March 3, 2004

IN EUROPE THEY ARE COUNTING ON TV PORN:

In Quebec town, rewards of parenting are tangible (Clifford Kraus, International Herald Tribune, 03/03/04)

The stork has become an endangered species throughout Quebec except maybe in this quaint French-Canadian town near the Vermont border, where it lands from time to time with things like cheap cotton diapers and subsidized piano lessons. Quebecers were fervently Roman Catholic, until they went through their wrenching "Quiet Revolution" in the 1960s and '70s. Church attendance and marriage rates plunged at that time of intense political upheaval, while abortion and divorce rates soared to among the highest in Canada.

As a result, the fertility rate is now one of the lowest in the Western world. As recently as 1960, Quebec families averaged nearly four children, but Quebec couples today produce only 1.4 children - a rate well below the rest of North America and comparable to those of Italy and Spain, Catholic countries that also lag far behind the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.

But this town, once known mostly for its fine lakes stocked with perch and trout and the beautiful pedestrian suspension bridge that spans a deep ravine cut by the Coaticook River, is bucking the trends. Its population of 9,000 is stable without the benefit of the Haitian, Vietnamese, Chinese and North African immigration that fills nearby Montreal, and there are plenty of young families here who brag about having four or even more children.

The principal architect of Coaticook's quiet counterrevolution is Mayor Andrée Langevin, a 66-year-old social conservative who is not too busy to take time off to baby-sit for his grandchildren during the day. In 20 years as mayor, he has instituted an ambitious set of subsidies for young couples willing to conceive again and again - ranging from $750 in prizes for bedroom sets to generous government spending for ice hockey uniforms. ."Family stability, fidelity, lots of children," Langevin mused in his office the other day. "Those are values I would like to preserve."

Under his leadership, the town writes a $75 check to every couple for the birth of their first child, $150 for the second and $750 for every child after that. Coaticook offers to reimburse families with three or more children 50 percent of their costs for music lessons and other cultural activities as well as for fees and equipment for sporting activities. Meanwhile, the town offers hefty allowances for diapers - as long as they are cotton, to promote a cleaner environment. [...]

There is no way to establish a direct link between the mayor's policies and population stability. The town's healthy economy, undergirded by trade with the United States, is undoubtedly important as well. However, parents say that the subsidies for sports and cultural activities help create an exciting atmosphere that encourages young families to stay. Even the mayor concedes that the impact of his policies is hard to quantify, given that they compensate for only a fraction of the cost of bringing up children. But local businessmen say that his nurturing of family values has made a difference for them in keeping young workers, and that happier, more stable family lives contribute to more productive workers.

What makes this story so inspiring is that it is happening at the community level and has an organic basis that goes well beyond “rational” economics. This is much preferable to national demographic policies, which have a disturbing social engineering quality and are subject to bureaucratic whim and madness. People will have more children in response to a supportive community ethos, not to demonstrate patriotism or pay larger old age pensions.

This is a beautiful example of conservatism in action. The music lessons alone are pure poetry. And if it catches on, just think what it could mean for tourism in New Hampshire.

Posted by Peter Burnet at March 3, 2004 11:03 AM
Comments

But in the States, how long would it take before the ACLU sued to prevent such regressive activity? Public monies for such things? Never!

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 3, 2004 11:31 AM

I am just amazed at the decline in birthrates in Quebec. When I was a kid my next door neighbors were French Canadiens that had emmigrated to Vermont from little farming villages accross the border. They told of families they knew that would, when times were tough, deposit several of their kids in orphanages for a few months or longer, then pull them out again when someone in the family got a job in the lumber mill. Everyone had huge families.

Of course, I probably shouldn't be suprised, the Lemieuxs' themselves only had two kids.

Posted by: Jason johnson at March 3, 2004 11:34 AM

Ummm. Just one question. If everybody is having kids, who is paying the subsidies?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 3, 2004 12:11 PM

There is an quaint old term from the philosophy guiding this little town, a term most associated with two great English Catholics, Chesterton and Belloc.

Distributism.

Posted by: Paul Cella at March 3, 2004 12:48 PM

See, for example, Chesterton's essay "Sex and Property".

Posted by: Paul Cella at March 3, 2004 12:53 PM

one would believe that gay marriage would not take hold here.

Posted by: john at March 4, 2004 9:17 PM
« MOOD RING (via Mike Daley): | Main | LET'S TALK SOME MORE ABOUT THIS INEXPLICABLE EVENT »