Statistics Canada Reports II

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by craner

Canada’s population could hit 76 million by 2075 in high-growth scenario

http://https://globalnews.ca/news/11639688/canada-population-2075/

Not with a 1.2 fertility rate.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Done.


As a Niagara resident it's funny that Grimbsy is part of Hamilton CMA despite being within Niagara Region.

I understand why (commuting patterns and Grimsby became a defacto suburb for those that didn't want to live in Hamilton/Stoney Creek but still wanted to be close enough to Hamilton or GTA), but if you asked the typical Grimsby resident if they wanted to be associated with Hamilton or Niagara the vast majority would say Niagara

Same goes for Burlington, being part of Halton Region and also preferring not to be associated with the Hammer. Obviously a lot more physically integrated though.

[Innsertnamehere]

Ironically the one suburb of Hamilton that would probably actually consider itself as much, Caledonia, is not in the CMA!

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Ironically the one suburb of Hamilton that would probably actually consider itself as much, Caledonia, is not in the CMA!

I actually have relatives there.

My Mom's cousin and her family. My great Uncle and Aunt lived in Hamilton their entire adult lives and raised their 5 kids there but their youngest--my Mom's cousin then moved to Caledonia after she got married for what was back then the low cost of housing. Buying a nice SFH rather than saving up in an apartment for years in Hamilton proper. They were there well before the suburban sprawl boom.

I forget what my Dad (a Torontonian) used to joke about lil Caledonia. It felt pretty podunk compared to even smaller cities of Niagara.
How is Argyle St. faring these days?

edit: One thing I recall about Caledonia is that neat arched concrete bridge over the Grand River.

[kora]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not with a 1.2 fertility rate.

How low will this go? The curious thing is that there is no panic among Canada's leaders about this issue. Meanwhile other countries are pumping billions to increasing fertility and even up to 5% of GDP (Hungary). Those financial incentives generally aren't working. A more effective approach is the soft power push of having kids seem like fun, in countries like France.

Canada seems content to simply maintain immigration to satisfy population growth. But this strategy has its limits and this will be more evident once Canada's natural increase trends into the negative in the 2030s.

[ssiguy]

Funnily, immigration is part of the reason why Canada has such a low fertility rate compared with our English & French national peers.

Immigration has sent the price of housing soaring and kids are a very big financial burden. Even if a couple can afford one, two is often out of the question. Also, due to taking much longer to save enough for a down payment, both parties are well into their 30s entering their prime income and professional lives and they are hence much more hesitant to put those aside to have kids.

As Kora pointed out, many countries have tried to bribe couples into having more kids with daycare subsidies, birth bonuses, ongoing tax credits and subsidies etc and all to no avail. Certainly changing society's views on fertility many help but we also have to start to accept the fact that this is our new reality and we have to work within it because this trend will not change, and thanks to Trudeau, immigration has become politically and social toxic.

[kora]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Immigration has sent the price of housing soaring and kids are a very big financial burden. Even if a couple can afford one, two is often out of the question. Also, due to taking much longer to save enough for a down payment, both parties are well into their 30s entering their prime income and professional lives and they are hence much more hesitant to put those aside to have kids.

There's also been this generational shift into parents thinking that they have to necessarily spend a lot of money on their kids. It used to be that the basics were provided for kids (food, clothing, shelter, public education) and then they were out on their own at the age of 18. Now there's this pressure to provide for extra curricular activities, vacations, experiences, college housing and education costs, etc. It used to be that we were preparing our kids to be independent as soon as possible. That no longer seems to be the case.

[someone123]

It's interesting how the Statistics Canada data captures the desire for kids, although it seems to only capture what women want; it would be interesting to see if men want more or fewer kids. I don't really have an opinion on how many kids people ought to have but I think there is a problem if people want kids and can't have them (or conversely if they end up with kids they don't want or can't support, the more traditional problem).

It's such a complex topic:

- Kids used to be economic contributors from a young age but they aren't anymore.
- We have a housing crisis, so affording space for kids is hard. This used to mostly be in BC, but now it's most of Canada.
- Productivity and income are such that most households require 2 incomes even without children
- Our tax system favours wealth and redistribution of income from young to old, so it's suppressing birth rates while at the same time creating a spiral of greater burden on a shrinking demographic
- Immigration has been used to improve demographics, but it doesn't solve the problem of people who want kids but can't afford them
- There's a lot of other social stuff going on. Young people don't seem to be doing well in relationships.
- At the same time, the societal notions of how much parenting time and support kids need has gone way up. 1940s level parenting would be considered neglectful today.
- The family law system seems quite dysfunctional too

[jc_yyc_ca]

I don't think there's a magic bullet to increase birth rates. This is a trend happening in all developed countries, and is even expected to hit a country like India, renowned for a high birth rate, in a decade or two. This will happen with almost all countries as they urbanize.
Governments can try to find ways to ease the financial burden of having children and I think it would help somewhat.

[Bishop2047]

Housing costs, 2 income home requirements, Uncertainty, are all reasons noted already for delaying or refusing to procreate. I will add another.

The student loan/education delay. With most professions requiring years of education and/or time on the job before you see a return on investment people are delaying families or putting them off entirely. Add to this student debt and you can understand why someone would not even be able to entertain having children until the late 30's/40's.

I am an anomaly in my friend group as millennial that had 3 children before the age of 30. Not that long ago I would have been the anomaly for waiting so long!

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's interesting how the Statistics Canada data captures the desire for kids, although it seems to only capture what women want; it would be interesting to see if men want more or fewer kids. I don't really have an opinion on how many kids people ought to have but I think there is a problem if people want kids and can't have them (or conversely if they end up with kids they don't want or can't support, the more traditional problem).

