The Quebec Question and Demographics
Demographics are very important when analyzing the demographics of Canada. Currently, Quebec constitutes approximately 23.3% of the Canadian population. More importantly, people who claim their mother tongue is French constitute 20.5% of the Canadian population, according to Statistics Canada (estimates for 2005).
The problem with recognizing Quebec as a "nation" within Canada is that in 50 years, what will Quebec look like? What will Canada look like?
At current population growth rates (2003 estimate 0.94%), Canada's population will rise from 32.6 Million in 2006 to 52.1 Million in 2056. As the fertility rate of the nation is only 1.61 (2003 estimate), all of this population growth will come via immigration. It is unlikely that 20.5% of the immigrants required (roughly 30 million people, consider deaths in Canada) will be French-speaking. Likely they will speak Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu or Arabic.
Considering that the birthrate in Quebec is below 1.5 children per woman, this means that 25% of the Francophone population will disappear each generation (approximately 25 years). This of course assumes that the francophone population and Quebec population are essentially the same people (arguably the ones who are the "nation of Quebec").
Doing the math, this results in a key finding: The francophone population of Canada in 2056 will be 3.77 Million, which is only 7.2% of the country as a whole. Assuming that Quebec continues to attract immigrants at the same rate as the rest of Canada, the population of Quebec will be 12.1 Million. This means that francophones will only make up 31% of the Quebec population.
Therefore, if we entrench the idea of the "Quebec Nation" in the constitution, or elsewhere in legislation, it is going to be a big problem in 50 years because the people that make up this supposed nation will be a minority in their own territory... How much life will bilingualism have once there are no provinces with a majority Francophone population? My prediction is that Quebec's francophone majority will cease to be a majority in 2034. Mark that date...
So entrenching Quebec's "special status" based on linguistic or culutral heritage is ridiculous, because in 50 years this country will look very different.
The problem with recognizing Quebec as a "nation" within Canada is that in 50 years, what will Quebec look like? What will Canada look like?
At current population growth rates (2003 estimate 0.94%), Canada's population will rise from 32.6 Million in 2006 to 52.1 Million in 2056. As the fertility rate of the nation is only 1.61 (2003 estimate), all of this population growth will come via immigration. It is unlikely that 20.5% of the immigrants required (roughly 30 million people, consider deaths in Canada) will be French-speaking. Likely they will speak Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu or Arabic.
Considering that the birthrate in Quebec is below 1.5 children per woman, this means that 25% of the Francophone population will disappear each generation (approximately 25 years). This of course assumes that the francophone population and Quebec population are essentially the same people (arguably the ones who are the "nation of Quebec").
Doing the math, this results in a key finding: The francophone population of Canada in 2056 will be 3.77 Million, which is only 7.2% of the country as a whole. Assuming that Quebec continues to attract immigrants at the same rate as the rest of Canada, the population of Quebec will be 12.1 Million. This means that francophones will only make up 31% of the Quebec population.
Therefore, if we entrench the idea of the "Quebec Nation" in the constitution, or elsewhere in legislation, it is going to be a big problem in 50 years because the people that make up this supposed nation will be a minority in their own territory... How much life will bilingualism have once there are no provinces with a majority Francophone population? My prediction is that Quebec's francophone majority will cease to be a majority in 2034. Mark that date...
So entrenching Quebec's "special status" based on linguistic or culutral heritage is ridiculous, because in 50 years this country will look very different.
posted by Technical Bard | 13:58
8 Comments:
It's nice for someone to finally realise the importance of demographics in determining the future ethnic outlook of this country. If we can hold the country together until that time, separatism will disappear altogether or die a slow death from lack of votes. It's all a matter of making it to the hurdle.
I am also concerned about the levels of immigration. is it ok if those of european decent become the minority in our own country? for that matter, how does one define "our country", the left and MSM seem to see great value in canada being a "mulicultural" nation. i do not see the value in canada growing greatly in population in general. i also see increased "multiculturlism" as leading to only the decline of "our" (canadian) own culture.
continuing from my earlier point, i don't understand the appeal of canada growing in population. i like the small population of canada, our wide open spaces and the community feel of such a small country population wise. increasing population leads only to more development, less space for each person and a general disconecction from your fellow countrymen. i find a canada population of 50+ million a very sad prospect indeed.
Unless we start having more children, we will need immigration simply to hold the population. This alone will change the demographics of the country as the immigrants are not going to be of European descent.
We need a growing population because of the need to grow the number of taxpayers to pay for our social welfare state, and economic growth. We would need far fewer immigrants, and arguably would have more children ourselves if the social welfare state was dismantled.
No we don't. We don't need to pay for our welfare state; we could dismantle it. And we don't need more people to encourage economic growth. We can automate manufacturing (labour shortages are good for that), and mature economies are all service-based, anyway.
Ira,
I was being facetious. We not only could dismantle the welfare state - we must do so before it drowns us...
A service based on economy only grows in the demand for services increases. This generally requires an increase in the number of people demanding services. Of course, if you can grow based on service exports, one does not need a growing population.
with such advanced technology as currently available, canada should easyily be able to maintain a very high standard of living, and of goods and services available with a smaller population. i don't want canada becoming overrun by immigration. its call stable state economic theory people, look into it.
i guess i think that a utopian society really wouldn't be that hard to have, the only thing holding us back are: 1. not proper useage of the technology we have and 2. too many people. the fewer people we have, the better off anyone could be, i.e. more resources for each person, less impact environmentally, etc. sharing a pie with less people means more pie for everyone there. its that simple
Post a Comment
<< Home