Statistics Canada Reports II

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Recently it has also been joined by the hyping up of French as a nasty illegitimate colonial language, in parallel with a growing consciousness of Indigenous issues. English is mentioned about once for every time French is portrayed 100 times in this negative light.

You see this in Africa all the time - countries like Algeria, Mali, Rwanda, Niger, etc. all moving to reduce the use of French and replace it with English as the primary foreign language in schools, government, etc... arguing that French is "colonial"... and English didn't come from Europe?

(Note - I get why they've made the switch. English is the global language at this point, so it makes sense from an economic/business POV. But the "colonial" line is funny).

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by lio45

We're assuming Poilievre will choose to continue the Scheme?

(It's a matter of significant importance to me, I'd like to bet on the correct outcome. So far it's a coin toss...)

PP will most certainly put an end to this immigration madness, that's a given.

He has never, as far as I know, stated an actual number of immigrants he would allow in but has stated on several occasions that immigration levels would be directly in line with the number of homes being built per year. With our current rate of construction, that would drop our population growth rate by over 70%

Personally, I can see him doing even more of a cut but more importantly he will reprioritize who gets into the country. I could see him slashing the total number of students, TFW, refugees, and family reunifications by 90% or even completely if only for a few years but just maybe 30% for traditional immigration individuals and only for those with very high training/education in areas with crucial labour shortages will get in.

Not only would this play well with his more traditional base but also in the Conservative new demographic stronghold.........those under 35.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

PP will most certainly put an end to this immigration madness, that's a given.

He has never stated an actual number of immigrants he would allow in but has stated on several occasions that immigration levels would be directly in line with the number of homes being built per year. With our current rate of construction, that would drop our population growth rate by over 70%

Tying immigration levels to housing construction without specifying the numbers of either is basically meaningless. He could mean a ratio of 1 immigrant admitted:1 housing unit built just as well as it could mean a ratio of 20 immigrants:1 housing unit.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

You see this in Africa all the time - countries like Algeria, Mali, Rwanda, Niger, etc. all moving to reduce the use of French and replace it with English as the primary foreign language in schools, government, etc... arguing that French is "colonial"... and English didn't come from Europe?

(Note - I get why they've made the switch. English is the global language at this point, so it makes sense from an economic/business POV. But the "colonial" line is funny).

English didn’t come from their colonists. Also, English is sufficiently global that it isn’t associated with one country like French is.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Tying immigration levels to housing construction without specifying the numbers of either is basically meaningless. He could mean a ratio of 1 immigrant admitted:1 housing unit built just as well as it could mean a ratio of 20 immigrants:1 housing unit.

Of course it is but brilliantly so. Give people the impression you will reduce immigration levels but do t piss off the immigrant families who are hoping to bring more of their extended family over.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by acottawa

English didn’t come from their colonists. Also, English is sufficiently global that it isn’t associated with one country like French is.

Remember that English became dominant mainly because it's the language of the US, and not just Britain. Things do change though, French was the official language of Britain for 300 years.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

English didn’t come from their colonists. Also, English is sufficiently global that it isn’t associated with one country like French is.

Sure but it's still the language of the two most powerful empires in recent centuries. Both of which are among the most powerful in world history.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Ontario will hit 16 million today. The Population Clock has Ontario at 15,999,266. I suppose, Ontario will surpass New York State before the decade is out.

Ontario 16,000,947 as of 9:29am April 1, 2024

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Tying immigration levels to housing construction without specifying the numbers of either is basically meaningless. He could mean a ratio of 1 immigrant admitted:1 housing unit built just as well as it could mean a ratio of 20 immigrants:1 housing unit.

Well that is true but with Canada only building about 220,000 units a year, I can't imagine him not, at the very minimum, cutting immigration levels to at least half of what they currently are.

Remember, for PP cutting Canada's grotesque intake is nothing but good news politically. There is an overall societal decline in how Canadians view immigration and how it is good for the country and the majority see the impacts of housing costs as the biggest negative. Trudeau has sent the price of both real estate and rentals thru the roof and general & housing affordability has skyrocketed to the #1 issue Canadians are concerned about.

Yes, Trudeau is taking a pounding with the under 35 age cohort as they see their future slipping away as the premise of a good education and hard work will help one to live a decent standard of living no longer applies. Under Trudeau, we have reverted back to the Gilded Age where success was predominately determined by whether you picked the right parents rather than your skill level and work ethic. It is not just the under 35 demographic, however, as he is running behind PP in every age cohort.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Ontario 16,000,947 as of 9:29am April 1, 2024

Context:

1991: 10.1 million
1996: 10.8 million (+700k)
2001: 11.4 million (+600k)
2006: 12.2 million (+800k)
2011: 12.9 million (+700k)
2016: 13.4 million (+500k)
2021: 14.2 million (+800k)


2024: 16 million (+1.8 million)

As I get older, there's a definite wonder if we've just lost the plot completely with 'more' versus 'better' in Canada. Does rivaling South Sudan for growth make Canada a better country?

It's currently hard to see better Canada at this juncture. Perhaps that what our political leadership meant by trumpeting 'The world needs more Canada!' on the stage. There's certainly more of us.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by thewave46

As I get older, there's a definite wonder if we've just lost the plot completely with 'more' versus 'better' in Canada. Does rivaling South Sudan for growth make Canada a better country?

It's currently hard to see better Canada at this juncture.

At this particular snapshot in time, population growth has absolutely been mismanaged but the conclusions some are reaching regarding population growth deserve to be challenged. The problem isn't a higher population, it's the massive jump in the growth rate all at once. We went from 1% to 3% growth in the span of 2-3 years. Municipal governments, schools, hospitals, developers, planners have, quite predictably, all been blindsided by it.

The danger is that we'll see a knee jerk reaction where people sour on large scale immigration completely. For a country with a TFR of only 1.33, that would just as damaging to this country.

This is a time for calm heads, recognizing that 2022-2025 will very likely be an aberration, but also an acknowledgment of how Canada has benefited from a higher population. Canada is immeasurably better at 41 million than we were at 31 million. I could write 20 pages on the many ways Canada is better but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

I absolutely want a more manageable population growth rate but don't want immigration levels decreased to the point that our pensioner to worker ratio starts increasing again, our cities can't densify, or global capital starts viewing the long term demographic prognosis for Canada negatively. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by going from one extreme to the other. They're equally damaging.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I absolutely want a more manageable population growth rate but don't want immigration levels decreased to the point that our pensioner to worker ratio starts increasing again, our cities can't densify, or global capital starts viewing the long term demographic prognosis for Canada negatively. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by going from one extreme to the other. They're equally damaging.

I agree.

In the short-term, a more manageable growth rate in line with historical trends (or somewhat lower for a few years to offset the huge growth of the past few years) would probably be an optimal outcome.

The problem with foolish policy is that it poisons the debate. We should highlight the error and aspire to not repeat it.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by isaidso

At this particular snapshot in time, population growth has absolutely been mismanaged but the conclusions some are reaching regarding population growth deserve to be challenged. The problem isn't a higher population, it's the massive jump in the growth rate all at once. We went from 1% to 3% growth in the span of 2-3 years. Municipal governments, schools, hospitals, developers, planners have, quite predictably, all been blindsided by it.

This is a fair assessment. Canada could absolutely support a much larger population - we have the space and the resources for it, and we could see all sorts of economic and geopolitical benefits as a result.

Getting to that larger population with third-world level growth rates however makes it impossible to keep up with the added infrastructure demands while also maintaining a high quality of life. And suddenly ramping up to that third-world level growth rate without any clear mandate, coherent strategy, or any coordination with provinces and municipalities was just dumb.

[giallo]

What I don't understand is why there wasn't a plan to gradually increase immigration from 2010. We've known for decades that Canada has a super low birthrate, and that the Baby Boomers were going to retire en masse in the 2010s/early 2020s, so why not increase the immigration numbers by 12,000-15,000 people year over year? It's the only way to keep up with extremely important things like, y'know, housing and hospitals.

