Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK, and350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

© 1997 IOMInternational Migration Vol. 35 (4) 1997

ISSN 0020-7985

Fertility among Recent Immigrant Womento Canada, 1991: An Examination

of the Disruption Hypothesis1

Edward Ng* and François Nault**

ABSTRACT

Recent studies show that current fertility is higher for women who im-migrated to Canada than for Canadian-born women. This represents areversal of the historical pattern that can perhaps be partly explained bythe more pronounced decline of fertility among the Canadian-born com-pared with the foreign-born population and the higher proportion ofNon-Europeans among recent immigrants.

Recent studies also provide support for the disruption hypothesis whichsuggests that during the period immediately following immigration,foreign-born fertility is depressed but subsequently rises somewhat andthen declines as duration of stay in Canada increases.

However, this article shows that fertility immediately following immigra-tion does not appear to be disrupted by the immigration process: immigrantwomen who came to Canada between 1986 and 1991 had a higher currentfertility than those who immigrated in earlier periods. This finding wasobtained by calculating the ratio of infants age 0 to women of childbearingages using 1991 census data. Previous studies that had found a disruptioneffect used a ratio of children aged 0 to 4.

INTRODUCTION

Historically, immigrants to Canada tended to have lower fertility than thenative-born population. In terms of cumulative fertility, the 1961, 1971 and1981 censuses showed a lower average number of children ever born among

* Demography Division, Statistics Canada, Ontario, Canada.** Health Statistics Division, Statistics Canada, Ontario, Canada.

560 Ng and Nault

immigrants than among Canadian born (Henripin, 1972; Balakrishnan et al.,1979; Ram and George, 1990). Evidence from the 1991 census suggested thatforeign-born women have, in general, relatively more children ever born thantheir Canadian counterparts; but when differences in age compositions aretaken into consideration, immigrant fertility tends to be lower than for thenative-born population (Basavarajappa, 1993; Basavarajappa et al., 1993; Ramand George, 1993; Maxim, 1996).

In terms of current fertility, recent studies also found a change in the historicalpattern of lower fertility among immigrant women compared with Canadian-born women (Gauthier, 1988; Ram and George, 1990; Dumas and Bélanger,1994). Using an approach called the “own-children” method, Ram and George(1990) found that:

- except for the 1961-66 period, the total fertility rates of immigrants forall periods from 1961 to 1986 were higher than those of native-bornwomen; and

- the fertility of foreign-born women during the period in which theyimmigrated to Canada has always been lower than their fertility duringthe period that immediately followed.

A recent study based on 1991 Census data also found a higher current fertilityfor immigrants compared with Canadian-born (Ng and Nault, 1996). However,the study did not find lower fertility among immigrant women who came toCanada between 1986 and 1991 compared with those who came in the periodthat immediately followed. This latter observation is especially noteworthy inview of the hypothesis that immigration disrupts fertility.

The objective of this study is to examine the disruption hypothesis for thefertility behaviour of recent immigrants. The disruption hypothesis suggeststhat during the period immediately following immigration, foreign-born fertil-ity is depressed but subsequently rises. However, the rise is only temporary, andas the duration of stay in Canada increases, immigrant fertility declines (Ramand George, 1990: 416).

We examine the role of changes in country of origin of immigrants (fromEuropean countries to non-European countries) and socioeconomic differen-tials in explaining the higher current fertility pattern observed among thedifferent immigrant cohorts as recorded in the 1991 Canadian census. Based onmicro-data from the 1991 Census long form, we calculate fertility differentialsin terms of the ratio of children (under 5 years old) and infants (under one) towomen of childbearing ages. Methodological issues will be raised and dis-cussed with respect to using the “own-children” method for estimating fertilityby immigration status and by years since immigration.

561Fertility among recent immigrant women to Canada, 1991

DATA AND METHODS

Some studies on the disruption hypothesis of migration on fertility madeinferences by comparing the fertility of a migrant group immediately aftermigration with the fertility of non-movers at the place of origin (Goldstein andGoldstein, 1981; Hervitz, 1985). Obviously, this kind of mover-stayer model ismuch harder to do for immigrant fertility studies.2

The obvious data source for studying the current total fertility rate is vitalstatistics data collected at the time of birth. The estimation of age-specificfertility rates by place of birth of mother requires the number of births by age andbirthplace of mother as well as the size of the population by age and women’sbirthplace. However, birth certificates do not include the mother’s period ofimmigration to Canada. Thus, in order to examine the current total fertility rateof immigrants by years since immigration, we use the 1991 census long formmicro-data file, which contains information regarding mothers’ birthplace andyears since immigration for about 20 per cent of the population.

