A bigger Canada?

[Second_in_pie]

Well, the US has fewer obligations to its citizens than almost all other liberal democracies so it can, in theory, afford to grow faster. Even the US has for more institutions providing for its citizens than the developing world countries which are growing at alarming rates - and, by the way, the rate of growth you are suggesting eclipses the rate of every country in the world, developing or not.

Yeah, that's the point. The US, which has previously adopted quite a laissez-faire stance on domestic issues, has the most developed economy in the world, which developed hugely (and many would say by far the most in it's history,) in those 50 or 60 years since WWII in which it's population doubled. Obviously, huge population growth doesn't necessarily mean the economy going belly up. A more extreme example, Israel's population grew about 5x in the 40 years after the state was created, yet has maintained a very high standard of living as a developed country.

To account for the growth rates you are suggesting and maintain a social net that Canadians are used to, government would have to expand at an incredible rate. Since the people who organize bureaucratic institutions need to have an innate sense of how the country is run and its governance practices, we could only really have other long-established Canadians set up these kinds of institutions. Of course, in a rapidly growing country this becomes a supply issue, which means that government labour resources will be stretched extremely thinly and will never keep pace with the growth in population. The level of accountability that government has in situations like this begins to slide.

It definitely would take a lot of work on the part of the government to manage everything. They'd basically need to plan out how the nation would turn out at the end of every year, to make sure that the economy remains stable and that people are able to live good lives. It'd be hard, but it definitely doesn't mean certain doom. Canadian politics would need to make a huge leap, but I think it's much, much more of a social issue in Canadian's trust of our government to do such things, rather than an actual issue of how the government will function.

Are you certain that there would be the creation of entirely new towns? 10,000 years of history has more or less dictated that massive influxes of people tend to settle in existing cities. This, of course, causes its own social problems. Also, what is your blueprint for creating these local economies? What would they trade and sell?


So are you suggesting a protectionist economy? As much as I think that globalization has caused its fair share of problems, how do you suggest that Canada pull out of the entrenched global economy and begin creating import-replacing jobs? Who would we sell our expensive, undifferentiated goods to? Whatever those goods are, we would have to sell a lot of them, because we have 70 million additional mouths to feed (and an extra million each year!)

What do you think these towns would trade and sell? Grocers would sell food, clothes shops would sell clothes, electronics stores would sell electronics. It's quite a simple concept, really.

I'm not suggesting a protectionist economy. I'm suggesting that Canada doesn't hand it's ass out to be the international bitch. We really are. We provide a huge amount of fuel for the manufacturing economies of the developed world, yet just end up paying higher prices for those manufactured goods. I'm not suggesting we be protectionist, just stop handing our wealth out on a silver plate to the benefit of others.

Second in Pie, you want to set up a protectionist nation of regional, import-replacing industries that's debt financed on the promise of explosive population growth (e.g. we won't worry about paying for a giant infrastructure project, because our 100 million children will inherit the debt in smaller chunks!)...and yet somehow this closed-off economy based on a relatively vague industry will take off and thrive in a global market?

Or you could instead word that to "Second in Pie, you want Canada to be like the rest of the Western world, only on an economy based off of needs for the future and a population true to the idea of a cultural mosaic? If that's the case, yes I do.

PS. In the future, instead of making vague assertions of disapproval, perhaps provide either constructive criticism or fuel to the debate (eg. how will this work, why don't you do this, etc) I'd actually like to make structure out of this thread, with the intention of thinking up a viable alternative to Canada's future than the status quo.

 

[spider]

What do you think these towns would trade and sell? Grocers would sell food, clothes shops would sell clothes, electronics stores would sell electronics. It's quite a simple concept, really.

This is what we are doing right now. The problem is not retailing,if there is a problem it is manufacturing the products here in Canada instead of importing them. I fail to see how bringing tens of millions of newcomers into Canada will be a game changer. Another 50 million people may furnish retailers with a lot more customers except that they won't have any money because they can't find jobs. Their solution may be to open a store themselves as many do now, take a look around.

Come on Mr. Pie, give us the punchline now, this thread is getting sillier and sillier.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Okay, let's take a look at this.

The majority of our economy is based around serving the people living in this country. Putting new people in the country means that those people would naturally get served by other people coming into the country. As more people come in, there's bigger demand for services and goods, and so there's more room for those people to have jobs. It's possibly one of the simplest ideas in economics, and without that fact, every economy in the world just wouldn't work. The point is that if we could manufacture just a bit more of our resources, we could maintain our current economic status while allowing in tonnes of people. If you want to see the economic benefits of it (as the social benefits of a multicultural, diverse society that has a density to support systems that exist in other parts of the developed world,) then just know that by tripling our manufacturing power and allowing in the people that would be able to plausibly supply the recipients of all those new jobs, we'd be in the top 5 economies in the world right now, and at least maintain the top 10 in the next 50 years.

