Canadians worried about housing as Ottawa raises immigration targets: poll

[petros]

The staggering growth of 38,000 a year. A million people every 26 1/4 years.

Wow that's such a stellar argument but it is after all one that I'd expect from a domestic housewife that went feral.

 

[Twin_Moose]

You guys are killing me.

By no possible metric are we 'overpopulated'. The US actually has less livable land mass than us and close to 10 times the population. And even THEY aren't overcrowded. The lower mainland in bc can easily accomodate a million new homes (homes, not just people) without blinking. Edmonton and Calgary could be greatly expanded quite comfortably. We haven't even scratched the two other prairie provinces. And the maritimes are shutting entire towns down because there's nobody to live in them.

The idea that somehow the second largest country in the world is "at max capacity" with only 40 million people is beyond laughable. The challange is that we simply don't bother building the infrastructure we need for the population we do have. Not enough homes or medical facilities/services, not enough schools, not enough infrastructure, and we do little to encourage investment or growth outside the cores. If you have only 2 people in the whole country, but only enough infrastructure for 1, it would feel crowded even tho it obviously isn't. So overcrowding isn't the problem.

And one only has to be able to count to realize we are NOT a shrinking population. Thanks to immigration we're growing at a significant rate. Natural growth is very low or non existant but that's a problem in every major country right now - you need two incomes to get by and people do that instead of having kids We screwed ourselves over pretty bad when we allowed that to happen in the 70's, but that's the way it is. But at the end of the day our population is still growing.

What people are concerned about is the rate of growth compared to the rate at which we can put in new infrastructure - homes, schools, doctors, etc. IF that ratio is unbalanced, there's going to be a problem. And they are afraid it is.

It's more about the quality of the immigrants vs the number when you bring in government sponges vs hardworking self determined people we will stay stagnate

 

[The_Foxer]

growth of

So you admit there's growth. Not shrinking Well it's good to realize when you're wrong.

And as it turns out you're wrong again. From (you asked for it), Statcan:



Released: 2022-09-28

Canada sees record population growth​

In 2021/2022, Canada's population grew by a record 703,404 people (+1.8%) to reach an estimated 38,929,902 on July 1, 2022. This surpasses the preceding high observed a year before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018/2019), when the population grew by 536,146 people (+1.4%).

After a year of record low growth early in the pandemic (+0.6% in 2020/2021), Canada's population growth rate in 2021/2022 (+1.8%) reached a level that has not been seen in more than 50 years (+1.9% since 1965/1966), when the country was witnessing the end of the Baby Boom.

The Daily — Canada's population estimates: Age and sex, July 1, 2022

In 2021/2022, Canada's population grew by a record 703,404 people (+1.8%) to reach an estimated 38,929,902 on July 1, 2022. This surpasses the preceding high observed a year before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018/2019), when the population grew by 536,146 people (+1.4%).

www150.statcan.gc.ca

So our population grew by more than 38,000 people.

 

[The_Foxer]

It's more about the quality of the immigrants vs the number when you bring in government sponges vs hardworking self determined people we will stay stagnate

That's a more valid concern.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

General question: The U.S. government reports that immigrants, as a group, pay a higher effective tax rate and use fewer dollars worth of social services per head, than the born-heres as a group.

Does Canada have any such statistical analysis?

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

General question: The U.S. government reports that immigrants, as a group, pay a higher effective tax rate and use fewer dollars worth of social services per head, than the born-heres as a group.

Does Canada have any such statistical analysis?

That's not very politically correct to be tracking such info.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

That's not very politically correct to be tracking such info.

I know. We're bad people.

 

[The_Foxer]

General question: The U.S. government reports that immigrants, as a group, pay a higher effective tax rate and use fewer dollars worth of social services per head, than the born-heres as a group.

Does Canada have any such statistical analysis?

We do. There's been a few studies.

As far as tax dollars used, there's little difference. Canada pays for so much that really it wouldn't likely be a difference anyway - people tend to have similar medical needs, their kids get the same education, etc etc. Over time there's little difference per person.

As far as tax dollars go, ON AVERAGE immigrants make a little less money and therefore pay less tax than natural born canadians of similar age and work qualifications. Generally speaking they have no track record and employers prefer experienced canadian workers when they can get them, so they tend to have to initially accept lower level or more junior positions than their skills would allow for till they get established. Over time, this gap shrinks. Interestingly their CHILDREN tend to do better than the average.

BUt of course income tax is only a part of what we pay in taxes, there's gst, pst etc so their actual difference in what they pay in taxes compared to a 'similar' canadian isn't massive. But there is a difference.

Language is the number one determining factor in how fast they will get up to the same pay as Canadians. A person with very strong english or french will tend to close that gap very fast, someone with poor skills or mediocre skills will tend to take much longer.

Side note - of those who then go on to get their citizenship, contrary to popular belief the research indicates that a) a MUCH smaller percent of them vote than the average canadian, and b) they don't tend to vote in ethnic blocks as much as people think.

 

[petros]

So you admit there's growth. Not shrinking Well it's good to realize when you're wrong.

And as it turns out you're wrong again. From (you asked for it), Statcan:



Released: 2022-09-28

Canada sees record population growth​

In 2021/2022, Canada's population grew by a record 703,404 people (+1.8%) to reach an estimated 38,929,902 on July 1, 2022. This surpasses the preceding high observed a year before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018/2019), when the population grew by 536,146 people (+1.4%).

After a year of record low growth early in the pandemic (+0.6% in 2020/2021), Canada's population growth rate in 2021/2022 (+1.8%) reached a level that has not been seen in more than 50 years (+1.9% since 1965/1966), when the country was witnessing the end of the Baby Boom.

The Daily — Canada's population estimates: Age and sex, July 1, 2022

In 2021/2022, Canada's population grew by a record 703,404 people (+1.8%) to reach an estimated 38,929,902 on July 1, 2022. This surpasses the preceding high observed a year before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018/2019), when the population grew by 536,146 people (+1.4%).

www150.statcan.gc.ca

So our population grew by more than 38,000 people.

What was the growth rate 15 years ago? Was it higher or less than now?

Gen X just cracked 60. Boomers are starting to drop like flies along with their Greatest Gen parents.

 

[The_Foxer]

What was the growth rate 15 years ago? Was it higher or less than now?

Gen X just cracked 60. Boomers are starting to drop like flies along with their Greatest Gen parents.

I posted all that sparky - we're in the highest growth rate right now since the 50's and the baby boom. That's AFTER accounting for the death rate. We are WAY higher than we were 15 years ago, or 20 years ago or anytime in the last 70 years or so.

So not only are we growing, we're growing at near record levels and that's going up.

Swing and a miss there big guy.

 

[petros]

I posted all that sparky - we're in the highest growth rate right now since the 50's and the baby boom. That's AFTER accounting for the death rate. We are WAY higher than we were 15 years ago, or 20 years ago or anytime in the last 70 years or so.

So not only are we growing, we're growing at near record levels and that's going up.

Swing and a miss there big guy.

Flow the green line. That is the future. Its not growth is it?

 

[The_Foxer]

Sigh

Here's from statcan - not some random unknown google source.

The Daily — Canada's population estimates: Age and sex, July 1, 2022

In 2021/2022, Canada's population grew by a record 703,404 people (+1.8%) to reach an estimated 38,929,902 on July 1, 2022. This surpasses the preceding high observed a year before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018/2019), when the population grew by 536,146 people (+1.4%).

www150.statcan.gc.ca

"In 2021/2022, Canada's population grew by a record 703,404 people (+1.8%) to reach an estimated 38,929,902 on July 1, 2022. This surpasses the preceding high observed a year before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018/2019), when the population grew by 536,146 people (+1.4%).

After a year of record low growth early in the pandemic (+0.6% in 2020/2021), Canada's population growth rate in 2021/2022 (+1.8%) reached a level that has not been seen in more than 50 years (+1.9% since 1965/1966), when the country was witnessing the end of the Baby Boom."


Sorry kiddo. You were wrong. I see that you tried to pick a pandemic year where growth was low but we're not in the pandemic anymore. And we're growing like a weed.

You done looking stupid yet or shall we continue? You with your questionable google skills and me with my statcan facts

Also - still not shrinking Which where you're concerned is unfortunately is probably NOT what she said (ZING!)

 

[petros]

Without enhanced immigration, we're shrinking....FAST.

Zing...Whir Ping Wee Woo

 

[The_Foxer]

Zing...Whir Ping Wee Woo

But... we HAVE immigration.. So it isn't.

Sooooo ..,,, not shrinking.

Powdy... Zap.. Doodle Har Har.

Repeating points that i've already shot down isn't... well... smart.

 

[Taxslave2]

You guys are killing me.

