Canada's Q3 2023 Population Growth

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Comparing just some schools to each other, particularly in the Maritimes of Canada (which is away from the densest part of the Canadian population, and more reliant on internationals) to the Ivy Leagues in the US is not representative.

We should compare nation-wide averages for apples-to-apples comparison.

Here's data for 2020 from the OECD "Tertiary student inflow, % of students enrolled, 2020"

https://data.oecd.org/students/inter...t-mobility.htm

According to this, Canada is near the higher end of countries at around 18% but higher still are Austria, Switzerland and the UK, which are similar in the 18-20% range, Australia with around a quarter and then Luxembourg, which being small, gets almost a half. Indeed the US is much lower at around 5%. But this still fits "lots of other countries" being like Canada or more, including ones more comparable to its fame or population size range.

Another source with somewhat different data.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ion-worldwide/

This source does show Canada second near the top of the list in the low 20s % behind Australia in the low 30s%, but third is the UK also in the low 20s% on this list, meaning at least Canada has two peer countries in its approximate range. If this source is accurate instead, then if not "a lot" then at least it's not alone.

It's silly to compare 2020 numbers, since the number of international students has skyrocketed since 2020. Now the IRCC is forecasting the number of international students to go up to 1.4 Million in 2027! It was just around 500K in 2020.

Canada’s international student population continues to soar
https://www.cicnews.com/2023/10/cana...html#gs.6gcmgt

The IRCC paper also forecasts that the number of international students will reach 949,000 this year and just over a million next year. The number is projected to rise to 1.1 million in 2025, 1.28 million in 2026 and 1.4 million in 2027.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

It's silly to compare 2020 numbers, since the number of international students has skyrocketed since 2020. Now the IRCC is forecasting the number of international students to go up to 1.4 Million in 2027! It was just around 500K in 2020.

Canada’s international student population continues to soar
https://www.cicnews.com/2023/10/cana...html#gs.6gcmgt

The IRCC paper also forecasts that the number of international students will reach 949,000 this year and just over a million next year. The number is projected to rise to 1.1 million in 2025, 1.28 million in 2026 and 1.4 million in 2027.

I mean, hard to tell what the future holds, but at least for last year, Australia's at least for 2022 was similar (also Australia has a lower total population).

https://monitor.icef.com/2023/04/int...ndemic-levels/

Australian institutions enrolled 619,370 foreign students in 2022. This is up 8% over 2021 but is down 18% since 2019.

From your link, Canada's got between a half million to million that year.

In 2022, Canada welcomed a record of 551,405 international students from 184 countries. In addition, as of the end of 2022 there were 807,750 international students holding valid Canadian study permits. Both of these were all time high numbers.

Did Australia have similar problems? If not, how did they solve it?

Could Canada learn from Australia how to deal with this issue?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

There's plenty of private sector economists calling BS on this 'positivity'. Here's a counter analysis from BMO's Robert Kavcic:

I'm fully aware of all the counter 'analysis'. They zero in on a few metrics which are absolutely true (to bait people) but then fail miserably to properly vet their position.

They dismiss the MANY positives, fail to put things into context of our temporary high interest rate environment, fail to recognize that economies/municipalities need time to react to sudden and massive surges in population, and fail entirely to look at the medium to long term effects on regions/economies nationwide. These things do matter.

Some of them refuse to accept that we have a large and growing labour shortage. It's absolutely stunting Canadian economic growth (as is our refusal to recognize foreign credentials). They lazily and irresponsibly respond by saying it's not true. To add insult to injury, they don't offer any alternative solutions to fix our under funded public pension system. You want to see economic and social chaos? If our public pension system collapses it will make some of these other problems look like small potatoes. Our working age to pensioner ratio has to come down .... and as quickly as possible.

They know full well the majority of people aren't able to read what they write with a critical eye. I realize their articles can't be 10 pages long to properly address the issues but they do Canadians a disservice when write lazy articles. You re-positng what they say 3 times on SSP doesn't make it any more valid, measured, or considered than it was the first 2 times.

I have a business degree (concentration in economics) and finished at the top of my class. I know what these figures mean, what they say, what they don't say, how indicators change over time, why they change, and the implications of population change over the medium/long term. I'm also well read when it comes to geo-politics, industry clusters, and how demographics positively/negatively affects a nation state on various fronts. Yes we have many challenges, but the hysteria building around this recent population surge is getting out of hand. It's the big picture that matters more than snippets of data from one moment in time.

There are many solid reasons for significantly boosting our population. My major criticism is that the uptick wasn't gradual. It happened too quickly for municipalities to adequately respond. If you don't want a significantly larger Canadian population, that's your prerogative, but those that see the net benefit to Canada do have valid, considered, and measured reasons for the position we hold. I'm squarely in the 'short term pain for long term gain' camp.