Not to mention, Canada definitely needs to increase it's population very soon, or our economy will feel huge pains. In the next 20 years, a huge amount of our workforce will retire, with nowhere nearly as many people ready to replace them, let alone pay for their pensions to maintain high standards of living. Really, the only way we could get through this without seeing major repercussions on our economy is through immigration, though it would require levels significantly higher than what we have now, if we want to continue growing our economy to keep in pace with the economies of developing countries such as China. That's the economics of it.

EDIT: Though, you're getting better at actually contributing to discussion. This isn't some sort of crazy rant where I'm asking you to believe me, it's an idea that I'd like to flesh out and see if it is plausible, and what the benefits might be. It may be crazy, but then propose some sort of alternative.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Or you could instead word that to "Second in Pie, you want Canada to be like the rest of the Western world, only on an economy based off of needs for the future and a population true to the idea of a cultural mosaic? If that's the case, yes I do.

PS. In the future, instead of making vague assertions of disapproval, perhaps provide either constructive criticism or fuel to the debate (eg. how will this work, why don't you do this, etc) I'd actually like to make structure out of this thread, with the intention of thinking up a viable alternative to Canada's future than the status quo.

Second in Pie,

I am giving you constructive feedback. These are exactly the questions I am asking you: How will it work? Have you considered what will happen when [scenario X] arises? Etc., etc. On an internet discussion forum, when you present an idea, you should prepare to be challenged - it's a hell of a lot more gratifying than posting an idea and watching it get ignored (believe me, I've been there; I was kind of hoping somebody would take my idea and cut it to pieces rather than watch my thread sink to the bottom of the page and disappear).

To put it bluntly, my opinion of your plan is that it is not desirable and not feasible.

It is not desirable because an enormous surge of population over a short timespan creates social havoc and we lack the governance capabilities to handle such a large influx of people in an already established country. Israel is a weak example because 90% of Israeli jews between 1948-1988 were emigrants themselves, and the remaining 10% had bought into the concept of Zionism. The economy was also, to a large degree, propped up by established Western economies during that time; also, it's a lot easier to add 3.5 million people to a country of 500,000 than 70 million to a country of 30 million.

It is not feasible because in the process of growing at such an alarming rate, Canada would become an undesirable place to settle (see reasons above). A natural feedback loop would kick in where immigrants would think twice about emigrating here. Besides, you are under the assumption that Canada is a great place to settle because we have a lot of natural resources to exploit. Besides the obvious environmental issues, there is the tricky bit about humans not being egalitarian and the fact that wealth is never evenly distributed among the people of a society - especially not newcomers for whom the rules and existing power dynamics work against their favour. You might find out in your scenario that you basically breed a permanent underclass of low-skilled emigrant labourers competing for jobs with other less educated "native" Canadians. These setups rarely end well.

My personal desire for Canada is that we maintain immigration rates that basically keep the population constant, and we find ways to tackle our existing social inequities - which, though smaller than most countries in the world, is still enough to give us a headache. If we want to help people in developing countries, I suggest that we support fair economic growth in those places rather than throwing open the doors to mass immigration - in the end, that doesn't solve the developing world's problems and it places an unnecessary burden on our own country.

 

[Second_in_pie]

It is not desirable because an enormous surge of population over a short timespan creates social havoc and we lack the governance capabilities to handle such a large influx of people in an already established country. Israel is a weak example because 90% of Israeli jews between 1948-1988 were emigrants themselves, and the remaining 10% had bought into the concept of Zionism. The economy was also, to a large degree, propped up by established Western economies during that time; also, it's a lot easier to add 3.5 million people to a country of 500,000 than 70 million to a country of 30 million.

Yet would it not be possible to adapt the government to so many people?
I don't understand your point, 90% of Israeli jews were emigrants themselves? Do you mean immigrants there? If so, that really proves my point. Israel increased in population well over 5x in 50 years after it's creation. When you look at the actual Jewish population (because as terrible as it is, we can consider Jewish and Arab Israel separate,) it's exploded, yet hasn't seen the kind of breakdown that you are saying would occur.

It is not feasible because in the process of growing at such an alarming rate, Canada would become an undesirable place to settle (see reasons above). A natural feedback loop would kick in where immigrants would think twice about emigrating here. Besides, you are under the assumption that Canada is a great place to settle because we have a lot of natural resources to exploit. Besides the obvious environmental issues, there is the tricky bit about humans not being egalitarian and the fact that wealth is never evenly distributed among the people of a society - especially not newcomers for whom the rules and existing power dynamics work against their favour. You might find out in your scenario that you basically breed a permanent underclass of low-skilled emigrant labourers competing for jobs with other less educated "native" Canadians. These setups rarely end well.