By no possible metric are we 'overpopulated'. The US actually has less livable land mass than us and close to 10 times the population. And even THEY aren't overcrowded. The lower mainland in bc can easily accomodate a million new homes (homes, not just people) without blinking. Edmonton and Calgary could be greatly expanded quite comfortably. We haven't even scratched the two other prairie provinces. And the maritimes are shutting entire towns down because there's nobody to live in them.

The idea that somehow the second largest country in the world is "at max capacity" with only 40 million people is beyond laughable. The challange is that we simply don't bother building the infrastructure we need for the population we do have. Not enough homes or medical facilities/services, not enough schools, not enough infrastructure, and we do little to encourage investment or growth outside the cores. If you have only 2 people in the whole country, but only enough infrastructure for 1, it would feel crowded even tho it obviously isn't. So overcrowding isn't the problem.

And one only has to be able to count to realize we are NOT a shrinking population. Thanks to immigration we're growing at a significant rate. Natural growth is very low or non existant but that's a problem in every major country right now - you need two incomes to get by and people do that instead of having kids We screwed ourselves over pretty bad when we allowed that to happen in the 70's, but that's the way it is. But at the end of the day our population is still growing.

What people are concerned about is the rate of growth compared to the rate at which we can put in new infrastructure - homes, schools, doctors, etc. IF that ratio is unbalanced, there's going to be a problem. And they are afraid it is.

towns are shutting because there are no jobs there. The feds fucked up fishing, which was the only industry.
If you added a million new homes to the lower mainland there would be no farms or no forests. Also there would be a serious lack of potable water. Vancouver Island needs to shed at least 100 000 people to be livable again.

 

[pgs]

towns are shutting because there are no jobs there. The feds fucked up fishing, which was the only industry.
If you added a million new homes to the lower mainland there would be no farms or no forests. Also there would be a serious lack of potable water. Vancouver Island needs to shed at least 100 000 people to be livable again.

No Vancouver Island could easily add 200,000 people and be just as liveable , it only takes common sense in the planning and distribution of $$$$ . How did our forefathers build and maintain infrastructure, and we cannot ?

 

[The_Foxer]

towns are shutting because there are no jobs there. The feds fucked up fishing, which was the only industry.

This is true without a doubt. But that's also a population thing. IF there was more population in the region there would be other jobs. Population breeds economic activity.

If you added a million new homes to the lower mainland there would be no farms or no forests.

There absolutely would, and pretty much as many as there are now. You could add a million just around chilliwhack and abby and in between never mind to the north around squamish where there is huge land opportunity. They are planning for another quarter million inside metro vancouver, the city itself over the next 10 years! A place that's already at such a high population density! A million in the rest of the lower mainland would be stupidly easy without wiping out the forests or the farms.

As to water - there is tonnes of it. You'd have to build more reservoirs to draw from but there's absolute craptonnes of places to do that. Water would be the absolute least of the worries.

And vancouver island could easily take another million or 3. There's only about 850 thousand people there now and half of that is in victoria. There's 3 million people living in greater vancouver - don't tell me the island which is vastly bigger than that area coudln't possibly support more. Of course it could.

No shortage of places to build. BC's population could quintuple and we'd still have plenty of space. The issue is - can we build the homes and infrastructure for that as fast as the population is currently growing? And the short answer is no.

 

[Ron in Regina]

How did our forefathers build and maintain infrastructure, and we cannot ?

Wow…that’s a huge can of worms in a single one sentence question.

 

[pgs]

Wow…that’s a huge can of worms in a single one sentence question.

Yes , but it does beg the question .

 

[The_Foxer]

Yes , but it does beg the question .

The answer is fairly simple - fewer politicians and bureaucrats and the ones they did have were a touch smarter.

Our forefathers didn't have to take 3 years to break ground on a new house development. They trained and hired enough doctors and nurses and kept those levels where they should be. They didn't bring in immigrants without having SOME plan for how they could build their own infrastructure and be supported. And if there was a need, the neighbors held a 'barn bee' as it was called and helped them toss up an outbuilding or three to get them going outside the city 'cores'. Immigrants were also encouraged to develop underdeveloped areas and start businesses like farming etc in those areas so you didn't get massive clustering in city cores as much.

My family on one side came here fleeing the russian revolution and were given a little land and they put up a house and the neighbours chipped in and leant them enough grain to get their first crops in and they were able to prosper and very quickly paid the neighbours back and were strong contributors to the community, building businesses and farming and helping to pay for schools and education to be built, etc.

Now - forget anyone building anything on their own, they're all dumped in clumps into areas which havent been prepared with extra resources, the neighbours want little to do with them unless it's a group of their own ethnicity, etc etc.