Statistics Canada Reports II

[MonctonRad]

Canada has surpassed 41.75M souls.

42M by the new year???

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by theman23

For one, it only looks flat if you zoom out to a 150 year time scale and assume growth will revert to less than 1%, but even then not really - there's clearly a step change post COVID. Regardless, none of us will be around in 150 years and the whole point is that we don't have the capacity to accommodate such a massive influx of newcomers over such a short period of time. We've added 3 million newcomers over the past 3 years all of whom require housing right away. We've grown more than we would in a typical decade but without any appreciable increase in housing construction. Yes, immigration is not the only factor. But it's a big one.



Not correct. We are the fastest growing developed country in the world by far, and top 5 overall. All of our peers are located in sub-Saharan Africa.

You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said we're not growing fast enough that we should have that much trouble providing housing, and that is 100% true. The two statements are in no way incompatible. We can be currently growing faster than other developed countries but still not growing fast enough that we should have this much trouble providing adequate housing. Developed countries in general have lowered their growth significantly over the recent decades with many having little or no growth at all and some even declining in population. So growing faster than them isn't a terribly relevant metric and does not in itself mean the growth is extreme or unmanageable.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said we're not growing fast enough that we should have that much trouble providing housing, and that is 100% true. The two statements are in no way incompatible. We can be currently growing faster than other developed countries but still not growing fast enough that we should have this much trouble providing adequate housing. Developed countries in general have lowered their growth significantly over the recent decades with many having little or no growth at all and some even declining in population. So growing faster than them isn't a terribly relevant metric and does not in itself mean the growth is extreme or unmanageable.

Are you aware that we grew by 1.3 million last year and by 3 million people over the last 3 years? The post above you suggests we might grow by 1.5 million in 2024. Housing starts peaked at record highs of 300,000 in 2021. Assuming an average family size of 2.5, the immigration pace of the last 4 years will have added a housing deficit of about 1 million units by year end. And that's not even taking into account that the majority of what is being built is wholly unsuitable for more than one person.

[Acajack]

Even if the construction industry was building at a record rate, and that everything supplying it was operating at a breakneck pace (lumber, ceramic tile, windows, etc.), I'm still extremely skeptical that we could keep up with this population growth.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even if the construction industry was building at a record rate, and that everything supplying it was operating at a breakneck pace (lumber, ceramic tile, windows, etc.), I'm still extremely skeptical that we could keep up with this population growth.

We might be able to, but we need to catch up first. Vacancy rates are way too low.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even if the construction industry was building at a record rate, and that everything supplying it was operating at a breakneck pace (lumber, ceramic tile, windows, etc.), I'm still extremely skeptical that we could keep up with this population growth.

You would have to believe in magic:.



The CMHC's roadmap to housing affordability requires us to 10x housing completions by the end of the decade to meet our demand. And note that the CMHC has vastly underestimated population growth - they don't think we'll get to 42 million until 2030. We'll likely get there within a few months.

Source: Move Smartly Podcast

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said we're not growing fast enough that we should have that much trouble providing housing, and that is 100% true. The two statements are in no way incompatible. We can be currently growing faster than other developed countries but still not growing fast enough that we should have this much trouble providing adequate housing. Developed countries in general have lowered their growth significantly over the recent decades with many having little or no growth at all and some even declining in population. So growing faster than them isn't a terribly relevant metric and does not in itself mean the growth is extreme or unmanageable.

The last time we had this level of growth in Canada - post-WWII - there was also a housing shortage. High growth is almost universally associated with housing shortages/high prices, after all (not the only part of it course, but it is a big one) - I'm not aware of any high-growth places past or present that haven't struggled with meeting demand & adequately housing their populations. Our "peer" high-growth countries get around this by having most of their populations living in informal slum-type dwellings.

Sure, in theory we probably could ramp up construction sufficiently to meet demand (in much the same way that we could mobilize an entire society to beat the Axis in WWII) but it would take a massive, coordinated effort and centralised reallocation of labour and resources and reorientation of our economy to one primary focused on the construction of homes. Which then begs the question of: why? What do we actually gain from extreme population growth, and is it worth allocating a disproportionately high amount of resources just to house that growth?

Maintaining a consistent level of population growth that is generally aligned with historic norms of housing construction is much easier than suddenly & rapidly scaling up construction to meet a sudden population spike.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Canada has surpassed 41.75M souls.

42M by the new year???

We're growing at a rate of about 150,000/month, so we should be at 42 million no later than mid-November.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Sure, in theory we probably could ramp up construction sufficiently to meet demand (in much the same way that we could mobilize an entire society to beat the Axis in WWII) but it would take a massive, coordinated effort and centralised reallocation of labour and resources and reorientation of our economy to one primary focused on the construction of homes. Which then begs the question of: why? What do we actually gain from extreme population growth, and is it worth allocating a disproportionately high amount of resources just to house that growth?