You're still assuming that things would turn out badly. Could the government not manage these new people, and the economy grow to support them? Is it possible that with such a massive influx of people, that they will settle and find jobs which don't conform to the current model that essentially demands English or French skills?
I'm not saying that Canada is a great place to settle because of our natural resources. I am saying that Canada could do a much better job of managing our resources and getting the biggest bang for our buck, but that's not the main point. I'm saying that Canada is a great place to settle because we are the kind of nation that can adapt and innovate for those challenges faced by new people that will have to be faced by someone anyways, and will be able to welcome those new people in a way that many other parts of the developed world just haven't been able to.

My personal desire for Canada is that we maintain immigration rates that basically keep the population constant, and we find ways to tackle our existing social inequities - which, though smaller than most countries in the world, is still enough to give us a headache. If we want to help people in developing countries, I suggest that we support fair economic growth in those places rather than throwing open the doors to mass immigration - in the end, that doesn't solve the developing world's problems and it places an unnecessary burden on our own country.

We definitely need to raise our immigration rates. I'll admit that 100 million by 2050 is a bit crazy and optimistic, but there are issues that Canada has to come to face with. On the international stage for starters, Canada will either just be left behind or drowned out by the dozens of other countries that will be newly developed by 2050. If we have an opportunity to put ourselves in better global standings (and if you're a moralist take note that Canadians are some of the most overall liberal minded in the world,) why shouldn't we take that opportunity?
As a very pressing issue, hundreds of thousands of baby boomers will be retiring in the coming decades, with a much smaller population replacing their jobs. If we don't want our economy to collapse under the weight of keeping up the legacy of the boomers while also maintaining their pensions and care as retirees, we will need more young people. Immigration, especially opening the gates to less educated people, would really help to boost our workforce and (probably less importantly) keep and even grow our international standings as many countries around the world experience considerable decline in their economies.

So 100 million by 2050 may be out, but I'd still say that we should take the opportunities that we have and around double our current immigration rates. That, I think, would lend a lot of opportunities to Canada as a nation, and all the people that would be inside it. Doing so would still require pretty huge government involvement and innovation, but it's not unthinkable.


The main reason why I'm so interested in this, though, is the social aspects of it, not economics. Firstly, I really believe that Canada could benefit from a higher density, or at least regions of higher density (as in not increasing population all over the country, but generally in the southern portions that already have a lot of human settlement, just nowhere near levels that exist otherwhere in the developed world. I also think that the best way for us to accomplish the social change that we will need to do to solve issues (mainly environmental and economic sustainability,) is to just pave over past practices with new practices. I am on UT, so I'll give an example using city building. We all hate the suburbs right? But the suburbs aren't going anywhere; we aren't going to just tear them down. But what if we tore them down and replaced them all with multilevel condo buildings? Obviously, we wouldn't multiply the population of Toronto by 5, but a modest population increase would give opportunities to do something like build up our arterial roads so we can have the density to justify stringing subways across the city and end up giving subway service to everyone in the city (or GTA.)
If we're doing something like doubling our population in 50 years, we'll need to build a lot of infrastructure for that. But we will end up needing to rebuild our infrastructure anyways, to make it more efficient, less wasteful, and in general more environmentally friendly. We could fuel immigration into small towns, where we build the high density, integrated communities that are the mecca of urban planning. That just wouldn't happen if we were to consolidate a bunch of sprawley small towns into one new one, tearing down all the houses in the old ones. And the new people would be able to justify electrified, high service rail throughout the country.
Mass immigration may promote the creation of little self-contained niche communities. But won't we need to end up making that anyways, as we move away from wide-reaching multinational companies and towards rich communities which are global in reach, but local in influence? In fact, if we were to create those little self-contained communities, it could very well be easier to let them naturally sort themselves out through immigrants finding the path of least resistance, rather than forcing apart the already existing way things are.
Maybe it's different views. I don't know your views on just what the percentage is of how much the world (and Canada) is screwed up, so you may not think there's anything that immigration could help fix. I'd very much be willing to work and live through all of it, and I'd probably end up to be working through the entire thing.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Yet would it not be possible to adapt the government to so many people?
I don't understand your point, 90% of Israeli jews were emigrants themselves? Do you mean immigrants there? If so, that really proves my point. Israel increased in population well over 5x in 50 years after it's creation. When you look at the actual Jewish population (because as terrible as it is, we can consider Jewish and Arab Israel separate,) it's exploded, yet hasn't seen the kind of breakdown that you are saying would occur.

