Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Hatman 🍁]

LPC and their godawful immigration platform

The last few weeks Canadian posters here have been saying this all the time and it just doesn't make any sense to me. Considering Canada's macroeconomic position I think it's essential.

Rich large anglophone countries should be in a strong position in a services-based economy, but they all have to complete with the United States, where wages and purchasing power are much higher. It is not within the power of any government to change this, so they have to find ways to compensate. Britain has an attractive world city and cultural power; Ireland has European Union membership; Australia has a favorable location relative to Asia and apparent freedom from the vagaries of the business cycle.

Canada will always have the issue of brain drain because American wages are so much higher and life in America is basically the same. At work I sit next to a Canadian citizen and I work closely with someone else who will move from Canada to the United States as soon as his work authorization comes through. Canada's only comparative advantage is loose immigration policy: the United States will always get the best talent, but Canada can compensate by drawing from a wider pool.

If I were a Canadian voter I would not vote Liberal at the next election under any circumstances, but immigration policy is something this government has gotten right.

This is all true of course, but people are seeing the downsides of immigration first hand (not enough housing, more traffic, urban sprawl), and people are motivated by their own personal experience over anything else.   

[Benjamin Frank]

In addition to Carolyn Bennett and Omar Alghabra, Joyce Murray and Helena Jaczek have also announced they won't be running again.

Apparently Marco Mendicino, Mona Fortier and David Lametti will all be dropped outright from the cabinet. I never cared for Mendicino or Fortier, which I've mentioned here previously, but I liked Lametti and thought he was generally competent and had a good grasp of the law.

I'm not sure if the focus for the next Attorney General will be on appointing more judges or on the legislation to reform bail. I personally don't get the focus on bail as opposed to sentencing reform. People who are routine offenders should be locked up for lengthy periods of time. I don't support a '3 strikes' law, but surely a 30 or 300 strikes law. Some people are just bad.

Among other things,if there were sentencing reform, there might not be a need to have so many additional judges.

Also, Anita Anand is apparently moving to an 'economic portfolio' and Seamus O'Regan is probably in line for a big promotion along with possibly his former Canada A.M co-host (I don't actually know if they were on the air together) Marci Ien.

So, possible additions of recent byelection winners to the cabinet. Friend of Justin Anna Gainey is expected to be appointed and I wouldn't be surprised if Charles Sousa was added with Alghabra leaving to have representation from Mississauga.

I wouldn't be surprised if Burnaby area M.P Terry Beech replaced Joyce Murray. Beech had been the Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries, Oceans and Canada Coast Guard for a long time, but later became Parliamentary Secretary to Chrystira Freeland.

Also, I wouldn't mind seeing either Ottawa M.P, economist and former city councilor Jenna Sudds or Outaouais area M.P Sophie Chatel, a former tax lawyer with a senior position at the OECD replace Fortier. However, as both were elected in 2021, I also wouldn't be surprised if somebody in the Ottawa area first elected in 2015 is added instead (maybe current Chief Government Whip Steven MacKinnon.)

[super6646]

LPC and their godawful immigration platform

The last few weeks Canadian posters here have been saying this all the time and it just doesn't make any sense to me. Considering Canada's macroeconomic position I think it's essential.

Rich large anglophone countries should be in a strong position in a services-based economy, but they all have to complete with the United States, where wages and purchasing power are much higher. It is not within the power of any government to change this, so they have to find ways to compensate. Britain has an attractive world city and cultural power; Ireland has European Union membership; Australia has a favorable location relative to Asia and apparent freedom from the vagaries of the business cycle.

Canada will always have the issue of brain drain because American wages are so much higher and life in America is basically the same. At work I sit next to a Canadian citizen and I work closely with someone else who will move from Canada to the United States as soon as his work authorization comes through. Canada's only comparative advantage is loose immigration policy: the United States will always get the best talent, but Canada can compensate by drawing from a wider pool.

