Canada's Future

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I wonder where the fulcrum lies. roughly 80% French-speaking (at home), I reckon.

BTW, the proportion of Quebeckers with English as the mother tongue was 7.6% in 2021, versus 8.3% in 1996. Allophone mother tongue speakers have grown from 9.3% to nearly 14%. French & English (raised bilingually) have grown from 0.72% to 1.5%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langua...hics_of_Quebec

Quebec is unlikely to become "more francophone" via mother tongue unless the Quebecoises start pumping out more babies. Thus, Bill 101 and its offshoots.

The real bogeyman figures are the number of people who can't speak French.

The % and number of people who can't speak French in Quebec went up in the last census period, for the first time since like 1971. It had been in constant decline for about 50 years.

All of a sudden it has started ticking back up.

The number of people speaking only English also went up, and this also had been in constant decline for decades.

Whereas the number of people speaking only French actually declined.

So basically if you do the simple math: francophones are more bilingual, anglophones are a bit more unilingual English, and probably allophones are tending to be either more bilingual in French and English, or speaking English only, but are less likely to speak French only.

Of course the percentages involved are small but it's a sensitive issue so people will nonetheless use the numbers to make declarations about long-term trends.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

How do you see Canada in 10, 25 or 50 years?

Our economy?
Our cities?
Our quality of life?

And how will it compare to the past 10, 25 and 50 years?

Wildfire season replaces summer. Millions of refugees flee here from countries made uninhabitable by climate change. New Canadian cities move further north as the climate warms. Conservatives applaud the increased farmland capacity and attack immigration while continuing to prop up oil & gas and denying any culpability. The north becomes increasingly a battleground with Russia and China denying our sovereign territory.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The real bogeyman figures are the number of people who can't speak French.

The % and number of people who can't speak French in Quebec went up in the last census period, for the first time since like 1971. It had been in constant decline for about 50 years.

All of a sudden it has started ticking back up.

The number of people speaking only English also went up, and this also had been in constant decline for decades.

Whereas the number of people speaking only French actually declined.

So basically if you do the simple math: francophones are more bilingual, anglophones are a bit more unilingual English, and probably allophones are tending to be either more bilingual in French and English, or speaking English only, but are less likely to speak French only.

Of course the percentages involved are small but it's a sensitive issue so people will nonetheless use the numbers to make declarations about long-term trends.

Likely due to unprecedented high numbers of immigrants. The number of immigrants not speaking English in the ROC has likely risen as of late.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Likely due to unprecedented high numbers of immigrants. The number of immigrants not speaking English in the ROC has likely risen as of late.

A bunch of explanations have been given for this.

Montreal also became a cheap(er) refuge of sorts for a number of ROCers who landed remote jobs they can do from anywhere either during or after the pandemic.

Regardless, the societal effects, if they persist, are still real.

[Architype]

I am not sure which thread this belongs in, probably a few.

Poilievre says he would cut population growth after Liberals signal immigration changes coming

'The radical, out-of-control NDP-Liberal government has destroyed our system,' Poilievre says of immigration

Poilievre said a future Conservative government would tie the country's population growth rate to a level that's below the number of new homes built, and would also consider such factors as access to health-care and jobs.

That's an imprecise metric that makes it difficult to pinpoint just how many permanent residents or non-permanent residents such as temporary foreign workers, international students and refugees would be admitted on Poilievre's watch.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poi...owth-1.7308184

So, he cuts immigration to match housing, so then there is less housing built as a result?

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think some people are too negative but the overall trajectory has been mildly negative in Canada since sometime in the 2010's. Most likely outcome is we'll have a lower standard of living in the future, with places like the UK or Vancouver giving a preview of what average Canadian cities will offer in the future. It seems a bit quaint now to look back on how detached houses here were expensive but semi-affordable to average or upper middle class people, then only condos were affordable, then only renting, and now nothing's affordable.

One aspect that makes me less sanguine is how it's so hard to get a consensus on even very obvious problems or dynamics. It's obvious the run-up in house prices is unsustainable and bad but you can't get a politician to publicly state that house prices should go down, it's obvious we're not building enough infrastructure or generating enough opportunity for recent rates of population increase, and it's obvious that factors like rate of immigration and type of immigration matter (e.g. importing PhDs in high demand fields versus people who can only be Uber drivers).