You are selectively quoting me. I also argued that 1) Israel is a much smaller country than Canada, and, 2) the fact that everyone is an immigrant starting from scratch means that you aren't introducing a wedge into an already existing culture. Think about it this way: Israel in the 1950s is like kids on the first day of camp. They're all new; they're all excited to be there, alliances and cliques have yet to be forged. Canada - under your plan - is like taking a summer camp that's been operating for 1 month already, and bringing in hundreds of kids from other summer camps and getting them to bunk together. Under such circumstances, Canada would probably be more analogous to Northern Ireland in the 17th Century, or Sri Lanka during the Tamil migration.

You're still assuming that things would turn out badly. Could the government not manage these new people, and the economy grow to support them? Is it possible that with such a massive influx of people, that they will settle and find jobs which don't conform to the current model that essentially demands English or French skills?

Why would a democratically-elected government want to allow such a massive influx of people that could radically alter the social makeup of the country and that would permanently alter the political landscape? Why would we, as Canadians who can only speak English and/or French, willingly submit to the dilution of our own languages to the point that we can only navigate the country as a minority linguistic - let alone cultural - tribe? Do you see how this might actually work against the coexistence and plurality that you speak of?

We definitely need to raise our immigration rates. I'll admit that 100 million by 2050 is a bit crazy and optimistic, but there are issues that Canada has to come to face with. On the international stage for starters, Canada will either just be left behind or drowned out by the dozens of other countries that will be newly developed by 2050.

We won't be drowned out for the same reason that Switzerland is still a major player in the global economy, and more of an economic presence in global trade arrangements than Indonesia - despite the fact that Indonesia has a bigger absolute GDP.
Why is the Swiss Franc a heavily traded currency, while the Indonesian Rupiah isn't? Probably because Switzerland has been a stable economy for centuries and, as a long-time developed country, has established conditions that support its economic well-being. To me, that seems like more of a Canadian future strength right now: being a major banking centre due to our stability, democracy, and our avoidance of wild demographic shocks (like the one you're suggesting).

The main reason why I'm so interested in this, though, is the social aspects of it, not economics. Firstly, I really believe that Canada could benefit from a higher density, or at least regions of higher density (as in not increasing population all over the country, but generally in the southern portions that already have a lot of human settlement, just nowhere near levels that exist otherwhere in the developed world. I also think that the best way for us to accomplish the social change that we will need to do to solve issues (mainly environmental and economic sustainability,) is to just pave over past practices with new practices. I am on UT, so I'll give an example using city building. We all hate the suburbs right? But the suburbs aren't going anywhere; we aren't going to just tear them down. But what if we tore them down and replaced them all with multilevel condo buildings? Obviously, we wouldn't multiply the population of Toronto by 5, but a modest population increase would give opportunities to do something like build up our arterial roads so we can have the density to justify stringing subways across the city and end up giving subway service to everyone in the city (or GTA.)

If we're doing something like doubling our population in 50 years, we'll need to build a lot of infrastructure for that. But we will end up needing to rebuild our infrastructure anyways, to make it more efficient, less wasteful, and in general more environmentally friendly.

So is this a thinly veiled attempt to drag the country into an impossible game for some municipal pet projects like subways? Come on. Being a country whose population quadruples in 40 years is not a guarantor of good infrastructure spending; if that were the case, the cities of Saudi Arabia would have the best track record for transit planning and the cities of Germany the worst.

You are also assuming that the GTA will grow much more densely if only millions of people moved here in one big rush. Again, good planning tends to happen in places with slow to moderate growth; boom towns tend to use growth as an excuse to sprawl - after all, so much of their livelihood depends on growth, that social considerations take a backseat.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Why would a democratically-elected government want to allow such a massive influx of people that could radically alter the social makeup of the country and that would permanently alter the political landscape? Why would we, as Canadians who can only speak English and/or French, willingly submit to the dilution of our own languages to the point that we can only navigate the country as a minority linguistic - let alone cultural - tribe? Do you see how this might actually work against the coexistence and plurality that you speak of?

Take careful note that if Canada was to grow to 100 million people, still a good 1/4 of those people would be "ethnic" Canadians (which, remember, we've already drowned out the real local culture through mass immigration already.) So Hipster, you believe that Canada is your homeland and we shouldn't allow other people to dirty it up? That's exactly what you're sounding like.
Have you ever taken a trip around Europe? You know how you can take a train ride from Amsterdam to Roma, and go through speaking Dutch, Flemish, French, and Italian? You know how you love the differences in architecture and culture between Paris and Venice? That's different cultures for you there. These are countries that have historically fought each other ruthlessly for a gain of another's land. Europe was torn in half, at eachother's throats during WWI and WWII, yet they're all working together in great cooperation right now, despite the linguistic and cultural differences that you say would destroy Canada.

