Why Canada should take its fertility crisis more seriously
Episode Stats
Words per minute
184.34445
Harmful content
Misogyny
4
sentences flagged
Hate speech
6
sentences flagged
Summary
Canadians are having fewer and fewer children, and in the process, their fertility rate has dropped to 1.3 births per cent, making it the lowest in the Western world. Why is this happening, and what can we do about it? In this episode, we talk to Tim Sargent, a distinguished fellow with the Centre for International Governance Innovation and the Deputy Executive Director at The Centre for the Study of Living Standards, about why this is happening.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
We're doing all the nostalgia here, but talking about kids is a good segue into our next topic,
00:00:14.300
which is the reality that most Canadians are not having them, or I shouldn't say most,
00:00:20.200
but Canadians are having children in fewer and fewer numbers. And I would say fewer and fewer
00:00:24.760
young Canadians are coupling up and actually building that basis of a family that might in
00:00:30.300
turn have children. We have a fertility rate that is well below replacement, and no one from a policy
00:00:36.900
perspective has really decided to tackle this head on, which is why we end up talking about this
00:00:41.960
in the context of immigration as a population growth mechanism, because there are not Canadian
00:00:48.400
families having kids with enough numbers to increase the population that way. It's a third
00:00:54.220
rail in politics and policy. We talked about it a little while ago with Ginny Roth when we caught
00:00:59.500
up at the Canada Strong and Free Network Conference, but it was delved into in a very thoughtful piece
00:01:04.680
that was published at The Hub, We Are Not Taking Canada's Fertility Crisis Seriously Enough. The
00:01:10.940
author of that is Dr. Tim Sargent, who's a distinguished fellow with the Centre for International
00:01:15.160
Governance Innovation, and also the Deputy Executive Director at the Centre for the Study
00:01:20.220
of Living Standards. Tim, it's good to talk to you. Thanks so much for writing this and for
00:01:27.040
So let's begin by talking about the term crisis here, and why is this, in your view, something
00:01:32.760
we can call that? Well, for me, it's a slow motion crisis, but it's a crisis nonetheless.
00:01:41.180
You have a society that's basically not reproducing itself. That's not a society that's probably
00:01:47.220
going to exist over the very long term. And it's a little bit like boiling the frog. We've had
00:01:52.540
low replacement fertility rates for quite some time. But we've seen just in the last 10 years,
00:01:58.320
our fertility rates gone from 1.6, which wasn't great, but it was a similar level to countries
00:02:03.680
like the UK, the US. And now it's down to 1.3, and it's dropped quite rapidly. And this is something
00:02:08.660
that started before COVID. So it's related to something, I think, quite deep seated in our society.
00:02:14.340
One of the things that I find interesting is that we used to, people that talk about this issue and
00:02:20.680
look at this issue, look at Japan as being the worst of the worst. Japan has always been the
1.00
00:02:26.240
standout example of a country with a true fertility crisis, and they're at 1.3. So we're at really what
00:02:33.360
we've always looked at as being the worst in this around the world. That's right. So we always used
00:02:38.920
to look at a country like Germany, for instance, and say that, well, they had a lower fertility rate
00:02:43.540
than us. But now Germany is higher than us. We're at 1.33. They're at 1.45. So we really are dropping
00:02:50.000
down the league tables here. And we're down to levels close to Italy or Japan. We're not as bad
00:02:56.940
as a career, for instance, which is now down at 0.72. But we're still at quite low levels now. I mean,
00:03:04.100
what 1.3 means is that for every 10 Canadians, there will be only four grandchildren.
00:03:13.660
Now, the one thing, I mean, there are two aspects of this. There's the domestic picture,
00:03:17.680
and then there's the global picture. And the one thing that we fail to take into consideration,
00:03:22.200
even if you say, okay, well, Canada can perhaps grow its population by immigration. Well, that still
00:03:28.260
isn't changing the global crisis that we see unfolding, because this is happening around the world.
00:03:33.000
countries like Hungary that have really, as a matter of government policy, tried to right this
00:03:38.060
trend are in short supply. What do you think that is? Is it that countries are just uninterested in
00:03:45.940
talking about this issue because they just are scared of it? They're afraid of the politicization
00:03:52.900
of it? Or is it that no one has found a solution?