I don't think arguments about finances gradually improving most of the time hold much water because they tend to dramatically worsen during shocks like covid. It's kind of like a binge drinker saying they're fine because they wake up in their bed 10x as often as they wake up in a ditch. One important poor policy decision can have a long-term impact.

I mean I think the Federal Liberals exude the issue - we have a certian quality of life we appreciate and still view as the Canadian standard - detached home, two cars, the like - but practically all policy levers discourage that lifestyle. We largely prohibit new home construction in the largest Canadian housing markets. Our Federal government refuses to give federal funding to roads projects. We rack in the immigrants at insane rates while skilled employment shrinks.

The government spends all the excess cash on helping the poor - a noble thing to do, for sure - but it ignores how to actually grow the pie. Build / widen a road key to economic productivity? Nah, let's spend the cash on a bus route with 1,000 daily riders, primarily going to low-wage jobs, instead! Investigate how to construct low-rise housing at a more affordable cost and in greater numbers? Nah, lets give subsidies to affordable housing so that 0.00001% of the Canadian population can maybe rent a 1-bed apartment in 7 years at a rent 20% below median!

It's a fundamentally broken model which believes the government is the answer to everything and that the only question the government needs to answer is quality of life for those who are in the bottom 20% of incomes. Anything for anyone else can be ignored. Then they wonder why the other 80% are upset to see their living standards decline..

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One consensus that has emerged on this thread is that we are destined to remain economically behind the US by quite a bit, and that this is probably the state of normalcy for Canada, with only very occasional short periods historically where we pull even or even surpass them.

Assuming we're right, and also that the US continues to grow wealthier and more attractive, and they eventually start to get their house in order on least a few key metrics that currently make Canadians uneasy about the US, will we at one point start to see some more serious talk about joining them?

I was about to make this post - I'm starting to wonder if joining the USA might honestly be our best bet. In a lot of ways we're basically the same country already. At least with Anglo-Canada.

Not sure what exactly happens with Quebec in this scenario. Presumably they'd become independent, as there's no way Quebec's language policies would comply with the US constitution. But an "independent" Quebec surrounded on all sides by the USA is barely independent. Canada can feel like a US puppet state at times; Quebec surrounded by the USA would be this amplified ten fold.

Also there's the question of how Canada would be divvied up. Presumably most provinces would become states. But PEI and NL are arguably too small to be states. They'd presumably have to become territories. Although perhaps NL has a chance. The US military would invest a lot in NL as the northeast corner of the country. In particular they'd want to put nuclear weapons there which would add a lot of jobs and complex economic activity. So NL might grow enough to justify statehood. Hey, if Alaska made it...

If we assume Quebec becomes independent and PEI becomes a territory then that means 8 new states. The political balance of the US would change a lot. Funny enough for this reason alone the Republicans would probably be the single greatest barrier to annexation for this reason: they'd never want to give us senate seats.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The government spends all the excess cash on helping the poor - a noble thing to do, for sure - but it ignores how to actually grow the pie.

These are often token initiatives that allow them to make a press release that seems they are in favour of an outcome even while they work against it more broadly. For example, a lot of wealthy property owners want high real estate prices, and it's possible to pursue this policy agenda while also building token affordable housing projects.

I also think too few people focus on things like competition and low prices in Canada and obsess over government benefits. Most of our increase in standard of living comes from increased productivity that has lowered the price of goods and some services. The government policies are redistributive, which is sometimes needed, but can't make up for poor productivity.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Assuming we're right, and also that the US continues to grow wealthier and more attractive, and they eventually start to get their house in order on least a few key metrics that currently make Canadians uneasy about the US, will we at one point start to see some more serious talk about joining them?

You certainly are a champion at provoking a few more pages of delightful conversation.

[MolsonExport]

On joining the USA: no thanks. A country is much more than just GDP per capita.

[MolsonExport]

Is this what we want?

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have to say I was a bit heartened by Eric's post with the good financial prognosis, though obviously Yves Giroux can only assume that public spending decisions will remain similar to what we have today and have seen in the recent past (huge blips like the pandemic notwithstanding).

