dominating the workforce at a scale that will be increasingly eclipsed by the scale of the retiree generation.Rural areas have suffered in particular, with such contexts offering youths very little in the way of meaningful opportunity. This produces a pattern known informally as a ‘brain drain,’ where young talent and ambition leaves its geographical context in search of more viable opportunities.
A fine example of this pattern is the demographic deficit currently facing the New Brunswick region. An historically important rural setting where agriculture, lumber and fishing are dominant, New Brunswick has also been a prominent victim of recent economic crises.Its working-class industries have provided very little in the way of meaningful career advancement for the young aspirant. This is a scenario which causes us to turn our attention toward two interwoven issues which are both extremely controversial from a cultural perspective and which, concerning economics, may offer New Brunswick the greatest hope for the future.
Immigration and Free Trade, which have both been significantly accommodated by the terms of globalization, and particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement, should be considered the best path to helping to respond to the demographic deficit.To this end, Canada’s current consideration of NAFTA inherently draws to the table discussion over Mexican labor and environmental standards, as well as America’s labor scenario. Under the philosophical banner of globalization and taking the form of economic alliances crossing over international borders, thus removing the obstructions of international duties and other domestic market protections, free trade has been a primary determinant in the relationship which currently binds and frustrates Canadian-United States relations.According to the Hart (2006) article Steer or Drift? Taking Charge of Canada-US Regulatory Convergence, the breakdown of trade barriers between Canada and the United States is a process which is producing collectively positive results and which must be intensified through a strengthening of Canadian identification with U. S economic, political and legislative character traits. A view which is also held by current Canadian leadership, it is nonetheless disputed vociferously by a great many groups.
This reality is represented in Campbell (2006) meditation on the topic, Canada-US Relations: Paul Martin’s Dilemma, published by the more centrist advocacy group, The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Both of these perspectives illustrate an awareness that Canada is facing a major economic crossroads, where new world policies and long-standing demographic challenges have come to a collision.While the ethical and practical values of free trade are indeed subjected to heavy and heated debate, there is no debating that free trade is already too deeply interwoven into the fabric of the global economy to extract. Therefore, the terrible outlook for a setting such as New Brunswick must be countered through a direct engagement of Free Trade terminology.
In the fifteen years which have passed since its signature into effect, NAFTA has yielded justification for the views held by both sides of the debate.Those who had argued in favor of its importance to Canadian economic growth have been vindicated by evidence of such as a direct result of its increased stature as an exporter to the United States. Those opposed, however, have also been given just cause to file grievance with the increased susceptibility which free trade has dealt Canada to acquiescence in the face of American social, political or economic pressure. Free trade is an issue which is colored by deeply ingrained ideological impulses as well as by personal interests in economic opportunity.
These latter are displayed by those both in benefit of free trade and those who have suffered from its inequities. In their respective articles concerning the current status of free trade between Canada and the United States, Michael Hart and Bruce Campbell offer views on the debate which, while not necessarily in opposition of one another, nonetheless elucidate contrasting perceptions of the outlook for an economic interdependence of the two nations.According to the primary article considered here, a 2007 piece from the Daily Gleaner, “The negative repercussions of our demographic predicament forecast an economy that, at best, simply sputters along, a decline in tax revenue, reductions in equalization payments from Ottawa, a level of health care that is considerably worse than what it is today, lack of investment incentives, a shrinking pool of savings, inadequate funding for social programs and the under utilization of our economic and social infrastructure.” (Daily Gleaner, 1)These dangers are suggestive of a region which has become isolated from many of the opportunities that do inherently accompany the industrial proliferation of globalization. In particular, globalization has had a distinctly stimulating impact on the role of immigration in the economic interdependency of the North American continent. Naturally, due to their proximity, the United States and Mexico experience the type of cross-border travel that doe hold the key to responding to demographic deficits.
Indeed, in our research, we find that on the whole, international immigration is fueling the growth of many of America’s cities, agricultural facilities and its overall population diversity. At the same time, the text reveals that this population, composed almost entirely of Hispanic immigrants and the vast majority of those Mexican, endures a significantly lower standard of living than other ethnic groups in its surround.This is to indicate that illegal status of such immigrant groups has significantly been an obstacle to their fully participation to the benefit of the economy. Articles such as that by Watson (2006), for instance illustrate that Hispanics residing in the U.
S. actively resist participation in American economic institutions for fear of detection. Thus, according to a report published by The Sun Trust Bank, “the Hispanic community is the largest non-banking population in the United States, according to a federal agency.” (p. 1)This has precipitated a circumstance in which many of America’s Hispanic citizens function within a cash only market that helps to insulate them from the costs—and also many of the opportunities—of the larger American economy. There is a sizeable underground economy in its Hispanic community, where producers, suppliers, employers and employees all work with cash as a measure of remaining undetectable to American immigration officials.
The more progressive cultural potential of Canada as a whole, paired closely with the dire needs of a context such as New Brunswick, might be seen as a meaningful response to the failure of America to develop a suitable immigration policy. Such is to say that New Brunswick might consider pursuing a direct relationship to Mexico, with the terms of globalization and free trade serving as a stimulant for encouraging immigration to the region.Articles such as those offered by Holt (2003) and Coppel (2001) are illustrative of the role which NAFTA has played in this equation, arguing that an encouragement of labor exchange and deregulation is counterintuitive to the obstructions to immigrant legalization. This is an economic duality which may only be addressed by refining immigration laws to establish parity between that which is claimed to be sought by Free Trade and that which is actually accomplished.At present, the incongruity is creating a lost economic opportunity which could be reinvested in Canada’s always increasing need for a young and able workforce. And uniquely, the conditions in New Brunswick are indicative of the potential for a pointedly mutual benefit.
Its need for laborers both skilled and general means that contrary to the United States, where previously discussed cultural inequalities have left only the least of labor positions to immigrants, New Brunswick might well offer the immigrant population an opportunity for personal advancement and individual participation in the broader economy.Naturally, any such force as encourages young individuals to remain in New Brunswick and to set up roots there might be seen as absolutely invaluable to restoring its future. The failures of globalization, especially as they concern immigration and individual rights, are Canada’s opportunity. The hostility shown toward immigrant labor in the United States should be seized as opportunity by necessarily receptive contexts such as the economically beleaguered New Brunswick.
