Canada's Population Puzzle



Donald Trump’s suspension of immigration to the U.S. was met with widespreadcriticism. In Canada, the reaction in some quarters will have been verydifferent.

Canada extends from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Atlantic in the east and the Arctic in the north. It has the world’s tenth-largest economy, abundant natural resources, and a free-trade relationship with the United States.

Sharing aborder with the U.S. has always influenced Canadian geopolitics. Ottawaprioritizes robust trade relations with Washington to secure access to theAmerican market. Canada is a member of the G7 and NATO, which underlines itseconomic standing and commitment to preserving the American global securityapparatus. In short, Canada uses its relationship with the U.S. to cultivate areputation as a stable, reliable middle power that benefits from the statusquo. Yet despite its position, some Canadians foresee storm clouds ahead.

Until itscentenary, Canada embraced a vision that author Doug Saunders calls “theminimizing impulse.” This included restrictions on the number and sources ofimmigrants, an emphasis on resource-based industries, and limited relationswith the U.S. The goal was to maintain its ethnic, cultural, and traderelationships with Great Britain.

Evidence ofthese policies and their results can be seen throughout Canada’s history.Before and after Confederation in 1867, and with the exception of Frenchspeaking Quebec, Canada prioritized immigration from Britain. The countrymaintained its Anglo identity while rejecting large numbers of Scandinavians,Germans, Italians, and other European emigres.

Forimmigrants that did arrive, the role Ottawa envisioned for them quickly becameapparent. It was hoped that new arrivals would settle in rural areas, and workin primary industries such as logging and farming. They were to become cogs inan extractive machine that exported raw materials to Britain.

Theseeconomic policies stunted the growth of Canada’s cities, and its capacity tomanufacture, innovate, and trade domestically. Most Canadians had a lowerstandard of living than their southern neighbors, and remained economicallydependent on Britain as a market for its raw materials and a source ofmanufactured goods.

Thisarrangement was desirable to some British and Canadian politicians in partbecause it limited the influence of the United States. They feared thatAmerica’s rapid economic growth could undermine Great Britain’s dominion overthe seas as well as Canadian sovereignty. Any trade agreement that benefitedthe U.S. was unacceptable. The U.S. economy surpassed Britain’s during the1870s which enabled it to construct a navy that came to dominate the westernhemisphere. Canadian policymakers would belatedly see the value of doingbusiness with Washington.

Canada’spotential was shackled by the minimizing impulse. Many of these policies havebeen discarded, resulting in the diverse, developed, and open Canada we seetoday. Yet despite its progress, Canada has failed to overcome the minimizingimpulse’s most harmful legacy: its lackof population.

Canada’scurrent population is 37,740,000. Its lack of people is evident when comparedwith countries of similar size. China is slightly smaller than Canada, but itspopulation is 1.439 billion. The U.S. is smaller still, but boasts 331,000,000people. Russia is larger than Canada, and has 146,000,000 people. Canada’spopulation density is 3.8 people per square kilometre compared with China’s148.3, the U.S.’s 35.3, and 8.5 in Russia.

Thesenumbers help explain why Canada has never advanced beyond middle power status.The majority of the country doesn’t have the population density to support theeconomic activity, infrastructure, innovation, and investment required to takethe next step. Even its major urban centers Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouverpale in size with their global counterparts. This means many immigrants preferother destinations over Canada, and many of the country’s best and brightestleave to pursue their ambitions abroad. The latter has been a reoccurring themethroughout Canada’ history, with Alexander Graham Bell, James L. Kraft, andCeline Dion among those who left and headed south. As of 2016, the UnitedStates was home to some 783,000 Canadians. Little wonder the muted reaction toTrump’s tweet.

Populationcan also help us predict the country’s future. At its present growth rate,Canada would have fifty million inhabitants by 2100. It will continue aging,with life expectancy rising to 91.6 years by century’s end. A graying societywill have profound economic consequences. Spending on health care and pensionswill increase as the working population shrinks, necessitating higher taxes orreductions in infrastructure and social spending. Labour shortages willintensify, and slumping productivity will hinder GDP growth. This points to afuture where Canada lacks the means to retain its current status, and issupplanted by younger, more dynamic economies such as Mexico, Vietnam, andIndonesia.

Having abandoned the minimizing impulse, Canada’s future is linked to its ability to address its most potent legacy. The time is now to develop a strategy that fosters population growth in a planned, organized, and environmentally sustainable manner. Only then can Canada hope to retain its position at the top table of international politics. If things proceed as they are, it’s a question of when not if it’s forced to give up its chair.

Rob Burger


Comments

Popular Posts