It's also possible that a future government might go crazy with spending, perhaps in a psycho-Keynesian effort in response to a serious economic downturn, that the gambit fails and that we end up somewhere like where Argentina is now.

Debt situation aside, I wouldn't consider it a great financial prognosis, but more of a glimpse into a potential future. The PBO can say whatever they want, but what either a provincial or the federal government ultimately ends up doing can send us down a different trajectory, and the government has been known to go against the recommendations of the PBO. The point still unfortunately stands that our third largest province could be at risk of bankruptcy, and that many other provinces are spending beyond their means. The actual GDP growth numbers themselves also don't look that great for a 2098 target.

I certainly think that we are going to have a brighter future than some of the European giants like the UK (who's financial situation looks awful and is in very fast, active decline after Brexit), Italy (who has difficulty fighting systemic corruption and has to mend a massive national wealth divide), and Germany (who also has a national debt problem and will be dealing with energy price crises more often in the future), but it is clear that there are moves that need to be made to make our own future less chaotic.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Still, perhaps we don't appreciate that much how the period you're referencing (1945-2008 and maybe a decade more in Canada's case) was truly exceptional and an outlier in human history.

I also have had the thought that Canada has been unusually lucky in terms of how the country was able to be so prosperous and governed with minimal resources over that period. The social contract seems like it was very strong during this time, and unfortunately started to fray around 2008 and further in 2020 to present. Hence why many of our high-trust governance and law enforcement systems (less policing resources, minimal checks on white collar/financial crime, light criminal sentencing, lax security for politicians, minimal enforcement on ethical violations for politicians, etc) all seem to be not working so well during our current time.

I think this also explains why there has been so much change and spending on government-related operations at this time (centralization of military operations into a singular facility, massive overhaul of Parliament Hill and associated infrastructure, more security for politicians, discussion of changing the RCMP into an FBI-type agency, formation/expansion of FINTRAC, expansion of CSE/CSIS operations and capabilities, etc). It seems like the government is playing catch-up on the reach of its capabilities and effectiveness now that Canada is becoming a bigger, high-profile country and has big country problems, instead of the smaller, low-profile, and quiet country that Canada was.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Is this what we want?

We’d be a high life expectancy state which in the US have a higher life expectancy than many Canadian provinces who have lower rates.

The entire USA isn’t rural Mississippi.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by harls

You certainly are a champion at provoking a few more pages of delightful conversation.

Why not? It’s a discussion forum after all.

It exists to… discuss.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think you're absolutely right.

There are already signs of this. For example the protests against "Pride" activities and gender ideology in Ontario schools were far from exclusively made up of Euro-Christian Canadians. Quite the opposite in fact.

What's really ironic is that high immigration is a pet policy of the progressive left, but it's actually going to shift the country more the right.

We've already had a lot of immigration from these supposed conservative countries but it hasn't really changed things from what I can tell. If there had been much less immigration 20-30 years ago I don't think we'd be any more to the left or right today.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One consensus that has emerged on this thread is that we are destined to remain economically behind the US by quite a bit, and that this is probably the state of normalcy for Canada, with only very occasional short periods historically where we pull even or even surpass them.

Assuming we're right, and also that the US continues to grow wealthier and more attractive, and they eventually start to get their house in order on least a few key metrics that currently make Canadians uneasy about the US, will we at one point start to see some more serious talk about joining them?

The good thing for Canada is that every study I've seen rates us at a much higher quality of living than the U.S. and that actually means a lot more in my opinion. It's actually a good thing when the American economy is strong. We have a huge market where we can export goods to on wheels. And we're at a time when many food and household goods are cheaper in Canada often by 20-30% so it means we're shopping at home and buying more Canadian made goods.

The gap between rich and poor has become so ridiculous South of the border and has meant big government spending there with not so impressive results and huge deficits. The Trudeau government deficits are quite puny in comparison.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Another thing I was thinking of: There are literally millions of young Canadians (under 40) who will never have children. If you want to get a picture of which Canadian values will get pushed to future generations, you have to look at the values of young Canadians who are actually having kids. Generally this means that quiet conservative values will get passed on and loud progressive values won't.