If I were a Canadian voter I would not vote Liberal at the next election under any circumstances, but immigration policy is something this government has gotten right.

Halving our present immigration levels would still net Canada over 2x the per-capita migration the United States sees. We’d still be casting a “wider pool” while also allowing for a more manageable housing situation. It is frankly ridiculous that with 7% interest rates (offered by the banks) housing prices are still projected to increase. Canada has also been notorious for failing to take advantage of the skills immigrants have had to offer..

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Even the BOC has stated higher immigration than expected has played a role in the current housing situation (though they have been diplomatic in their language to date).

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

LPC and their godawful immigration platform

The last few weeks Canadian posters here have been saying this all the time and it just doesn't make any sense to me. Considering Canada's macroeconomic position I think it's essential.

Rich large anglophone countries should be in a strong position in a services-based economy, but they all have to complete with the United States, where wages and purchasing power are much higher. It is not within the power of any government to change this, so they have to find ways to compensate. Britain has an attractive world city and cultural power; Ireland has European Union membership; Australia has a favorable location relative to Asia and apparent freedom from the vagaries of the business cycle.

Canada will always have the issue of brain drain because American wages are so much higher and life in America is basically the same. At work I sit next to a Canadian citizen and I work closely with someone else who will move from Canada to the United States as soon as his work authorization comes through. Canada's only comparative advantage is loose immigration policy: the United States will always get the best talent, but Canada can compensate by drawing from a wider pool.

If I were a Canadian voter I would not vote Liberal at the next election under any circumstances, but immigration policy is something this government has gotten right.

Halving our present immigration levels would still net Canada over 2x the per-capita migration the United States sees. We’d still be casting a “wider pool” while also allowing for a more manageable housing situation. It is frankly ridiculous that with 7% interest rates (offered by the banks) housing prices are still projected to increase. Canada has also been notorious for failing to take advantage of the skills immigrants have had to offer..

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Even the BOC has stated higher immigration than expected has played a role in the current housing situation (though they have been diplomatic in their language to date).

This is an unusually left-wing take from me, but I think the social-liberal message of "immigration good because multiculturalism" is a more persuasive message than the neoliberal message of "immigration good because of the economy" that the LPC is favouring these days, because at least in urban and suburban Canada, the intangible benefits of multiculturalism are more visible than the supposed tangible benefits to the economy.

What Canada does remarkably well on the immigration file is the level of integration we achieve. Compared to some parts of Europe where an inability to integrate migrants has started to lead to social breakdown, we don't have that problem to nearly the same extent, or really at all, except in very rare instances. We can even see this in how there's literally only one anti-immigration party in Canada, the PPC, and they're one of the least successful anti-immigration parties in the west. Opposing immigration on nativist grounds is unambiguously a losing message here, which is why every major party, even the Tories, are terrified of even sniffing in that direction, at a time when their right-wing counterparts in literally every other western country are doubling down on nativism. The one major exception I can think of is the CDU, and even they're shifting right on immigration compared to the Merkel days. And even then, the AfD is skyrocketing (although perhaps for different reasons at the current moment).

However, the argument that we need to have more than double the per capita immigration rates of virtually every other western country, lest we risk economic collapse, feels very dubious to me. In real terms, our GDP per capita is declining, or in other words the average Canadian's share of the pie is shrinking, even if the pie is growing. One could argue that things would be worse if we didn't have current levels of immigration, and sure, but that's actually a pretty damning indictment of our economic health. The natural conclusion of that argument is that Canada's economy is being kept afloat by our willingness to import more cheap labour than other western countries, with predictably negative impacts to housing costs and the value of labour. Or in other words, Canadians are less productive than their western counterparts. Keeping immigration levels sky-high isn't actually addressing the fundamental challenges in our economy, it's just putting a band-aid on it.