Using these micro-data from the 1991 Census, we estimate fertility differentialsin terms of the ratio of children and infants to women of childbearing age. Thisis based on the “own-children” method (Grabill and Cho, 1965; Cho, Grabilland Bogue, 1970; Bogue, 1971; Cho, 1973; Shryock and Siegel, 1976; UnitedNations, 1983). This method had been used in Canada to estimate currentfertility from the 1971, 1981 and 1986 censuses (Statistics Canada, 1977;Balakrishnan et al., 1979; Ram and George, 1990).

The strengths and weaknesses of this method have been discussed in depth byCho et al. (1970). While census data do not provide a direct estimate of currentfertility, the use of certain procedures and assumptions allows us to approximatethe level of current fertility in periods immediately prior to the census. This own-children method is based on the assumption that most young children live in thesame household as their parents and are therefore enumerated with them. Therecent increase in divorce and thus custody is not expected to affect estimatesof fertility from the own-children method since most children are still stayingwith their mothers. By relating the number of children under certain ages(usually 5) within a census family to the age of the mother, the fertility of womenin the period immediately preceding the census can be estimated. Since thecensus also collects data for large numbers of households and the characteristicsof the parents, including age, education, place of birth, years since immigration,etc., the use of this method can contribute richly to the demographic analysis ofdifferential fertility without adding to the burden of census taking.

In spite of its many merits, the major deficiencies of this method are thatinfants who have died between the time of birth and census enumeration are

562 Ng and Nault

omitted, children who live away from home in other households are notincluded, and sometimes there is an under-enumeration of young children(Cho et al., 1970: 19). Allowances for all these deficiencies could be madegiven necessary information for the adjustment procedure. However, Cho et al.(1970) concluded that adjustment for the different deficiencies will have littleimpact on estimation of fertility with improvement in mortality and censusenumeration for both children and women. In a country such as Canada, wheremortality rates for both children and women (of childbearing ages) have beenquite low, adjusting mortality for both children and women by applying theappropriate life table values can have only a very minor effect upon finalestimated fertility rates. As well, even though the pattern of mortality couldvary by the mother’s place of birth, it is not known how this would differ byyears since immigration. Thus, this procedure of mortality adjustment will notbe followed. Furthermore, adjustment for children not in families by age ofmothers were not made since it is not sure how this would change by place ofbirth and by years since immigration. This will underestimate fertility for boththe Canadian-born and immigrant populations.

To the extent that the incidence of extended family households varies betweenbirthplace groups, our analysis of current fertility using the own childrenmethod may also be affected. This is because the relationship between themother and her children may not be evident from the census form in suchhouseholds. However, this will happen only when the census reference person(person 1 in Statistics Canada’s census terminology) is not one of the twoparents, but the grandparents. Even in the latter case, the census processingmethod takes into consideration factors such as the woman’s marital status andthe age difference between the woman and the children to impute the relation-ship between them.

We use vital statistics information from the Health Statistics Division ofStatistics Canada to validate the results of this method (for place of birth only),where appropriate and available. As noted by Dumas and Bélanger (1994),not all provinces collect information on the mother’s place of birth, as evidentin over 98 per cent of births in Quebec and Alberta prior to 1990. Thus, ourcomparison deals with Ontario and British Columbia, which do collectinformation on mother’s place of birth and also receive large numbers ofimmigrants each year (close to about 60 per cent of the national total).

The place of birth variable is based on responses to the question: “Where wasthis person born?” For the purpose of this study, all women aged 15 to 49 fromthe 1991 census long form were first categorized into three broad categories byplace of birth: Canada, Europe and non-Europe. The Europe category includeswomen born in Europe, the US, Australia and New Zealand. The non-Europecategory includes all other countries of birth. Non-permanent residents inCanada were excluded from the study, except for comparison with vital

563Fertility among recent immigrant women to Canada, 1991

statistics (since the vital statistics information includes births to non-permanentresidents in Canada).

For more detailed analysis by place of birth, immigrants were also re-classifiedbased on a modified version of the detailed place of birth classification, asdescribed in the 1991 Census Dictionary (Statistics Canada, 1992). The sub-categories are:

1. United States2. Latin and Central America (including Caribbean and Bermuda and South

America)3. North and West Europe (including Scandinavia)4. South Europe5. East Europe (including Yugoslavia and Albania)6. Middle East and West Asia7. East Asia8. South-East Asia9. South Asia10. Africa11. Oceania and others.

Actual period of residence in Canada is not known; it is approximated usingyears since immigration. The years since immigration variable was based onresponses to another question asked for landed immigrants: “In what year didthis person first become a landed immigrant in Canada?” However, somepersons may have resided in Canada for several years before obtaining immig-ration status, and a few others may have lived outside Canada for several yearsafter immigrating to Canada. Three categories for length of time since immigra-tion were initially defined: recent (0 to 5 Years), medium-term (6 to 10 years)and long-term (more than 10 years). These are only crude categories, as thosewho came to Canada in 1986 (thus became an immigrant any time betweenJanuary 1986 and 31 December 1986) could have been in the country forbetween 4.5 to 5.5 years, since the 1991 Census was conducted on 4 June 1991.However, this finer distinction is not expected to skew our analysis in anysignificant way.