You also need to look at who is moving here - generally conservative-minded Asians who want to start families.

Like it or not, Canada is going to become more conservative, because that's ultimately who is going to still be around in 50 years as loud childless progressives will have died off by then.

I suspect I'm going to get flack for this post but whatever.

I'm also not that concerned about real estate in the medium term. Millennials and Zoomers are going to have high inequality within their own generations, but this will balance out again by the time Alphas hit their 20s.

Intuitively, it makes sense that conservative-minded people would be more likely to have more children than left-leaning ones on average (family values and all, and being that they're less likely to live in big, high-cost cities), but that's always been the case and I haven't seen any evidence that "progressive birth rates" are falling faster than conservative ones - everyone is having fewer children. More to the point though, political views aren't a hereditary characteristic and there's no reason to assume that conservative parents = conservative babies.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Intuitively, it makes sense that conservative-minded people would be more likely to have more children than left-leaning ones on average (family values and all, and being that they're less likely to live in big, high-cost cities), but that's always been the case and I haven't seen any evidence that "progressive birth rates" are falling faster than conservative ones - everyone is having fewer children. More to the point though, political views aren't a hereditary characteristic and there's no reason to assume that conservative parents = conservative babies.

I think it is less the case in Canada because conservatives here tend to be more libertarian leaning and less social conservative, but certainly in countries where the conservative elements are religious there are significant differences in fertility rates between more liberal and conservative areas.

These are the 10 states with the highest fertility.

South Dakota
Nebraska
Alaska
Louisiana
Utah
Iowa
North Dakota
Texas
Kansas
Kentucky

All red states, with only Iowa sometimes flirting with purple territory.

And the lowest fertility are not surprisingly all blue states with only Maine sometimes electing republicans to state wide office.

Illinois
Washington
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Oregon
Vermont
District of Columbia

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We’d be a high life expectancy state which in the US have a higher life expectancy than many Canadian provinces who have lower rates.

The entire USA isn’t rural Mississippi.

if you break down American healthcare it's much like anything in the US - greater disparities. Those who are wealthier and have good access to care enjoy longer life expectancies than basically any developed country. Those without access.. don't.



Universal systems offer more universal access, but the extremities of care are not as great.

Like most things, if you are high income you are better off in the US for healthcare.

The problem with US healthcare is that the level of income you need to really enjoy the benefits of the US system is very, very high, and unless you are in that bracket, the level of care is significantly below the rest of the world.

Canada does not offer as much variance in this manner - wealthier people still live longer for a variety of reasons, but universal access to care helps a lot.


There is a 10-year difference in life expectancy in the US between the top income quintile and the bottom - in Canada, it's more like 3-4 years. But the US tops out at 87 for it's top quintile, while Canada tops out at about 82.

Canada has always basically set it's identity about being "The US, but a bit more socialist". Socialism comes with benefits and problems. On a societal level it's great, but you do give up some amount of market efficiency (and therefor overall wealth) to buy it. We as a country have long identified this as "worth it", but I feel like the values are shifting a little on this front as the Trudeau Liberals have leaned into the Socialist angle more heavily than any government in living memory to prop up their support by the NDP.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Wildfire season replaces summer. Millions of refugees flee here from countries made uninhabitable by climate change. New Canadian cities move further north as the climate warms. Conservatives applaud the increased farmland capacity and attack immigration while continuing to prop up oil & gas and denying any culpability. The north becomes increasingly a battleground with Russia and China denying our sovereign territory.

There are a handful of places where climate change cannot be mitigated (South Florida and Bangladesh come to mind). For other places, it is not clear why leaving is a better option than mitigation. People already live in unpleasantly hot places such as Arizona or places prone to seasonal flooding such as Venice (in fact such places have been growing at a much faster rate than places with more moderate climates). If for example Southern Ontario has a climate more like present-day Ohio or Kentucky I don't think most people would view it as uninhabitable.

Even in cases where people had to relocate, it is not clear why they would relocate to Canada rather than nearby places (i.e. if you have to leave South Florida, why not go to Northern Florida or Georgia rather than Moose Jaw). Refugees normally settle in nearby areas. It takes a huge effort (such as the Syria airlift) to move refugees to the other side of the world.