Thaddeus Baklinski


Canada’s birthrate falls for 3rd year in a row, to 1.61

Thaddeus Baklinski
Thaddeus Baklinski

OTTAWA, July 11, 2013 ( - The recent increase in Canada's birthrate has receded again, according to the latest report from Statistics Canada.

In its Fertility Overview of the years 2009 to 2011 released yesterday, StatsCan reported that in 2009 the total fertility rate dropped to 1.67, then to 1.63 in 2010, and to 1.61 in 2011, the most recent year for which numbers are available.

In 2011, there were 377,636 births in Canada, up slightly from the previous year when 377,213 were born. Both are lower than 2009, when there were 380,863 births.

With a total fertility rate of 1.61, Canada is falling further and further away from the 2.1 children per woman required to replace the population in the absence of migration.

"It’s been more than 40 years since Canadians had enough children to replace themselves," said Derek Miedema, a researcher with the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.

"In 2010, Canada was 109,000 babies short of replacement. Since 2002, we’re behind a whopping 1,022,971," Miedema observed.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

A table from StatsCan showing total fertility rates from 1926 to 2011 reveals that the last year when Canadian women had enough children to keep the population stable was 1971.

In 2008, StatsCan reported that the total fertility rate had inched up for a sixth consecutive year, rising from 1.53 children per woman in 2003 to 1.68 in 2008. In 2008 there were 377,886 live births in Canada. This was well up from the 328,802 babies born in 2002, which was an all-time low and represented 10.5 live births per 1,000 population, the lowest since vital statistics were recorded nationally in 1921.

In 1926, the average number of children per woman was 3.36. This dropped to 2.64 in 1937 at the height of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The baby boom that followed the Second World War saw the birth rate rise to more than 3 children per woman again, with the apogee being reached in 1959 with a birth rate of 3.94.

With some variation, which StatsCan attributes to economic influences, the table shows a steadily declining birth rate.

Nunavut, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories had the highest fertility rates in the country, with only Nunavut's rate of 2.97 meeting replacement level.

By contrast, British Columbia had the lowest fertility rate of the country, at 1.42. It was followed by Newfoundland at 1.45 and Nova Scotia at 1.47.

StatsCan reports that the overall decrease in the total fertility rate in Canada over the past four decades is due to steady declines in fertility rates of all age groups under age 30. In contrast, the fertility rates of those aged 30 and over have generally increased.

The report says that in 2011, the age-specific fertility rate for women aged 30 to 34 was the highest of all groups with 105.9 births per 1,000 women, while for 25- to 29-year-olds it was 95.2.

"In general," StatsCan reported, "the period throughout the 1980s to the present has seen the lowest fertility rates for young women in the data observed since 1926."

Derek Miedema explained that the drop in fertility rates among younger women and the rising rates among women in their 30s and 40s has also contributed to the dearth of children born in Canada.

"Another reason we aren’t having more kids is that we’re having kids later," Miedema said.

"Waiting to have kids means fewer kids for people who don’t want to be a 50-year-old parent chasing a toddler. We’re having kids later, in part, because we are marrying later. We’re having kids later and marrying later, in part, because sex and babies are no longer connected, courtesy of oral contraceptives, aka the Pill."

Miedema said the answer to the problem of Canadian demographics lies not in immigration or "baby bonus" cash incentives, but in government policies that allow parents to have the number of children they want to have.

A World Values Survey, conducted by a network of social scientists, found Canadians’ ideal number of children is actually 2.7.

"Canadians say in polls that they want to have more kids than they actually have," Miedema said. "Governments should allow families to keep more of their money, since finances are a top concern for most. Income splitting, promised but not yet instituted federally, is a huge step in that direction."

"Reality calls all of us to make a choice: Have more kids or deal with lower healthcare coverage, lower pensions and a smaller economy," Miedema concluded. "In that light, we might just consider having more kids."

The Statistics Canada birth rate report is available here.

A report on Canada's demographic situation by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, released on February 15, 2013 and titled, "Forty years below replacement. Canada’s population is aging. What we can—and can’t—do about it" is available here

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:

Featured Image
Lisa Bourne


Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 ( -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day. also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins /
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 ( -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 ( – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook