Maximizing Canada
In 1605, Samuel de Champlain left France with 74 settlers and crew to make the grueling 35-day trip across the North Atlantic to what is now the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia. In 1607, 144 people left England to establish a settlement at Jamestown Virginia. Thus, began the great migration of people to escape the problems of 17th century Europe and to seek a better life on a new continent. However, the following chart shows that since the late 1700’s, the growth patterns between Canada and the United States have been dramatically different.
In 2016, the federal government’s Advisory Panel on Economic Growth recommended that to attain a more independent and sustainable economy, Canada should pursue a strategy to reach a population of 100 million people by 2100, mainly through a modest increase in immigration. The recommendation was supported by both the Liberals and Conservatives. In his 2018 book called Maximum Canada, Globe and Mail International Affairs Columnist Doug Saunders explores the background, rational, and pros and cons of essentially tripling Canada’s population over the next 80 years.
What determined the growth patterns?
While climate was a major factor in the different growth patterns between Canada and the US, Saunders explains that the other major factor was British colonial rule that in the early days restricted trade and immigration to Britain only. The colonies could only buy and sell with Britain and accept immigrants from Britain, and some from France. The American colonies gained independence from British colonial rule in the 1776 American revolution. But colonial rule was then intensified in Canada and existed until after Canada’s valiant effort in two World Wars. Colonial rule was a deterrent to the perception of opportunity and often resulted in more people immigrating to the US than immigrating to Canada. In 1885, my grandfather emigrated from England at age 12. Like many other families, three of my grandparent’s seven children later immigrated to the United States. With limited net immigration, Canada’s meager population growth was almost all from natural fertility. The impact of these factors shows clearly on the above population chart.
The Effects of Underpopulation
The lack of population growth meant that remote indigenous communities remained isolated. It meant a small domestic market. Relatively low economies of scale meant higher costs and environmental impacts per capita for transportation of people, goods and energy. Vehicle emissions due to low population density are still Canada’s largest source of carbon emissions. Low population density meant less accessibility to health care and less affordability of public services, national defence, media, the arts and research. In 2015, the US was granted 474 patents per million people vs 202 in Canada. A larger population would improve all these factors.
Why 100 million?
Latest UN estimates show global population growing by 45 per cent from 7.6 to 11 billion by 2100. With the world’s second largest land mass and the ability to be fully self-sufficient in food and energy, Canada clearly has the capacity to grow. 100 million provides an ambitious planning benchmark, and yet in this vast land it is not so big a change that Canada’s character and population density would be substantially different from today. 80 per cent of the population will live in existing urban areas, so with good planning most of our natural and agricultural spaces would remain untouched and sparsely populated. Even the most densely populated countries have sparsely populated areas.
| G7 Economies in 2018 | People (millions) | Density (People per Square Kilometer) |
| Japan | 127 | 337 |
| UK | 67 | 277 |
| Germany | 82 | 237 |
| Italy | 59 | 201 |
| France | 65 | 120 |
| USA | 329 | 35 |
| Canada in 2100 | 100 | 10 |
| Canada in 2018 | 37 | 3.7 |
What needs to change?
Over the recent six years of both Conservative and Liberal governments, Canada has averaged 366,000 births, 264,000 deaths, and 275,000 new immigrants a year, for an average net gain of 377,000 people per year. Continuing with these numbers, Canada would reach only 50 million by 2100. By gradually increasing immigration to 400,000 per year (1 per cent of the population), Canada could reach 100 million by 2100 and still have by far the lowest population density of the G7 economies.
What could be the risks and hazards of moving towards 100 million people?
The main risk would be failure to do adequate planning and preparation; particularly for cities and the connecting infrastructure. Such a plan cannot depend on luck. Proactive planning is much cheaper and yields much better results than reactive planning. Better to reserve transportation corridors and green spaces before they are covered with buildings. If such a plan cannot satisfy the dream of a job and a home for both native-born Canadians and for immigrants, it may not be worth doing. But experience shows that in general, immigrants have been willing to work two or more jobs to buy a home and educate their children, and they would help to mitigate the labour shortages already being experienced.
It is natural for immigrants to congregate in enclaves. We moved to an English enclave when transferred to Quebec. Enclaves help immigrants feel comfortable until they integrate, and they provide a healthy platform to start small businesses. But enclaves can be a problem if they are not serviced properly, and if our laws do not continue to maintain tolerance and the separation of church and state.
Doug Sauder’s book is a good read for anyone interested in Canada’s past and future. He closes by saying the world will grow and change whether we do or not. We either grow or we shrink. So why not provide Canada with the many benefits of a larger population and a more independent economy?
Hugh Holland is a retired engineering and manufacturing executive now living in Huntsville, Ontario.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.
Hugh, why do you put “illegal” in quotes? An illegal is someone who, though being a citizen of one country (Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, etc.), takes up residence in another country without permission from the host country government. They do this because conditions are horrible for them in their own countries, in spite of billions sent to their governments through the generosity of the wealthier nations. The super wealthy elites of those countries scoop it all up to deposit in Swiss bank accounts through their hand-in-glove relationship with their various corrupt governments. So, their own citizens, starved for opportunity, take off to what they hope is a better place to live. I get that and I don’t blame them. But it will be bringing disorder to our own country to accept their “right” to invade. The governments of those countries should be forced to care for their own citizenry instead of palming them off on other nations in a silent invasion.
Any invasion of this sort is a slap in the face of all who passed stringent review by the Canadian government to come here. There are many who are legally here but only provisionally, and they still struggle to stay because of language difficulties, etc.
Some number of illegals have decided to come here because they were illegals in the U.S. and under deportation order (which is now being enforced in the U.S.). Why should they be allowed to stay just because they ignore our laws? Talk to some of the people who work with illegals to get the stories that the globalist media refuse to report.
A super-wealthy elitist is a menace to society whether they are on the right or the left. Obama had his billionaire friends (George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, the Rothschilds and other European globalists, etc.). How is it that Dems become so wealthy while in office? Elite globalists have also placed their lieutenants in the Trump administration as well. “Draining the Swamp” that is Washington D. C., is about reducing the control of the billionaire globalists. One advantage that Americans have with Trump is that he was already a billionaire before he became President (and it is reported that his wealth has declined by $1.4 billion since coming to office). One of the reasons why the billionaire globalists hate him so much and have ordered their captive media to attempt to destroy him, is that they think of him as a traitor to the globalist cause. By the way, did you know that there are only SIX media companies which control 90% of what we see and hear in the media? And they are all majority- owned by globalist elites.
Trump is an unabashed nationalist, insisting on the sovereignty of the U.S. as well as other nations (the reason why he pursues bi-lateral trade agreements). Where would we all be if a Hitler, Mao, Stalin or a Pol Pot would grab control of a globalist government? I think we all know the answer to that since these four men and others are responsible for killing tens of millions of their own citizens. The Communist dictators have been especially effective in that regard.
I too am a “radical centrist” but understand that the elite globalists want to destroy that consensus in favor of a totalitarian, one-world government (read fascism) that will masquerade as “socialism”. When the elites give up most of their billions to the poor, (reportedly, the Royal Family has holdings worth $30 trillion–that’s trillion with a “t”) I will revise my opinions. But I don’t see that happening any time soon, do you? The elites want to use the middle classes as cash cows while they pretend to care about the world beyond their heavily-guarded mansions. By the way, the Queen has a solid gold coach (trotted out for ceremonial occasions) that is worth many billions–more than the entire budgets of many poor nations. Add to that the huge collections of gems and palaces, stocks, bonds and real estate (the Windsors own half of the seacoast of Britain) and it is not difficult to see how their holdings could total $30 trillion. It seems that a formal system of “insider trading” and tax-free income has been very profitable for them, no?
Erin you make many good points. But the “illegal” immigrants that have recently flowed into Canada (mainly into Quebec) are coming to escape the poisonous atmosphere for immigrants caused by Trump policies in the US. What evidence have you seen that they are causing problems here?
I agree that Trump has correctly identified several complex US problems but his always-simplistic solutions will not solve complex problems. You talk about rich elitists in California, but the billionaires in the Trump cabinet are equally out of touch with average Americans. The problem is that US election campaign contribution laws have created extreme partisanship; a war of the titans if you will. Too many US elected officials are “owned” by wealthy donors including the NRA. That is why inequality in the US gets bigger every year. 26 billionaires (most of which are American) are now worth as much as half of the world’s humanity. And they gained $900 billion in the last year alone. My American friends agree that America will not solve its problems until they change their contribution laws to be more like Canada. Also, I try to avoid using the terms Liberal and Conservative because they seem to have become increasingly divisive. Good ideas are good ideas whether they come from the right or the left. I try to be a “radical centrist”. Our best governments have been centrist Conservatives and centrist Liberals.
With respect, Erin, I do not believe that I demeaned anybody with “insulting and simplistic brushstrokes”. I reread your two lengthy missives, and found that when you spoke of LEGAL immigrants; they were a threat to our peace and stability”. You also spoke of the Christian ethos as a good thing, but my decidedly Christian attitude is, apparently, abhorrent. Most of the remainder of your diatribe consisted of problems with ILLEGAL immigrants in California. Was anybody discussing either?
.
I am quite thick-skinned, and welcome CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Why not rebut my points one at a time, instead of repelling my perceived criticism with ACTUAL criticism of your own? I consider you to be a highly intelligent individual: Why can’t you accord me the same respect (instead of proffering puerile insults, totally unworthy of you)? People who have had an article published in The Doppler seem to be immune from your criticism. I have, and I am a lay expert in all types of disability (especially mental health disability); so please be careful about how you disseminate your questionable information about same.
.
I thank you for reading my opinion(s). I always read yours, but have remained silent until now.
Rob,
No one thinks that they are “all beggars looking for a handout”–especially not LEGAL immigrants. Nor are we just stingy racists who refuse to countenance change. Liberals demean their arguments when they paint their conservative opponents with insulting and simplistic brush strokes. True conservatives just urge an abundance of well-thought-out caution before conducting drastic programs.
All points well taken, Hugh. In the past, Canada has had an admirable record in proper screening of LEGAL immigrants. The immigrant situation here has, SO FAR, been unlike the U.S. experience and one hopes that we can keep it that way. We have welcomed many talented and educated immigrants from abroad and they have certainly contributed to the peace and prosperity of Canada–as you have correctly cited. BUT, in our hurry to head off “population disaster”, it is imperative that we keep our standards high. Unlike the U.S., we have not permitted “chain migration”, “anchor baby” migration nor even, “marriage migration” (where someone would simply marry a Canadian to get into the country). At the same time, we must firmly resist illegal immigration. Under the globalist Trudeau government, those standards are not being met. Huge numbers of legal immigrants and especially illegal immigrants will bring many problems. Will our standards inevitably fall when faced with excessively large numbers of immigrants?
I know that the topic is legal immigration, but when a nation admits a large group of immigrants from any one ethnicity (and the tendency to do so is apparently strong), it attracts growing numbers of illegal immigrants of the same ethnicity. Illegal immigration is becoming a real problem here. Most illegal immigrants know that they would not qualify, so they come anyway and they place a huge burden on already stretched social support structures. It takes many years to deport them (if at all) under the present circumstances. We need to carefully consider the sad case of California. Many areas of California are becoming unrecognizable under the onslaught of illegals.
At the risk of being labeled a “racist” it is important to note that our mostly Bible-believing, Christian ancestors established a nation where the law of the land reflected that ethos. Equal opportunity, the sharing of prosperity, concern for the rights of all citizens, universal free primary and secondary education, respect for the law, and the peace and order that comes from good government, have always been the ideals which find their founding in that ethos. So far, the immigrants we have welcomed, have embraced the moral principles of Canada. Will the masses coming from nations where corruption is endemic and where the principles of good government are not the norm, receive them as well? Startlingly, even Communists in China recognize that the prosperity of the Western nations and respect for individual rights is tied to the Christian faith. It is chilling to note that some illegals in California arrogantly insist that they have a “right to take over California” (whatever that means) once their numbers become high enough.
We would do well to look at the disastrous U.S. immigration mess (you know it must be bad when even the politicians admit that immigration there, needs a thorough reconstruction). The U.S. has been flooded with illegal immigrants from Latin America, a large number of whom have few skills and little to no education. Many of them turn to a life of crime. New illegals now even settle into tent cities because there is simply no way for them to afford housing (even if it was available). Stepping into a tent city is like stepping into the Third World. They are such noxious places that there are even phone apps which identify where they are and point out routes to avoid them. Trump is NOT to blame for this crisis (and, in spite of what the globalist mainstream press says, it IS a real humanitarian crisis). I have several friends who are planning to move from California because of the problems brought by illegals.