And on that topic, specifically the impact of immigration on housing, that's a ticking time bomb. Like you said, even the BOC has made this link. And really, it's not rocket science. You add the number of homebuyers and renters at high rates, the price of homes and rentals increase at high rates. But at some point, you reach a level where homes are too expensive for most people (we're already there), and downstream of home prices is rental prices (believe me, we're getting there). So what happens when even renting becomes prohibitively expensive relative to most people's incomes? It's really not a good path we're going down.

[Benjamin Frank]

Overthinking this even more, these are my predictions (or suggestions if anybody was listening) for some cabinet moves:

1.Combine Housing with Infrastructure and Communities (you can have infrastructure without housing, but not vice versa) along with Intergovernmental Affairs and shift Anita Anand here. She's already shown at least with subsidies that she can get money out the door quickly. A different thing of course to get programs out the door quickly (or 'at all') and that's obviously been a problem for this government.

2.Ahmed Hussen retains diversity and inclusion to remain in cabinet.

3.Move Dominic LeBlanc to Justice/Attorney General or Defence. I think he may have turned down Attorney General/Justice previously. Yasir Naqvi would probably have been a good choice  and is another M.P from Ottawa, but he's running for the provincial Liberal leadership. Arif Virani I think has also been overlooked but he's from the GTA.

4.Move Sean Fraser to Public Safety.

5.Promote Charles Sousa to Treasury Board President.

6.Promote Anna Gainey to Public Services and Procurement.

7.Promote Terry Beech to Fisheries, Oceans and Canada Coast Guard.

8.Not sure who for Defence if not Dominic LeBlanc, but look to adding Emergency Preparedness to Defence, with a Canadian equivalent of a national guard. That should also easily get Canada's spending on defence to over 2% of GDP, and fighting the effects of global warming is a lot more important than the more big toys wanted by the little boys. British Columbia for instance also seriously needs a Canadian national guard since the last military base here was shut down years ago.

[mileslunn]

I think on immigration levels, probably wise idea is tie rates to ability to build homes as I think reducing levels until we increase home building might be attacked by some, but many would understand.  Now whether we can build enough homes to take in 500K people a year is a different question, but I don't think it is wrong to tie immigration intake so how much infrastructure can handle.  

I agree nativist arguments about how altering culture really don't work that well.  Maybe in Quebec because English is international language so worry it diminishes French fact thus why Legault taking harder line on it, but outside Quebec its a total vote loser.  And even there could just give priority to people from French speaking countries as Africa and Middle East have multiple countries where French is other first language or used on a regular basis so its not like there isn't a shortage of French speaking people globally and can be found from multiple races and religions too.

[Benjamin Frank]

LPC and their godawful immigration platform

The last few weeks Canadian posters here have been saying this all the time and it just doesn't make any sense to me. Considering Canada's macroeconomic position I think it's essential.

Rich large anglophone countries should be in a strong position in a services-based economy, but they all have to complete with the United States, where wages and purchasing power are much higher. It is not within the power of any government to change this, so they have to find ways to compensate. Britain has an attractive world city and cultural power; Ireland has European Union membership; Australia has a favorable location relative to Asia and apparent freedom from the vagaries of the business cycle.

Canada will always have the issue of brain drain because American wages are so much higher and life in America is basically the same. At work I sit next to a Canadian citizen and I work closely with someone else who will move from Canada to the United States as soon as his work authorization comes through. Canada's only comparative advantage is loose immigration policy: the United States will always get the best talent, but Canada can compensate by drawing from a wider pool.

If I were a Canadian voter I would not vote Liberal at the next election under any circumstances, but immigration policy is something this government has gotten right.

Halving our present immigration levels would still net Canada over 2x the per-capita migration the United States sees. We’d still be casting a “wider pool” while also allowing for a more manageable housing situation. It is frankly ridiculous that with 7% interest rates (offered by the banks) housing prices are still projected to increase. Canada has also been notorious for failing to take advantage of the skills immigrants have had to offer..

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Even the BOC has stated higher immigration than expected has played a role in the current housing situation (though they have been diplomatic in their language to date).

This is an unusually left-wing take from me, but I think the social-liberal message of "immigration good because multiculturalism" is a more persuasive message than the neoliberal message of "immigration good because of the economy" that the LPC is favouring these days, because at least in urban and suburban Canada, the intangible benefits of multiculturalism are more visible than the supposed tangible benefits to the economy.

What Canada does remarkably well on the immigration file is the level of integration we achieve. Compared to some parts of Europe where an inability to integrate migrants has started to lead to social breakdown, we don't have that problem to nearly the same extent, or really at all, except in very rare instances. We can even see this in how there's literally only one anti-immigration party in Canada, the PPC, and they're one of the least successful anti-immigration parties in the west. Opposing immigration on nativist grounds is unambiguously a losing message here, which is why every major party, even the Tories, are terrified of even sniffing in that direction, at a time when their right-wing counterparts in literally every other western country are doubling down on nativism. The one major exception I can think of is the CDU, and even they're shifting right on immigration compared to the Merkel days. And even then, the AfD is skyrocketing (although perhaps for different reasons at the current moment).

However, the argument that we need to have more than double the per capita immigration rates of virtually every other western country, lest we risk economic collapse, feels very dubious to me. In real terms, our GDP per capita is declining, or in other words the average Canadian's share of the pie is shrinking, even if the pie is growing. One could argue that things would be worse if we didn't have current levels of immigration, and sure, but that's actually a pretty damning indictment of our economic health. The natural conclusion of that argument is that Canada's economy is being kept afloat by our willingness to import more cheap labour than other western countries, with predictably negative impacts to housing costs and the value of labour. Or in other words, Canadians are less productive than their western counterparts. Keeping immigration levels sky-high isn't actually addressing the fundamental challenges in our economy, it's just putting a band-aid on it.

And on that topic, specifically the impact of immigration on housing, that's a ticking time bomb. Like you said, even the BOC has made this link. And really, it's not rocket science. You add the number of homebuyers and renters at high rates, the price of homes and rentals increase at high rates. But at some point, you reach a level where homes are too expensive for most people (we're already there), and downstream of home prices is rental prices (believe me, we're getting there). So what happens when even renting becomes prohibitively expensive relative to most people's incomes? It's really not a good path we're going down.

1.I fundamentally disagree with the multiculturalism stuff, not because I'm a natavist but because I disagree with the concept. What makes a culture is the environment and shared history. After the initial newcomers, the first generation after is basically the same as any other Canadian around them. This is why many children don't seem to like trying to keep the old cultural traditions. It seems obvious to me: those cultural traditions, shorn of their environment and history don't necessarily make a lot of sense.

So, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that different skin colors = diversity. The only real diversity is created by racists people treating people of different skin colors differently which leads to the problem of systemic discrimination.

People are people, and that creates natural diversity, why should there be diversity in a given polity just because some people have different skin colors? Women and men though, that's a different matter.

I don't really understand why Europe has so much trouble with integration. As far as I can tell, and judging by their Prime Minister, The U.K seems to be doing better with it, although obviously it was a factor in Brexit, but I wonder how much was also just the sheer number of immigrants (especially in that they were poor refugees) and not a problem with integration.

2.Canada's real GDP per capita is growing, contrary to what the recent headline article said. The article contradicted itself but pointed out that Real GDP per capita is growing at about 0.4% a year, which is very low.

From the TD Bank report: Jul 13, 2023 — Canadian real GDP per capita has grown at a meagre rate of only +0.4% annually, paling in comparison to the advanced economy average of +1.4%.

I think what the headline meant to say is that there has been a slowdown in the growth rate of real GDP per capita. This is similar to the distinction between disinflation (a decline in the rate of inflation) and deflation (a decline in prices.)

[Hatman 🍁]

RE: immigration, let's also not forget that multiculturalism is one of key tenets of the Canadian identity. It makes nativist anti-immigration arguments pretty tough from a nationalist perspective. Canadian nationalism is distinctively not right wing compared to the rest of the Western World.   