We won't be drowned out for the same reason that Switzerland is still a major player in the global economy, and more of an economic presence in global trade arrangements than Indonesia - despite the fact that Indonesia has a bigger absolute GDP.
Why is the Swiss Franc a heavily traded currency, while the Indonesian Rupiah isn't? Probably because Switzerland has been a stable economy for centuries and, as a long-time developed country, has established conditions that support its economic well-being. To me, that seems like more of a Canadian future strength right now: being a major banking centre due to our stability, democracy, and our avoidance of wild demographic shocks (like the one you're suggesting).

Switzerland is a fairly special case. It's set itself up politically so that it's the world stronghold for banks, and I really don't think that Canada can act similarly. Do you want Canada to break political ties with the rest of the world and in fact create the very protectionist economy that you said is bad? But if we look at a country like the Netherlands and Belgium, which have ended up not having nearly as sizable a population as the rest of western Europe, they very definitely are falling out of international importance.

So is this a thinly veiled attempt to drag the country into an impossible game for some municipal pet projects like subways? Come on. Being a country whose population quadruples in 40 years is not a guarantor of good infrastructure spending; if that were the case, the cities of Saudi Arabia would have the best track record for transit planning and the cities of Germany the worst.

You are also assuming that the GTA will grow much more densely if only millions of people moved here in one big rush. Again, good planning tends to happen in places with slow to moderate growth; boom towns tend to use growth as an excuse to sprawl - after all, so much of their livelihood depends on growth, that social considerations take a backseat.

Again, you're not listening to what I'm saying. I am saying that I believe that it's possible for the government to manage such explosive population growth. Saudi Arabia would not have a good track record for transit planning because they are nowhere near as developed as we are. Canada is a developed country. It is a big boy and can manage what goes on inside it's borders.

I'd like you to answer my question about how we'd actually fix our problems. Do you think that it's feasible to just tear down tracts of suburban housing and replace them with high density, while keeping our population growing at the rate that it is? Again, we need to start fixing mistakes that we've made in the past when it comes to infrastructure, urban built form, and social structure. Growth could be a way to rationalize doing those changes (in the not so crazy assumption that we won't get hard to work fixing our problems,) and means more people will benefit from those changes if they were to actually take place.

 

[LAz]

An additional comment about israel - one factor as to why they managed to sustain so many new jewish migrants is that they got billions of dollars in aid from the US. They continue to get billions each year. So, naturally when one is funneling loads of cash, sure, anything is possible.


At any rate, their socialist-like state attracts jews. If Canada said we want only white anglosaxon europeans - imagine what uproar that would cause? In israel this discrimination in immigration - which I do not believe is a bad thing - is accepted. The problem with canada is that it means a lot less to be canadian than to be jewish. There's less identity about being canadian, so it's harder to get many millions of people here and hope that they will all of a sudden become patriotic people. Population growth here should be seen as a slow gradual process, and we should not rush it. I do not really see why bother to rush population growth. More population will mean more usage/consumption of resources. Just suppose that we got 10 million people overnight - where on earth would we put them? This has to be a slow process - and if would work at all with speed then one needs good economic backing, and not a situation where the world economy is fragile.

 

[Second_in_pie]

And also Hipster, do you not see what good increased densities of scale could bring for the country? Wouldn't you prefer a Canada which has the density to support frequent rail crisscrossing around it, where you can go from one rich and vibrant European or Chinese-like town to another?

 

[Hipster Duck]

Take careful note that if Canada was to grow to 100 million people, still a good 1/4 of those people would be "ethnic" Canadians (which, remember, we've already drowned out the real local culture through mass immigration already.) So Hipster, you believe that Canada is your homeland and we shouldn't allow other people to dirty it up? That's exactly what you're sounding like.

No, I'm not being a bigot. How would you like it if all of a sudden you couldn't communicate with 3/4 of the people in the country you grew up and were educated in your entire life?

Have you ever taken a trip around Europe? You know how you can take a train ride from Amsterdam to Roma, and go through speaking Dutch, Flemish, French, and Italian? You know how you love the differences in architecture and culture between Paris and Venice? That's different cultures for you there.

Those are different countries for you there.

Switzerland is a fairly special case. It's set itself up politically so that it's the world stronghold for banks, and I really don't think that Canada can act similarly. Do you want Canada to break political ties with the rest of the world and in fact create the very protectionist economy that you said is bad? But if we look at a country like the Netherlands and Belgium, which have ended up not having nearly as sizable a population as the rest of western Europe, they very definitely are falling out of international importance.

Did I even argue for protectionism? I was pointing out the fact that formerly large, developed countries don't lose power relative to their size. Great Britain is another example if you're too obtuse to understand Switzerland; it is very much a part of the global economy (Switzerland is too, BTW) and was once the most powerful country in the world. It's not the most powerful anymore, but it's still powerful. Most Britons don't think that they have lost so much influence as to be negligible in world affairs. Canada is in the same boat.

