Birth tourism is up again
Nobody likes it, but no one will stop it
Author and analyst Andrew Griffith recently published new figures on birth tourism in Canada — or at least, figures that get as close as is currently possible to measuring the phenomenon. The trend is noticeably up, just as it has been for at least a decade: In 2010, 0.5 per cent of babies born in Canadian hospitals (excluding Quebec) had non- resident mothers; in 2019, it was 1.6 per cent. Griffith’s admittedly rough estimate is that half of those mothers came to Canada for no purpose other than giving birth. That would add up to 2,200 babies last year, or about one in 135 newborn citizens.
As ever, the ensuing news coverage featured not a single defence of the practice — because there isn’t one to mount. No principle of citizenship justifies offering it to fetuses from other countries based solely on whether their families have the financial means to travel here on tourist visas, then immediately return home and file the papers away for future use. The only credible defences of the status quo are that the problem isn’t worth worrying about, or that the costs of solving it would outweigh the benefits — though asking new parents for proof of citizenship before issuing birth certificates (which would indicate status at birth) hardly seems extremely onerous, especially compared to the act of childbirth.
Griffith’s figures, from the Canadian Institution for Health Information’s hospital database, suggest the phenomenon is growing in the Toronto area.
But Richmond, B.C. — where birth tourism is quite literally an industry, with accommodations tailored specifically to travelling families — clearly remains the hotspot: In 2019, nearly one in four births at Richmond Hospital was to a non- resident mother.
Not surprisingly, a recent Research Co. poll suggests British Columbians are by far the most seized with the issue. But they’re not all that seized, really. Just 15 per cent said they follow news reports about birth tourism closely.
A majority of respondents agreed the rules were being “taken advantage of ” and that birth tourism “can degrade the value of Canadian citizenship” — but that doesn’t mean they especially care.
The problem was big enough in 2018 to prompt the Liberal government to look into it, at least: then- immigration minister Ahmed Hussen said he had commissioned research into “the extent of this practice as well as its impacts,” and rightly so. We shouldn’t have to guess how many non-resident births are to students, temporary workers and others with legitimate links to Canada.
But even after the pandemic, it may never rise to the level of a political priority — and almost certainly not for the Liberals. Joe Peschisolido, the former Liberal MP from Richmond, is among those who have called for action, but the party as a whole seems more interested in demonizing anyone who shares that view as racist, misogynist or intent on rendering vast numbers of people stateless.
For precisely that reason, it’s the sort of issue that provides an interesting test for a new Conservative leader — especially Erin O’toole, who seems far more comfortable in his own and his party’s skin than either of his predecessors.
To lead that party is to be interrogated constantly by a press corps that regards many of the party’s core supporters and their core beliefs and preoccupations with some combination of uninterest, incomprehension and disdain — sometimes even when those beliefs are shared by a majority of the population, across party lines. The ideal leader can answer to what he sees as trumped- up controversies with just the right combination of politeness and dismissiveness, without seeming defensive or bitter.
It is early days yet, but O’toole certainly has more potential to be that leader than either of his predecessors.
And while birth tourism is unlikely to become a major issue any time in the near future, if ever, problems shouldn’t have to be massive for governments to want to solve them — especially relatively simple problems like this. It is so indefensible a practice that no one even tries to defend it, except against a catastrophized alternative.
Getting rid of it is precisely the sort of feather a future Conservative government should want in its cap.