The global trend is that -- as economies mature and education levels rise -- fertility drops. People shift from having lots of kids (needed sometimes in developing countries to help out in subsistence agriculture) to having fewer kids and devoting more resources to their development (e.g. higher education).
Assuming we avoid some catastrophe and existing developing economies continue to mature, that will happen in China and India too -- if it hasn't started already. Global population is projected to peak then begin falling in a few decades, something unprecedented in human history unless caused by a disaster (war, plague).
The solution is probably not policies that encourage people to have more kids -- you're fighting a global trend here. By all means, bring in family-friendly policies, but it probably isn't enough to address this demographic trend. It's probably time to start thinking about economic systems that aren't reliant on constant growth. In the near-term Canada must figure out ways to improve productivity across its entire economy -- to produce more with fewer people. Longer term, we need to think hard about what it means when your economy doesn't automatically grow every year.
I agree, this is a long-term demographic trend that we are not dealing with at all. Immigration is helping us manage it now, and that's great. But, as global fertility itself declines (as projected) there will likely be fewer immigrants -- and a need to develop economic models not dependent on constant growth. This will impact everything -- business, government spending, healthcare -- and we don't really have any solution yet.
As a pregnant woman with a career -- we are ignoring a large part of the cause on decline and thats a mysoginistic economic policy that makes it harder for families to have and support children. A woman on maternity leave gets 55% of her income only up to $60,300 - as the primary income support in my family who makes well over that cap having a child means severe economic consequences aty a time where you are introducing a great brand new financial cost of supporting another child (Ive paid into EI since I was 18 years old and have only ever used it once when I had my first child) -- add that to the increase in costs of living on top of massive costs around of school supplies and fees, health care, growing food costs -- its hardly financially viable for most families to even consider having 5, 6 or 12 kids kike our parents or grandparents did -- we live in a society wherre majority of households rely on 2 incomes and women are progressively making career moves that would sewe them as the primary financial contributors tot heir household. My family is fortunate compared to many but having our second child is going to create considerable economic challenges for our family. Until we start addressing this lopsided point of view on families we will continue to see households have less children. Teh right conservative population that spreads this replacement theory bull crap support the same partes who traditionally are the last when it comes to even considering proper funding for families., Let alone providing more funding for fertility supports or making the adoption process easier. They'd rather buy into some ridiculous white supremacist's rhetoric then actually address the issue and find concrete solutions, while being ignorant tot he fact that as our significant boomer population moves into retirement we will need to find someway to fill the vacancies they will be leaving -- so what is it far right? Economic support for families and social programs - or support for immigration -- you cant have no ways and expect to maintain the quality of life you feel so entitled to. Nor can you ignore the current funding system in place speaks more accurate to a family unit of the 1960s that to the family unit of today.
Immigration to Canada at essence is about growing the economy to support the cornucopia of social programs more than anything.
Since Canadians are allergic to increasing productivity per capita (can't let the rich win!), increasing the number of Canadians is required to maintain all the goodies that the boomers have an expectation for.
The problem with Rahim's thesis is that local and provincial government through action if not words have said they don't want more population growth. What is NIMBYism, defunding of schools via property tax exemptions and even the refusal to allow private health care for added capacity if not saying "no more?" Visit Vancouver or especially Toronto and I can see, if I still vehemently disagree, why old stock Canadians don't like the new urban bigger and culturally mixed Canada.
Surveys consistently show that Canadians want a more bucolic and parochial Canada if given a choice. They also want a cradle to grave parental state. Something has to give.
I may sound like someone who doesn't understand economics, etc. but once we Baby Boomers die off, then a lot of the stress on our health care systems and pension benefits will disappear. I have never understood why developed countries need more and more people to produce more and more stuff that requires more and more energy and natural resource depletion. Call me a fool. I'm OK with it. But when is enough, enough?
Replacement theory/cultural survival has been driving politics in Quebec and - through it, Canada - for centuries. So, now, with Francophones deciding not to have babies, fewer people identify as speaking French as a mother tongue. Frig. It’s just math.
Our politicians tell us that climate change is the greatest hazard facing humanity and that we must significantly reduce emissions if we want to survive.
It is clear that countries with higher populations emit more CO2 into the global atmosphere.