00:03:55.280
I mean, I think it's both. I mean, some countries, I mean, Hungary is one. But of course,
00:04:03.040
even in Canada, if you look at Quebec, for instance, in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
00:04:08.000
they were introducing policy to encourage people to have more children. I mean, partly, I think nobody
00:04:13.920
wants to be seen to be telling women how many children that they should have. You know, nobody wants
1.00
00:04:19.600
a sort of a handmaid's tale kind of society. But the reality is, if you actually ask women how many
00:04:26.120
children they want, they will generally say more than two. On average, it's a little bit more than
00:04:30.760
two. That's true, not just in Canada, but across the Western world. So then the question is, why aren't
00:04:36.640
women having more children, even though they say that that's what they want? You know, urbanization,
1.00
00:04:43.160
I think is a key factor here. Obviously, people have more money. They're likely to find leisure
00:04:51.540
pursuits and things, you know, ways to spend that money rather than starting a family. If you look at
00:04:58.960
countries around the world, I mean, nobody's had huge success. Even in a country like Hungary,
00:05:04.880
where now, you know, if you're a woman and you have four children, you don't pay any income tax,
0.70
00:05:09.440
which sounds, I think, pretty attractive to a lot of us. They've managed to move their birth rate up,
00:05:15.980
but they're still significantly below fertility. Countries like Poland have tried this as well,
00:05:23.000
at least try to increase fertility. So we're seeing, you know, perhaps, you know, doing a little bit
00:05:28.020
better. Quebec, when it had its baby bonus, did see its fertility rate tick up from around about 1.4
00:05:35.360
to around about 1.6, 1.7. So countries do seem to have some success on the margin, but the only
00:05:41.460
advanced country now that has an above replacement rate fertility is Israel. And of course, there's a
0.76
00:05:47.380
very special circumstances around Israel. There's a wicked problem aspect here in that you have a
1.00
00:05:54.260
number of different, you know, influencing factors here, and you could tackle one and not the other.
00:05:59.140
I mean, one that you touch on in your study is the delay in many young Canadians in leaving home.
00:06:05.460
So if you have one fifth of adults, 25 to 34, living with their parents, these are the data you've
00:06:10.620
showed, then that raises a number of practical challenges to your dating life, for example. It
00:06:18.720
raises challenges then in partnering up with someone where you, so that's one example. And we can look at
00:06:24.560
then, okay, why are Canadians living at their living at home? Is it economic? Okay, well, we have an
00:06:29.300
economic issue, a housing issue, you could solve that. And you maybe have only accounted for, let's
00:06:35.140
say, 10% of the problem, when you have all of these other factors.
00:06:41.120
Exactly. So you have to kind of look at people's life cycles here. I mean, you know, in order to have
00:06:47.700
children, you know, first, you know, most people will want to be in a couple before they do that.
00:06:51.900
And in order to be a couple, most people, you know, need to kind of leave home and set up a new
00:06:56.540
family unit. So, you know, certainly there are explanations like housing, for instance. I mean,
00:07:02.320
if you want to leave home, you need somewhere to live and start a family, you probably want a bigger
00:07:06.000
house. So those are explanations that do touch at this whole sequence of events that needs to happen.
00:07:13.380
But there's probably some deeper social cultural things going on as well. And as you say, Andrew,
00:07:17.800
you know, you can't just look at one aspect of this problem. There seems to be something that
00:07:23.200
the traditional model of, you know, you grow up, you leave home, start, you know, find a life
00:07:29.380
partner, and then have children. That traditional model just doesn't seem to be as popular amongst
00:07:35.620
Canadians or, frankly, across the Western world as it used to be. It's still what most people are doing,
00:07:40.380
but few and few people are doing it. I've heard mixed, sort of mixed weight given to economic
00:07:47.380
factors for people not having children, because I think we often hear, oh, it's too expensive to
00:07:51.820
have kids, it's too difficult. But I've also heard some studies that have showed that's really not the
00:07:56.820
reason people aren't, that very few people are refraining from having children because of the
00:08:00.900
cost. And I was wondering if you could weigh in on that.
00:08:02.980
Sure. I mean, the reality is, our grandparents, you know, had way less in terms of resources than
00:08:10.000
we have, and yet tended to have more children. You know, my grandmother lived in a small village
00:08:16.280
in the north of Yorkshire, and her husband was farm laborer, and they had four children.