I wonder not just about why, but whether Canada has the capacity to do this right now. This country is struggling with inflation and a general difficulty building new housing and infrastructure. The immigration rate is much easier to fix with government policy levers than the housing supply and infrastructure.

After WW2 Canada did have the government and private capacity to quickly and efficiently execute large housing projects.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by someone123

After WW2 Canada did have the government and private capacity to quickly and efficiently execute large housing projects.

In this case it's interesting to note that while the massive post-war housing crisis spurned action this didn't really take notable effect until the early 1950s. There were some immediate post-war projects but a significant percentage of the population growth was still accommodated by piecemeal borderline-informal development at urban fringes, while urban cores remained very dense. It wasn't until higher amounts of Federal funding to the CMHC helped spurn better quality developments that could actually being to address the issue.

Hard to say whether we could repeat the situation even in real terms, much less the political will to do so.

[someone123]

There was the Wartime Housing crown corp that built around 45,000 houses during the 40's, back when the population was 1/4 of what it is today. They were supposed to be temporary but many are still around. I'm not sure what they cost but I'd assume they were very affordable by today's standards. Today some of these places probably sell for $300,000+.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by niwell

In this case it's interesting to note that while the massive post-war housing crisis spurned action this didn't really take notable effect until the early 1950s. There were some immediate post-war projects but a significant percentage of the population growth was still accommodated by piecemeal borderline-informal development at urban fringes, while urban cores remained very dense. It wasn't until higher amounts of Federal funding to the CMHC helped spurn better quality developments that could actually being to address the issue.

Hard to say whether we could repeat the situation even in real terms, much less the political will to do so.

In the 1950s we had a huge piece of low hanging fruit available: the fact that middle class urban residents were acquiring automobiles for the first time. This meant that they suddenly had the ability to travel much faster, so a bunch of rural land immediately adjacent to the urban fringes suddenly became attractive for housing development. No analogous "gold mine" of new supply availability is possible in the 2020s.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In the 1950s we had a huge piece of low hanging fruit available: the fact that middle class urban residents were acquiring automobiles for the first time. This meant that they suddenly had the ability to travel much faster, so a bunch of rural land immediately adjacent to the urban fringes suddenly became attractive for housing development. No analogous "gold mine" of new supply availability is possible in the 2020s.

The solution that is developing currently is migrations to other population centres. Toronto metro area might be capped out on what it can sustain and much of the increase in industrial base will have to locate elsewhere. We're seeing in Edmonton large warehouses and factories that would be built in Toronto are being built in Edmonton.

My hope is that we can get more development around Bonnyville-Cold Lake so that there are more employment opportunities to help out the base employees there. Likewise for the Petawawa area.

[kwoldtimer]

Population growth remains high but is beginning to slow.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240925/dq240925a-eng.htm?HPA=1

[Zeej]

2nd quarter for the big 4 provinces:

Ontario: +90.5k, +0.6%
Québec: + 52.7k, +0.6%
British Columbia: + 31.5k, + 0.6%
Alberta: + 46.2k, + 0.9%

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2019036-eng.htm

[O-tacular]

Alberta's growth has been record setting. Smith once welcomed it but is now backtracking since infrastructure such as schools needs to be built. But Calgary doesn't need the Greenline and can just run it at grade through DT....

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contribu...2aa06da-79af-11ef-838a-5766a9611a8c.html

[MonctonRad]

They've readjusted the population clock downward. It had been up near 41.79M, but is now reset at 41.69M

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Alberta's growth has been record setting. Smith once welcomed it but is now backtracking since infrastructure such as schools needs to be built. But Calgary doesn't need the Greenline and can just run it at grade through DT....

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contribu...2aa06da-79af-11ef-838a-5766a9611a8c.html

To be fair to Smith, when they started putting up the "Alberta is Calling" signs, I don't think she put up any in Delhi or Manilla. She wanted Canadians to come as they can speak the language, can do more than ask "if you want fries with that', and aren't getting a Masters in Basket Weaving for a quick citizenship. That is Trudeau's doing, not Smith's.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

They've readjusted the population clock downward. It had been up near 41.79M, but is now reset at 41.69M

Anyone know when the next quarterly population estimates will be released? I'd be shocked if Canada isn't really close to, if not exceeding 42M people.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

They've readjusted the population clock downward. It had been up near 41.79M, but is now reset at 41.69M

To reflect the slowing rate of increase, one supposes.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

To be fair to Smith, when they started putting up the "Alberta is Calling" signs, I don't think she put up any in Delhi or Manilla. She wanted Canadians to come as they can speak the language, can do more than ask "if you want fries with that', and aren't getting a Masters in Basket Weaving for a quick citizenship. That is Trudeau's doing, not Smith's.

If you read the attached Star article it points out that she requested 20k TFW’s and has no problem importing them.