RESULTS

Historical trend

In recent years, current fertility has been higher for women who immigrated toCanada than for Canadian-born women, a reversal of the historical pattern. Thetotal fertility rate (TFR) for Canadian-born in the early 1960s was about 20 percent higher than for the foreign-born (TFR of 3.53 vs. 2.95 for the period 1961

564 Ng and Nault

to 1966). By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the total fertility rate for Canadian-born was about 9 per cent lower than the foreign-born (TFR of 1.64 vs. 1.73 forthe period 1986 to 1991).

The higher current fertility observed among immigrant women since the late1960s may be partly explained by the increasing proportions of immigrantwomen coming from non-European countries. However, another obviousexplanation is the more pronounced decline in fertility among Canadian-borncompared with the foreign born population in Canada (Kahn, 1994; Maxim,1996). Between 1961 and 1991, total fertility rates among Canadian-born fellby 55 per cent while those for the foreign-born declined by 41 per cent. Thecrossover of total fertility rates by place of birth occurred in the late 1960s,coinciding with the end of the baby boom period in Canada.

The disruption hypothesis: fertility by years since immigration

As noted earlier, previous studies based on 1971, 1981 and 1986 censusesconcluded that the fertility of foreign-born women is lower at time of arrival,higher shortly after arrival and then tends to converge with that of the Canadiannorm (Ram and George, 1990; Beaujot, 1991). Similar conclusions werereached for immigrants in the United States (Ford, 1990) and, for internalmigrants in Thailand (Goldstein and Goldstein, 1981), and in Brazil(Hervitz, 1985).

Based on the own-children method, our results from the 1991 census werealmost the same as those from previous censuses. For example, from 1981 to1986, the estimated total fertility rate for women who immigrated to Canadaduring the same period was 1.84, while it was 2.37 for those who immigratedbetween 1976 and 1981. Corresponding figures using the 1991 Census were1.84 and 2.37, respectively. The pattern was similar for all other immigrationcohorts from 1961 to 1981. Thus, the fertility of foreign-born women during theperiod in which they immigrated to Canada seems to be always lower than theirfertility during the period that immediately followed.

However, as Goldstein and Goldstein (1981) caution, depending on the way thefertility measure was constructed using the own-children method, we may bemeasuring fertility before, during and/or after migration. Among recent im-migrant women, while most of their children under 5 years old were likely to beborn after immigration, the older children among very new immigrants wouldhave been born before the move. For example, in 1991, any child aged 4 yearsold of a mother who immigrated to Canada 3 years ago (in 1988) would be bornto the woman about one year before immigration (3 minus 4). As will bedemonstrated in more detail later with a lexis diagram, fertility of the pre-migration period will tend to be lower to the extent that the immigration process

565Fertility among recent immigrant women to Canada, 1991

itself does have a disruptive effect (either through spousal separation, the delayof marriage and/or psychological adjustment needed to prepare for the moveand to settle down in the new country, etc.). Thus the use of the own-childrenmethod to estimate fertility among recent immigrants will probably result inlower fertility in the immediate period following immigration. In other words,the lower fertility observed among recent immigrant women using the own-children method may partly reflect the lower pre-migration fertility amongrecent immigrants.

At the same time, fertility rates estimated using the same method amongmedium-term immigrants (who came in between 6 and 10 years before thecensus) will also capture some of their fertility behaviour within 1 to 5 yearsafter their immigrating to Canada. For instance, a 4-year old child of a motherwho immigrated to Canada 6 years ago would be born when the mother hadbeen in Canada for approximately 2 years. To the extent that immigrant womentend to give birth soon after arriving in Canada, use of the own-children methodwill also give an impression of high fertility among medium-term immigrants.It should be emphasized that the longer the time period, the more counts ofbirths lost to death. Similarly, the longer the duration, the more counts ofchildren “lost” to family dissolution, divorce and custody, which tends to resultin lower fertility rates.

The lexis diagram in Table 1 (page 575) demonstrates our point. It shows thepercentage of immigrant women aged 15 to 49 with children by age of child andmother’s year since immigration in 1991. The figures in the first six columns ofthe diagram reflect the fertility pattern of recent immigrant women who cameto Canada between 1986 and 1991. Among immigrant women aged 15 to 49who came to Canada in 1988, and therefore were in Canada about 3 years(fourth column), some 8.9 per cent had a child one-year old in 1991. These one-year old children were born when their mothers were in Canada for about2 years, even though they were already in Canada for about 3 years by 1991.Following this logic, the bold percentages along the diagonal of this first boxreflect the births to immigrants during (just before or just after) immigration,whereas the proportions to the left of the diagonal refer to mostly pre-migrationbirths. It is evident from the diagram that a consistently lower proportion ofimmigrant women had a birth before or during immigration than that for thepost-immigration period. For instance, among immigrant women who came toCanada in 1988, only around 4.8 per cent had a birth just before or afterimmigration to Canada while about 4.6 per cent had a birth about one yearbefore immigration. By contrast, approximately 6.6 to 8.9 per cent of womenhad a birth after immigration. However, the own-children method consideredall these children to be born to women when they were in Canada between 0 and5 years. There is thus a problem with time referencing of birth occurrence withrespect to the woman’s years since immigration.