It's such a complex topic:

- Kids used to be economic contributors from a young age but they aren't anymore.
- We have a housing crisis, so affording space for kids is hard. This used to mostly be in BC, but now it's most of Canada.
- Productivity and income are such that most households require 2 incomes even without children
- Our tax system favours wealth and redistribution of income from young to old, so it's suppressing birth rates while at the same time creating a spiral of greater burden on a shrinking demographic
- Immigration has been used to improve demographics, but it doesn't solve the problem of people who want kids but can't afford them
- There's a lot of other social stuff going on. Young people don't seem to be doing well in relationships.
- At the same time, the societal notions of how much parenting time and support kids need has gone way up. 1940s level parenting would be considered neglectful today.
- The family law system seems quite dysfunctional too

I never looked at it this way. If the government was actually serious about the birth rates and we've been told that half of childrearing-age women don't want them then perhaps the government should only admit a significant majority of newcomers who are women (and also want kids). I wonder what the political implications would be though, hmm.

[someone123]

Well, that number includes fertility intentions of older women up to 49 and women who already have children (octomom saying she doesn't want #9). They don't capture the reasons why, so it's not clear if it's due to environmental factors (I want kids but I'm too poor, etc.) or fixed preferences or what. If there are fixable problems it seems to make more sense to fix those rather than importing women who want children no matter what into a suboptimal child-rearing society.

Then there's no male preference data so we don't know if men want more children or fewer children, and whether or not they're a bottleneck.

[trueviking]

This is a very cool tool for stats nerds. It's from CMHC and shows housing starts for 2025. You can zoom all the way to individual neighbourhoods.

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en#Profile/1/1/Canada

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by trueviking

This is a very cool tool for stats nerds. It's from CMHC and shows housing starts for 2025. You can zoom all the way to individual neighbourhoods.

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en#Profile/1/1/Canada

If you can find where they hide the data, (hint: Full View), you can get completions and under construction data too. And data all the way back to 1990.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's interesting how the Statistics Canada data captures the desire for kids, although it seems to only capture what women want; it would be interesting to see if men want more or fewer kids. I don't really have an opinion on how many kids people ought to have but I think there is a problem if people want kids and can't have them (or conversely if they end up with kids they don't want or can't support, the more traditional problem).

It's such a complex topic:

- Kids used to be economic contributors from a young age but they aren't anymore.
- We have a housing crisis, so affording space for kids is hard. This used to mostly be in BC, but now it's most of Canada.
- Productivity and income are such that most households require 2 incomes even without children
- Our tax system favours wealth and redistribution of income from young to old, so it's suppressing birth rates while at the same time creating a spiral of greater burden on a shrinking demographic
- Immigration has been used to improve demographics, but it doesn't solve the problem of people who want kids but can't afford them
- There's a lot of other social stuff going on. Young people don't seem to be doing well in relationships.
- At the same time, the societal notions of how much parenting time and support kids need has gone way up. 1940s level parenting would be considered neglectful today.
- The family law system seems quite dysfunctional too

Not just the 1940s, 1990s parenting would be considered shameful today. Imagine expecting teenagers to have part time jobs and take the bus if they want to go somewhere or letting eight year olds out of the house.

[jonny24]

Probably of not much interest for anyone else, but I was doing some other rugby data and decided to look at the population data while I was doing it.

- Every CMA in Southern Ontario has at least 1 rugby club
- No CMAs in Northern Ontario have any (Sudbury had a group trying, their last post was 2020)

- Toronto CMA leads in total clubs (obviously) at 16, but less obviously, it also leads at clubs-per-capita with 3.6 per 100k. Next highest per-capita among CMAs is Ottawa with 2.72 per 100k (6 clubs). Hamilton is the only other CMA with multiple (4, 1.84 per 100k)

- The are 8 CAs with rugby clubs, one each in Sarnia, Kawartha Lakes (Lindsay), Norfolk, Centre Wellington (Fergus), Stratford, Brockville, Collingwood, and Cobourg.

- Cobourg is the smallest, and therefore the most clubs-per-capita with 4.76 per 100k.

- The largest CA with no rugby club is Chatham-Kent, pop 112,977. They used to have one, it folded after 2021 partial/ad-hoc season.

- Only 2 rugby clubs out of 47 are not in a CMA or CA. Brock and Lanark.

(note that my total of 47 is clubs with senior men's teams. There are a couple junior only or women-only clubs that aren't part of my spreadsheet).

- 13,630,153 live in a CMA or CA with a rugby club in it, or 84% of Ontario's population.

- There were 14,862 Rugby Ontario members in 2024 (last report available), or 0.11% of the population.

[Chocolite]

Originally Posted by trueviking

This is a very cool tool for stats nerds. It's from CMHC and shows housing starts for 2025. You can zoom all the way to individual neighbourhoods.

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en#Profile/1/1/Canada

Very cool find. CMHC's definition of Toronto's neighborhoods is a bit wonky with some not lining up with the city's definition, but they also have an option to do census tracts

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not with a 1.2 fertility rate.

Or with Canadians realizing they were being taken for an expensive ride by Justin Trudeau and the Century Initiative.

[kora]

Okotoks is the #1 city in Alberta according to the just released 100 Most Livable Cities list by the Globe and Mail. That's good enough for #29 in Canada and ahead of Calgary (#78). Eat your heart out Calgary. Even better, Okotoks is the #10 city in Canada for retirement. New slogan: The Place to Grow Old.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by kora

Okotoks is the #1 city in Alberta according to the just released 100 Most Livable Cities list by the Globe and Mail. That's good enough for #29 in Canada and ahead of Calgary (#78). Eat your heart out Calgary. Even better, Okotoks is the #10 city in Canada for retirement. New slogan: The Place to Grow Old.

Okotoks is now world class!