BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE DECLINE OF CANADA - OUR AGING POPULATION

For the first time in history, Canada is facing a population decline which should begin to show up as early as nine years from now.

According to the Statistics Canada Report, released in March, based on the 2001 census, Canada has recorded its lowest rate of population increase since the Depression. Our birth rate has now fallen to 1.5 children per woman, down from 1.6 children per woman reported in the previous census (1996). According to demographers, 2.1 children per woman are required to sustain a population.

Why Our Population Is Declining

According to Dr. Edward Shorter, Chairman, History of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, the declining birth rate in Canada reflects a fundamental shift in the focus of child rearing. Dr. Shorter stated (National Post, March 13, 2002):

… Having children used to be a way of building the family, of adding building blocks to society. … But now it's seen primarily as a means of self-fulfillment, and, for many women, once they've had one child, they're fulfilled. In a few years, though, they might get a nasty surprise when they find out raising a singleton is not as happy as raising more than one. …

Dr. Shorter also commented that the family is increasingly a self-referential (self absorbed) unit with no interest outside itself. He stated.

… the post-modern couple sees their pleasure as derived from their own personal intimacy and interaction, with cozying up in front of the gas fireplace rather than interacting with neighbours and community.

Problems In Raising a Family Today

(a) Heavy Taxation of the Family Income

The federal government's tax policies have made it increasingly difficult to raise a family today. Canadians pay higher personal income tax than any other country in the industrialized world. Our current tax policies require Canadian families to pay an average of 22% of their income on federal taxes. As a result, at the end of August 2001, the average Canadian household spent $740 more on income tax in the year 2000, than it did in the year 1999. Further, according to the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, Canadian families are actually paying a total of 48% of their income on taxes, including the GST, property taxes, etc. With so much paid out in taxes, there is little income left with which to support a family. (See Reality, November/December 2001, "Canada's Tax Mad Government," p. 12.) Our tax system is also designed to send more women into the labour force to increase the nation's tax base and the GNP by providing tax advantages to two-income families, and discriminating against the single-income family. With more women in the paid work force, family size decreases accordingly.

 

Our tax system differs markedly from that of Britain. In its April 2002 budget, Britain's Labour Government outlined a plan to provide a tax credit to all families, including those with a parent in the home, (the income of one-earner families is treated the same as two- earner families, as the test is based on family income). The tax credit affects all families with incomes up to $131,892 (up to $150,000 in the first year of the birth of a child).

These families can receive a weekly maximum payment of up to $60.26 per child, adjusted to income. It was noted in the budget speech that these tax advantages will make it easier for mothers who wish to leave work and be with their children at home. Under this budget, families will also receive up to $5,002 in a subsidy to help cover the costs of the first year of the child's life i.e. for the purchase of furniture, clothes, diapers, etc. Families will also receive extra support for childcare, including care in the home when the parents work irregular hours or have disabled children.

Norway also has a policy to pay at-home parents because it is less costly than providing institutional daycare spaces. (See Reality, March/April 1998, "Norway to Pay Parents to Stay Home," p. 6.)

Canada, of course, has never even considered providing such financial support to struggling parents.

(b) Impact of Radical Feminism

Another reason why fewer children are being born today is the possibility that Canadian women are less committed to having children because they have become more career oriented. This is reflected in a Statistics Canada Report, released on November 8, 2001, which shows that the number of women attending universities has increased 10% over the past seven years, while the number of men at university has fallen by nearly 3%. Last year, for example, women accounted for 57% of the full-time undergraduate student body in Canada. According to Herb O'Heron, senior analyst at the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (National Post, November 9, 2001), women are now more likely than men to aspire to jobs that require university training and to seek a secure career.

That is, many women, it seems, have embraced a "male model" of career focus, with the result being an epidemic of childlessness among professional women, who have postponed childbearing until it is too late, owing to their decreased fertility.

Radical feminists have also long insisted that women should reject the home and economic dependency on men (husbands), and should instead; seek an independent identity in the workplace, where, supposedly, more important things are happening. That is, feminism has promoted freedom from family, i.e., from husbands and children.

Unfortunately, this argument may also have had an impact on young women today, who may be influenced to believe that men, in general, are unreliable and untrustworthy. Certainly, to give birth to children, women want and need stable fathers and a regular income - factors that radical feminists claim today's generation of males are unable or unwilling to provide.

(c) Our Materialistic Society

Perhaps the main reason why so few children are being born in Canada today is due to our materialistic society. Women (and men) want it all - now.

This generation is used to instant everything - instant food, instant entertainment, instant credit, instant play, instant gratification - as opposed to the mature delayed gratification of their parents' generation, who were generally not raised in affluence.

Material objects, such as a large home, elegant furnishings, two cars, vacations, generous discretionary income to pay for a lifestyle of restaurant meals and entertainment, are replacing children in the hearts and homes of many young couples.