566 Ng and Nault

Similarly, the figures in the seventh to the eleventh columns of the diagramreflect the fertility pattern of mostly immigrant women who came to Canada onthe medium term (between 1981 to 1985). However, the children referenced inthis box could be births that occurred when the immigrant women were eitherrecent or medium-term immigrants. Among immigrant women aged 15 to 49who came to Canada in 1983, and therefore were in Canada for approximately8 years (ninth column), about 8.1 and 8.9 per cent had a child of one and 4 yearsold respectively in 1991. It is important to note that those 4-year old childrenwere born mostly to women when they were recent immigrants (in Canada forabout 4 years), while the one-year olds were born to women when they weremedium-term immigrants (in Canada for about 7 years). Once again, the boldnumbers along the diagonal of this second box refer mostly to births thatoccurred just before or soon after the immigrant women moved from recent tomedium immigrant status. The own-children method once again considered allthese children to be born to women when they were in Canada between 6 and10 years. Therefore, the use of the own-children method to estimate fertility byyears since immigration consistently confuses the time referencing of birthoccurrence, which is essential in the study of fertility by the woman’s yearssince immigration.

To reduce confusion encountered by the own-children method, we fine-tunedit and used the number of infants (children under one) instead of the number ofchildren under 5 to estimate current fertility rates by years since immigration.Some researchers had previously suggested and/or used infants instead ofchildren under 5 as the numerator (Bogue, 1971; Balakrishnan et al., 1979;Goldstein and Goldstein, 1981; Ram and George, 1990).3 While the own-children method estimates fertility rates for the 5-year period before the census,the “own-infant” method yields fertility rates for the year immediately beforethe census. It should be noted that even when one uses children under one year,there is still a slight possibility that the infant was born before the migration;however, the period of overlap is less. In any case, the own-infant method is amuch more valid indicator of fertility after migration than the own-childrenmethod.

Based on this own-infant method, the observation is quite different. Contrary tothe disruption hypothesis, the current fertility rate of the most recent immig-rants is highest among the 3 groups of immigrants by years since immigration.From 1991, the estimated total fertility rate for women who immigrated toCanada during the period 1986 to 1991 was 2.2, while it was 2.13 for those whoimmigrated between 1981 and 1985 and 1.56 for those who immigrated before1980. The corresponding figures using the own-children method from the 1991Census were 1.84, 2.37, and 1.59, respectively. The difference in results fromthe own-children and own-infant methods can be partly explained by thechanging fertility trend over the 5 years before the census compared with the

567Fertility among recent immigrant women to Canada, 1991

year immediately before the census year. However, the most importantexplanation is that the own-children method inevitably captures fertility be-haviour before the move and depresses the fertility rates. In other words, the useof the own-children method to examine fertility after immigration tends toover-state the disruption effect of immigration on fertility and that own-infantis a better indicator. In the following section, we will validate the use of censusin approximating fertility by place of birth (not by years since immigration),compared with the use of vital statistics data.

Validation of the census-based own-infant method with vital statistics

Using national vital statistics maintained by the Health Statistics Division atStatistics Canada, Dumas and Bélanger (1994) estimated total fertility rates forforeign-born women compared with Canadian-born counterparts from 1981 to1992 for the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. Vital statistics inCanada include births to non-permanent residents in the numerators while thepopulation estimates used in the denominators also include non-permanentresidents. These non-permanent residents with their children, if any, were alsocounted for the first time in census since 1991. Thus, the two numerators anddenominators from the two data sets are comparable in this aspect. However,since special procedures were needed to distribute the cases with missingbirthplaces of mothers in these two provinces, this procedure would likelyoverestimate fertility of women born in Canada, compared with that of foreign-born women.

