Birth Tourism: Media interest following my Policy Options piece (updated)

While I had expected considerable media interest, given the substance and the politics of the issue, yesterday had me doing TV interviews on all major networks and a radio interview with Rob Breakenridge of Global news in Calgary.

The most in-depth TV interview was on Power and Politics at the 1:13 mark: Power and Politics 23 Nov 2018.

Global TV:  New numbers show more ‘birth tourism’ in Canada than thought

CTV: New data shows birth tourism on the rise on Canada

Later interviews

On Radio Canada Vancouver (in French):

Boulevard du Pacifique: La Colombie-Britannique, chef de file du tourisme des naissances

CTV’s Your Morning:

Shocking new study reveals “birth tourism” in Canada is steadily increasing

The Sunday Edition, with Michael Enright, featuring mmigration lawyer Jamie Liew and Jas Johal, MLA for Richmond-Queensboroug: Birth tourism may be a hot button issue in the next federal election

 

About Andrew
Andrew blogs and tweets public policy issues, particularly the relationship between the political and bureaucratic levels, citizenship and multiculturalism. His latest book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias, recounts his experience as a senior public servant in this area.

5 Responses to Birth Tourism: Media interest following my Policy Options piece (updated)

  1. Robert Addington says:

    If Canada were to adopt the Australian model (or something like it) as mentioned by Andrew in the Power and Politics interview, what would be the legal status of these non-citizen Canadian-born children? And who would be responsible for their education and health care while they remain in Canada? Could the provinces refuse to provide them with health care because they are neither citizens nor permanent residents?

    • Andrew says:

      The general practice is that the children leave Canada with their mothers shortly after giving birth. The citizenship status would depend on the parents and the country of origin citizenship policies. Canada is a signatory to the statelessness convention and the likely small number of cases would be handled in that manner.

      The intent of such a change would essentially remove the incentive to come to Canada to automatically obtain citizenship for a child born here.

      • Robert Addington says:

        I understand. Another disincentive would be for the Richmond hospital (and others) to jack up their charges for non-resident obstetrical patients!

      • Andrew says:

        Yes. The current non-resident fees are about 2x the resident fees (in Ontario) and a case could be made for a further increase or, a preferable option IMO, would be to require a larger deposit to reduce non-payment (no data but anecdotes on the extent).

      • Robert Addington says:

        I agree. And the other side of the equation would be to shut down the ‘birthing houses’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: