Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER February 6, 2017 INSIGHT 19 Tim Mitchell TOUgHeST HR QUeSTiON A bigger Canada benefi ts us all A look at why the country's population needs to grow to 100 million by 2100 Canada is facing signifi cant economic head- winds because of its demographics. is may not seem too alarming, but it is. Baby boomers are retiring, the population is aging, and the fertility rate, at 1.6, ac- cording to Statistics Canada, is well below the 2.1 babies per adult couple required to replace the population. Because of these shifts, Canada faces a declining labour force, a large popu- lation of non-working dependants, and a weak demand for consumer goods and investment vehicles. Why does this matter? Because if we do not act, our children will inherit a country that is fi nan- cially worse off in a world where Canada is no longer a leading economy. If unchecked, Canada's economy will languish, provinces will spend more than one-third of their budget on health care for an elderly population, and there will be a small — and shrinking — do- mestic market for food, furniture, housing, cars, cellphones and banking services. Growing Canada's popula- tion to 100 million by 2100 will reverse these trends. 100 million sounds big — after all, it is a tri- pling of Canada's current popula- tion. However, we have 84 years to reach this number, and immi- gration levels would only need to increase three to fi ve per cent per year, rising slowly from 0.85 per cent to 1.3 per cent of the popu- lation, according to the 2016 re- port from the Conference Board of Canada: A Long-Term View of Canada's Changing Demograph- ics: Are Higher Immigration Lev- els an Appropriate Response to Canada's Aging Population? is translates to about 450,000 new permanent residents per year over the next 10 years, enabling the population to grow responsi- bly and incrementally. One-hundred million is not opening the fl oodgates, nor is it swamping our thoughtful sys- tems and processes for evaluat- ing applications and integrating new arrivals. We believe "human infrastructure" is as necessary as physical infrastructure. We can and should invest in Canada's talent base by support- ing the selection and integration programs necessary to realize the potential of people we are able to attract. e Conference Board report highlights how increasing the number of newcomers to Canada is necessary for healthy economic growth and to off set some of the negative economic implications of the aging baby boom. If Canada was to grow to 100 million, the Conference Board forecasts annual economic growth of 2.6 per cent per year, compared to current projections of a long-term, low-growth sce- nario of 1.6 per cent. At current rates, Canada's population will start to shrink in 20 years. If immigration levels were to fall to zero, by the end of the cen- tury, Canada would be roughly half its current size and the econ- omy would stagnate. In numerical terms, the diff erences are stark. Without immigration, the Con- ference Board forecasts a Canada of 19.5 million people and a long- term growth rate of 0.2 per cent per year. One might argue size doesn't matter and Canada can have a small population and maintain its GDP per capita. After all, Canada has done pretty well so far. Long- term GDP per capita growth comes from gains in productivity, capital and the size of the labour force. What are our prospects? Well, current GDP per capita is growing at less than one per cent per year. In fact, in the past 10 years, Canada's total factor pro- ductivity growth has been zero, ac- cording to the Conference Board. Labour force growth drives Canada's economy. e increase in available hours per week creates growth. Fewer available work- ers result in growth industries starved for increasingly hard-to- find and expensive talent. Ask the technology sector — Canada needs people to grow its labour force, and Canada needs new ar- rivals to do that. e alternative to labour force growth is fewer houses sold, fewer cellphones bought, fewer teach- ers needed, fewer airplane tickets bought, and fewer airplanes built. Canada will have health care it can't aff ord, specialists we can't access, and wait times we don't even want to think about. Com- panies will have a sales operation with little research taking place and little investment made in in- stitutions such as the University of Waterloo and the Princess Marga- ret Cancer Centre in Toronto. Historically, Canada's economy and society thrive with higher im- migration. In 1913, 400,000 immi- grants came to Canada, represent- ing 5.5 per cent of the population at the time, and the impact was strong economic growth, accord- ing to the 2016 Statistics Canada report 150 Years of Immigration in Canada. To put this in context, 1913 immigration levels would be the equivalent of over 2,005,000 immigrants in 2017. In the late 1800s and early 1990s, the immigration policy under former Minister of the Interior Clifford Sifton was an integrated eff ort to populate the prairies. It included land grants, investment in infrastructure (the transcontinental rail line), research into crops like winter wheat, and a marketing program abroad to convince people to come to Canada. More recent examples of the positive impact of immigration also exist. In a landmark study, labour economist David Card found the Miami economy was able to absorb a large one-time infl ux of Cubans, increasing the Miami labour force by seven per cent, without having a negative impact on wages or unemploy- ment at all levels of the local econ- omy, according to his 1990 paper e Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market. Immigrants create jobs, jobs create opportunities New arrivals bring diff erent skills, provide diverse perspectives, and increase the resilience of the eco- nomic base. Immigrants also help cities grow, encouraging them to scale up in areas such as transit, communications technology, pri- mary education, water and sew- age, and airports. Immigrants are overrepresented in STEM (sci- enc, technology, engineering and mathematics) fi elds and growth industries, where the need is greatest. Upon arrival and for the fi rst 10 years living here, new arrivals to Canada are healthier than people born in Canada, according to the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. New arrivals to Canada start more companies than people born in Canada do. When immigrants are wel- comed and included in society and the economy, we succeed and our economy grows. A long- term commitment to immigra- tion is a long-term commitment to economic growth. oughtful, gradual and responsible measures will get us to 100 million people. In the process, a more interesting Canada develops. Diversity helps businesses — and culture, and the vital charac- ter of a country. Canada is an open society with a genius for getting along. Our welcoming nature is our competitive advantage. Kate Subak is executive director of Century Initiative in Toronto. For more information, visit www.century- initiative.ca. Canada is facing signifi cant economic head- winds because of its demographics. is may not seem too alarming, but it is. Baby boomers are retiring, the population is aging, and the fertility rate, at 1.6, ac- cording to Statistics Canada, is well below the 2.1 babies per adult couple required to replace the population. Because of these shifts, Canada faces a Kate Subak GUeST COMMeNTaRY Is causing offence discrimination? The difference between taking offence and being disadvantaged from discrimination Question: Does discrimination include someone taking off ence at something in the workplace based on a protected hu- man rights ground such as religion or sex? Does it matter if there was no intention to off end? Answer: The primary focus of human rights legislation across Canada is to address the notion of distinctions that impose dif- ferential burdens, obligations or disadvantages upon a person be- cause of an actual or presumed membership in a group, according to Toronto employment lawyer Stacey Ball in his book Canadian Employment Law. An employee who takes off ence at something in the workplace (for instance, a comment by another co-worker or some other negative occurrence), without anything more, likely does not constitute prima facie discrimination. Rather, discrimination ex- ists where an employer adopts a practice or rule that, on its face, discriminates on a protected ground, or when an employer's seemingly neutral rules, standards or requirements have a discrimi- natory impact on people based on a protected ground under human rights legislation. All employees should be judged on their individual attributes, skills and capabilities rather than on stereotypes, prejudice or assumptions. Where an employer makes decisions regarding an employee based on preconceptions relat- ing to a protected ground under human rights legislation, re- gardless of whether there is an intention to do so, such behav- iour may constitute prima facie discrimination. Further, discrimination is de- fi ned by reference to the eff ect on the complainant, rather than the motive or intent of the respon- dent. As such, the lack of an in- tention to off end is not a suffi cient justifi cation. Where an employee is taking off ence to a derogatory comment made in the workplace, such com- ment may constitute harassment, which would be contrary to hu- man rights legislation if it is based on a protected ground. A fi nding of discrimination or harassment is based on objective standards and factors, rather than a complainant's subjective per- ceptions alone. That said, employers must strive to create a workplace that is inclusive and respectful, and hold all employees to high standards of conduct. Where an employer tolerates or condones behaviour in the work- place to which certain employ- ees may reasonably take off ence based on a protected ground, such behaviour can show that discrimi- nation has been a factor in the way someone is treated. Further, in such a workplace, employees may become more in- clined to construe or perceive any negative occurrence or dissatis- faction through the lens of a pro- tected characteristic, which may result in human rights exposure that is diffi cult for the employer to defend. In sum, it is important for employers to hold employees to high standards of inclusion and sensitivity through eff ective writ- ten policies and codes of conduct that address harassment and re- spect in the workplace, which set out clear standards for employ- ees to abide by, as well as any investigative and disciplinary procedures. The employer's position on discrimination and harassment should be clearly communicated, posted on bulletin boards and provided to all managers, super- visors and employees. Having such policies in place can help employers to prevent harassment and offensive con- duct, and reduce an employer's li- ability if a human rights complaint is made. Prompt and appropriate action when an internal complaint or problem is noted can further re- duce an employer's liability. Tim Mitchell practises management- side labour and employment law at Norton Rose Fulbright in Calgary. He can be reached at (403) 267-8225 or tim.mitchell@nortonrosefulbright. com. New arrivals bring different skills and diverse perspectives, and increase the resilience of the economic base. Immigrants also help cities grow.

• Cover