Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For a while now I have been thinking about how Canada would be like, if we actually had a decent size population. I found an article from the Globe and Mail from a few years ago, saying we should really consider increasing the number of immigrants coming to this country. How do we get 1.9 million new people to move to Canada and live here, each and every year? Yes, the current major cities like Toronto and Montreal will continue to grow, but we should find ways to get other cities to grow also.

 

If we did manage to get to 100,000,000 people living in Canada by 2050, we would have a density of 10 people per sq.km. That would be almost similar to present day Russia (excl. the annexation of Crimea). The US has 35 people per sq.km. With that we would see Canada explode to well over 300 million people.

 

Yes it would be a lot of more mouths to feed. Plus we would need a rapid expansion in new urban centers across the provinces and especially the territories. We would also need to develop/revitalize current industries and create new industries. I know the energy (petrol) and mining sectors are in the toilet, but if we managed to increase the population, we would probably bring those industries back to life. We may be able to finally fly Montreal to Vancouver or within this country for cheaper or drive through the Prairies and be bored out of our minds or even driving all the way to Iqaluit and not worry about the gas tank, seeing there may be a station close by and not 1000's of km away. Also we can finally see many of the national parks and provincial/territorial parks, that are inaccessible and costs 10s of thousands of to visit.

 

The reason I bring up the territories, they are grossly under populated. If there are more people there and more towns/cities connecting them to the south, the cost of living there will decrease. Plus by 2050-2100, more people will be moving north because of climate change.

 

I found one agency formulate by 2050, we would see Canada's population grow to well under 50 million, we would be one of the wealthiest per capita, but our GDP would be lower. If we could increase the population to 100 million and also find a way to still have a similar GDP per capita as the one forecast for 2050 with 50 million, we would be the 4th wealthiest instead of the 17th.

 

It is a long shot and I know Canada has a lot to do before that time, but we should really think about the future of this country.

Edited by jesseps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a while now I have been thinking about how Canada would be like, if we actually had a decent size population.

It is a long shot and I know Canada has a lot to do before that time, but we should really think about the future of this country.

 

Il m'est arrivé de réfléchir sur des questions semblables à plusieurs occasions. Voici où j'en suis:

 

1) Par une analyse «STATIQUE», posant la question de la viabilité/faisabilité d'abriter/nourrir/etc. 100 millions d'habitants sur le territoire du Canada: selon tous les critères comparatifs, la réponse est OUI. Pas parce que le pays compte près de 10 millions de kilomètres carrés, mais plus précisément parce que les zones déjà habitées/exploitées ont globalement ce potentiel, sans devenir surpeuplées, en prenant des normes nord-américaines. Cependant, il ne faudrait pas aller jusqu'à imaginer une population comparable à celle des USA (sur une superficie comparable). Les calculs de densité brute sont complètement inadéquats.

 

2) La plus grande difficulté, si tant est qu'il y aurait une «volonté» d'atteindre rapidement un si haut niveau de population, serait d'ordre DYNAMIQUE: l'ampleur des investissements cumulatifs requis serait nettement disproportionnée par rapport aux capacités économiques et financières du pays; dès lors, la seule «option» consisterait en une importation massive de capitaux étrangers, en grande partie pour payer les importations des biens d'équipements (par ex. machinerie) et de matériaux de construction; un influx majeur de travailleurs étrangers (en sus des «immigrants») serait au nécessaire. Au total, l'économie canadienne serait totalement bouleversée. (Je pourrais élaborer, mais ce serait trop long ici).

 

3) Par ailleurs, une telle «proposition» impliquerait des changements radicaux de la composition ethnique de la population; en particulier, cela signifierait inéluctablement la fin de la majorité de souche française au Québec, de pair avec une incapacité certaine à «assimiler» ces immigrants. Et dans le «reste du Canada», un phénomène semblable serait sans doute problématique pour plusieurs.

 

CONCLUSION PROVISOIRE

 

Les capacités économiques et sociales d'absorption d'un certain nombre d'immigrants par année sont limitées--certainement bien moins que les volumes requis pour atteindre un «objectif» de 100 millions d'habitants d'ici la fin du siècle. Certes, des transformations proportionnellement encore plus importantes se sont produites aux 18e, 19e et 20e siècles quand des vagues d'immigrants, d'abord d'origines européennes, puis africaines et asiatiques ont déferlé sur les Amériques, mais les habitants originaux n'avaient pas le «loisir» d'en décider autrement. (Je n'ai pas inclus la période antérieure au 18e, parce qu'alors les «incursions» avaient été comparativement superficielles, mise à part la propagation de virus pour lesquels les défenses immunitaires n'existaient pas «ici»)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do make some really good points. Yes, 100 million people by 2050 is just not possible, 50 million may be possible. We do need to find a way to get more people in this country to push our economy forward and grow though.

 

As for Quebec, we just need to increase the amount of French citizens (if people are scared of the whole losing the language identity). Quebec would need to lobby Ottawa to change the laws that were put in place back in February or March, seeing even if you have the CSQ document, you cannot stay in Canada until you have your permanent residences.

 

I did a quick fact finding on Stats Canada. In 1861 we had 3.174 million living in Canada and now we have 35.7496 million. So in 154 years our population grew by well over 11x. We do let in a bit more people today than we did over the 154 years (calculated average).

 

I just found something though concerning climate change and GDP increase or decrease by 2100. It may not be totally accurate, seeing Alaska should be in blue also but seeing it is part of the US, they calculated the average. It seems people after the North of the 45th parallel will be doing well financially speaking.

 

It would be a good time for the government to think ahead long term and not by 4-8 years.

 

151203-global-economy-2100-climate-temperature-map.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the big challanges in this country, not only the climate, is the ground. A large part of it is mostly bare rock and mud flats, what a hell for constructions! I stayed a couple months in Yellowknife and there i realized how much challanging it could be. That is pretty much up north, but here in Quebec or Ontario, you have almost the same situation pretty close. Only the Prairies are largely suitable for easy intensive developments.

 

A big deal, and an important one, is to have a suitable agreement with the native communities, it's not like they are gonna let us invest the north as free land any time soon! It's a really sensitive point but i really think we are more then ever in a good situation to get things right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pas obligé de toujours n'avoir QUE des immigrants francophones. Une langue ça s'apprend. C'est pas comme la religion, on peut en exercer plus qu'une! Le secret c'est les ressources de francisation et SURTOUT un système d'éducation en français pour les enfants. Ils apprennent ça vite eux. Et après, c'est assurer que les milieux de travail soient eux aussi francisés, sans empêcher personne de parler une autre langue ou même plusieurs autres. Ainsi on assure une cohésion sociale minimale qui permet par la suite de vivre dans l'harmonie (relative) malgré les différences d'opinion politiques, par exemple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) (Re jesseps)

Growth rate 1861-2015: the first half was sustained by massive capital inflows from the UK, enabling Canada to follow a growth path which would have been otherwise financially unsustainable. Of course, you are not suggesting a replicating of a similar journey from our now much larger base; among other things, it would profoudly unbalance the economic structure of the country.

 

2) (Re Kodun)

You are right on the inhospitable nature of much of our landscape. Thus my comment in para 1 of my previous post, where I envisioned that most of the growth would take place within areas which are already settled. But I do not mean solely Toronto-Montreal-Vancouver and the like; rather, I look at areas such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the ST. Lawrence Valley down from Montreal, eastern/central /western Ontario (all three in the southern part of the province) and of course the southern Prairies. Most of those areas (excluding the Prairies) could perhaps not be self-sufficient in foodstuff, but the Prairies have ample capacity to fill the gap. Again, I was referring to a total of some 100 millions, far from the U.S. current 340 or so. And btw: ««WE»» do not live exclusively in the North, and many of ««US»» master European languages such as French and English, are interested/involved in universal human issues and undertakings, and pay taxes as well, thanks to history!

 

3) Re andre md

A l'échelle mondiale, tu as entièrement raison. Cependant, si on considère uniquement les taux de croissance naturelle (naissances moins décès), on remarque immédiatement que ni le Canada ni aucun autre pays «riche» ne contribue significativement à la croissance démographique globale; en réalité, la plupart, dont la Russie, le Japon, l'Allemagne et les pays de l'Est européen sont sur une forte pente descendante; la Chine suivra bientôt, à cause de sa structure démographique héritée des politiques passées.Comme on sait, le taux de natalité est le résultat du taux de fécondité conjugué avec la part de la population «en âge»; le tout ne se renverse pas rapidement.

 

Pour le Canada donc, la question en est plutôt une de savoir quelle part de l'accroissement démographique mondial nous allons accueillir. Cela relève de la politique d'immigration.

 

Mais en marge de cette question, on pourrait s'interroger sur l'effort supplémentaire que pourrait faire le Canada pour contribuer à ralentir le taux de croissance (donc les naissances) dans les pays qui contribuent le plus à l'explosion démographique. Cela relève de la politique d'aide extérieure. Evidemment, un effort canadien dans ce sens devrait s'accompagner d'un niveau d'effort similaire de nos pairs (USA, France, etc.) --On se voit à l'ONU!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

It would be very interesting to follow-up closely on the evolution of Canadian and Australian demographic indicators as well as economic growth and productivity:

One, according to this thread (very recurring advocators of immigration),  with a growth model based on pouring in heaps of immigrants with the belief that more people generate more wealth no matter how educated/unqualified or culturally compatible/incompatible they are

vs

The other based on a model ensuring high quality education of it's existing population, quasi full employment of this population, automation of its highly productive agricultural and mining industry

 

Quick facts:

Canada

018 population: 37.1 million

Total GDP PPP 2018 est: 1,847 trillion

Per capita GDP PPP 2018 est: 49,775

Growth 2018: +2.3%

Gini 2012: 31.6

HDI 2017: 0.926

Unemployment 2018: 5.9%

 

vs

 

Australia

2018 population: 25.1 million

Total GDP PPP 2018 est: 1,313 trillion

Per capita GDP PPP 2018 est: 52,191

Growth 2018: +3.2%

Gini 2012: 44.9

HDI 2017: 0.939

Unemployment 2018: 5.0%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...