Also, young couples claim that they want the "best," for the few children they do have, i.e., material goods. To supposedly provide the "best" they limit the number of children born to them. They also mistakenly assume that material goods can compensate for the absence of tired working parents from the home. In short, they believe that material things will bring happiness and it is only later in life that they uncover the truth - when it is too late - that they have sacrificed what really matters - children and relationships.

The Effect of Canada's Declining Population

We have all heard references made to the statement by former Prime Minister, Sir Wilfred Laurier, in 1904, that the twentieth century belonged to Canada. He based his statement on the fact that Canada's population at that time was increasing by 3% per year due to its extraordinary birth rate and huge immigration figures (400,000 alone in 1913). If this population growth had been sustained, Canada's population would have easily reached 60 million by the end of the twentieth century. Instead, according to the 2001 census, Canada's population has reached only half of that projected number - 30 million people.

Further, at the dawn of the 21st century, it is becoming apparent that our engines of progress have slowed dramatically. We are experiencing lagging productivity, loss of talent (brain drain) and a diminishing role in world affairs. The sharp decline in Canada's population will inevitably result in an acute labour shortage, beginning with skilled technical and trades workers. Next, teachers, health-care workers, information technology experts and academics will be in short supply. The decline in the work force will lead to an increase, for better or worse, in the average age of workers and the wages they command, because of their scarcity. Europe has also been facing a declining population, but it has, already, taken some measures to deal with this reality, such as requiring, under a European Union directive, that by the year 2006, all countries in the EU pass legislation prohibiting age discrimination in the workplace.

The biggest impact of our aging population, however, will be on government services. Today, there are four workers for every one retiree, but in another 25 years, there will be only two workers for every retiree. This means that our social security network, such as Old Age Pensions, Canada Pension Plan and our medical health care system will be reeling. In short, having fewer people in the workforce to support our social programs will be one of the most complex and difficult problems facing us in the 21st century.

What Can Be Done About Our Aging Population?

The possibilities for increasing our population include both increasing immigration and promoting innovative social policies to encourage births. These two possibilities, however, are not without their problems. Consider the following:

I. Immigration

Inevitably, as soon as Statistics Canada released its findings on Canada's declining population, the response in the media was that Canada must immediately increase its rate of immigration. For example, the National Post, in an editorial on March 13, 2002, stated:

… The census thus makes it clear that the health of our economy depends on a more open and intelligent immigration policy. …

… we must recognize the importance of open immigration policies if we wish Canada to remain a country with a growing economic base and an expanding population.

If only it was that simple! There are many complex problems, in regard to increasing our population by way of immigration, which require thoughtful analysis and reflection, not a simplistic, knee-jerk response. Some of these problems include the following:

(a) Distribution of Population

According to the 2001 census, 79.4% of the population live in urban centers - of these, most lives in the major urban centers of Montreal, Toronto, the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, and the lower mainland of BC. Half of the immigrants settle in Ontario in the Toronto-Golden Horseshoe area (which wraps around the west shore of Lake Ontario and stretches from Oshawa to Niagara). This concentration of immigrants accounts for Ontario's 6.7% increase in population in the 2001 census.

Finding ways to encourage immigrants to settle outside of these large urban areas, in regions of the country where the population has declined, has become the challenging problem.

Of course, the main reason Canadians have kept away from areas of declining population in the first place is the lack of opportunities in such areas. It is unrealistic to think that immigrants will move to these places, unless new economic opportunities are created to encourage settlement there. Immigration pile-up in a few urban centres causes social and economic problems because of population density, while it brings no discernable

benefits to the vast under-populated areas of Canada. We cannot naively increase our rate of immigration until we have dealt with this problem.

(b) The Immigrants Themselves

Recent amendments to the Immigration Act have markedly increased family class immigration with the definition of "family" being forever broadened. This has occurred because family class immigrants attract the votes of the sponsoring relatives for the federal Liberal party. In contrast, independent, skilled immigrants to Canada, who are the most likely to contribute to the economy, do not have relatives in Canada that vote, so, therefore, they have little political clout in regard to immigration policies.

The difficulty with the ever-increasing rate of family class immigrants is that not only do they usually lack job and language skills to offer Canada, but also their use of the welfare system increases, rather than decreases, the longer they remain in Canada. In fact, the earnings of this group are less than two-thirds of previous immigration groups. A 1994 report to the Immigration Minister noted that welfare bills for family-class immigrants had reached $700 million annually. In short, rather than contributing to the economy, family class immigrants, as a whole, constitute a major drain on it because they are unable to contribute to our national productivity.

(c) Canada's Refugee System

Canada's generous refugee system, which admits 26,000 per year, is due mainly to the tremendous abuses of the system. In fact, our current refugee system is a disaster. Other countries regard 90% of refugee claims as fraudulent, but Canada blindly accepts 60% of its refugee applicants and rarely removes refugees from the country, even if their claims have been refused. Contrast Canada's refugee policy with that of Australia. The latter places all refugee claimants in isolated, well-guarded camps where they remain until their claims are processed. This may take up to 3 years.