It is probably too late to keep the once-beautiful and extremely prosperous California from becoming a place where a small group of “limousine liberal” super-wealthy elites (with their security systems and guards) support unlimited numbers of illegals flooding the country (it seems that they are a “profit centre” for the wealthy). At the same time, the rest of the state is sinking under the weight of masses of the desperately poor (and the criminals who prey upon them and others of average means). California is essentially bankrupt in having to support them. Without a massive influx of federal dollars they would not be afloat. Middle class Californians are already very heavily taxed and the prospect is that taxes will become even higher. As soon as they can arrange to do so, small business owners (who employ the greatest number of people) and other middle class workers are leaving California in droves. Surprisingly, many of those who are leaving are Latino and absolutely support Trump in his efforts to stem the tide of illegals. (By the way, Trump has even mentioned that he hoped that the U.S. could adopt a “merit-based system like Canada’s”.) Illegal immigrant hordes are also heavily laced with criminals from the drug cartels (and even Islamic radicals) who murdered 2,000 American citizens last year alone. The drug cartels have plenty of money to buy politicians in the Southwest to oppose any kind of a sane defense of the border. The drug cartel bosses want to ensure that their drug mules are not stopped at the border. They would love to wipe out the border altogether and they have bribed California’s politicians to support their cause. We’d better hope that Trump doesn’t get his wall as the drug cartels will simply move up the coast to Vancouver (which already has a significant problem with drug gangs) and bring the drugs into the U.S. through the porous Canada-U.S. border (which they are increasingly doing as arrests of drug criminals and human traffickers at the U.S.-Mexican border have climbed steeply under Trump). Is it any wonder that LEGAL Latino immigrants are very opposed to allowing illegal immigrants into the U.S.? When the illegals settle into Latino areas, they are responsible for a disproportionate share of the crime there.
Erin and Dave, I know change is difficult, but don’t be fooled by Trump talk and Brexit talk. Both have created a mess. Yes Canada has recently helped to resolve a serious humanitarian refugee crisis, but under normal circumstances, immigrants accepted under both Conservative and Liberal governments have been screened to fill specific needs identified by employers. Most come with education and skills at least equal to average native-born Canadians. The GTHA and greater Vancouver areas are both filled with immigrants from around the world and yet both are consistently rated as the second or third best cities in the world in which to live. In spite of “recruiting” almost 300,000 immigrants for several years (a small percentage of which were refugees), Deerhurst had to close some operations early last summer because they could not find staff to cover the hours. Many stores and contractors in Muskoka have help-wanted signs posted and cannot find people to fill available jobs. When I had cataract surgery last fall at the Vaughn laser clinic, the prep nurse was from Vietnam, the anesthesiologist was from India, the ophthalmologist was from India, and the assisting nurse was from the Philippines. They were all well-qualified professional people who speak good English. That is also typical in US medical clinics, offices, stores etc. US statistics show the incidence of crime is actually higher among native born Americans who have not developed or kept up their skills to meet today’s needs, than among immigrants. I was told that US construction companies are having to turn down contracts and even close because they cannot find people. A significant percentage of positions in our engineering, computer science and medical classes are filled by Asians because they are willing to put in the hard work to pass those demanding subjects. If 100 million people were to live in the strip between Edmonton and the US border, our population density would be 40 people per square kilometer; still well below any other advanced G7 country. Yes we can and should do an even better job of integration, but as Roger pointed out, without a healthy number of carefully screened immigrants, Canada’s economic standing and quality of life will be relatively shrinking. Doug Sauder’s well-researched book called “Maximum Canada” is recommended.
There are always several ways to approach a perceived problem: your way, my way, and the correct way. I agree with Hugh that this is doable, and also the compassionate, moral thing to do. I’m not interested in hearing that we have it good; let’s not let in anyone who has it bad, and will ruin it.
.
His point about being proactive (especially with transportation corridors) is key. Whether they will be occupied in the future by light rail transit or Elon Musk’s super transportation tunnels; they will have the capacity to move people faster, and with far less carbon emissions. Also, climate change will increase that comfortable 100-mile-band by approximately 50% by the end of the century; resulting in more populous areas further north and a glut of construction jobs (with the ancillary jobs that will inevitably accompany them).
.
I am also far from being convinced that these immigrants are all beggars looking for a handout. People who have the will to leave behind all that they have ever known; to take a leap of faith; and to emigrate; usually have skills, e.g. trades, to replace our elderly tradesmen. They also willing to take the most menial jobs (which our young are too proud to essay) and work their way up. And don’t forget that we’re talking 3 generations: the elderly and the middle-aged may never assimilate (and live in enclaves), but you can bet that the children and grand-children will be Canadianized by 2100. Gone is the 1950’s concept of “mosaic” (Canada) vs. “melting pot” (America).