We can reduce our personal emissions and, if population growth stabilizes, global emissions can be reduced.
The unfortunate fact is, however, that the global population continues to increase because the global population continues to grow.
Reducing emissions is an expensive mission - we are being forced by government mandate to use less fossil fuels and to transition to green energy.
Here in Canada, given our climate and geography, we use significant amounts of energy and green energy replacements are not capable, yet, of providing the power we need at a comparable cost.
In spite of this fact, the government wishes to grow our population through immigration thus creating more need for personal reductions and the need for more energy in spite of such reductions.
Most of Canada’s immigration is from higher populated countries where personal emissions are relatively low (it is the sheer number of people emitting and energy production that is the problem).
When these people emigrate to Canada, however, their personal emissions increase significantly given the standard of living they can enjoy here.
When 400,000 new emitters enter Canada, emissions increases accordingly, the existing population comes under pressure to emit even less and there is greater demand for green energy that simply already does not supply demand.
The overall impact of the green transition is reducing Canada’s artificially high standard of living as energy costs increase, fossil fuel production is curtailed and government revenues are tapped out.
New immigrants arriving in Canada face a housing as well as a medical care system that this in crisis and their arrival only exacerbates these issues.
In spite of these immigration impacts on emissions and our standard of living, government insists bringing more people into Canada is necessary so that tax revenue collected from them will sustain our social programs - this claim notwithstanding the fact they will consume much of this revenue as will the financial impacts of emissions reductions.
Simply put, the notion that Canada needs more immigrants, makes very little sense from an environmental or economic standpoint.
The idea that immigration is needed to stoke growth makes no sense when growth is being discouraged in an effort to reduce emissions, when growth cannot be accommodated and when the revenue from growth is not sufficient to offset the costs.
Disclaimer: I have not read the essay in question. But how is that opening line "inauspicious?" And other than maybe claiming that people generally think Albertan children are "unnecessary," what did you quote from the essay that demonstrates it going "downhill?" Again, haven't read the essay. I'm sure it takes a hard turn somewhere... I just don't see where you demonstrated that in this article. The quotes you used just make it sound like... this article. Am I missing something?
Conspiracy theories are based on the the idea that there is some intelligent cabal shaping our lives when the real answers have to do with incompetence. The "great replacement theory" is no different. As a country, we have had a hard time building housing to keep up with immigration but during Covid, I think this came to a head. We have encouraged women in the work force but in reality they were often forced to work because couples could not afford to live on one salary. Yes, most of the immigrants are non-white but most of the world is non-white. We magnify the benefits of immigration ( cultural diversity ) but it is a sword that can cut both ways. We also have the impacts on housing, and security issues.
The PPC said that immigration to Canada should be reduced to 150,000 and the Liberals seem to want to increase it to 400,000. I really don't think our current immigration levels benefit either new Canadians or heritage Canadians. There also seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that we are not helping the current immigrants optimize their contribution to our society. I would suggest that we put less emphasis on the numbers and more emphasis on integration.
Interesting conversation starter. I do not believe in replacement theory as its just as exspensive for all Canadian's, new immigrants or not, to afford to have more children. Economically we have already devastated most new Canadian's of any hope of a prosperous life in a G-7 country with the "no growth" ideology that has been esteemed by the progressive governments. Not just in Canada, but all western nations. We now promote having no children to save the planet and assisted suicide for any that ask. One might think that humanity has become a cancer upon the earth.
As monopolies in news media, banking and financial institutions, telecommunications and technology, insurance, agriculture, transportation, food distribution and processing continue, it puts the economy in the control of a few, the wealth as well. The continual amassment of these large and audious conglomerates is a feature in all western countries. The only country still able to turn that ship around is the US but with the division being sown there, as it has been in all western nations, due to climate change and greed, the wealth and entrepreneurship is slowly being eroded there as well, along with personal wealth.
Greed, automation, and large global conglomerates have sucked up the majority of wealth and now dictate to the peons they relieved from duties to use cheaper employees over seas. They have become the masters of the universe and now dictate and collude with Governments to do what is best for the "collective". Unfortunately, their idea of the "collective" excludes them and the progressive Governments that steal from the peons through taxation and inflation and hand it back to those same billionairs and conglomerates to build the new green utopia. They live as the wealthy priviledged, continue on as such, while they dictate to the lowly peons who must accept poverty and depletion as part of their "Utopia"! Remember its will be their " Utopia," not yours or mine.