Total fertility rates by place of birth of mother derived from the 1991 censuswere very close to those obtained by Dumas and Bélanger from vital statistics,especially in Ontario (Table 2, page 576). For the foreign-born population, theestimated total fertility rate using the own-infant method coincided exactlywith that derived from vital statistics (1.79) in Ontario and was just 5 per centlower in British Columbia (1.56 versus 1.65 from vital statistics). For theCanada-born population, the estimated total fertility rate using vital statisticswas 1.72 in Ontario and 1.76 in British Columbia. The corresponding figuresfrom the own-infant method were 7 per cent lower in Ontario (1.61) and 10 percent lower in British Columbia (1.59). Since the estimates from vital statisticsfor the Canada-born population may be over-estimates, as suggested by Dumasand Bélanger, the use of the own-infant method seems to yield reasonableresults.4

A closer examination shows that the estimation of age-specific fertility ratesbased on the own-infant method were not entirely satisfactory. Among youngerwomen, the rates were lower; for older women, the rates were higher (Rindfussand Sweet, 1977; Ford, 1990; Ram and George, 1990). Rindfuss and Sweet(1977) argued that the probable reason for this pattern of discrepancies involves

568 Ng and Nault

adoption practices. In case of adoption, it is likely that the social mother tendsto be older than the biological mother. However, while estimates of fertility byplace of birth using the own-infant method may not exactly replicate those fromthe vital statistics data, the general pattern seems plausible. For instance, thetotal fertility rate for foreign-born in Ontario was higher than that for local-bornwhile the reverse was true in British Columbia. The reversal in relationshipbetween nativity and fertility for Ontario and British Columbia can be ex-plained by the relatively low fertility rates among the younger foreign-bornwomen groups in British Columbia.

Changes in the country of origin of immigrants

In 1991, 74 per cent of recent immigrant women between ages 15 to 49 werefrom non-European countries, compared with just 38 per cent of long-termimmigrant women. Thus, changing country of origin for immigrants may be afactor in explaining higher fertility among the recent immigrants.

However, using the own-infant method, fertility was higher for recent immig-rants from both European and non-European countries than their medium-termand long-term counterparts (Table 3, page 577). For European-born women,fertility rates were 2.26 among recent immigrants, compared to 2.01 and 1.51among medium-term and long-term counterparts. The corresponding figuresfor non-European-born immigrants were 2.22, 2.19 and 1.74, respectively.More detailed analysis (not shown here) suggests that age-specific fertilityrates of immigrants differ very little by place of birth (European-born or not).Also, when we control for distribution by place of origin, such that allimmigrants who arrived in the 1986-91 and the 1981-85 periods had the samedistribution as the immigrants arrived before 1981, we find minimal changes inestimated fertility rates. Thus, higher fertility among recent immigrants ob-served in 1991 was not a result of the changes in the origin of immigrants fromEuropean to non-European countries. As discussed below, the data actuallyshow that increased immigration from East Asia tends to depress currentfertility.

Fertility by years since immigration for major regional groups

While fertility rates among recent immigrants from both European and non-European countries were higher than those for medium-term and long-termimmigrants, total fertility rates vary considerably by region (Table 3). For totalfertility rates in general, the average rate among European countries was 1.67,ranging from 1.63 among North, West and East European countries to 2.02 forthe US. For non-European countries, the average fertility rate was 1.93 (16 percent higher than their European counterparts), ranging from 1.42 among EastAsian countries to 2.38 among South Asian countries.

569Fertility among recent immigrant women to Canada, 1991

For most birthplaces, fertility declines with duration of time since immigration.That is, immigrant women who have stayed in Canada much longer show afertility level close to or even lower than that of native-born women. Forinstance, the fertility rate among recent immigrant women from Latin andCentral America was 2.45, while the corresponding rates for medium-term andlong-term immigrant women were declining (2.36 and 1.74, respectively). Themost interesting patterns were for those who came from the US, East and South-East Asia.

Recent immigrant women from the US had an exceptionally high level ofcurrent fertility (3.39), followed by those from South Asia (3.00). Closerexamination shows that the age specific fertility rate among 20-to-24 years oldfrom the US was much higher than most others (176 births per 1,000 women,compared with 134 among those from South Asia and 66 for all foreign-born).Recent data show that in 1991, more than 50 per cent of immigrants from the USentered under the family class (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 1994).One other possible reason for this is that international migration betweenCanada and the US was not disruptive since the two cultures are quite similar.The high fertility among recent immigrants from South Asia is consistent withthe hypothesis of search for a spouse due to endogamy among the Indians fromAsia (Dumas and Bélanger,1996).

Recent immigrants from East and South-East Asia had lower fertility than theirmedium-term counterparts. This seems to be consistent with the disruptionhypothesis. Data from the early 1990s on marital status among immigrantsshow that while half of all immigrants are unmarried on arrival in Canada, thispercentage is about two-thirds for those born in Hong Kong (part of East Asia)and the Philippines (part of South-East Asia). In particular, the high proportionof unmarried among Filipinos is consistent with the importance of the Live-inCare-giver Programme (Dumas and Bélanger, 1996). Future studies on migrantfertility should therefore also take into consideration the marital status distribu-tion of migrant women. Total fertility rates among most East and South-EastAsian countries were already quite low. Lower fertility among recent immig-rants from the Orient may be a continuation of their relatively low fertility,partially because of their emphasis on education.