00:08:20.960
So, you know, some of these economic arguments don't really work. Generally, what we see is the
00:08:26.260
more money people have, the fewer kids that they're having. And so, you know, I think to say, well,
00:08:31.840
you know, we can't afford children. Well, okay, but why wasn't that true 20, 30 years ago? Because
00:08:38.560
certainly, although incomes have been, you know, haven't really been advancing that much in Canada
00:08:44.260
the last couple of years, if you look over the last couple of decades, people now are a lot better
00:08:49.860
off than they were 20, 30 years ago. In your proposals of just possible policies that we could
00:08:56.700
include, one that I found interesting, because it's not often, I don't often see it in this context,
00:09:01.060
was looking at ways to reduce the formal educational requirements for jobs. So to actually
00:09:07.720
basically get people into the labor market earlier. And I was wondering if you could expound on that a
00:09:11.420
bit. Sure, because I think, well, one thing that's happening is people are spending longer and longer
00:09:16.100
in formal education. And, you know, particularly for women, that's a problem, because fertility for
1.00
00:09:22.460
women starts to fall after the age of 30, and falls quite significantly after the age of 35. So the more
1.00
00:09:30.060
time you're spending in formal education, and people usually, for obvious reasons, want to put
00:09:34.940
off starting a family until they've completed their formal education. Often, you want to get the kind
00:09:39.580
of that first job, get your first step on the career ladder before having a family. So all of that is
00:09:44.420
narrowing the window that people have to start a family and have children. And so I think we do need
00:09:51.200
to ask ourselves as a society, do we necessarily need the, you know, the credentials? Do we need
00:09:56.800
people to be spending quite as long in informal education as they as they currently do? You know,
00:10:02.560
Canadians were a very, very educated society. And, and that's a good thing. But we now have so many
00:10:08.320
people going to university, there are certainly a number of researchers have raised the idea that we may
00:10:13.440
just be getting into a bit of a rat race. You know, think of medical school, for instance,
00:10:19.280
huge number of people applying to medical school. And so you can be choosier about who you take, you
00:10:24.720
know, in times gone by, it may have been just enough to have had a medical degree, but now people want
00:10:29.840
you to do another degree first, and then maybe a master's degree, and then maybe some, some, some,
00:10:35.360
some other training as well before you even get into medical school, which is to say nothing about
00:10:40.400
the amount of time that you have to spend there. So it's what economists call credentialism. So
00:10:45.920
the idea is that, you know, university often just simply acts as a way to, to, to filter people,
00:10:52.000
according to ability, and spending five years there, as opposed to three years, isn't necessarily
00:10:58.800
improving your, your, your, your human capital, what employers are just using university as, as a
00:11:04.480
sorting mechanism, which is all very well, but it means that more and more of people's reproductive
00:11:10.320
years are being spent, you know, going and getting these credentials.
00:11:14.640
Well, and there's also been a decline of careers. I mean, we've all heard sort of the rise of the
00:11:19.760
gig economy. And I think the economy in some ways has been a positive, it gives people opportunities
00:11:25.120
and flexibility and whatnot. But a lot of that is not coming about because someone has chosen to engage
00:11:30.720
in gig work, it's because it's been available to them. And that idea, I mean, not that we're ever going
00:11:34.880
to go back to the eight days where, you know, you started a company and you're there for 40 years and
00:11:39.600
you retire and it's great. Like, I think that era is, is pretty much over, but the, the inability for
00:11:45.440
a lot of people or the apparent inability to find a career that gives them that stability is I think not
00:11:52.800
helping. Oh, absolutely. I mean, when, you know, having a family is even, even getting married and
00:12:00.400
and settling down and buying a house, I mean, that, that's a bet on the future. And so you need to have
00:12:05.440
pretty positive view of the future. You need to have an idea that there's a, you know, there's,
00:12:10.000
there's a bit of a ladder there. You know, hopefully that you'll, you know, you'll have a fairly safe
00:12:16.320
and stable stream of income. And when you ask people about, about the future,
00:12:22.640
Canadians are much more, especially young Canadians are much more worried about the future than,
00:12:27.280
than they used to be much more concerned about their ability to, you know, to, to have a house,
00:12:31.760
to have, to have a decent income. And so I, as you say, Andrew, yes, people may be, you know,
00:12:37.520
making enough now, but will that stream continue in the future? People just aren't as sure of that
00:12:42.160
as they might've been 20, 30, 40 years ago when the labor market looked quite different.
00:12:47.680
Well, it's a fascinating piece in the hub. And if that is not enough for you, you should go and read
00:12:53.120
the actual report in the Macdonald Laurier Institute, which is 56 pages, but very readable.
00:12:59.040
And I think very significant. Dr. Tim Sargent, well done. And thank you so much for coming on.
00:13:04.400
Thanks for having me, Andrew. Thanks for listening to the Andrew Lawton Show.
00:13:08.400
Support the program by donating to True North at www.tnc.news.