Again, you're not listening to what I'm saying. I am saying that I believe that it's possible for the government to manage such explosive population growth. Saudi Arabia would not have a good track record for transit planning because they are nowhere near as developed as we are. Canada is a developed country. It is a big boy and can manage what goes on inside it's borders.

You don't know if Canada can manage the kind of growth you are demanding because something like this has never been attempted in a post-war developed country before. Israel doesn't count: it started off as a tiny entity and had copious amounts of financial and military support from Western powers.

I'd like you to answer my question about how we'd actually fix our problems. Do you think that it's feasible to just tear down tracts of suburban housing and replace them with high density, while keeping our population growing at the rate that it is?

That's a municipal issue, not a national issue. These things vary from place to place. If we suspend disbelief and argue that suburban homeowners are going to wilfully allow centrally-planned developers to buy up their properties at non-inflated rates so that they can house thousands of low-skilled emigrant workers...well maybe that could happen in Vancouver and Toronto and Montreal. I think that if you added 500,000 people to Moncton or Brandon, Manitoba it would all take the form of suburban, auto-centric sprawl. Besides, why are you asking me this question? Shouldn't you be more concerned about the societal ramifications of mass emigration, rather than whether we build sprawl? Lusting over high speed trains and subways kind of takes a back seat in my world to, you know, massive social and cultural upheaval.

Again, we need to start fixing mistakes that we've made in the past when it comes to infrastructure, urban built form, and social structure. Growth could be a way to rationalize doing those changes (in the not so crazy assumption that we won't get hard to work fixing our problems,) and means more people will benefit from those changes if they were to actually take place.

Growth on the level you describe would introduce infrastructure, built form and social structural problems, not solve it.

Finally, you should answer the question I posed you several posts ago: What is sustainable development? I really want you to tell me this.

 

[LAz]

Wouldn't you prefer a Canada which has the density to support frequent rail crisscrossing around it, where you can go from one rich and vibrant European or Chinese-like town to another?

How will we get that if things are so far away? You are saying that we will need new towns/cities, or had other things in mind?


edit/add:

Take careful note that if Canada was to grow to 100 million people, still a good 1/4 of those people would be "ethnic" Canadians

The first question is over how many years would we get that 100 million? Five? Fifty? I suppose we can get it through natural growth, eventually.

Or we can let in much of africa come - they would take the chance right away. But then we would not have Canada no more, would we? We'd have new Zambia.

 

[doady]

Second in pie, would it help you cause if you posted the original newspaper article this discussion is based on?

I think dramatically raising immigration rates might not be a good idea. Canada already has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. If we keep the per capita rate constant, than the actual rate would slowly rise anyways, as long as population grows. It ensures that we can handle the immigrants.

Remember, immigration is focused on a few select cities. Perhaps the effect nationally on Canada doesn't seem like that much, but the effect locally on places like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, etc. is already very great. These places are already experiencing very fast population growth, I think. You can't just consider the country as a whole, you have to consider the local effect as well.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ There isn't really a newspaper article that I based this on. In fact, I don't think I've seen a publication of this kind of idea before.

The reason I think it should be increased is that immigration is focused on a few select cities. All of the very well educated immigrants that are coming into the country are rushing into our 4 or 5 biggest cities because they are the best places to get opportunity. That leaves places like the Prairies or Maritimes with little growth, and it'll be very disproportionate. The GTA may have 10 million people in 20 years, but Saskatchewan would still be well under 1.5 million. I think that by both just allowing more people into the country, and allowing less highly educated people in, it'll encourage those immigrants to go to our smaller cities and maybe even small towns, spreading our population throughout the southern half of the country.
Really, I'd be totally happy with a general doubling of our immigration rate. It might take 10 years to bring our rate up to double, as we create a plan for how to make that growth sustainable, create new infrastructure, and point the country in the right direction, but then if things don't collapse cataclysmically, it could be raised even higher. That'd bring our population up to that of the big Western European countries by 2050, and that big reconfiguration of our economy and social structure would mean we can build it around the needs of tomorrow rather than what looked good (and as we know wasn't actually so good,) 50 years ago.

No, I'm not being a bigot. How would you like it if all of a sudden you couldn't communicate with 3/4 of the people in the country you grew up and were educated in your entire life?.

It's not like they're replacing anybody to exist there. Also, I think I'd actually enjoy that. Taking a drive through the prairies and encountering towns with wildly different cultures and a lot of diversity, rather than the same old white race, frontier main street and one story houses. Hmm, that's a hard choice. I don't think that Canada's my country alone to enjoy. I don't think that just because I grew up and was educated here, I should make sure that my so-called "comfort zone" isn't pushed.
But you might want to ask Chinese immigrants who are new to Canada, and see what they'd prefer. Or an Indian immigrant, or a Mexican one.

Those are different countries for you there.