They call this progress, while I call it enslavment. All people will be in the same boat, regardless of which country they come from, as the elite do not discriminate and consider all humanity a plague upon the planet. People are free to be able to agree or disagree for a little while longer at least. That too must end as decent can not be tolerated for the good of the "collective" (communist wording of the new utopian world they are to bring).
Apologies to the author but what he wrote is a load of crap. Canada, unlike the UK and the US, has always focused on highly skilled immigrants. And outside of Quebec immigration generally isn’t an issue that upsets Canadians. And as well the post Brexit experience shows that immigration is not an issue when the focus is on skilled immigrants*.
What I had hoped the author might had focused on is what is radicalizing these young men what is driving them to drop out of society and to embrace extremist attitudes. I’ll give him a hint, it’s not youtube or FB but the that society has neglected them (as an example women vastly outnumber men in college yet all the emphasis is on getting more women into STEM ) and secondly labelled them as not just unimportant but also white supremacists responsible for all of societies ills. The problem is compounded by the fact that this is the kiss of death for any academic studying this.
I won’t bother pointing out that the majority of hate crimes committed in America are by Black people (something the MSM is loath to cover) as it really doesn’t add anything to the conversation.
Now one point that the author is absolutely spot on about is that policy makers can’t rely on skilled immigrants long term. With Trump dominating the news cycle again many people probably are not aware of the fact that there is bipartisan agreement that the US needs to bring in many more skilled workers. It’s going to take a few years till we see concrete action but once we do Canada will struggle to get same workers. And like our HC system there are no short term fixes this.
*despite much higher post Brexit immigration attitudes towards it has shifted 180 degree from negative to positive.
Rahim, you appear to be playing 2 ends of the same argument against each other to some indeterminate middle ground ...
You criticize "Silver" for espousing replacement theory and the idea of '"giving medals to women for having babies" but then go on to agree that government spending more money on family supports will help raise the birthrate
Pick an argument to counter ... don't try to pit two parallel arguments against each other
What worries me about falling birth rates is the scenario sketched out in Mike Judge's movie "Idiocracy". Lots of smart, hardworking middle class people either forgo having kids, or have at most 1 or 2. The people who tend to have a lot of kids often aren't smart, hardworking middle class people. The movie is a dark comedy showing a future where the average intelligence has dumbed down to the point where a perfectly average person from our time (played by Luke Wilson) winds up being the smartest man on Earth, helping solve problems like crop failures by teaching people to irrigate with plain water instead of sports drinks with electrolytes.
I found that very interesting, and like most things involving government "planning", most troubling. That we have failed to what's the work; verify/validate/ accept the credentials of people coming to this country leaving them driving cabs instead of working in ER's is nothing short of pathetic. I don't know if its associations trying protect their power base; blind ignorance or bureaucratic stupidity, if we have people who are trained to do jobs, they should be doing them, or make sure they getting the upgrading training so they can. Further, the idea of interprovincial restrictions on tradespeople because of provincial associations is just stupid. If you can do it in BC, you can do it in Ontario. This isn't rocket science.
The idea that Canada will soon have to compete for immigrants was an eye-opener, but quite logical. Someone has to take up the slack of us old people as we burden systems that don't have the capacity to deal with the volume of us soon to arrive. Are they ways they can help us stay home longer?
It seems like we're sailing as fast as possible into the perfect storm of no planning.....while spending a boatload on bureaucracy we don't need, programs we can't afford while not making enough of our own, or importing enough youth to support our standard of living.....something that is starting to appear to be unrealistically high.
If I sound depressed, it's also because I'm a Leafs fan :)
If the US ever fixes it immigration system Canada is screwed. Between sky high house prices, low wages and horrible healthcare why would anyone come here. Unfortunately for Canada it is slowly changing, even the Dems realise that illegal immigration is a loser issue.
The global trend is that -- as economies mature and education levels rise -- fertility drops. People shift from having lots of kids (needed sometimes in developing countries to help out in subsistence agriculture) to having fewer kids and devoting more resources to their development (e.g. higher education).
Assuming we avoid some catastrophe and existing developing economies continue to mature, that will happen in China and India too -- if it hasn't started already. Global population is projected to peak then begin falling in a few decades, something unprecedented in human history unless caused by a disaster (war, plague).
The solution is probably not policies that encourage people to have more kids -- you're fighting a global trend here. By all means, bring in family-friendly policies, but it probably isn't enough to address this demographic trend. It's probably time to start thinking about economic systems that aren't reliant on constant growth. In the near-term Canada must figure out ways to improve productivity across its entire economy -- to produce more with fewer people. Longer term, we need to think hard about what it means when your economy doesn't automatically grow every year.
I agree, this is a long-term demographic trend that we are not dealing with at all. Immigration is helping us manage it now, and that's great. But, as global fertility itself declines (as projected) there will likely be fewer immigrants -- and a need to develop economic models not dependent on constant growth. This will impact everything -- business, government spending, healthcare -- and we don't really have any solution yet.
As a pregnant woman with a career -- we are ignoring a large part of the cause on decline and thats a mysoginistic economic policy that makes it harder for families to have and support children. A woman on maternity leave gets 55% of her income only up to $60,300 - as the primary income support in my family who makes well over that cap having a child means severe economic consequences aty a time where you are introducing a great brand new financial cost of supporting another child (Ive paid into EI since I was 18 years old and have only ever used it once when I had my first child) -- add that to the increase in costs of living on top of massive costs around of school supplies and fees, health care, growing food costs -- its hardly financially viable for most families to even consider having 5, 6 or 12 kids kike our parents or grandparents did -- we live in a society wherre majority of households rely on 2 incomes and women are progressively making career moves that would sewe them as the primary financial contributors tot heir household. My family is fortunate compared to many but having our second child is going to create considerable economic challenges for our family. Until we start addressing this lopsided point of view on families we will continue to see households have less children. Teh right conservative population that spreads this replacement theory bull crap support the same partes who traditionally are the last when it comes to even considering proper funding for families., Let alone providing more funding for fertility supports or making the adoption process easier. They'd rather buy into some ridiculous white supremacist's rhetoric then actually address the issue and find concrete solutions, while being ignorant tot he fact that as our significant boomer population moves into retirement we will need to find someway to fill the vacancies they will be leaving -- so what is it far right? Economic support for families and social programs - or support for immigration -- you cant have no ways and expect to maintain the quality of life you feel so entitled to. Nor can you ignore the current funding system in place speaks more accurate to a family unit of the 1960s that to the family unit of today.
Immigration to Canada at essence is about growing the economy to support the cornucopia of social programs more than anything.
Since Canadians are allergic to increasing productivity per capita (can't let the rich win!), increasing the number of Canadians is required to maintain all the goodies that the boomers have an expectation for.
The problem with Rahim's thesis is that local and provincial government through action if not words have said they don't want more population growth. What is NIMBYism, defunding of schools via property tax exemptions and even the refusal to allow private health care for added capacity if not saying "no more?" Visit Vancouver or especially Toronto and I can see, if I still vehemently disagree, why old stock Canadians don't like the new urban bigger and culturally mixed Canada.
Surveys consistently show that Canadians want a more bucolic and parochial Canada if given a choice. They also want a cradle to grave parental state. Something has to give.
I may sound like someone who doesn't understand economics, etc. but once we Baby Boomers die off, then a lot of the stress on our health care systems and pension benefits will disappear. I have never understood why developed countries need more and more people to produce more and more stuff that requires more and more energy and natural resource depletion. Call me a fool. I'm OK with it. But when is enough, enough?
Replacement theory/cultural survival has been driving politics in Quebec and - through it, Canada - for centuries. So, now, with Francophones deciding not to have babies, fewer people identify as speaking French as a mother tongue. Frig. It’s just math.
Our politicians tell us that climate change is the greatest hazard facing humanity and that we must significantly reduce emissions if we want to survive.
It is clear that countries with higher populations emit more CO2 into the global atmosphere.
We can reduce our personal emissions and, if population growth stabilizes, global emissions can be reduced.
The unfortunate fact is, however, that the global population continues to increase because the global population continues to grow.
Reducing emissions is an expensive mission - we are being forced by government mandate to use less fossil fuels and to transition to green energy.