Also, Australia deploys naval commandoes to ward off boatloads of asylum seekers and then it reroutes the unauthorized ships to remote Pacific Islands. The asylum seekers have no right either to apply as refugees under Australia's refugee system or to appeal to Australian courts. As a result of this strict refugee policy, fewer refugee claims are now being made in Australia. Germany and other European countries automatically ship back refugees, at the expense of the airline or railways that brought them without papers. This has had a decidedly dampening effect on refugee applicants to those countries as well.

Britain recently announced that it plans to establish up to 15 refugee complexes for refugee claimants in rural England while they wait up to 6 months to have their claims assessed. Britain is determined to change its refugee system which now allows 22,000 to 70,000 asylum seekers to enter each year.

On the other hand, the result of Canada's generous refugee policy has been that this country is inundated with refugee claimants. We pay out $150 million a year to process their applications alone. If an applicant is refused, there may be up to 10 years of legal dodges, while the unsuccessful applicant receives free welfare, medical, educational and legal services. Even if they are ordered deported, refugees rarely leave, but simply "disappear" into Canadian society.

(d) Immigrant Families Decrease In Size

Even if Canada did send back most of its refugee claimants, reduced family class immigration and admitted mainly educated, highly trained and skilled immigrants, increased immigration would still not be the whole solution to our problem. This is due to the fact, that within two generations, immigrants assume Canadian attitudes and produce no more children than other Canadians. (See Reality¸ September/October 2000, "Immigration And Our Aging Population," page 8.) Thus, to increase our population, the number of immigrants required to make a difference would need to be huge. This would create not only assimilation problems, but also would give rise to a tremendous drain on our social security system, without providing appreciable long-range permanent benefits.

II Social Policies to Encourage Births

According to the last census, Newfoundland's population decreased by a staggering 7%, while New Brunswick's population decreased by 1.2%. This has caused deep concern due to the economic impact on these two provinces. Even though the province of Quebec experienced a 1.4% increase in population in the 2001 census, this was less than half the national average of 4.7%. This low increase is even more problematic to Quebec, not just for economic reasons, but also because a population decline in Quebec presents long-term problems for the preservation of its language and culture and also for its influence in Canada's national affairs.

This is not a new concern for Quebec. In 1988, the then Quebec Liberal Premier, Robert Bourassa, responded to the province's low birth rate by introducing a generous baby bonus plan to encourage population growth, and to ensure the continuation of Quebec's language and culture. Under this program, Quebec parents were paid $500 for their first child, $500 for the second and $3,000 for a third or subsequent child. (See Reality, January/February 2001, "Paying the Stork in Quebec," page 5.)

Although this policy ended up costing the Quebec taxpayers $15,000 per additional child or a total of $1.4 billion between 1989 and 1997 (when the PQ government abandoned the program), it was, nonetheless, successful. According to a study prepared for the C.D. Howe Institute, in January 2002, the program resulted in a 14.5% increase in the number of births in Quebec during its existence.

It was so successful in Quebec, in fact, that New Brunswick's Premier Bernard Lord is now considering the possibility of instituting a similar baby bonus scheme in his own province to stimulate the birth rate - but it would be at a very heavy cost to the provincial economy.

Family-friendly policies, such as those in Britain, can be instigated to encourage births. Canada clearly requires changes in our tax system to provide more disposable income for struggling families and, of course, to halt the discrimination against single-income families. The workplace must assist the family by providing time off for illness in the family, staggered work hours, etc., and generous payments while on maternity leave. (See article "The Problems with Canada's Maternity Benefits", p. 13.) There is no end to the social policies that can be implemented to encourage the growth of families. But is there the will to do so?

What Must be Done to Bolster our Population

It would appear that an effective response to the problem of Canada's declining population is not merely to blindly increase immigration by way of family unification policies, but rather to increase the acceptance of skilled immigrants. This must be coupled with encouraging the birth of children by making welfare, the workplace and especially the tax system, more family-friendly.

The tax system must provide special tax benefits for families, and social policy must be adapted to adjust to the needs of mothers (and also fathers) who are now mercilessly buffeted between family and work demands. Other useful changes might include moving the pension age upward and removing obstacles to a longer working life. Moreover, the old state "pay as you go", old age pension (the taxman transferring money from the workers to the pensioners' pockets) is becoming less and less viable each year, as there are fewer workers to provide these pension monies. Instead, funded federal government reserves and private pensions by companies are needed to replace our present system.

Even with such changes, we still have to deal with our materialistic society. Perhaps if the government began to "value" families more by recognizing the personal and financial sacrifices of parents by providing them with incentives to assist them in their important work, then the families will begin to value themselves for the very unique and essential role they play in Canada's future.

Will Canada face these changes head-on, or will it continue to ignore reality? Unfortunately, it will probably be the latter.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS