![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldIn the business section of today's The Globe and Mail, Heather Scoffield reports (""Labour shortage woes loom, research says"") that Canada's high rate of immigration isn't doing that much to slow down the aging of the Canadian population.
As the Statistics Canada release in question notes, Canada's rate of population growth without immigration over 1994-2004 would be scarcely greater than that of France. In the long run, Canada can count on seeing less natural increase than that of France. Despite Canada's lower fertility rate (1.53 children per woman versus 1.89 per woman in France), the relative youth of the Canadian population is enough to sustain growth for a while.
The idea of replacement migration as a solution to aging populations was first raised by the United Nations, in a report questioning whether massive immigration can slow down population aging, by keeping the workforce stocked with immigrant workers even as the native population ages and shrinks. Immigration can play a role in slowing down population aging, true, but at least in Canada immigrants quickly adopt the fertility behaviours of the native population. Halting or even reversing this aging would, as the original UN report noted, requires massive amounts of immigration; in South Korea's case, literally billions of immigrants would be needed.
As Roderic Beaujot pointed out in his own study on replacement migration (PDF format), the only reliable way to reverse the aging of a population is to encourage its members to bear children. The only way to do that is to see why Canadians aren't as interested in becoming parents as their French counterparts, and see if anything can be done to change Canadians' minds. This analysis, of course, leaves open the question of whether Canadian society might not benefit from some aging and maturation, properly prepared.
Statistics Canada said yesterday that Canada has the second-highest population growth in the Group of Eight rich countries (with the United States in first spot), largely because of immigration.
Between 1994 and 2004, the Canadian population grew at a rate close to 1 per cent, while the U.S. rate was 1.1 per cent.
The rest of the G8 is growing much slower, with the United Kingdom and France growing by less than 0.4 per cent, and Japan, Germany and Italy growing by less than 0.2 per cent. Russia shrank.
In Canada, between 1994 and 2004, the natural increase in population was only 0.39 per cent, with a fertility rate of 1.5 children for each woman -- much lower than the 2.1 children required to replace the current population.
However, net international migration -- the number of immigrants, minus the number of people who leave Canada -- accounted for 0.61-per-cent growth in population. That's the highest net migration rate of all the G8.
As the Statistics Canada release in question notes, Canada's rate of population growth without immigration over 1994-2004 would be scarcely greater than that of France. In the long run, Canada can count on seeing less natural increase than that of France. Despite Canada's lower fertility rate (1.53 children per woman versus 1.89 per woman in France), the relative youth of the Canadian population is enough to sustain growth for a while.
The idea of replacement migration as a solution to aging populations was first raised by the United Nations, in a report questioning whether massive immigration can slow down population aging, by keeping the workforce stocked with immigrant workers even as the native population ages and shrinks. Immigration can play a role in slowing down population aging, true, but at least in Canada immigrants quickly adopt the fertility behaviours of the native population. Halting or even reversing this aging would, as the original UN report noted, requires massive amounts of immigration; in South Korea's case, literally billions of immigrants would be needed.
As Roderic Beaujot pointed out in his own study on replacement migration (PDF format), the only reliable way to reverse the aging of a population is to encourage its members to bear children. The only way to do that is to see why Canadians aren't as interested in becoming parents as their French counterparts, and see if anything can be done to change Canadians' minds. This analysis, of course, leaves open the question of whether Canadian society might not benefit from some aging and maturation, properly prepared.