Here in Canada, given our climate and geography, we use significant amounts of energy and green energy replacements are not capable, yet, of providing the power we need at a comparable cost.
In spite of this fact, the government wishes to grow our population through immigration thus creating more need for personal reductions and the need for more energy in spite of such reductions.
Most of Canada’s immigration is from higher populated countries where personal emissions are relatively low (it is the sheer number of people emitting and energy production that is the problem).
When these people emigrate to Canada, however, their personal emissions increase significantly given the standard of living they can enjoy here.
When 400,000 new emitters enter Canada, emissions increases accordingly, the existing population comes under pressure to emit even less and there is greater demand for green energy that simply already does not supply demand.
The overall impact of the green transition is reducing Canada’s artificially high standard of living as energy costs increase, fossil fuel production is curtailed and government revenues are tapped out.
New immigrants arriving in Canada face a housing as well as a medical care system that this in crisis and their arrival only exacerbates these issues.
In spite of these immigration impacts on emissions and our standard of living, government insists bringing more people into Canada is necessary so that tax revenue collected from them will sustain our social programs - this claim notwithstanding the fact they will consume much of this revenue as will the financial impacts of emissions reductions.
Simply put, the notion that Canada needs more immigrants, makes very little sense from an environmental or economic standpoint.
The idea that immigration is needed to stoke growth makes no sense when growth is being discouraged in an effort to reduce emissions, when growth cannot be accommodated and when the revenue from growth is not sufficient to offset the costs.
Disclaimer: I have not read the essay in question. But how is that opening line "inauspicious?" And other than maybe claiming that people generally think Albertan children are "unnecessary," what did you quote from the essay that demonstrates it going "downhill?" Again, haven't read the essay. I'm sure it takes a hard turn somewhere... I just don't see where you demonstrated that in this article. The quotes you used just make it sound like... this article. Am I missing something?
Conspiracy theories are based on the the idea that there is some intelligent cabal shaping our lives when the real answers have to do with incompetence. The "great replacement theory" is no different. As a country, we have had a hard time building housing to keep up with immigration but during Covid, I think this came to a head. We have encouraged women in the work force but in reality they were often forced to work because couples could not afford to live on one salary. Yes, most of the immigrants are non-white but most of the world is non-white. We magnify the benefits of immigration ( cultural diversity ) but it is a sword that can cut both ways. We also have the impacts on housing, and security issues.
The PPC said that immigration to Canada should be reduced to 150,000 and the Liberals seem to want to increase it to 400,000. I really don't think our current immigration levels benefit either new Canadians or heritage Canadians. There also seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that we are not helping the current immigrants optimize their contribution to our society. I would suggest that we put less emphasis on the numbers and more emphasis on integration.
Interesting conversation starter. I do not believe in replacement theory as its just as exspensive for all Canadian's, new immigrants or not, to afford to have more children. Economically we have already devastated most new Canadian's of any hope of a prosperous life in a G-7 country with the "no growth" ideology that has been esteemed by the progressive governments. Not just in Canada, but all western nations. We now promote having no children to save the planet and assisted suicide for any that ask. One might think that humanity has become a cancer upon the earth.
As monopolies in news media, banking and financial institutions, telecommunications and technology, insurance, agriculture, transportation, food distribution and processing continue, it puts the economy in the control of a few, the wealth as well. The continual amassment of these large and audious conglomerates is a feature in all western countries. The only country still able to turn that ship around is the US but with the division being sown there, as it has been in all western nations, due to climate change and greed, the wealth and entrepreneurship is slowly being eroded there as well, along with personal wealth.
Greed, automation, and large global conglomerates have sucked up the majority of wealth and now dictate to the peons they relieved from duties to use cheaper employees over seas. They have become the masters of the universe and now dictate and collude with Governments to do what is best for the "collective". Unfortunately, their idea of the "collective" excludes them and the progressive Governments that steal from the peons through taxation and inflation and hand it back to those same billionairs and conglomerates to build the new green utopia. They live as the wealthy priviledged, continue on as such, while they dictate to the lowly peons who must accept poverty and depletion as part of their "Utopia"! Remember its will be their " Utopia," not yours or mine.