Your point? It's an arbitrary political boundary. The greater meaning is that this huge mishmash of different cultures somehow form a region that makes up the world's largest economy, who in fact mingle and interact very fluidly despite language differences (entire families different,) historical conflicts, and very widely varying cultural histories.

Did I even argue for protectionism? I was pointing out the fact that formerly large, developed countries don't lose power relative to their size. Great Britain is another example if you're too obtuse to understand Switzerland; it is very much a part of the global economy (Switzerland is too, BTW) and was once the most powerful country in the world. It's not the most powerful anymore, but it's still powerful. Most Britons don't think that they have lost so much influence as to be negligible in world affairs. Canada is in the same boat.

You were using Switzerland as an example, Switzerland being a country that's historically mixed very little with the rest of the world. Not to mention that Switzerland and Indonesia are pretty close in total GDP, and I'm hearing more and more about Indonesia these days.
Great Britain's still big internationally because it still is a huge economy. 6th highest GDP in the world.
Yet even if that were true and Great Britain was 30th or something, the British Empire was the largest in the world. The Canadian *ahem* empire stretches nowhere near as big as that in either area or population, and our influence has been diluted hugely by the US. We have always been a middle power, just highly developed. Not to mention that in the future, Great Britain very well may lose power as other countries come up to par with it.
But if you want to play that game, I'll take the bait. The Netherlands used to have an enormous empire, controlling trade through a large portion of the world. They had huge stakes in the global economy at the time. But look at them now. Do you see the Dutch having a big influence on world affairs anymore?

You don't know if Canada can manage the kind of growth you are demanding because something like this has never been attempted in a post-war developed country before. Israel doesn't count: it started off as a tiny entity and had copious amounts of financial and military support from Western powers.

Okay, but where's your proof that our country will implode? It probably would be a world first, for a developed country to grow so much off of immigration. I really see little basis for your claim that there'd be a massive social upheaval and our economy would go splat.

That's a municipal issue, not a national issue. These things vary from place to place. If we suspend disbelief and argue that suburban homeowners are going to wilfully allow centrally-planned developers to buy up their properties at non-inflated rates so that they can house thousands of low-skilled emigrant workers...well maybe that could happen in Vancouver and Toronto and Montreal. I think that if you added 500,000 people to Moncton or Brandon, Manitoba it would all take the form of suburban, auto-centric sprawl. Besides, why are you asking me this question? Shouldn't you be more concerned about the societal ramifications of mass emigration, rather than whether we build sprawl? Lusting over high speed trains and subways kind of takes a back seat in my world to, you know, massive social and cultural upheaval.

Yes, I believe it could happen if the government just got off their ass and started actually planning things instead of being so laissez-faire over development and the economy as they have been. But as I said, they'll have to do that anyways to adapt for the future. We're gonna have to put a stop to suburbanization and all those other bad social and environmental practices anyways, so if we can solve those problems, why don't we put more people into a new system of doing things?

I'd like to point out right now that if Canada just doubled it's immigration rate, we'd have about 70 million people in the country by 2050. I'd be happy if we just did that, but does that seem like as huge a social upheaval that you predict? If we'd implode as violently as you say, wouldn't we be seeing some serious effects of immigration right now?

Finally, you should answer the question I posed you several posts ago: What is sustainable development? I really want you to tell me this.

Sustainable devlopment: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. I don't get it, what's the problem?

 

[Hipster Duck]

Second in Pie,

You are making a lot of assumptions here.

1) You assume that a massive surge in population growth will lead us to build our cities up and not out. Contemporary examples: Phoenix, Las Vegas, Florida, Fort McMurray, Dubai, etc. seem to refute this. Not only that, but once you have an economy based on growth (which is what you're advocating), industries and people in power renegotiate fiscal incentive structures (i.e. taxes and wealth distribution) to reinforce more growth. What you end up with, basically, is a pyramid scheme (Again, see: Florida, Arizona, Nevada and Dubai for examples of this in action).

2) You assume that you can direct immigrants to live in whatever part of the country you want, rather than acknowledging that, left to their own devices, immigrants will gravitate to existing immigration centres: Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal, etc. These are the parts of Canada that are burgeoning the most right now - in some places, I truly believe we cannot keep up with the growth that we have, let alone with a massive influx of more people.

3) You assume that future generations will pay (incur debt) for the infrastructure needs of current generations - otherwise you would not allow so many people to move in. This goes against your statement about sustainable development.

4) On that topic, you are going to have think a little deeper about the meaning of 'sustainable development'. What are future generations' needs? A generation ago, nobody would have ever guessed that the people of the future would need an information superhighway almost as much as they need superhighways. Not only will your rapidly-growing society always be playing catch-up (due to the enormous growth level you are forecasting), but they will always be playing catch-up with yesterday's needs. So, in essence, you are arguing for the complete opposite of sustainable development.

5) You are assuming that uneducated, low-skilled immigrants by the millions will somehow not present a challenge to Canadian society. You are assuming that they can somehow integrate into an economy that, if anything, needs to differentiate itself from low-skilled, low-cost labour from developing countries in order to survive.

6) You are assuming that rural Canada is one homogeneous "white" cultural landscape, and that is somehow a bad thing that must be changed.

7) You are confusing cultural richness with built form aesthetics (e.g. suburbs are dull and inert; Saskatchewan towns are ugly one storey affairs, etc.).

 

[Second_in_pie]

1) You assume that a massive surge in population growth will lead us to build our cities up and not out. Contemporary examples: Phoenix, Las Vegas, Florida, Fort McMurray, Dubai, etc. seem to refute this. Not only that, but once you have an economy based on growth (which is what you're advocating), industries and people in power renegotiate fiscal incentive structures (i.e. taxes and wealth distribution) to reinforce more growth. What you end up with, basically, is a pyramid scheme (Again, see: Florida, Arizona, Nevada and Dubai for examples of this in action).

No, I am acknowledging that if you tell a bunch of people to live in Toronto today, they'll end up living in suburban houses. But, I'm assuming that the government can act on this and make building up the norm.

2) You assume that you can direct immigrants to live in whatever part of the country you want, rather than acknowledging that, left to their own devices, immigrants will gravitate to existing immigration centres: Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal, etc. These are the parts of Canada that are burgeoning the most right now - in some places, I truly believe we cannot keep up with the growth that we have, let alone with a massive influx of more people.

See above. I'm sure that if you told any Canadian that they had to leave their home city/town, they'd go to the big 4/5 cities in the country. But the government could do work to encourage immigrants to create new communities and go to the smaller cities. Make housing cheaper there, encourage jobs, etc. Again, it won't be easy. But we can already see that immigrants are spreading out from the very big cities. I would only expect this trend to amplify if more people were coming into the country.

3) You assume that future generations will pay (incur debt) for the infrastructure needs of current generations - otherwise you would not allow so many people to move in. This goes against your statement about sustainable development.

Future generations will need to pay for our infrastructure and the debts that we are leaving now (said as a member of the younger generation.) These days, the debt we're talking about with sustainable development is a charred earth and ruined society. Looking at the big picture and when compared to society and the environment, the West really doesn't need to worry about money.

) On that topic, you are going to have think a little deeper about the meaning of 'sustainable development'. What are future generations' needs? A generation ago, nobody would have ever guessed that the people of the future would need an information superhighway almost as much as they need superhighways. Not only will your rapidly-growing society always be playing catch-up (due to the enormous growth level you are forecasting), but they will always be playing catch-up with yesterday's needs. So, in essence, you are arguing for the complete opposite of sustainable development.

So you are saying that sustainable development means no development? That's true in theory, but in reality there are almost 6 billion people on this planet that are looking for better living conditions, and they are entitled to those. Sustainable development therefore means enriching those people's lives in ways that consume the least amount of resources and energy.
By your logic, we shouldn't be bothering at all, because it'll always be impossible to tell what the next generation wants before they're even on this planet! But I can bet you pretty well that the next generation will want a good planet to live on, and a fair economy and society. And I'll bet you that they'd be willing to work to pay for that.
And who's to say that we can't pay for it as it happens? Canadians are some of the richest people per capita in the world. We have a lot of money to engage in things like big HSR projects. And a combination of the knowledge that we can't continue on with our consumerist society, and that a lot of Canadians already are willing to pay for the infrastructure projects makes me think that future generation might not have a lot left to pay.

6) You are assuming that rural Canada is one homogeneous "white" cultural landscape, and that is somehow a bad thing that must be changed.

Again, I'm sorry but you're sounding like a huge bigot. Yes, I can appreciate Canada's special cultures. But who's saying that some immigrants can't assimilate into those cultures, while others keep their own? There isn't really any; just look at how immigrants to the US get sucked into the US melting pot instead of retaining their cultures. So is your problem that you think that Canada should be as homogeneous and white a cultural landscape as possible? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that. Canada should be everyone's country to appreciate, and if you disagree, than I politely ask you to leave because our Aboriginal people would prefer it if they had all their land back.

) You are confusing cultural richness with built form aesthetics (e.g. suburbs are dull and inert; Saskatchewan towns are ugly one storey affairs, etc.).

I think that the culture of some towns in Saskatchewan is great. And I think that you can get some great experiences out of the suburbs and towns with little houses and the such. It's just that there's a fine line between appreciating that and everyone pursuing the american dream. I think that when a vast majority of the country is made up of suburbs and spread out little towns, it hints that we've crossed the line. I don't consider that a good thing. The prepackaged American dream is one of the few cultures I just can't bear, and I think a lot of people would share my same opinion.