Not that you've done so, but when someone holds a different POV it doesn't make that person uneducated, ignorant, or dumb. Frustratingly, that's sometimes the response one gets on SSP.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

No offence intended to Nova Scotians, but Cape Breton University is a low-ranked university in the lowest of the three tiers of Canadian Universities (Research-intensive, Comprehensive, Primarily Undergraduate). I don't think any of the universities in the first two tiers are more than 30% international. Where I work (a Research-intensive Uni), we are maybe up to 11% international, and this after many years of intensive recruitment of international students. I'm on the governing body of this university, and it is my understanding that our medium-range plans are aiming for 20% international, overall.

You are right and a lot of this discussion is in the weeds. If you know the most basic things about the CBU story it sticks out very dramatically and obviously.

CBU used to be called UCCB and was a community/technical college for people in Cape Breton. It was not a magnet for international students. In the past few years the rules were changed, CBU's international admissions exploded, and now most of the school is foreign students. There are issues from this because the local economy has been weak in recent decades (it's a rust belt area that was traditionally based on coal and steel production) and that area hasn't seen a lot of growth.

It is not like Iranian grad students doing PhDs in physics at U of T. I am skeptical of CBU's ability to absorb these new students and give them a high quality education and I'm skeptical that CBU could keep a similar bar for admissions and find so many more tuition dollars so quickly.

[Doady]

Looks like time for an NHL team in Atlantic Canada.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Doady

Looks like time for an NHL team in Atlantic Canada.

I sometimes find it hard to tell when you're being satirical but I agree with this. New Brunswick will soon be 1 million people, Nova Scotia is growing like gangbusters, even little PEI will be over 200k soon.

[Steely Dan]

The only place in The Maritimes that even comes close to being big enough to support a major league team would be Halifax.

Everything else out that way is pretty small potatoes, relatively speaking.

Is Halifax actually big enough to support an NHL team?

[kool maudit]

CBU is obviously a loophole scam and extrapolating that Canada is going to have 90 million people or whatever in a few years based on present trends is inane.

All policies contain inbuilt limiting factors. Setting immigration at [Canada]% is like setting taxation at 90%, or 3% for that matter. It's like educating children to 27th grade.

Nations don't just policymax like this forever, these are points on a waveform.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The only place in The Maritimes that even comes close to being big enough to support a major league team would be Halifax.

Everything else out that way is pretty small potatoes, relatively speaking.

Is Halifax actually big enough to support an NHL team?

Quebec City is quite a bit larger than Halifax, and according to the Gary Bettman and NHL math, isn't big enough for the NHL. (Plus Quebec City has a fairly new NHL-sized arena.)

That's all that counts.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Quebec City is quite a bit larger than Halifax, and according to the Gary Bettman and NHL math, isn't big enough for the NHL. (Plus Quebec City has a fairly new NHL-sized arena.)

That's all that counts.

I hate Gary Buttman with every fibre of my soul. Aside from Southern Ontario (e.g., another Toronto team, or a Hamilton or KW team), QC is the best opportunity for a new NHL team. The fans are already there in spades. The rivalry (with Montreal) is already there. Everything is there except the willingness of the Buttman. I hate that assclown.

Wouldn't QC's hinterland be substantially larger than Halifax's? QC's metro is already almost double the size.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I hate Gary Buttman with every fibre of my soul. Aside from Southern Ontario (e.g., another Toronto team, or a Hamilton or KW team), QC is the best opportunity for a new NHL team. The fans are already there in spades. The rivalry (with Montreal) is already there. Everything is there except the willingness of the Buttman. I hate that assclown.

Wouldn't QC's hinterland be substantially larger than Halifax's? QC's metro is already almost double the size.

There are larger populations if you radiate out by 50, 100, 150, 200 km, etc. from Quebec City than from Halifax for sure.

Of course a Halifax NHL team would be the team of the Maritimes (three provinces with close to 2 million people) or even Atlantic Canada if you include Newfoundland, so 2.5 million people.

But if the Quebec (City) Nordiques returned to the NHL, it would become the second team of the entire province of Quebec, which has 8.5 million people.

[kool maudit]

Halifax could support it, I think. Population size is one factor, but another is interest. 500,000 Canadians is a different thing, hockey-wise, than 500,000 New Mexicans or whatever.

Companies like Empire, Emera and Clearwater would have to get behind it. Scotiabank is a Toronto company, but it could benefit from the branding as well. Without this, it wouldn't work, but I think the NHL could flourish in Nova Scotia in the right scenario.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Halifax could support it, I think. Population size is one factor, but another is interest. 500,000 Canadians is a different thing, hockey-wise, than 500,000 New Mexicans or whatever.

Companies like Empire, Emera and Clearwater would have to get behind it. Scotiabank is a Toronto company, but it could benefit from the branding as well. Without this, it wouldn't work, but I think the NHL could flourish in Nova Scotia in the right scenario.

In any other country under a non-Bettman scenario, both Quebec City and Halifax would both definitely have teams in the top level of pro competition of the national sport.

And actually, even under the current NHL set-up both Quebec City (Winnipeg proves this already) and probably Halifax could make it work given the chance.

(The thing is, we need to stop viewing Canada as a separate country from the US for stuff like this - and a lot of other stuff. When you change your view, it explains a lot.)

[suburbanite]

This has obviously been beat to death on the Canada forum, but Halifax and Quebec City make sense if you think about professional sports from a pre-2000 lens of butts in seats and gate revenues. The owners as a collective group (and therefore the commissioner) don't think that way anymore.

The current franchise tag for an NHL team is probably at least 50% higher than what the market value of a Quebec City team would be. The upside on a future tv deal is negligible. In other words, an NHL team in Halifax or Quebec City could probably turn an annual profit for whoever the owner is, but it does nothing to make real money for the other 30+ owners, and it's often forgotten that a professional sports league is really just a collection of owners at the end of the day.

The only real chance for the remaining Canadian markets to secure a franchise is to be ready to pounce on a defunct American team that needs an immediate home.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by isaidso

There are many solid reasons for significantly boosting our population. My major criticism is that the uptick wasn't gradual. It happened too quickly for municipalities to adequately respond. If you don't want a significantly larger Canadian population, that's your prerogative, but those that see the net benefit to Canada do have valid, considered, and measured reasons for the position we hold. I'm squarely in the 'short term pain for long term gain' camp.

Do you own a home?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

This has obviously been beat to death on the Canada forum, but Halifax and Quebec City make sense if you think about professional sports from a pre-2000 lens of butts in seats and gate revenues. The owners as a collective group (and therefore the commissioner) don't think that way anymore.

The current franchise tag for an NHL team is probably at least 50% higher than what the market value of a Quebec City team would be. The upside on a future tv deal is negligible. In other words, an NHL team in Halifax or Quebec City could probably turn an annual profit for whoever the owner is, but it does nothing to make real money for the other 30+ owners, and it's often forgotten that a professional sports league is really just a collection of owners at the end of the day.

The only real chance for the remaining Canadian markets to secure a franchise is to be ready to pounce on a defunct American team that needs an immediate home.

This logic works perfectly if as I said one views the US and Canada as a single national entity.

With that frame of reference then yes both Quebec City and Halifax are too small for top-level pro sports. Outliers like Green Bay notwithstanding.

[suburbanite]

Well not really because the fact that they are separate tv markets is precisely why QC is irrelevant to the owners.

If Quebec City and its media market would get eyeballs on ESPN instead of RSN the proposition may be more appealing.

As counter-intuitive as it is for fans (Canadian fans in particular), a half-empty stadium in Houston with a couple hundred thousand viewers per game is a better business proposition for the league as long as the owner has the stomach for mediocre annual financial performance. The upside is a Vegas/Nashville scenario.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Well not really because the fact that they are separate tv markets is precisely why QC is irrelevant to the owners.

If Quebec City and its media market would get eyeballs on ESPN instead of RSN the proposition may be more appealing.

As counter-intuitive as it is for fans (Canadian fans in particular), a half-empty stadium in Houston with a couple hundred thousand viewers per game is a better business proposition for the league as long as the owner has the stomach for mediocre annual financial performance. The upside is a Vegas/Nashville scenario.

Then it sounds like we're getting the worst of both worlds out of this arrangement.

[suburbanite]

Well ya it's not a really secret that Canadian fans get ultimately get screwed. It's the cost of being part of a league that is larger than 10 teams with relative parity.

[edale]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Well not really because the fact that they are separate tv markets is precisely why QC is irrelevant to the owners.

If Quebec City and its media market would get eyeballs on ESPN instead of RSN the proposition may be more appealing.

As counter-intuitive as it is for fans (Canadian fans in particular), a half-empty stadium in Houston with a couple hundred thousand viewers per game is a better business proposition for the league as long as the owner has the stomach for mediocre annual financial performance. The upside is a Vegas/Nashville scenario.

This is really true across professional sports, and has also impacted smaller market teams in the US. It's really a shame, because small markets are often some of the most passionate fan bases, and the large markets are often pretty apathetic. An example from the US is the NFL's Chargers. After spending decades in San Diego and developing a passionate fan base there and becoming a big part of the local culture, they left for LA purely to make more money for the owner. San Diego wouldn't pay for a new stadium, but that was really just a ruse and an excuse to move. They now share a stadium with the Rams, and have very few local fans. Most home games are dominated by visiting fans (same with the Rams, LA's other team), and local media barely pays any attention to the Chargers. They went from being a pillar of the community in San Diego, to being a complete after thought in LA with an apathetic (at best) fan base. But just being in LA alone boosted the value of the team, and the value of the NFL itself, tremendously. The media deal is astronomically higher in a massive city like LA than a smaller city like San Diego. It really sucks, imo.

Canada should easily have 2-3 more NHL teams. Hockey is Canada's sport, and a city like Quebec City is much more deserving of a team than, Phoenix, who play in a 5,000 seat arena...But greed always wins.