.
I find it very sad that most cannot even countenance sharing this land “of milk and honey” with the less fortunate.
Let’s understand what this 100M Canadian population picture would actually look like. It would be a totally different Canada. The additional 74M people would be almost all immigrants. The vast majority of them would live in a small number of cities less than 100 miles from the US border. (GTA, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary..).
Immigration data from the 2016 census shows that only about 8% of all immigrants were from countries that mostly make up Canada’s mix today – like Europe, USA. Most of the rest came from new countries, mostly the Philippines , India, China, Middle-east & Africa, and most recently, Latin America.
The trend will continue to shift the immigration source to these new countries. It’s pretty safe to say that by the end of the century virtually all new population growth will be from the new countries. Canada’s identity that exists today – our core culture, traditions, religions, values & norms etc, would be totally changed. Perhaps this is Trudeau’s vision for a “PostNational” Canada. It is certainly not what most Canadians alive today want for themselves or their children. Some diversity is a healthy thing, but not a totally transformed country to something completely unrecognizable from what we have today. It would not be a stable or safe country. That’s just the way civilizations are. Numerous examples of failures and war in the middle-east, Asia, Africa, etc etc that happens when large segments of very different religions/cultures /political governance attempt to coexist in the same country are all too plentiful. These are the same countries where today’s refugees are coming from. Thinking that Canada will not be transformed completely would be naive.
Agreed, Murray. There are vast stretches of Canada which would never attract immigrants (who mainly come from very warm areas of the planet) let alone the parts which are quite uninhabitable. Our cities, which you have rightly pointed out, are all very close to the U.S. border. And those cities are already bursting at the seams. Inviting more immigrants into those cities, where they will form even larger “enclaves” based on ethnicity and/or religion is a bad idea, if one is interested in peace and stability (aren’t we all??)
There are classic studies of population density which suggest that the more crowding (think our crowded cities) the greater the rate of mental illness and violence. Inviting larger numbers of the impoverished and/or those lacking in skills (typically, the same people) into some future megalopolis (which Toronto is fast becoming) is going to help Canada how?
Governments are guilty of being self-serving (“Canada is ‘underpopulated’–and just think of what we could do with greater numbers of people! Let’s let in more immigrants who will become dependent on government and enlarge our power”.) Governments (and unfortunately, some of our citizenry) are also guilty of soft-headed lunacy–but that doesn’t mean we all must be. Hopefully, those who are more rational will prevail and we will follow a rational course on immigration.
At the same time, let’s look at why people are having fewer and fewer children. Among those causes would be the lack of opportunity for well-paid work and the high cost of housing, food and transportation. Let’s address those before we invite others in to share our frustrations.
A large and strong middle class is the backbone of a state which functions well for all its citizenry. Unfortunately, ever-enlarging central governments lead to the decline of the middle class and the growth in the ranks of the impoverished. The worst nations are those who have virtually no middle class. These failed-states are divided into a powerful small group of the super-wealthy at the top, a “government” which slavishly follows the dictates of that upper class, and then the poor masses below. It isn’t exactly rocket science that some of those impoverished souls would want to leave their native countries. But throwing open the doors for them only ends up overwhelming our already burdened social safety nets and leads to greater frustration all around.
The book, Arrival City, talks about how well immigrants will integrate into society and through their natural ability to survive. (especially those from war torn countries that actually set up micro businesses even in camps.)
With a declining birthright and no well thought immigration policy for increasing the population, the last Canadian will turn out the lights about 2075 according to economists, for what’s its worth.
I agree that the government and maybe P3 partnerships need to prepare the infrastructure and immigration loopholes before we get serious about bringing more immigrants in. The federal government needs to plan for the long haul.
The vast majority of Canada in uninhabitable. Almost 90% of our population lives within 100 miles of the US border so using population density per kilometer as a comparison is irrelevant.
Thank you for your insight into this topic Hugh. Currently in Toronto and Vancouver the poor and impoverished citizens are being displaced by illegal immigrants. This is why preplanning is imperative if you are going to increase immigration levels. Helping immigrants without protecting the most vulnerable in society will only add to more pain and suffering for a segment of society that is already marginalized. What kind of people would allow mass immigration without addressing housing? You guessed it, we’re back.