It feels like the federal government woke up one day, and was like "Oh shit. Right. We need immigrants. Gotta get on that."

Absolutely terrible leadership.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by giallo

What I don't understand is why there wasn't a plan to gradually increase immigration from 2010. We've known for decades that Canada has a super low birthrate, and that the Baby Boomers were going to retire en masse in the 2010s/early 2020s, so why not increase the immigration numbers by 12,000-15,000 people year over year?

For the same reason we didn't ramp up healthcare spending or capacity knowing full well for many decades that that we'd eventually reach a point where Boomer doctors would be retiring en masse while at the same time reaching their peak healthcare needs en masse: because our politicians can't see past the next election and are stuck on making easy, short-term decisions. Just kicking the can down the road. Leave the consequences for the next guy to deal with.

[Metro-One]

Also why didn't we focus more on trying to increase our birthrate to something at least near replacement?

Better day care programs, free IVF procedures, etc...

[giallo]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

For the same reason we didn't ramp up healthcare spending or capacity knowing full well for many decades that that we'd eventually reach a point where Boomer doctors would be retiring en masse while at the same time reaching their peak healthcare needs en masse: because our politicians can't see past the next election and are stuck on making easy, short-term decisions. Just kicking the can down the road. Leave the consequences for the next guy to deal with.

It'd be really nice if there were bipartisan policies when it comes to important things like housing and healthcare, but I guess that's way too much to ask of Canadian public servants.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also why didn't we focus more on trying to increase our birthrate to something at least near replacement?

Better day care programs, free IVF procedures, etc...

This one is really tough to pull off. It definitely wouldn't hurt to make it easier on potential parents as the financial burden has put off so many couples from starting a family, but I can't point to a country where offering these kinds of benefits has reverse course. I could be wrong though.

Hasn't Japan offered incredible benefits for families with extremely poor results? I have a friend living in Tokyo with two kids (he's Canadian, his wife is Taiwanese), and they get like $5 a day daycare, and all kinds of other great perks - despite not even being Japanese.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also why didn't we focus more on trying to increase our birthrate to something at least near replacement?

Better day care programs, free IVF procedures, etc...

In order to make it happen, the government would have to engineer a substantial housing crash, so that Canada's largest cities of Vancouver and Toronto no longer churns out sub 500-sqft investor boxes as the primary supply of new housing. These investor shoeboxes are too small to raise a family, and yet they're pretty much the only form of housing many young couples can afford (if they're lucky).

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by giallo

It feels like the federal government woke up one day, and was like "Oh shit. Right. We need immigrants. Gotta get on that."

Absolutely terrible leadership.

The reality is that the Trudeau government isn't pursuing this rapid increase in immigration because it thinks we need this many new bodies, but rather the whole point of the policy is to juice up topline GDP numbers, support the strip mall college ponzi scheme and inflate the real estate super bubble in order to appease the Casper boomers.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Context:

1991: 10.1 million
1996: 10.8 million (+700k)
2001: 11.4 million (+600k)
2006: 12.2 million (+800k)
2011: 12.9 million (+700k)
2016: 13.4 million (+500k)
2021: 14.2 million (+800k)


2024: 16 million (+1.8 million)

As I get older, there's a definite wonder if we've just lost the plot completely with 'more' versus 'better' in Canada. Does rivaling South Sudan for growth make Canada a better country?

It's currently hard to see better Canada at this juncture. Perhaps that what our political leadership meant by trumpeting 'The world needs more Canada!' on the stage. There's certainly more of us.

You're quoting the census for one set of data, and the population estimates for the other. While still dramatic, the change is different if you use consistent population estimate numbers.

2006: 12.7 million
2011: 13.3 million (+600k)
2016: 13.9 million (+600k)
2021: 14.8 million (+900k)

2024: 16 million (+1.2 million)