Monday, February 8, 2010

Quebec's Immigration Dilemma- Part 1 -- Babies

This week, I will focus on immigration with a series of five peices on the subject.

Here is the first part where we consider the effect of the massive immigration program undertaken by our governments.

Let's go!.....

Ever since the invention of the 'PILL' and the declining influence of the Church, birth rates have plummeted in the entire western world.

In order to maintain a stable population ZPG (zero population growth) each woman in the western world needs to produce an average of about 2.1 children over the course of her lifetime.

To varying degrees, Quebec, Canada and the entire western world, all fall below this reproductive benchmark. At the bottom end of the scale is Germany, Italy and Japan, who are facing sharp population declines.
Immigration  therefore, is the only tool available to counteract the effect of declining birth rates.

Canada has a reproduction rate of about 1.57 and Quebec has a higher rate at 1.74.

Both those numbers translate to falling populations.

For every 174 babies born in Quebec an additional 36 babies are required to make up this shortfall. We are therefore producing 20.6% too few babies.

In Canada for every 157 babies born, 53 additional babies are required to keeps Canada's population stable. That's a shortfall of 33%.

Of course the government can't produce more babies, despite it's best efforts to bribe mothers with incentives like the 'Baby Bonus' program.
Instead the government makes up the shortfall by boosting  immigration.

Let's translate these percentage figures to real people.

In Canada 378,000 babies are born each year. To attain ZPG , Canada must import  92,000 immigrants, annually.

In Quebec 88,600 babies are born each year and 18,000  immigrants are required to maintain ZPG. 

What are the actual amount of immigrants accepted in 2009?
Canada welcomed  265,000 new immigrants last year. Of those immigrants, 45,000 went to Quebec.

For every one immigrant  that Canada needs to maintain ZPG,  we actually welcomes 2.9 immigrants. This means that there is a surplus of 173,000 and as a result  Canada 's population is growing.

For every one immigrant that Quebec needs to maintain ZPG, we actually welcome 2.5 immigrants. This means that there is a surplus of 27,000 and so, Quebec's population is also growing.

Out of the 265,000 immigrants that Canada welcomes each year the 45,000 that come to Quebec,   represents 17% of the total. Considering that for economic and language reason, Quebec loses almost 20% of these immigrants (according to Quebec Immigration Ministry figures) who move on to the greener pastures of Ontario and BC, the net effect is somewhere around 14%.

Quebec's proportion of the Canadian population stands at about 23% and so,  even though Quebec is bringing in more than two and a half times the amount of immigrants that is needed to make up it's shortfall, it is still falling behind in Canada, which is bringing about three immigrants for every one that they actually require.

What's the bottom line.
Quebec's population is growing , but at a much slower pace than Canada's and it means that Quebec's demographic representation in Canada is falling.

1 comment:

  1. A million thoughts come to my mind here. First EVEN if Canada's population WOULD decline with ZERO immigration - SO WHAT. What's so terrible about having a smaller population? Canada's population is now north of 33 million. It was only 8 million in 1914. Canada still created an army of 600,000 men, an incredible accomplishment. Our population was only 11 million in 1939. Canada contributed enormously to the allied cause in WW2. So what if Canada's population would eventually fall to 30, 28 or 25 million. WHY would this be the end of the world? A population of 25 million would be more then triple our WW1 figure. Real esate would be much cheaper, (try buying a house in Hongcouver, er I mean, Vancouver) less gridlock in our crowded cities (try driving across Toronto in rush hour some time). I don't see why having a huge or even a large population is automatically considered "good". Are India and China happier and wealthier places then Denmark or Norway? I don't see how. I would also mention that while Canada may SEEM to be an enormous country from the point of view of an atlas or globe, it shrinks remarkably small when its ecumene is taken into consideration (the same is true of Australia). Canada loses untold thousands of acres of high quality farmland every single year to increasing urban sprawl. Once you pave over a field in Mississauga to build another ungodly plaza or condo its gone forever.