Educational differences as a possible cause for higher fertilityamong recent immigrants

One other possibility for higher fertility rates among recent immigrants is thatrecent immigrants may have lower socioeconomic status than their long-termcounterparts (partly because the long-term immigrants might have more op-portunities for education in Canada). For example, lower educational levelamong recent immigrants may be the underlying factor driving fertility up-

570 Ng and Nault

ward. One may argue that if the socioeconomic characteristics of the twogroups were equal, the differences might be eliminated. To test this argument,we control for the distribution by educational level such that all immigrantswho arrived in the 1986-91 and the 1981-85 periods had the same distributionas immigrants who arrived before 1981. A comparison of the right panel withthe left panel of Table 3 shows that while education-standardized fertility ratesamong recent immigrants are consistently lower than the unstandardized rates,standardization has a minimal impact. For example, those from Africa whoarrived within the past 5 years tend to have lower education than those whoarrived 11 years or more. However, controlling for educational differencesdoes not have significant impact on the fertility pattern among immigrantsfrom Africa by years since immigration.

DISRUPTION HYPOTHESIS: FACT OR FICTION?

Lower fertility rates among recent immigrants noted in the literature based onthe own-children method includes births that occurred before, during andimmediately after immigration. The higher fertility rates among recent immig-rants observed in our study based on the own-infant method measures fertilitymostly after immigration (Ng and Nault, 1996). The difference between the twois due to methodology, and the choice of method should be determined by thepurpose of the study.

If our interest is in fertility behaviour after immigration, can we conclude, basedon the results presented here, that there is no disruption of fertility among recentimmigrants? Table 4 (page 578), based on the own-infant method, shows thatthere was indeed disruption of (one-year) fertility among the foreign-born, butthe disruption was short-lived (Desplanques, 1985). Among the foreign-born asa whole, as well as considering immigrants from European and non-Europeancountries separately, those who immigrated to Canada within the last two yearshad lower fertility than those who entered between 3 and 5 years, for whomfertility peaked. After the peak at 3 to 5 years since immigration, there was agradual decline in fertility with increase in years since immigration. However,the disruption was more evident for non-European-born immigrant womenthan for their European-born counterparts: the estimated total fertility rate washigher for European-born compared with non-European within two years afterimmigration, while the reverse was true after the initial period of disruption.

CONCLUSION

This study was prompted by the observation of higher fertility among recentimmigrants who came to Canada between 1986 and 1991 compared withlonger-term immigrants. This was inconsistent with results from past research

571Fertility among recent immigrant women to Canada, 1991

that pointed to lower fertility among recent immigrants, followed by a higherfertility rate among the medium-term immigrants and then a lower rate amongthe long-term immigrants. We have shown that the difference between the twoobservations regarding fertility level of recent immigrants was not caused bychanges in the origin of immigrants from European to non-European countries;nor was it attributable to lower educational levels among recent immigrants.

The main reason for the difference was the method used. The “own-children”method and the “own-infant” method actually measure fertility at differentperiods during the immigration process. Also, depending on how years sinceimmigration is defined, disruption in fertility as a result of the immigrationprocess may or may not be observed.

The observation that fertility rates for long-term immigrants from both Euro-pean and non-European sources ultimately fell below or near the rate of theCanada-born lends support to the argument that immigrants tend to assimilateinto the host society. However, we must be cautious in extrapolating changes infertility behaviour from cross-sectional census data. Specifically, differentselection and period effects may be operative for the different cohorts ofimmigrants by years since immigration. For instance, higher fertility amongrecent immigrants compared with their medium-term counterparts may be dueto the better economic climate in the late 1980s compared with the early 1980s.A more comprehensive and intensive study on the disruption hypothesis awaitstruly longitudinal data that follow individual immigrants over time.

NOTES

1. Based on a paper for the National Symposium on Immigration and Integration:New Challenges, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 25-27 October1996. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not ofStatistics Canada, with which the authors are affiliated.

2. The ideal way to make inferences concerning the disruption hypothesis is to tracklongitudinally the fertility behaviour of an immigrant group immediately aftermigration with the fertility of stayers at the place of origin of the immigrant groupand with the fertility of stayers at the place of destination (of the immigrant group).However, we do not have longitudinal data, nor do we have data regarding thefertility pattern of stayers at the place of origin. We also realize that derivingcurrent fertility for different immigration cohorts by years since immigration is nota perfect measure of fertility behaviour since immigration. In this paper, weattempt to update the previous work by Ram and George (1990), while pointing tomethodological problems in use of the own-children method. We are also carefulto state that the total fertility rates measured are for different cohorts, and their useis only a proxy for fertility behaviour since immigration for one cohort.

