FINA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 4, 2002

¿

0935

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

Mr. Douglas A. Norris (Director General, Census and Demographic Statistics Branch, Social, Institutions and Labour Statistics Field, Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada)

¿

0940

¿

0945

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Doug Norris

¿

0955

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Mr. Doug Norris

À

1000

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

À

1005

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

The Chair

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

À

1010

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

À

1015

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Chair

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

À

1020

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.)

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Honorable Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mr. Doug Norris

À

1025

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Doug Norris

À

1030

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

À

1035

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Grant McNally

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

---

NUMBER 108

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 4, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0935)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Good morning everyone.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), these are pre-budget discussions. We are receiving a briefing from Statistics Canada today. For that, we're very pleased to welcome Dr. Doug Norris, the director general of the Census and Demographic Statistics Branch.

    Dr. Norris, we are very happy that you could come to help us through some of the original information that we've seen. Please commence with the brief that you've put before us.

    Mr. Douglas A. Norris (Director General, Census and Demographic Statistics Branch, Social, Institutions and Labour Statistics Field, Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada): Madam Chair, thank you for inviting us to appear before you to give you the first results of our most recent census, that of 2001.

    Thus far, the information that we have available from the census really paints a picture of our demographic situation and the demographic change across the country. We'll be releasing much more information over the next year on factors relating to labour markets, the cultural diversity of our country, the housing situation, and other topics. Today, though, I'll be concentrating on the demographics and some of the implications of those demographics.

    I'm going to go through the deck that I've made available to you and make a few comments on each. We can then certainly discuss the information.

    I'd like to touch on three points that we picked up in the demographic picture of our country. The first is what's happening to the nation as a whole; that is, where the country is going. The second is how our demographics differ across the country, from one region to another. In the demographic world, as in many other spheres, we have a very diverse country, with many different trends going on at the same time. It's really only when you get down to that level that you really see what's happening, and I'll talk about that. Finally, I'll have a look at our big urban areas, which, as you'll see, are certainly a focus of much of our growth.

    The first graph that I put together shows you the big picture. It's the growth rate of Canada over the last fifty years or so. You can see a declining growth rate overall, except for a period between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. Over the last five years, or the late 1990s, we had a growth rate of 4%. This is really just about the lowest growth rate the country has ever seen. It was about the same as it was during the 1980s, when we had a period of very low immigration. If you go back to the Depression, there was also a period of very low growth, but we're essentially at a low point in terms of our demographics.

    If you look at the next slide, in terms of the international scene, I situate the country by comparing it to a number of other selected countries. You can see that while our own growth rate is low compared to what it has been historically, we're certainly not low compared to many countries of the world, particularly the European countries and Japan, where growth rates are barely zero or just above zero and are much lower than the Canadian growth rate. However, we are—and this is new—now lower that the United States in terms of growth. For the first time in about a century, our growth rate has actually fallen a bit below the U.S. rate. The U.S. grew at somewhere between 5% and 6% for the five-year period, compared to our own 4%. You can also see that Australia is a bit higher. Of course, the world as a whole is growing more rapidly because of the developing world.

    Reasons for both the low growth and the lower rate when Canada is compared to the U.S. can really be traced to our birth rate or our fertility rate. On the next page, I show you the big picture in terms of how our fertility rate has changed over forty or fifty years. You can see a very familiar pattern. If you look at the red line, which is the Canadian rate, the rate increased during the 1940s and 1950s, up to about 1960. That's the famous baby boom that we've heard so much about, and we will continue to hear about it when we talk demographics. Those people are now moving into their mid-fifties, and now we're talking about them retiring and what's going to happen at that stage of their life. In past years, of course, they were a big driver of our growth because there were many of them and they were having children.

    You can see that the fertility rate dropped during the 1960s and 1970s. For about the last twenty to thirty years, it has been quite low, down around 1.5 to 1.8. It increased a little bit during the early 1990s, but then it dropped back in the late 1990s. That drop in the late 1990s was certainly one of the factors contributing to the very low growth that we've seen.

    You can see that, at the same time, the U.S. rate, which really was a bit lower than ours for quite some time, has been a bit higher for the past twenty or thirty years. The reasons for the higher U.S. rate are not entirely clear. We're actually doing some work and hope to be putting out a report on that next month, but I think it can be traced to a couple of factors. First, the U.S. still has a very high teenage fertility rate. It's much higher than ours. It's something they have tried to bring down, but it has certainly not come down to the extent that ours has. Also, young adults in their early twenties in the U.S. have much higher fertility rates than young adults here in Canada do. Together with a higher rate for the Hispanic population in the U.S., that probably accounts for most of the Canada-U.S. difference.

¿  (0940)  

    The role of the fertility rate is a very important factor in what I'll come back to in a couple of minutes when I talk a little bit about the aging of our population. This low fertility rate, this low birth rate, is really what drives our aging population.

    If you look at the next page, I've tried to break out what's behind the growth. Basically, two major factors drive growth. One is what I call natural increase, or the excess of births over deaths. The other is immigration, the excess of immigration over a small amount of emigration, or people leaving the country. The blue part is the natural increase. During the 1970s and 1980s, it accounted for most of our growth. But if you look around 2001, you can see the red part of the graph, which is the immigration. It now accounts for something like 60% of our growth, and it has been an increasing proportion.

    What I have shown is a projection into the future. Projections are always based on certain assumptions that may or may not happen, so we have to be careful. However, these assumptions basically say what happens if the birth rate stays about the same as it is and immigration stays about where it is, at 225,000 to 250,000 a year. Two things will happen. First, our natural increase—the excess of births over deaths—will continue to decline. In fact, if it stays that way for another 25 years, by about 2020 or 2025, we'll actually have more deaths in the country than births, simply because that birth rate is low. If the birth rate picks up, of course, that will not happen.

    As a result, you can see that immigration, the red part of the graph, plays an increasingly important role in determining what our growth rate will be. The dynamic or the built-in momentum in our population certainly is for a pull-down in our growth rate in the future unless fertility turns around. As you've seen, that really hasn't happened for thirty years, and not many people are suggesting much of a turnaround in that.

[Translation]

    The next table shows the growth rate by province. You can see that four provinces have a higher growth rate than the Canadian average, that is, 4 percent. The four are Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Nunavut Territory.

    The reason why growth is higher differs from one province to the other. In Ontario and British Columbia, immigration is a key factor. In Alberta, it is interprovincial migration, and in the case of Nunavut, it is birth.

    You can also see that Newfoundland, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories have a negative growth rate. There are six provinces with a growth rate that is more or less closer to zero.

[English]

    The next graph shows what's happening to our rural-urban swing over the long period. As you know, our country certainly is becoming an urban country. Today, approximately 80% of our population lives in urban areas, if we classify urban areas as centres of 1,000 or more. You can see that the growth in the urban population has gradually increased over the last century. Since about 1931 to 1941, the size of our rural population has changed relatively little. It has been at about 5 million or so, but the urban population today is at about 25 million. So, again, about 80% of our country is urban, and increasingly so. That has been the case census over census.

    On the next map, I've tried to give you a snapshot. There's clearly a lot of information on that map, but I think it is useful to look at the country as a whole. You can see which parts of the country are growing, and which parts are growing more rapidly than others. The dark purple areas are the areas with the fastest growth rates. These are growth rates above the Canadian average. The light blue ones are areas that are growing, but they're growing rather slowly. And the orange-coloured and beige-coloured areas are ones in which there was actually a decline in population. The darker the colour, the more the decline.

    You can look at this and see that and a number of things emerge in terms of the growth in the population. If you look at the dark blue or purple colours, you can see that the Windsor-Quebec corridor, Alberta, and the lower mainland of B.C., are areas really showing up with growth. A few other areas are doing so as well. You can see declines particularly in Saskatchewan, in the Atlantic region, in northern Quebec, and in northern Ontario. So there's a real diversity in terms of the growth.

    We looked at these areas and actually classified and identified four main areas of the country—this is on the next page—that really account for virtually all of the growth we've seen over the past five years. These are broad regions.

    The first region is what we call the Golden Horseshoe, which extends from Oshawa up to Barrie over to St. Catharines. That whole area represents nearly a quarter of Canada's population, at about 7 million people. That grew at a little under 10%, which was much higher than the Canadian average in the late 1990s.

    The Montreal region, the second-largest big region, at a little under 4 million, grew but much more slowly, at a little under 3%.

    The Vancouver lower mainland and Victoria, if you take them together, are at a little under 3 million, or about 10% of our population. They grew at 7%, which is again much higher than the national average.

    Finally, the fastest-growing area of the country in the late 1990s was the Calgary–Edmonton corridor. If you look at that area as a whole, it is a little over 2 million in population now, and it grew at 12%.

    If you take those four areas—and they are broad areas around the big cities—they account for half of our population today, and they accounted for virtually all of the growth in the late 1990s. The 50% of our population outside of those areas really only grew by 0.5%, with much variation within that. So our growth, at least in the 1990s, has really been very concentrated in those four regions.

    One of the reasons for this concentration, of course, is that immigration is now a big driver of our growth. As you know, immigration is very concentrated. Virtually all of our immigrants come into two or perhaps three big cities: Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Areas that attract immigrants will have momentum to grow. That's in addition to the momentum from the excess of births over deaths—a momentum that is now very low. So this is something to watch in the future in terms of growth rates. The areas attracting immigrants will clearly have higher growth rates, all other things being equal, when compared to areas that don't attract immigrants.

¿  (0945)  

    On the next graph, I've broken out what's happening to what I call the small-town and rural areas. These are our areas under 10,000 in population and our rural areas. You can see that in virtually every province, with the exception of Alberta and Ontario—and even there, the rates are fairly low—we actually had very small or, in Newfoundland's case and that of Saskatchewan, moderate declines in population. Our rural and small towns are stabilizing in terms of population growth, and are showing some declines in some areas. Again, this can partly be traced back to out-migration from these areas, as well as to the lack of immigration into these areas.

    The next graph shows the distribution of the growth rate across our big cities. There are 27 of them now. By far, Calgary had the highest growth rate, followed by Oshawa and Toronto. The left-hand side shows the areas with an above-average rate. With the exception of Ottawa, Windsor, and Halifax, virtually all of those areas were situated in those four areas I talked about a little earlier. On the right-hand side, you can see that some of our big cities are actually declining in population—these are the metropolitan areas of the cities, not just the cities themselves—with the biggest declines coming in Sudbury, Thunder Bay, and Chicoutimi.

    The final point that I'd like to mention is what is happening within our big urban regions. I've just taken Toronto as an example on the next map, and I've shown what we classify as the extended Golden Horseshoe—that is, that whole area from Oshawa up to Barrie and over to St. Catharines–Niagara. Toronto is the centre of that area. Toronto itself, meaning the city of Toronto, actually grew at a slightly above-average rate.

    Around the city of Toronto, you can see that what are fairly large cities just to the north—Markham, Vaughan, etc.—were growing very rapidly, at over 20% during the period, as compared to the 4% or 5% in the city. This is a phenomenon that we see in most cities, although it's by far most pronounced in the Toronto area. The city itself, or the core city, if you will, is actually growing, and is sometimes growing a bit faster than it was historically, but the surrounding area is growing even faster. As I say, it's most pronounced in Toronto, with very rapid growth.

    So we're seeing a shift in our population within the large urban regions, and one of the things we'll be looking for in the future census releases... I think we'll see that what we used to call suburbs or bedroom communities are clearly no longer bedroom communities, they're magnets for employment. This has real implications for things like travel to work. Transportation patterns across a big region like this are no longer just from the suburbs to downtown, they are much more complicated. That's something you'll be able to look at when we get the other data out.

    Finally, I've just added one slide. This is not data from the most recent census. The information on aging will be out in July of this year, but based on earlier data, aging is clearly an important demographic issue. About 12% of our population is over the age of 65 today. As you can see on the left-hand side of the slide, that percentage will increase fairly dramatically over the next twenty to thirty years, probably doubling and reaching somewhere in the vicinity of 20% to 25%. The real increase will start in about ten years or so, in 2011, when what has been termed the lead cohort of the baby boom—people born in 1946—hits 65. After that, the numbers turning 65 every year are very high and increasing rapidly, and you can see the proportion increasing as a result.

    Again, however, in the international context, we're a fairly young country today. Canada and Australia are down around 12%, as compared to a country like Sweden, which already has 18% of its population over the age of 65. Even the U.K. is up around 15% or 16%. These are levels Canada won't see for a number of years.

    I hope that has given you a brief overview of the demographics that we've seen in the census. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the committee has.

¿  (0950)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Could you just clarify something before we start the questions? You mentioned that you're going to be giving us more explanations. Could you give us a time range for when you're going to come out with more data, and can you tell us what that data is going to be about?

    Mr. Doug Norris: The information on aging comes out in July of this year. We'll have information on Canadian families and households out in October, and language information out in December. Early next year, from January until April, we get the labour market, immigration, and housing data.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Doug Norris: I can make the exact dates available to the committee if you would like.

    The Chair: Actually, if you could perhaps make decks of each one available to the committee, the clerk can distribute them if you send them in to him.

    Mr. Penson, please go ahead.

    Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    This is certainly food for thought for policy-makers as they meet challenges in the next twenty to thirty years as we have this aging population. Where we're going is pretty stark unless there are changes in our demographics.

    I have about three questions for you.

    Immigration is a big part of Canada's population growth these days. Did you do any analyses of the age of immigrants coming in? Some of the family reunification stuff means we're also bringing in elderly people. How does the age of immigrants break down compared with the average of—

    Mr. Doug Norris: I don't have the exact data on that, but the age of the immigrant population is essentially not all that different from that of our general population. It's a bit younger because a fair number of immigrants in their twenties and thirties are coming in, but as you mentioned, we also see some older immigrants as a result.

    One of the myths you sometimes hear is that if we crank up immigration, we can really get a younger population. That's certainly not the case. Even if it increased tremendously, immigration would not affect the age structure of our population very much. It would certainly affect the size, but the overall distribution by age is not too different from that of the general population.

¿  (0955)  

    Mr. Charlie Penson: It certainly means there are some challenges in terms of who's going to be paying the bills in the future, and also in terms of what type of work they're going to be doing. There must be a lot of opportunities for people to come in here in certain trades and certain professions as we have an aging population.

    I'm wondering if you did any breakdown on Canadians in particular. My understanding is that a fairly high birth rate exists among the aboriginal people. Can you shed any light on that?

    Mr. Doug Norris: The new data on the aboriginal population will be available next January. Based on what we have, though, there's no doubt that our aboriginal population is much younger than the overall population. I recollect that the last census showed that about half of the aboriginal population is under the age of 25. That's a much higher proportion than in the general population. That certainly is the segment of our population that is very young and still growing more rapidly than the total population, although I think the birth rate in the aboriginal population has come down a fair bit. It's still higher, I suspect, but it has come down.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: But they wouldn't have the infant mortality rates that they had in the past, so that would change the demographics quite a bit.

    Mr. Doug Norris: That's right.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: Is there a provincial breakdown on that as well?

    Mr. Doug Norris: On the aboriginal population? We have the data from our last census in 1996. Of course, outside of the territories, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have the highest proportion of their population that is aboriginal. So we do have the information, but it's a bit old now. We'll be updating it next January.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I would think it would have some implications for future land claims, for example. If the claims aren't settled now and are settled twenty years from now, that could be a factor.

    It's my understanding that you do an agricultural census?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We do an agriculture census. Unfortunately, I'm not very up to date on the agricultural side of things.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I'll wait until we have that information then.

    I'll pass, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Is somebody else up to date on that?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We could get someone, sure.

    The Chair: Mr. Penson, would you like to have some material forwarded to us?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We could certainly forward you some material.

    The Chair: Yes, and then we could circulate it.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I do have one question that maybe your people could address. Although the average farm size in western Canada is growing rapidly, are less acres being farmed?

    Mr. Doug Norris: Do you mean that in terms of overall acreage?

    Mr. Charlie Penson: Are we losing acreage as a result of the downturn in agriculture, or are farm sizes just expanding to cover that?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We can certainly find that out for you.

    The Chair: Okay, and if you send it to clerk, everybody will get it.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Penson.

    Mr. Cullen, it's your time.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Thank you for your presentation, sir. I'm sorry I missed the earlier part, but I read through the brief.

    I don't know if you track this very closely yourself, but one area that has been of concern to me is urban sprawl or the potential for urban sprawl. I'm looking at it in the context of air quality. If you look at the United States, the U.S. government supports cities in terms of roads around cities, but they only do it if the cities have committed to fight urban sprawl.

    In the city that I live in, Toronto, I think we've seen a degradation of the air quality. We see more cars per capita than perhaps anywhere in the world, or in North America anyway. We see the suburbs growing and people driving to and from work, and a diminishing air quality. I asked the Library of Parliament to do some research for me on urban density in the Toronto area. I was surprised that the urban density in the GTA is not that much different from major centres in North America.

    Do you have any insights or data on that? It would be useful when we deal with this question of air quality and urban sprawl.

    Mr. Doug Norris: We have the new data on density, and that's likely what the researchers at the library found for you.

    At this point, we don't have a lot of information on environmental air quality and other factors at a city level. It's something we're working on developing, and it's a fairly high priority for us. We had a bit of a data gap the last time we looked at it, so I can't give you any specific information. Certainly, Environment Canada may have some information in that area, but it's an area we're looking at.

À  (1000)  

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I know you don't carry all this data around in your head, but could you send me—or the committee if it's interested—the latest urban density numbers in Canada, comparing them to other major centres in North America and the world. The data are probably right, but it seems that if there was ever a city that has an urban sprawl problem, it's Toronto. It would be helpful to—

    Mr. Doug Norris: We can do that.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I'm not sure where I'd go with this, other than to say we should do a better job. But by benchmarking against other North American cities, Toronto seems not to be doing too badly.

    Mr. Doug Norris: A bit of an issue in using density as a measure is the fact that it depends on what area you're measuring the density for. The area might have a very high density in one part and a very low density in another, and if you put those together, the overall density doesn't look too bad. I don't know whether that's the case in Toronto, but it's possible that parts of the GTA are fairly large parts and not very dense, while other parts are very dense. When you look at the density for the GTA, it then doesn't look too bad. But we can certainly dig down a lot deeper and look at the density within parts of the GTA. That may give you a picture.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Just to cap off my intervention, one of the consequences is that if you can create policies that will encourage greater density, you see high-rises being built along the public transit route. We have a challenge in Toronto. Public transit is used, but I think we need to use it more. People often say it's just not available. If we're going to be encouraging public transit as a federal government, and maybe encouraging it in a tangible way, I was wondering if we could invent policies that would provide an incentive for cities to deal with urban sprawl. That's the reason for my interest.

    Mr. Doug Norris: As I mentioned, I think one of the things that's certainly happening in a place like Toronto is that commuting patterns are changing. As I mentioned, I suspect we'll see less movement from outside the city to the downtown core, with much more movement across—Mississauga out to Markham, for example. That type of movement has some real implications for public transport and for commuting.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

    The Chair: Grant.

    Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): I would agree with what Roy is saying. It certainly describes my area just outside Vancouver, too. Similar patterns are developing there. Also, as you say, we see transmigration from one community to another. It's not so much that people are driving into Vancouver anymore, but across the Fraser Valley from one point to another. As a result, we certainly have the same air quality issues in the Fraser Valley.

    You have projected growth for seniors, but do you have that for regions over the next fifty years, if the growth is to continue in these areas at the same rate?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We do projections for Canada and for the provinces and territories. We don't go below that level because the assumptions really become critical at that point and are much less certain. Certainly, they can easily be done. If one asked what would happen if the growth rate continued at x, we could do that. We do it on a request basis, but we don't publish those estimates mainly because migration becomes such an important factor. It can change fairly rapidly, so we certainly don't try to project it out fifty years or so.

    Mr. Grant McNally: But you do have the numbers?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We do have them for the provinces, definitely, and we can make that kind of information available.

    Mr. Grant McNally: That would be great.

    It looks like we're going to need a lot more people in the coming years. Our immigration rates aren't going to cover it all. We have people retiring at an earlier age and living longer. Those are all factors that are going to have a huge impact on government policy in the next generation.

    You have some charts here that compare us to other countries. I don't know if this is a question you can answer, but where are we going to get these people from if birth rates are declining, immigration rates can't sustain us, and people are living longer? Obviously, we're going to have an issue here when it comes to having a pool of individuals to sustain the nation. And people are also leaving.

    Maybe that's just a comment and not a question.

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Doug Norris: Maybe we'll leave it as a comment.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Let me throw that out for everybody to consider.

    Are you finding, too, that the increase in the number of seniors...it's already happening, basically, because there has been growth in that number. We traditionally think about the baby boom. There was a boom prior to the baby boom, by about ten years or so.

    A lot of the issues that people were thinking would come about a little bit later are upon us now, and they aren't ones we can necessarily wait to deal with. We can't wait until the group that you mentioned—I believe you mentioned 1946; I think that's what it was—hits retirement. A lot of those people are already getting there because of early retirement. Another fairly large segment of people is already there. Would you say that may be one of the reasons why we're getting the demands on, obviously, health care and other sectors?

    Mr. Doug Norris: I think you're right. In aging, we have seen an increase in the older population. In fact, I suspect the “older” old population of those over the age of 80 or 85 is probably the fastest-growing part of our population right now, let alone in the future, for exactly the reasons you've mentioned. So that will be a key group to look at.

    Mr. Grant McNally: You break out the numbers for retirement age, but do you break them out, as you say, for the older seniors?

    Mr. Doug Norris: Yes, certainly. For any real analysis, I've tried to summarize it here, so I've used 65 as a proxy. But one really needs to look at two or three groups even within that older population, because lifestyle and demands on services are very different for those who are 65 to 74, 75 to 85, and then 85 and over, because of their changing health situation. So we can certainly do that, yes.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

    The Chair: Before we go to Dr. Bennett, I'm just going to follow up on a couple of questions.

    When I first saw this Statistics Canada data, one thing surprised me. I have this chart, and maybe I'll just go through it.

    By 2031, net immigration as a percentage of total population growth is projected to be 100%. In other words, our population grows only because of immigration in the year 2031. The other, more surprising statistic on this chart that I have—I'll give it to the clerk so that it can be passed around; I believe it's Statistics Canada data—shows that, by 2011, the contribution to the labour force is 100% growth to net migration. In other words, in 2011, which is not that far away, we're only going to get our labour force through immigration.

    Mr. Doug Norris: I would think that's certainly the case, because the numbers leaving the labour force now are much larger than the numbers entering.

    The Chair: Dr. Norris, maybe what I'll do is get the clerk to give this to you. Perhaps you can verify it to see if it is from Statistics Canada. I got it through Immigration, but I want to make sure of the source to know that it's correct.

    Mr. Doug Norris: We can track that down.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Chair, may I ask a question on that?

    The Chair: Certainly, Mr. Penson, but I'm going to add you to the list. We're going to Dre Bennett next.

    Anyway, I think those are pretty material facts for us to understand.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: It's supplemental.

    The Chair: It's supplemental to what I just asked? Okay, go ahead.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: Thank you.

    The question I have is this: Shouldn't we also be provided with the out-migration of the labour force?

    The Chair: These were the net migration figures.

    I don't need you to verify those for me today, Dr. Norris, but I want to make sure I have things right in my own head and that the committee also understands this issue.

    Dre Bennett, go ahead.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): My first question is just out of total ignorance. Since you're director general for census and demographic statistics, can you tell me if those numbers are... How healthy are they? Are they working or not? Are those matters in your area? How is Statistics Canada organized?

À  (1010)  

    Mr. Doug Norris: My area is certainly responsible for the basic numbers. Since the census does touch on the labour force, immigration, and other areas, we also have another area that looks at the labour force and income in more detail than I do. We certainly look at the aboriginal population, immigration, the cultural diversity of the country, and disability, as you know. Those topics fall directly in my area, but we work very closely, so most of the social data is not far away. Health is separate as well.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Let me ask you about two things. In this chart, in terms of the percentage change in population, is there a breakdown of that by province and territory, based on birth rate? I would assume Nunavut's increase is mostly due to birth rate.

    Mr. Doug Norris: Yes, that's right.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: For some places, I think that would be an important chart for us to see.

    Mr. Doug Norris: We don't have that information directly from the census. We track it in other areas, though, so we could do that.

    That's a good point: the reasons for why different parts of the country are growing differ. In Ontario and B.C., growth is due to immigration, whereas I suspect it really is due to the birth rate in Nunavut, as you mentioned. In Alberta, it's mostly interprovincial migration. So the drivers of that growth will vary from area to area, and we do have estimates of what it would be at the provincial—territorial level.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: In terms of the cohort, when we look at seniors, we tend to just put them at 65. What would happen if we moved that to 66? Do we have any projections on what would happen in terms of economic projections if we let everybody work one more year? We don't seem to have enough people working.

    At one of the previous panels, all of the universities were complaining that they don't have enough researchers, but they have compulsory retirement at 65. To me, that seems sort of dopey when you see that some of these people are in the prime of their research careers. How would we sort that out? How do we, as a government, do those sorts of models?

    Mr. Doug Norris: I guess you could develop some type of a model that says what would happen to the labour force if everybody retires a year later or two years later. You'd have to run it through some assumptions. That's possible, but it's not something we've done to any extent that I'm familiar with as of now. But certainly it would be possible to look at the sensitivity of the labour market change to the retirement age.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: That huge period of time between retirement...we're all living longer, and I think we're all staying healthier. These sorts of schemata say that, at 65, it's time people went on. How do we change that?

    Maybe this is not a good topic this week.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: They were looking at me funny over there.

    The other question is PALS. How are we doing on this? Do we have any early data on that? Obviously, we are eagerly awaiting that, so what do we know?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We're doing quite well on the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey that we do. I appeared before Carolyn's committee some time ago, and we had a nice discussion on that.

    The data have all been collected and the survey was quite successful. We're now in the process of working the information through the computer and building the database. We don't have any results yet. We hope to have the results from that by the end of the calendar year if all goes well.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: In terms of their attachment to the workforce and the disproportionate amount of—

À  (1015)  

    Mr. Doug Norris: You would be able to look at that.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: We'll be able to look at that? What about underemployment?

    Mr. Doug Norris: I forget the details on which questions we've had, but there's a fair bit of detail about employment. I suspect that we can get at that through the survey as well.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: And that's also for children with disabilities as well?

    Mr. Doug Norris: Yes, we have the whole age range covered.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: In terms of mental health, do you think we have good triggering questions?

    Mr. Doug Norris: There are some questions on that. We are in the process of planning a very large mental health survey that is separate from the disability survey. That really will probably be the best source of data on mental health.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: How many Canadians were surveyed for the PALS?

    Mr. Doug Norris: It was in the vicinity of 20,000. I should check the exact number, but something like that comes to mind.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: In the regular census, how many would have qualified for that triggering question?

    Mr. Doug Norris: Many more would have qualified, but we select just a certain number because of costs. We don't have the results from the total census question yet, but I believe it was in the vicinity of 15% of the population last time, or something like that. It's 15% of a very large number, since the census went to two million households. A lot of people in the census would have checked off that they are limited in some way at work, at home, or in some other activity.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Since it has been ten years since the last PALS and we were looking at numbers like four million Canadians with a disability, do you think it will be around that, or can you tell?

    Mr. Doug Norris: I can't say yet. I wouldn't expect major changes, even over ten years, but there would be some change. Aging of our population would certainly have an effect, but it's hard to say.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thanks.

    The Chair: Could you give a timeline for when you think that report is going to be ready?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We hope the disability report will be ready by December of this year.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Penson, you had a question.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: It's just a short question.

    I'm not sure if you can track this or not, but it seems to me that for the people who are currently about ready to retire, there's going to be a huge generational transfer of wealth to the next generation. A lot of these people came through the 1930s and turned out to be savers. That's the experience I see in my own community. A lot of people of retirement age have accumulated a lot of money. Do you track that?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We do periodically track wealth. It's a very difficult concept to try to measure, though, as you might imagine. We did do a survey several years ago, and we have information about the wealth of Canadians as of the end of the century. That survey doesn't tell you what's going to happen to that wealth, but it does give you a picture of how much there is amongst various groups and at various ages. That information would be available.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: In terms of your own background in looking at this, can you confirm what I've said?

    Mr. Doug Norris: I don't think I'd be able to comment on that.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: The question really has to do with the people who are going to be retiring or are retiring. Do they have their own sources of income for that retirement, or will they be needing retirement money from government? If that were to decrease in the future, if we weren't able to afford to put as much money into retirement for seniors, would they be able to look after themselves? That's what I'm asking.

    Mr. Doug Norris: One of the things we tried to do in that survey was not simply look at wealth in terms of housing or other investments. We also tried to value pension plans, which are certainly a very tricky feature. We did have a go at that, though, so we do actually have information on the pension entitlements of people at various ages. One could therefore look at the questions you're asking. We haven't done that as of yet, but the data probably would be there to let us look at that type of thing.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I think it would be good for us, as a committee, to look at that. If we have a smaller population base to finance these things in the future, are people who are retiring going to be able to finance their own retirement? That's an important consideration.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Leung, followed by Ms. Minna.

À  (1020)  

    Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you.

    Do you think the decline in population in the rural areas is due to the farming economy? Also, can you tell me how the farming sector will be affected by the aging of the population?

    Mr. Doug Norris: I think the slowdowns and declines in the rural population are partly due to the low birth rates that we have everywhere in the country, including rural areas. In addition, there is some out-migration from the rural areas into the cities or to other areas. Both of those things taken together really are what is causing the decline. Certain areas may have higher out-migration. In rural Newfoundland, a fair bit of out-migration occurred in the late 1990s. Those conditions are likely going to be there in the future, but it's hard to say whether they'll increase or not. The declines, while they were there, were not huge in most places, but they were generally negative.

    In terms of the aging in farming, as was mentioned earlier, I don't have the results of our agricultural census with me, but we did see a decrease in the number of farms and an increase in the size of farms. Again, whether or not that's going to continue or the extent to which it will continue is a bit hard to say.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Presently, our immigration targets are aiming for 1%. Earlier, you commented that it doesn't mean it will include the aging population. How do you perceive 2030? Will we have to increase the percentage of the immigration target? In what way could we maybe be more selective for the skilled workers' group that will probably be in the able-bodied age group? Could you comment on those?

