With a total fertility rate of only 1.5, well below replacement level of 2.1, Canada’s population will begin to decrease rapidly before mid-century—and Canada is in this respect by no means unique among industrialised nations.  A recent report by OECD brings a sobering message.

In a 2003 report on fertility rates in 30 democratic wealthy countries, the OECD asserts: "The current levels of fertility imply that the populations of [all these] countries will shrink to about one-third of today's levels in about one century." This implies a Canadian population of 12 million in 2100, marginally more than the population recorded by the census of 1931.

The OECD report puts the average fertility rate of these 30 countries at 1.6, which is higher by 0.1 than Canada's rate — where a fertility loss of 0.1 equals a million and a half lost people per generation. It warns of "a sharp reduction in the populations of all OECD countries in the near future." It warns that these countries will produce slower rates of economic growth, will grow relatively poorer as they grow absolutely smaller.

Canada’s population implosion will be accompanied by a ballooning of the proportion of elderly people.  Those oldsters will be dependent on government for their support, i.e., on productively employed Canadians.

Admitting more immigrants from high-fertility countries may delay, but it will not prevent, onset of population decline.  For, as Globe and Mail columnist Neil Reynolds points out, minority women in Western countries also have low fertility rates.

The fertility rates of immigrant women quickly approach the Canadian average. Fertility rates for other visible-minority women in Canada: Chinese, 1.2; Latin American, 1.8; black, 1.7; Japanese, 1.1; Korean: 1.3. The average: 1.4 — lower even than the all-Canadian rate.

Among Canadian minorities, only Arab women have a fertility rate above replacement level.

Of all democratic countries, only three—the United States, Iceland, and New Zealand—have fertility rates at or above replacement.

See also Neil Reynolds’s column of 17 January, “What are the implications of zero fertility?

Previous related posts: