Canada's Q3 2023 Population Growth

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Slabsville heights, with a dismal grey sky. It could be Scarborough. It could be North York. It could definitely be London.

Molson the area is so southern Ontario Canadian. Could be Windsor, London, Hamilton, North York, Barrie, Kingston, or heck even Edmonton or Winnipeg
224 Glenridge Ave (swing the camera around)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/624NvAXKFAPiYVvr6

Commieblocks including two 21 storey "luxury" new build ones that are apparently fairly nice, Tim Hortons, nail salons, young Muslim teens, Dollarama, Petro Canada station, weed shop, vape shop, Mom and Pop Asian restaurant, and the Cat's Caboose pub (a mom and pop Kelsey's if you will) at the end of the sunken plaza that has catered to Brock University students and professors for almost 50 years.

The new 21 storey "luxury" slabs have an indoor pool and a rooftop patio
https://www.google.com/search?q=St+C...d:CgIgAQ%3D%3D

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's not an open market at all though. If we had open borders with, say, Asia, our population would tend to equilibrate with Asian countries (for example maybe with open borders with India we'd have 200 million inhabitants but at a living standard somewhere between current Canada and India), but we don't. We're sort of equilibrated with the US, but there are lots of restrictions there too.

That being said our current levels of immigration aren't working well.

I would also say that Canada's economy isn't firing on all cylinders as it were and a lot of places have probably historically underdeveloped relative to what would have been possible with a more vibrant economy (again this is distorted with things like tax rates and resource royalties per province). However, these issues if fixed will be fixed directly, not by bringing in more people and hoping that the economy improves. As somebody from Atlantic Canada I'm really skeptical of the argument that everything there is run well and the interactions with the federal government and international trade have all been optimal but the region just naturally has 1/2 the carrying capacity of Alberta or 1/4 of Quebec or whatever. And I would say this has been vindicated somewhat as we've seen growth there explode recently.

What I mean is the open market within our borders that has distributed population accordingly since the early 1800s. It's a counterpoint to the Google Maps school of national growth planning that leads to conclusions like 40 million people in 10 million square kilometers is an irresponsibly low number.

Regardless of how much growth we accommodate, the geographic settlement patterns will likely remain as they have for over a century, as economic opportunity, climate, and other basic factors are more important than the mere existence of empty land. If we grow from 40 to 50 million people, it's much more likely that the top 20 metros would proportionately suck up the growth than it is that North Battleford, Saskatchewan would increase its population by 25%.

Questions like "What does the Lower Mainland with 4 million people look like?" are more relevant than the overall population density of the second largest country in the world.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by giallo

^^ There are plenty of reasons for Canada to grow without it just being for growth's sake.

It's extremely costly to maintain infrastructure throughout Canada. A small population spread along a very, very large area costs a lot, and that cost is only increasing. This impacts services across the country, especially to rural communities.

Flying in Canada, for instance, is prohibitively expensive compared to other countries around the world. Maintaining a consistent flight schedule means everyone pays more for half full airplanes.

Yes..re: Infrastructure.Canada, being so small in population, yet so large geographically, is a bit of a curse..It's akin to a small family of 3 living in a 20 room mansion with 4 acres..You still have to maintain it all! Highways are expensive. Also, a European family can be spread out within their country, and still be within arm's length for visiting etc..Good luck with a regular visit to a family member or friend moving from Ontario to Vancouver!.There's something to be said for small and compact as far as countries go.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Regardless of how much growth we accommodate, the geographic settlement patterns will likely remain as they have for over a century, as economic opportunity, climate, and other basic factors are more important than the mere existence of empty land. If we grow from 40 to 50 million people, it's much more likely that the top 20 metros would proportionately suck up the growth than it is that North Battleford, Saskatchewan would increase its population by 25%.

I agree as far as a higher-order approximation goes.

If you want to look at a million more going here or there, it does often come down to details. BC is generally not development friendly for example, and the Maritimes are held back by public finance and policy issues that don't have to do with geography per se. For example if you're in Moncton you're paying to subsidize a relatively large in-province rural population compared with Ontario, while you don't get the cheap hydro of Quebec. Perhaps a bigger issue is that if you're in one of the smaller regions and the regional economy is somewhat distinct, chances are your local industries won't be defended much by Ottawa. BC never really got its supply management or auto pact.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Now as a get older I find myself wondering what's wrong with being a Switzerland or an Austria instead of a Western adaptation of Nigeria? Overcrowded infrastructure, social mobility, housing prices, and other tangible factors that you live with and experience on a daily basis hold far more weight now than the admittedly fun exercise of looking at a map and saying "Oh ya we could definitely squeeze an extra 2 million people between x and y".

What a bizarre conclusion to reach. Switzerland or Austria are great examples of why many argue for a higher population. The Maritimes, Newfoundland, MB/SK, Alberta, BC Interior, Vancouver Island, etc. Each of these regions would benefit tremendously if they were a Switzerland or Austria. No one is arguing that each of these regions be a Western adaptation of Nigeria.

The myriad reasons for a higher Canadian population have been listed on SSP many many many times and none of them have to do with having a higher population for the sake of having a higher population. Wanting a higher population just to have a higher population would be idiotic. I suppose there are some people, sadly, who think like that.

Originally Posted by giallo

^^ There are plenty of reasons for Canada to grow without it just being for growth's sake.

It's extremely costly to maintain infrastructure throughout Canada. A small population spread along a very, very large area costs a lot, and that cost is only increasing. This impacts services across the country, especially to rural communities.

Flying in Canada, for instance, is prohibitively expensive compared to other countries around the world. Maintaining a consistent flight schedule means everyone pays more for half full airplanes.

In a rapidly multipolar world, defense should become more of a priority. Canada has a lot of land in the north that is now starting to be contested by other countries. If push ever came to shove, and boots on the ground were needed, Canada would be at a disadvantage in manpower. It's common to think the US will come to our rescue, but that's a terrible plan for our future.

Economically, Canadian companies need to expand outside of its borders more. You can only grow an economy with local companies so much with a small population. A larger, local consumer base helps Canadian companies become more profitable, and more competitive globally.

It really comes down to how a country manages its population growth, and Canada has done a bad job - really bad actually. The fact that Canadians think 40 million people in 9.9 million sq/kms is too much to handle shows how mismanaged its been.

Precisely.

You've touched briefly on a few of the structural, economic, and geo-political problems of 40 million people spread over 10 million km2 but I suspect it will fall on deaf ears.

The arguments have been summarized over and over again but invariably someone will respond that it's just population growth for the sake of population growth. Or they'll assume that it's impossible to grow infrastructure to keep up with population growth.

When the US grew from 40 million to 80 million, did infrastructure keep up? Of course it did. The assumption that Canadians are too inept to do the same is bizarre.

[Xelebes]

On the topic of towns erupting out of nowhere into large cities, for Alberta we might want to lookout for High Level, which lies on the umbilical between Northwest Territories and the rest of Canada. Northwest Territories is poised to have a lot of activity, especially if there is more demand for locally sourced minerals. I can easily see it growing to 100,000 and unlike Fort McMurray, it has a lot of land to develop into homes.

Hinton is another town that I would really like to see growing a fair bit. Hoping more for a Tertiary/Quaternary development path for it, what with it being just outside of Jasper National Park. It can take some pressure away from Canmore and Calgary.

Similarly, Nordegg might also be an option to grow to 10,000-20,000 people.

In general, the thing we want to look out for is how badly do we want locally sourced minerals. This could make the Ring Of Fire become a hot bed in Ontario, amongst others.

[isaidso]

^^ It's happening in the Maritimes as well. For most of their history, cities like Moncton, Fredericton, Charlottetown, Saint John, and Halifax got bypassed because they were too small and distant from markets to attract industry and migrants. There's now a critical concentration of people to attract both. Attaining economies of scale implies you've effectively become the market yourself: you're large enough to make something (factory, warehouse, office, retail, cultural amenity, hospital) economically viable. A higher population is creating a higher tax base which, in turn, makes key investments in infrastructure (highways, rail, flood protection, sewers, power grid, ports, airports) possible.

Perhaps Halifax could grow large enough that it can further develop its airport. There's a dearth of connections compared to cities like Calgary or Boston. This, in turn, helps attract industry, tourism, etc. The increased population density and tax base should result in higher order PT. The region's universities will be able to afford and attract better quality professors, fund more research, etc.

And it's not just cities that benefit. Towns/rural areas benefit as well. Currently they travel to Halifax for specialized medial care as they can't get it close to where they live. Often there are poor transportation connections because regional population isn't high enough/tax base to low build and maintain anything better than they currently have. One could go on and on.

As the Canadian population grows in the already settled southern portion of our country (and added infrastructure is put in place), new cities and towns will absolutely develop. High Level, Alberta? Kentville, Nova Scotia? Parksville, BC? For 100s of towns across the country, significant population growth in the regions in which they exist will allow them to prosper while connecting them to services, amenities and opportunities people in places like Guelph take for granted. People in big cities like Toronto obviously do too.

[someone123]

There are a lot of pretty nice towns in the Maritimes that could grow a lot. One example I can think of is Bridgewater, which will be getting twinned highway access, is in a pretty and historic area (the town itself is not amazing but is okay and improving) and is in one of the best climate zones in Canada. Truro is not bad too, is growing, has lots of room for infill with a historic small town feel, and even has passenger rail which could expand. It's only 45 mins from YHZ.

One limiting factor is that some of these towns are incredibly unfriendly to development. This applies to Vancouver Island and the NS South Shore, two of the nicest areas in Canada. If you want to build around Lunenburg you will go through a San Francisco style process where your balcony addition at the edge of town can be debated for 13 years. I understand the town is worth preserving (it is a UNESCO heritage site) but they should find a way to grow the area while maintaining character including expanding some new neighbourhoods.

As far as Halifax goes I think a lot of people will be surprised by how big it's going to feel when so much recent growth settles. A disproportionate amount of growth (sometimes > 50% by value) is going to the urban core. It has more or less full service medium-sized city infrastructure like a decent freeway system, port facilities, and airport that are all comparatively easy to expand. I think it'll soon register solidly in the medium-sized city camp in Canada at least and will be one of a handful of top picks for people to move to. I don't think that shift in perception/ranking will change if immigration slows down nationally.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by giallo

Flying in Canada, for instance, is prohibitively expensive compared to other countries around the world. Maintaining a consistent flight schedule means everyone pays more for half full airplanes.

The expensive cost of flying domestically in Canada has a lot to do with how over-regulated the Canadian aviation market is, and the fact that foreign ownership is strictly capped (25% single international investor, 49% total). It goes back to the fact that Canada always coddles its oligopolies and protects them from foreign competition.

Australia on the other hand has opened their domestic aviation market to foreign ownership and competition, and they see much cheaper domestic flights in comparison.

When you compare say Sydney-Melbourne flights versus Toronto-Montreal flights, often times the SYD-MEL pricing is half the price or even less than YYZ-YUL.

The same dynamic plays out for 5G data, which again is much cheaper Down Under (Vodafone is like AUD$55 for 300GB) per GB than Canada, despite the same geographical challenges.