    Mr. Doug Norris: I can't comment on the selection criteria for our immigrants. I think you'd be better off talking to the people at Immigration about that.

    In terms of the numbers, the information I showed you assumed immigration somewhere between 225,000 and 250,000. If it moved to 1% of our population, which would be a little over 300,000 a year, that growth rate that you see on the graph I've shown you would actually move upwards somewhat. In fact, we could look at what that is. We have another projection that shows a higher growth as a result of immigrants.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Right now, our growth rate averages 1.5%, right?

    Mr. Doug Norris: Our growth rate? No.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: I'm sorry. I meant the birth rate.

    Mr. Doug Norris: In terms of the average number of children a woman has, our birth rate is around 1.5.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Of course, we don't know what that will be in the future.

    Mr. Doug Norris: It hasn't changed a whole lot in the last twenty or thirty years, and it doesn't seem to be moving very much.

    If I take a case study, my own daughter has had her first child and I think she may have a second. That's likely it, and that's balanced by some people who have none.

    No signs that I know of show much of a change in our birth rate, but it could change. A few years before the baby boom, people were making projections similar to today: the country was going to go down and disappear in fifty years. But then along came the baby boom. Demographic forecasting is certainly a risky business, and one needs to keep that in mind.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Minna.

    Honorable Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Some of us will recall that the baby boom was after the war. Maybe there was some catching up to do after what happened over there. That may have caused some of that.

    I just wanted to go to some of your charts. One shows Canada, Australia, and the U.S., in terms of the five-year growth rates. Australia and the U.S. are higher. Is that strictly due to birth rate increases, or are other factors involved?

    Mr. Doug Norris: We've done some analysis of the U.S.–Canada difference, and it's due to two things. The first is that birth rates particularly among younger women account for some of the differences. The U.S. has a very high teenage birth rate, which pulls their overall birth rate up. Additionally, the Hispanic population in the U.S. also has above-average fertility. So those two factors account for most of the difference between the U.S. and Canada.

    I haven't looked at Australia to see what the reason is, but I would suspect it's mostly due to the birth rate there as well.

À  (1025)  

    Ms. Maria Minna: So we need to increase our immigration from the Americas.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Ms. Maria Minna: Anyway, that was one question. I just wanted to understand how much of it was due to birth rate, or if there were any other factors, such as migration, especially in Australia. In the Pacific region, a lot of migrant people are trying to come in.

    Mr. Doug Norris: It could be that their immigrant population has higher fertility as well. I'm just not familiar with it.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Immigrants tend to have larger families initially, but they don't after the second generation. They drop down pretty quick.

    My next question has to do with the chart that shows the immigration levels and the natural birth rate. When I look at the blue at the very end, it is actually different below the...it's going into a minus. As a result, as we've said before, we're entirely dependent on immigration for our growth rate.

    Our immigration policy at this point is supposed to be 1% of our population, which should mean about 300,000, although we have never really been near that. We're projecting something like 225,000 to 250,000 this year, if I'm not mistaken. Given these statistics, would you suggest that if we want to maintain a labour force that is young... Again, I go back to these statistics that you had on the aging population. The age of the immigrant community is said to be slightly younger than that of the rest of the society, if I heard you right earlier, because a lot of immigrants tend to be younger people.

    Would you suggest that our immigration policies are out of sync with reality and the kind of country we're going to be facing in the next twenty years and in a little over twenty years? Would you say we need to start now to address that situation? I don't see that Canadians are suddenly going to produce a lot more children in the next twenty years. We will have a decline, which will then affect all our programs, as well as our ability to maintain seniors who are retiring.

    Mr. Doug Norris: I can't really comment on the immigration policy per se, but I think we're starting to see a debate across the country about what our growth rate should be. Some people are arguing it should be higher, but I've heard other people argue that a low growth rate is certainly not detrimental from an environmental perspective. There are different views on what would be good for the country.

    We're putting out the information on where we would go under certain assumptions, but we're really not in a position to comment on whether we should have higher growth, lower growth, or something in between. That really is a policy question that needs to be debated and talked about. Different growth rates certainly have different implications, though. That's what can come out of these numbers.

    Ms. Maria Minna: I just have one other question.

    Your last chart deals with the senior population. Have you done any comparative studies to see whether the impact that everybody is assuming seniors are going to have on social programs is in fact as heavy as everyone thinks? I'm thinking of a couple of things.

    I find that more seniors are healthier for longer than they used to be. Many of them in my own riding have some fairly extensive support programs in home care. Seniors are assisted to stay at home and don't require hospitalization, or at least they don't require a similar kind of thing.

    Also, a study has been done in the regional hospital in my riding, looking specifically at the whole issue of seniors putting a burden on the health care system. In looking at that issue, they came to the conclusion that it's really a myth, because of the fact that seniors need different types of services. It doesn't necessarily mean they are putting a burden on the system, it's just that what we provide to them is different and not what is standard in the system for a younger person.

    So you have a number of things. First, they're healthier longer. Second, the community supportive services, the supports that exist, have a major impact on their usage of primary health care institutions or hospitals. Third, what's required when they do get into hospitals is different. It's not so much that the cost is higher, it's just a different type of health.