[mileslunn]

RE: immigration, let's also not forget that multiculturalism is one of key tenets of the Canadian identity. It makes nativist anti-immigration arguments pretty tough from a nationalist perspective. Canadian nationalism is distinctively not right wing compared to the rest of the Western World.   

If anything it is left wing which you see in Latin America, but not so much in US or Europe.  Perhaps Irish or some regional like Basque or Catalan (you have both right and left nationalist here) lean left as Sinn Fein is quite left wing.  But in Canada nationalism is generally not being American and often things like cultural protectionism, foreign ownership restrictions (a lot fewer than past however), health care not just being a social program but core concept of what it means to be Canadian, multiculturalism, peacekeeping all seen as examples of what it means to be Canadian.

Cannot think of any right wing policy there.  Yes some on right have tried to bring about right wing nationalism but has had limited success.  Quebec perhaps one place where some success with Legault who on cultural issues is most certainly right wing even if more centrist on economic policy.  But even in Quebec, nationalism has tended to be more on left and rise of centre-right type is more recent although you did prior to 60s have it when Union Nationale dominated.

[mileslunn]

On cabinet shuffle it is a meh.  That being said Abacus poll is a draw dropper https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-10-on-the-heels-of-the-federal-cabinet-shuffle/ .  While numbers paywalled Nanos kind of looks like Abacus but not quite as big a lead for Tories.  Either way right now Liberals look in bad shape and it seems main thing for Tories at this point is don't do something to blow it (which they have a long history of doing and may do again). 

How likely is it Liberals recover?  Is a Tory majority actually possible as most until now put them in minority territory but poll above would be very close to a majority.  If numbers stay same, could NDP drop a lot due to strategic voting to stop Tories?

[Benjamin Frank]

On cabinet shuffle it is a meh.  That being said Abacus poll is a draw dropper https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-10-on-the-heels-of-the-federal-cabinet-shuffle/ .  While numbers paywalled Nanos kind of looks like Abacus but not quite as big a lead for Tories.  Either way right now Liberals look in bad shape and it seems main thing for Tories at this point is don't do something to blow it (which they have a long history of doing and may do again).  

How likely is it Liberals recover?  Is a Tory majority actually possible as most until now put them in minority territory but poll above would be very close to a majority.  If numbers stay same, could NDP drop a lot due to strategic voting to stop Tories?

Prior to the Abacus poll, which is just one poll, the Liberals have been trailing since October 2022, by about 5%. A 'line of best fit' would probably show three flat lines from then until June 2023 anyway, of the Conservatives at 35% the Liberals at 30% and the NDP at 20%.

It may be significant to this that Pierre Poilievre becamse the Conservative leader in September 2022, but it may be just coincidential.

So, in terms of a Liberal recovery in the polls, I think it's likely directly tied to an economic recovery by the time of the next election. This is not abnormal, though not necessarily as clear in this more partisan era. President Reagan was trailing every Democratic primary candidate (except for maybe Jesse Jackson) in the Spring of 1983. By, winter only Walter Mondale and John Glenn were still even tied with Reagan, and by election day Reagan defeated Mondale by 17%.

However, not only are times more partisan, but it may be the case that even if the economy does improve and Canadian's wages catch up to inflation, that voters may have solidifed their choices by then in favour of a change in government.  Of course, it's impossible to know.

[Benjamin Frank]

In regards to immigration, it should be remembered that citizenship is the last step in the process and that all the new citizens have already been living in Canada for years.

While Canada has an immigration policy of around 500,000 immigrants a year, it is the case that of new residents to Canada which includes people on work visas and students (or, more accurately is the net increase in work visas and students) Canada took in about 1 million people last year.

[Agafin]

2.Canada's real GDP per capita is growing, contrary to what the recent headline article said. The article contradicted itself but pointed out that Real GDP per capita is growing at about 0.4% a year, which is very low.

