By Patrick B. Craine

TORONTO, July 2, 2009 ( – The C.D. Howe Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, issued a study last Thursday on the problem of demographic change in increasingly-aged Canada.

The study argues that immigration alone will not offset the effects of Canada's increasing ratio of dependant elderly to workers.  The authors assert, rather, that “later retirement, higher fertility, and faster productivity growth are more powerful tools to ease the stress of demographic change on Canadian living standards.”

According to the study, “current fertility and immigration rates, moderately rising life expectancy, and historical productivity increases can be expected to depress workforce growth, boost the ratio of Canadians 65 and over to those of working age (the old-age dependency ratio) and depress growth in incomes per person.”

The institute contests the popular solution of immigration, seen by many as “an elixir of youth.”  “Despite some popular commentary,” the study states, “offsetting or even noticeably mitigating these trends through increased immigration alone would require unrealistic increases in total immigration levels.”

Instead, the authors make three recommendations.  First, to raise the standard retirement age from 65 to 70.  “Advances in longevity,” they say, “and shifts toward later workforce entry and less physically demanding occupations mean that the equivalent of working until age 65 in 1970 is now working until at least age 70. Yet, for a variety of reasons, people are retiring earlier than they did in 1970.”

Second, they recommend raising the fertility rate. The authors quantify this suggestion by recommending that Canada raise the rate from its current level of 1.54 children per woman to the replacement level of 2.1.  Wary of this “politically controversial” issue, however, they avoid suggesting policy initiatives in this area.  Reportedly, in a radio interview conducted in Alberta, C.D. Howe President and C.E.O. William Robson avoided the central problem of fertility decline, calling it a “radioactive issue.”

Third, they recommend boosting productivity growth, i.e. the increase in real output per potential worker, by one percent.

Avoiding controversy, the authors sidestep the central issues of Western demographic change.  Commentator Rory Leishman of the London Free Press notes that, while the authors do not suggest how legislators should encourage fertility, “at least one part of the solution is obvious: A major reduction in the catastrophic increase in abortions over the past 40 years.”

“According to Statistics Canada,” he continues, “there were 28.3 induced abortions for every 100 live births in Canada in 2005, down from a peak of 32.2 in 1998. While the downward trend is encouraging, it's hardly sufficient.  Our politicians will have to take decisive action to curb abortion. Few reforms could do more to eliminate a huge amount of suffering and death.”
Boosting a country's birth rate through judicious policies is not without precedent. In recent years France has made a concerted effort to boost fertility.  Its birth rate is 1.9, high by Western standards; however, it is still lower than replacement level.  As LSN reported in 2006, France has implemented various initiatives, such as graduated tax breaks, and financial incentives for families, including discounts on transportation and family activities.

To see the study:

Faster, Younger, Richer? The Fond Hope and Sobering Reality of Immigration's Impact on Canada's Demographic and Economic Future

See related coverage:

France Boosts Birth Rate With Incentives for Parents

New Documentary Exposes Link Between Failing Global Economy and Demographic Winter

Quebec to experience most rapid demographic decline of all industrialized countries

Newsweek Exposes Real Population Crisis: Mass World Depopulation

Fertility Decline Could Cause Global Security Crisis, New Study Says


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.