572 Ng and Nault

3. Several reasons were traditionally put forward as to why children under 5 shouldbe used instead of children under one in fertility studies based on census andsurveys. In discussing the child-woman ratio, Shyrock and Siegel (1976) statedthree main reasons:- age distributions are frequently limited to 5-year groups;- there is proportionately less under-enumeration of children aged under 5 years

than children under one year; and- the ratio is more stable when a larger numerator is used.However, the three reasons cited are not relevant in our context. For example,census micro-data provide age distributions by single years of age. Also, the under-enumeration rates among infants and children under 5 were similar (around3 per cent) (Statistics Canada, 1994; Wilkins, 1996). Finally, the large 20 per centsample from the census makes the estimates based on infants relatively stable.

4. Without adjustment for the deficiencies in the method, results from the own-infantmethod will tend to be underestimates.

REFERENCES

Balakrishnan, T.R., et al.1979 Patterns of Fertility in Canada, 1971, Statistics Canada, Ottawa.

Basavarajappa, K.G.1993 “Fertility transition among immigrants in Canada, 1961-1991”, paper pre-

sented at the IUSSP General Conference, Montreal, Canada.Basavarajappa, K.G., R.P. Beaujot and T.J. Samuel

1993 Impact of Migration in the Receiving Countries: Canada, InternationalOrganization for Migration, Geneva.

Beaujot, R.1991 Population Change in Canada: The Challenges of Policy Adaptation,

McClelland and Stewart Inc., Toronto.Bogue, D.

1971 Demographic Techniques of Fertility Analysis, Community and FamilyStudy Center, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Cho, L.J.1973 “The own-children approach to fertility estimation: An elaboration”,

International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, InternationalPopulation Conference, Liège, 1973(2): 263-279.

Cho, L.J., et al.1970 Differential Current Fertility in the United States, Community and Family

Study Center, University of Chicago, Chicago.Citizenship and Immigration Canada

1994 Facts and Figures: Overview of Immigration, Ministry of Supply andServices Ottawa, Canada.

Desplanques, G.1985 “Nuptialité et fécondité des étrangères”, Economie et Statistique, INSEE,

(179): 29-46.

573Fertility among recent immigrant women to Canada, 1991

Dumas, J., and A. Bélanger1994 Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada 1994, Minister of Indus-

try, Science and Technology, Ottawa.1996 Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada 1995, Minister of Indus-

try, Science and Technology, Ottawa.Ford, K.

1990 “Duration of residence in the United States and the fertility of U.S. im-migrants”, International Migration Review, (24): 34-68.

Gauthier, A.1988 “Quand les différences sont négligées”, paper presented at the meetings of

AIDELF, June, 1988, Montréal.Goldstein, S., and A. Goldstein

1981 “The impact of migration on fertility: an 'Own Children' analysis forThailand”, Population Studies, July: 265-284.

Grabill, W., and L.J. Cho1965 “Methodology for the measurement of current fertility from population on

the young children”, Demography, 2(1): 50-73.Henripin, J.

1972 Trends and Factors of Fertility in Canada, 1961 Census Monograph,Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa.

Hervitz, H.M.1985 “Selectivity, adaptation, or disruption? A comparison of alternative hypo-

theses on the effects of migration on fertility: the case of Brazil”,International Migration Review, 19(2): 293-317.

Kahn, J.R.1994 “Immigrant and native fertility during the 1980s: adaptation and expecta-

tions for the future”, International Migration Review, 28(3): 501-519.Maxim, P.

1996 “Estimating fertility differentials between immigrant and nonimmigrantwomen in Canada”, paper presented at the Canadian Population SocietyMeetings, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario.

Ng, E., and F. Nault1996 “Census-based estimates of fertility by mother’s socioeconomic character-

istics in Canada, 1991”, paper presented at the Canadian Population SocietyMeetings, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario.

Ram, Bali, and M.V. George1990 “Immigrant fertility patterns in Canada, 1961-1986”, International Migra-

tion, 28(4): 413-26.1993 “Convergence of immigrant and native-born fertility in Canada”, paper

presented at the IUSSP General Conference, Montreal, Canada.Rindfuss, R.R., and J.A. Sweet

1977 Postwar Fertility Trends and Differentials in the United States, AcademicPress, New York.

Shryock, H.S., J.S. Siegel and Associates1976 Methods and Materials of Demography, (Condensed edition by E.G.

Stockwell), Academic Press, New York.

574 Ng and Nault

Statistics Canada1977 Population: Current Fertility (Own-Children Ratios) for Married Women.

Special Bulletin, 1971 Census of Canada, Statistics Canada, Ottawa.1992 Dictionary. Census of Canada, 1991, Minister of Industry, Science and

Technology, Ottawa.1994 Coverage. 1991 Census Technical Reports, Minister of Industry, Science

and Technology, Ottawa.United Nations

1983 Manual X: Indirect Techniques for Demographic Estimation, UnitedNations, New York.

Wilkins, R.1996 Personal communication, unpublished.