From the TD Bank report: Jul 13, 2023 — Canadian real GDP per capita has grown at a meagre rate of only +0.4% annually, paling in comparison to the advanced economy average of +1.4%.

I think what the headline meant to say is that there has been a slowdown in the growth rate of real GDP per capita. This is similar to the distinction between disinflation (a decline in the rate of inflation) and deflation (a decline in prices.)

Assuming we're all talking about this article, then it's pretty damning for Canada tbh. US GDP per capita has increased by 11.7% in the same time period that Canada's increased by 2.4%. These immigration levels are starting to look like a gigantic ponzi scheme.

I used to think of Australia and Canada as mirror countries from the two hemispheres but it seems like Australia is more reasonable here. They have much more sustainable levels of immigration which have allowed their GDP per capita to increase in tandem with other advanced economies.

[Benjamin Frank]

2.Canada's real GDP per capita is growing, contrary to what the recent headline article said. The article contradicted itself but pointed out that Real GDP per capita is growing at about 0.4% a year, which is very low.

From the TD Bank report: Jul 13, 2023 — Canadian real GDP per capita has grown at a meagre rate of only +0.4% annually, paling in comparison to the advanced economy average of +1.4%.

I think what the headline meant to say is that there has been a slowdown in the growth rate of real GDP per capita. This is similar to the distinction between disinflation (a decline in the rate of inflation) and deflation (a decline in prices.)

Assuming we're all talking about this article, then it's pretty damning for Canada tbh. US GDP per capita has increased by 11.7% in the same time period that Canada's increased by 2.4%. These immigration levels are starting to look like a gigantic ponzi scheme.

I used to think of Australia and Canada as mirror countries from the two hemispheres but it seems like Australia is more reasonable here. They have much more sustainable levels of immigration which have allowed their GDP per capita to increase in tandem with other advanced economies.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that Canada's real GDP per capita has had such a slow increasse due to immigration levels.

The main explanations are that Canada is
1.Heavily dependent on selling raw resources (which I gather isn't that different from Australia) which tends to make Canadian companies complacent. Due to these exports, Canadian's get wealthier when the Canadian $ goes up relative to the U.S $. Of course, that then makes Canadian exports less competitive.

2.Canada, unlike Australia, is a branch plant economy of the U.S. The phrase 'branch plant economy' was used more frequently from post World War II up to, ironically, roughly the signing of NAFTA, but it seems to be still largely true. (Although the oil and gas sector is now mostly owned by Canadian headquartered companies.)  The idea here is that U.S owned companies tend to put more emphasis on increasing the productivity of their American operations. I don't know if that is really true, but I think it is true that the lower Canadian $ makes the largely foreign made machinery to increase productivity more expensive which discourages the investment.

3.To the degree that remaking the economy into one that is 'carbon neutral' decreases real GDP per capita in the short run, anyway, Canada is further ahead on that than either the United States or Australia. Hopefully reduced carbon emissions will boost efficiency in the longer term since carbon emissions are a waste as well as an externality, and result in greater productivity and, therefore, increased real GDP per capita.

There are probably other reasons for the low productivity increases which leads to low real GDP per capita increases, but I don't think that high immigration levels is much of a contributor. Obviously I can see how it might in some areas like greater traffic congestion which slows commercial traffic and greater strain on other public utilities.

[mileslunn]

Leger showing similar numbers to Abacus so not an outlier https://qc125.com/proj/2023-07-27-leger.pdf so while lots can change right now CPC is in good position.  However lets remember Alberta NDP 2 years out had even bigger lead yet lost last provincial election so things can change.  I do think biggest problem for Liberals is fatigue and view time for change.  I think today people turn on governments more quickly than in past so lasting 10 years is harder than it was in past.  At same time I don't sense a huge degree of enthusiasm for Poilievre.  Sure base loves him thus why big rallies but amongst votes gaining most are more your time for change types, not necessarily supporters of Poilievre.