    Have you done any... I'm looking at this particular study that was done in one hospital in my riding with the help of the community. Essentially, my riding takes in all of the catchment area of the Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital. They've looked at it and have done a comprehensive study, with the help of all of the community organizations and support, and doctors and clinics. They've come together and have basically asked about what is happening to the health care system, about what's not working, and how it can be fixed.

    That particular area of my riding has a fairly high percentage of seniors, as well as an extremely well-established support system for seniors in their homes. They looked at what was wrong, what wasn't working, and why they're not connecting with each other. That's a complex question, but...

À  (1030)  

    Mr. Doug Norris: It's a very good question.

    We don't have any study that I could point to that really looks at the impact. One of the reasons is that it is very complicated. The point you make is an excellent one in the sense that what the aging population means is different needs. Whether it's more overall in terms of resources is a difficult question to answer.

    I know some research has been done by a number of academics who have looked at both sides of that issue. I think you can find studies on one side that say it doesn't have an impact. I can think of a study by Professor Robert Evans, from UBC, who has looked very carefully at this issue. I think he came up with some results showing that there are different needs, but that the impact overall may not be as great as some people think. On the other side, I think you can find studies showing a big impact.

    I think your point about needing to look at different needs is really the crux of it. That's what needs to be done and recognized. Even in our population overall, we're going to have more seniors but relatively fewer children, so there's going to be a redistribution of service demands within society. How all of that plays out overall is the real question.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. McNally.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    It seems to me that the policies we need to be thinking about now and into the next generation are ones that encourage people to come to Canada, like immigration policies, and ones that keep the people we do have. One possibility is something we haven't really talked about. We think there will never be a possibility of an increased birth rate among Canadians, but perhaps that is possible. Maybe that's something that can be looked at through some kind of policy initiative by the government.

    I'm going to raise a somewhat controversial topic not in terms of the morality of it, but just in terms of its statistical impact, and that's terminated pregnancies. Fifty years ago, it was more common for adoptions to happen. They do still happen today, but do you do any impact studies of those kinds of numbers and how they have affected the population?

    Mr. Doug Norris: No, we haven't done any studies like that.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Do you know if those number are available?

    Mr. Doug Norris: They are available in terms of the number of terminated pregnancies.

    Mr. Grant McNally: But no one has run those through the system to see what the impact would be?

    Mr. Doug Norris: Not that I'm familiar with, no. There's nothing that I know of.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: There are also numbers on how many single moms keep their babies, on those who are not giving them up for adoption. That's another thing.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Sure, and all those social impact factors weren't even part of the machinery of how we plugged those numbers into the system a generation ago or two generations ago.

    I just want to talk to you about the definition of “rural area”. You define a rural area as a centre of 1,000 people or less.

    Mr. Doug Norris: In one of the graphs, I—

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Grant McNally: Is that generally the standard?

    Mr. Doug Norris: It's a statistical definition that we've used for quite some time. It allows us to compare things over time. In one of the other graphs, I referred to rural and small towns as being below 10,000.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing when people are throwing numbers around about how many people are urban dwellers versus rural dwellers, I consider the east end of my riding to be a rural area. The population base in that area is about 6,000, so in one definition it would be urban, but in another it's rural. It is a small town with farms and things like that, though. So does that definition change?

    Mr. Doug Norris: No, for some time, the definition of “rural” statistically has meant a population of 1,000. For reasons you're suggesting, though, I think we're also looking at “rural” and “small town” together, because there starts to be a blurring of those two.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Is it time to reconsider the definition of “rural”?

    Mr. Doug Norris: There is some work being done on that. The value of our census is that we can really look at all the areas. Perhaps we shouldn't get too tied up with trying to force everything into one specific definition. It allows us to look at different kinds of areas, but for purposes of a long-term trend, we do use 1,000.

    Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, thanks.

    That's all, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Murphy, please.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): I just have one quick question, Madam Chairperson.

    Dr. Norris, in your overall analysis and from your own personal perspective, in comparing Canada to other OECD countries or whatever, is any trend in our numbers, in the Canadian experience, alarming?

    Mr. Doug Norris: No, I don't think anything is alarming. As you've seen, our growth rate is certainly down, but it's reasonably high when it is compared to that of many countries. Again, though, I'd come back to the fact that these rates and changes certainly have implications. Those implications are what we're trying to draw out of the data.

    The Chair: Does anybody else have any other questions before I wrap up? No?

    Having seen none, Dr. Norris, I thank you. It's important that you deliver this data to us. When the Standing Committee on Finance put out its questions to Canadians in its pre-budget discussions this year, one of the things under which we made the parameters was the new census data as it comes out to us in order to see where Canadians live. We've asked people to bring their thoughts not only on economic prosperity and how we achieve it, but on quality of life for all the people of Canada. Census information is important to us, so please provide it as it becomes available. It will be distributed.

    I thank you for attending today, and extend our appreciation on behalf of all the committee members. Members, we have two meetings this week. Another meeting was scheduled with the former finance minister next week. I do not yet know whether that is going to be cancelled or rescheduled with the new minister. As soon as our clerk gets a definitive answer, I will let you know. The notice is out there right now. It has not yet been cancelled, but it could be changed. We'll probably hear by the end of the week.

    Thank you very much. We are adjourned.