575F

ertility among recent im

migrant w

omen to C

anada, 1991

576 Ng and Nault

TABLE 2

FERTILITY RATES FOR CANADA-BORN AND FOREIGN-BORNPOPULATION, ONTARIO AND BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1991

Canada-born Ontario British Columbia

Age group Vitalstatistics*

Census** Ratio Vitalstatistics*

Census** Ratio

15-19 0.0232 0.0144 0.62 0.0275 0.0146 0.53

20-24 0.0705 0.0537 0.76 0.0845 0.0661 0.78

25-29 0.1267 0.1170 0.92 0.1211 0.1109 0.92

30-34 0.0909 0.0960 1.06 0.0858 0.0871 1.02

35-44 0.0172 0.0167

35-39 0.0349 0.0326

40-44 0.0056 0.0056

45-49 0.0007 0.0006

Total fertility rates 1.7278 1.6120 0.93 1.7622 1.5875 0.90

Foreign-born Ontario British Columbia

Age group Vitalstatistics*

Census** Ratio Vitalstatistics*

Census** Ratio

15-19 0.0216 0.0183 0.85 0.0154 0.0076 0.49

20-24 0.0736 0.0661 0.90 0.0728 0.0497 0.68

25-29 0.1105 0.1190 1.08 0.1053 0.1122 1.07

30-34 0.1020 0.1024 1.00 0.0909 0.0935 1.03

35-44 0.0248 0.0225

35-39 0.0421 0.0407

40-44 0.0079 0.0080

45-49 0.0015 0.0006

Total fertility rates 1.7868 1.7860 1.00 1.6473 1.5611 0.95

* Fertility based on vital statistics data and estimated by Dumas and Belanger (1994).** Fertility based on Census data and estimated by the authors, based on the “own-infant” method.

577F

ertility among recent im

migrant w

omen to C

anada, 1991

578N

g and Nault

579Fertility among recent immigrant women to Canada, 1991

LA FECONDITE CHEZ LES IMMIGRANTESRECEMMENT ARRIVEES AU CANADA, 1991 :

EXAMEN DE L’HYPOTHESE DE LA PERTURBATION

Des études récentes montrent que la fécondité est actuellement plus élevée chezles femmes qui ont émigré au Canada que chez celles qui y sont nées. C’est làune inversion de la tendance historique qui s’explique peut-être en partie par labaisse de la fécondité plus marquée chez les personnes nées au Canada qu’ausein de la population d’origine étrangère et par la plus forte proportion de non-Européens parmi les immigrants récemment arrivés.

Ces études confirment l’hypothèse de la perturbation selon laquelle, au coursde la période qui suit immédiatement l’immigration, la fécondité chez lesétrangères recule, puis remonte quelque peu pour diminuer encore une fois àmesure que la durée du séjour au Canada s’allonge.

Toutefois, l’article montre aussi que la fécondité immédiatement aprèsl’immigration ne semble pas être perturbée par le processus de l’immigration :les immigrantes arrivées au Canada entre 1986 et 1991 avaient un taux defécondité plus élevé que celles arrivées antérieurement. Les auteurs sontparvenus à cette conclusion en calculant, d’après les données du recensementde 1991, le rapport des enfants à naître aux femmes en âge de procréer. Dans lesétudes précédentes ayant révélé cet effet de perturbation, un rapport différentavait été utilisé, puisque les enfants de la tranche d’âge 0-4 ans avaient été prisen considération.

LA FERTILIDAD EN LAS MUJERES QUE EMIGRARONRECIENTEMENTE AL CANADA, 1991:

UN EXAMEN DE LA HIPOTESIS DE DESORGANIZACION

Los estudios realizados recientemente demuestran que la fertilidad actual essuperior en las mujeres que han emigrado al Canadá que en las mujeres que hannacido en ese país. Ello representa una inversión del patrón histórico, donde lanotoria disminución de la fertilidad de las personas nacidas en el Canadá encomparación a la población nacida en el extranjero quizás pueda explicarse enparte ante la proporción más elevada de no europeos en las inmigracionesrecientes.

Los últimos estudios también apoyan la hipótesis de desorganización quesugiere que durante el período consecutivo a la inmigración la fertilidad delextranjero se ve deprimida, aumentando ulteriormente en cierta proporciónpara luego disminuir a medida que se prolonga su permanencia en el Canadá.

580 Ng and Nault

No obstante, este artículo demuestra que la fertilidad no se ve afectadainmediatamente por el proceso de inmigración: las mujeres inmigrantes quellegaron al Canadá entre 1986 y 1991 tenían una fertilidad superior a aquellasque inmigraron en periodos precedentes. Este resultado pudo obtenersecalculando la proporción de niños menores de un año en mujeres fecundasutilizando los datos obtenidos en el censo de 1991. Los estudios anteriores queinformaban sobre el efecto de desorganización utilizaban la proporción deniños entre 0 y 4 años.