[mileslunn]

On productivity and Canada being lower than Australia, I think it is partly cultural too.  Canada has a very risk averse culture and that has advantages in that things are less likely to go wrong, but also disadvantage in that for growth and innovation, you have to take risks.  So while government policy has some impact on edges, I think culture has a bigger one.

[Upper Canada Tory]

On productivity and Canada being lower than Australia, I think it is partly cultural too.  Canada has a very risk averse culture and that has advantages in that things are less likely to go wrong, but also disadvantage in that for growth and innovation, you have to take risks.  So while government policy has some impact on edges, I think culture has a bigger one.

I don't think culture is the main factor. A few decades ago Canada actually had relatively high productivity, despite still having a risk averse culture. What changed? Government policy with regards to productivity growth. Canada's attitude and policy toward foreign direct investment, research & development spending and innovation needs to change.

[Storr]

I don't believe it was mentioned in this thread, but for the first time ever, Canada reached a population of 40 million last month. 30 million was reached in 1997. That now makes Canada more populous than California, something that hasn't been true since 1982.


"Canada's population growth rate currently stands at 2.7 per cent. That's the highest annual growth rate since 1957, when Canada was in the middle of its post-war baby boom, says Statistics Canada."

"Canada's population grew by a record 1.05 million last year and about 96 per cent of the rise was due to international migration, the agency said."

https://twitter.com/StatCan_eng/status/1669780688969560064?s=20

[mileslunn]

I don't believe it was mentioned in this thread, but for the first time ever, Canada reached a population of 40 million last month. 30 million was reached in 1997. That now makes Canada more populous than California, something that hasn't been true since 1982.


"Canada's population growth rate currently stands at 2.7 per cent. That's the highest annual growth rate since 1957, when Canada was in the middle of its post-war baby boom, says Statistics Canada."

"Canada's population grew by a record 1.05 million last year and about 96 per cent of the rise was due to international migration, the agency said."

https://twitter.com/StatCan_eng/status/1669780688969560064?s=20

It is just an estimate and in 2026 will get formal census which probably won't be available until 2027 or 2028. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't believe it was mentioned in this thread, but for the first time ever, Canada reached a population of 40 million last month. 30 million was reached in 1997. That now makes Canada more populous than California, something that hasn't been true since 1982.


"Canada's population growth rate currently stands at 2.7 per cent. That's the highest annual growth rate since 1957, when Canada was in the middle of its post-war baby boom, says Statistics Canada."

"Canada's population grew by a record 1.05 million last year and about 96 per cent of the rise was due to international migration, the agency said."

https://twitter.com/StatCan_eng/status/1669780688969560064?s=20

Well, they still don't have the largest economy of an entity abbreviated "CA".

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/MickeyDjuric/status/1686773366655418368?t=30ALjmmJslDJMVnDEU...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Canadian politics remains a world-leader at the creation of euphemism, doesn't it? 'Meaningful and difficult conversations' - fantastic!

[President Johnson]

https://twitter.com/MickeyDjuric/status/1686773366655418368?t=30ALjmmJslDJMVnDEU...

Still seems to be much less of an issue in Canada than it would be for a US president to divorce while in office, I suppose.

[Hash]

Not really all that unexpected, particularly if you were privy to some of the various rumours in Ottawa's political bubble that have been circulating about both of them for years (which are not really worth discussing).

She had been much, much less publicly visible in recent years (since the infamous India trip, which the media blamed on her in part?) and basically only was seen in public with the PM on very important occasions like elections, the Coronation and some official functions. Her demeanour around him was also pretty telling at times.

Regardless, it's all their private business.

Canadian politics remains a world-leader at the creation of euphemism, doesn't it? 'Meaningful and difficult conversations' - fantastic!

At least no one is 'resigning to return to the private sector' (yet).

[Hatman 🍁]

There were rumours about Harper too, but they're still married as far I know.