No baby bonus for Newfoundland and Labrador

Dara
Dara Squires
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Dara Squires

Former Premier Danny Williams may consider the Conference Board of Canada’s forecast of a shrinking population to be “bullshit,” but a look at our province’s demographics backs it up.

A couple of years ago I wrote a column taking a look at the effect the “baby bonus” has had on our birth rate and growth statistics. In “When a bonus is a negative,” I wrote that from 2007 to 2012 “we’ve experienced an overall decrease in births of 9.2 per cent ... in our one big year, 2008, when births increased by 345 over the previous year, our population in the 0-4 age range only increased by 285.

“Essentially, even if we increase the birth rate, we can’t make people stay.”

A look at statistics and demographic information since then shows a continuing trend. Despite a slight increase in births in 2008, our young population has been rapidly declining from the days Danny himself declared our province “a dying race.”

Year to year, there’s been negative to negligible growth in our under-20 population. In 2007, we had 110,511 provincial citizens under the age of 20, making up 22 per cent of the overall population. In 2013, those numbers were much lower at 105,081 people and just under 20 per cent of the population.

Meanwhile, the growth of 18,000 in the population that the Conference Board mentioned is more than encompassed by our growth in the 50+ age range.

From 185,380 citizens ranging from 50 to 100+ in 2007, in 2013 that age group grew by over 30,000 to 215,818. From 36 per cent of the population in 2007, this age bracket grew to 41 per cent of the population in 2013. That’s a growth of five per cent while our provincial population overall only grew by 3.5 per cent.

In other words, not only do we have a rapidly aging population, but their growth is matched in the negative by decline in the younger population, signifying a decline in our reproductive and work force.

If that’s not a “dying race,” I don’t know what is.

Related: Williams says he believes N.L. population will not shrink

It’s not that the baby bonus caused this. The fact is that as depressed as our economy was in the days when the fishery ruled our forecasts, at least it was a consistent economy. Nowadays, with mega development and oil money, our economy is one that features short-term economic bursts that don’t seem to hold out  in the long run.

So, our population might stick around for a while, but once they reach childrearing years they want to know that they can have a long-term job.

And we have nothing else to attract a young population. It used to be entry-level homes were affordable, at least, but with the mega developments in housing and artificially inflated prices due to short-term migration and landlords buying up properties, an affordable family home is a dream for most young families.

Despite the money our government has poured into creating licensed daycare spots, the fact is the majority of these daycares can’t meet the needs of many working class families who need more flexible hours and school-daycare transportation options.

Any parent working during their child’s half day kindergarten year will tell you that daycare is neither affordable nor convenient for most parents.

And yet, our government continues to waste money on the provincial baby bonus as a supposed incentive to increase our population.

Statistics Canada estimates that in 2012/2013 Newfoundland and Labrador will have 4,420 births. Our baby bonus promises to pay $1,000 at birth plus another $100 a month for 12 months to a total of $2,200 a child. If each child received the full bonus, our government, in one year alone, will have paid out over $9 million. That’s a large investment in a program that has been shown since its implementation to be ineffective.

It’s time our government ceased this farce of a program and, as Danny says, “put their money where their mouth is” and create real incentives for healthy population growth and consistency.

You can comment on this column or access previous editions of Readily A Parent using the following short link: http://bit.ly/DaraSquires.

Organizations: Conference Board of Canada, Statistics Canada

Geographic location: Newfoundland and Labrador

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Donna Thistle
    February 13, 2014 - 21:28

    well said Dara.

  • L.G.J.taylor
    February 13, 2014 - 20:03

    well if people didn't abuse the privilege of getting money from the government we wouldn't be in this mess. I say that if this privilege is taken, the population will decrease a bit resulting in more permanent jobs for the people who need it to live and for people to think twice before conceiving a child and know that they cannot depend on the government to raise their child for them.

  • Bill Barry
    February 13, 2014 - 18:50

    Spot on!!!!!

  • Linda
    February 13, 2014 - 05:12

    Raise your own children, Lease for the first five years, Give them a chance to get and know their parent. There will be plenty time to show them the other side of the door

  • djds
    February 12, 2014 - 18:30

    I see full-day kindergarten as one of the key ways for encouraging families to have children, and encouraging young families to stay and move to this province. Government should consider getting this in place because it is one of the things families consider when sizing up quality of life. Bumping up the birthrate depends on young families being supported in this way. It's outdated thinking to assume that the prospect of jobs and economic prosperity on their own will be sufficient to attract new residents and encourage population growth. Once we accomplish those things, then we can start talking about new homes and fancy new housing developments along the lines of Galway. Otherwise, we'll end up with people with great jobs earning lots of money, but ones who are too busy to put children into the picture. Population-wise, we won't be any farther ahead.

  • marilee pittman
    February 12, 2014 - 07:13

    Very astute analysis!