They call this progress, while I call it enslavment. All people will be in the same boat, regardless of which country they come from, as the elite do not discriminate and consider all humanity a plague upon the planet. People are free to be able to agree or disagree for a little while longer at least. That too must end as decent can not be tolerated for the good of the "collective" (communist wording of the new utopian world they are to bring).
Wow that really touched a nerve!
So some, hopefully, coherent thoughts.
Apologies to the author but what he wrote is a load of crap. Canada, unlike the UK and the US, has always focused on highly skilled immigrants. And outside of Quebec immigration generally isn’t an issue that upsets Canadians. And as well the post Brexit experience shows that immigration is not an issue when the focus is on skilled immigrants*.
What I had hoped the author might had focused on is what is radicalizing these young men what is driving them to drop out of society and to embrace extremist attitudes. I’ll give him a hint, it’s not youtube or FB but the that society has neglected them (as an example women vastly outnumber men in college yet all the emphasis is on getting more women into STEM ) and secondly labelled them as not just unimportant but also white supremacists responsible for all of societies ills. The problem is compounded by the fact that this is the kiss of death for any academic studying this.
I won’t bother pointing out that the majority of hate crimes committed in America are by Black people (something the MSM is loath to cover) as it really doesn’t add anything to the conversation.
Now one point that the author is absolutely spot on about is that policy makers can’t rely on skilled immigrants long term. With Trump dominating the news cycle again many people probably are not aware of the fact that there is bipartisan agreement that the US needs to bring in many more skilled workers. It’s going to take a few years till we see concrete action but once we do Canada will struggle to get same workers. And like our HC system there are no short term fixes this.
*despite much higher post Brexit immigration attitudes towards it has shifted 180 degree from negative to positive.
What an excellent and thoughtful op-ed. Thank you.
Rahim, you appear to be playing 2 ends of the same argument against each other to some indeterminate middle ground ...
You criticize "Silver" for espousing replacement theory and the idea of '"giving medals to women for having babies" but then go on to agree that government spending more money on family supports will help raise the birthrate
Pick an argument to counter ... don't try to pit two parallel arguments against each other
You reminded me of Mark Steyn's line "The future belongs to those who show up for it." So I looked it up, it shows up first in 2008: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/is-canadas-economy-a-model-for-america/
In it, his focus is more economics than family policy. It holds up mostly well, and makes the point without being racist.
Peter Zeihan is another interesting follow. He's focused on demographics as an economics driver. Countries with low birth rates don't do well.
What worries me about falling birth rates is the scenario sketched out in Mike Judge's movie "Idiocracy". Lots of smart, hardworking middle class people either forgo having kids, or have at most 1 or 2. The people who tend to have a lot of kids often aren't smart, hardworking middle class people. The movie is a dark comedy showing a future where the average intelligence has dumbed down to the point where a perfectly average person from our time (played by Luke Wilson) winds up being the smartest man on Earth, helping solve problems like crop failures by teaching people to irrigate with plain water instead of sports drinks with electrolytes.
I found that very interesting, and like most things involving government "planning", most troubling. That we have failed to what's the work; verify/validate/ accept the credentials of people coming to this country leaving them driving cabs instead of working in ER's is nothing short of pathetic. I don't know if its associations trying protect their power base; blind ignorance or bureaucratic stupidity, if we have people who are trained to do jobs, they should be doing them, or make sure they getting the upgrading training so they can. Further, the idea of interprovincial restrictions on tradespeople because of provincial associations is just stupid. If you can do it in BC, you can do it in Ontario. This isn't rocket science.
The idea that Canada will soon have to compete for immigrants was an eye-opener, but quite logical. Someone has to take up the slack of us old people as we burden systems that don't have the capacity to deal with the volume of us soon to arrive. Are they ways they can help us stay home longer?
It seems like we're sailing as fast as possible into the perfect storm of no planning.....while spending a boatload on bureaucracy we don't need, programs we can't afford while not making enough of our own, or importing enough youth to support our standard of living.....something that is starting to appear to be unrealistically high.
If I sound depressed, it's also because I'm a Leafs fan :)
If the US ever fixes it immigration system Canada is screwed. Between sky high house prices, low wages and horrible healthcare why would anyone come here. Unfortunately for Canada it is slowly changing, even the Dems realise that illegal immigration is a loser issue.