Party leaders lack real vision

[ToadBrother]

I'd rather start with enemies of the state. Traitors to Canada.

And let me guess, your definition of the word "traitor" is as divergent from the legal definition as your definition of the word "coalition" is from the political definition.

Maybe we should ban people from voting who try to redefine words to win arguments.

[Canada_First]

And let me guess, your definition of the word "traitor" is as divergent from the legal definition as your definition of the word "coalition" is from the political definition.

Maybe we should ban people from voting who try to redefine words to win arguments.

What are you talking about? I know what both those words mean.

[ToadBrother]

What are you talking about? I know what both those words mean.

Clearly not.

[Canada_First]

Clearly not.

Ok. Just put me on ignore.

[Bonam]

To benefit from economies of scale. Due to our low population density, we have to pay more per capita for public goods (military, roads, etc.) and we have less competition (look at telecommunications).

Obviously, too fast a rate of population increase results in physical capital depreciation, and one also has to look at the quality of immigrants.

There's a lot more to quality of life than driving down the costs of products by another couple percent. Not to mention any such cost reduction would likely be more than overwhelmed by the increasing costs of housing that higher population density would produce.

[-1=e^ipi]

There's a lot more to quality of life than driving down the costs of products by another couple percent. Not to mention any such cost reduction would likely be more than overwhelmed by the increasing costs of housing that higher population density would produce.

Maybe. Maybe not. Fortunately there are ways to empirically test if this is the case or not.

[John]

You have not supported your desire to bring our population to 100 million with real justification.

Is it that you admire heavily populated countries like Bangladesh and Nigeria, and think countries with small populations like Finland and Denmark are horrible places?

Large populations don't need to live in squalor. Japan has 127,000,000 on a group of tiny (compared to the size of Canada), mountainous islands and so live mainly on the coasts.

Here's a really great article on the subject. Admittedly...it's a vision of Canada which, to me, is very inspiring.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/what-would-a-canada-of-100-million-feel-like-more-comfortable-better-served-better-defended/article4186906/?page=all

[John]

So less farmland, forest and parks, more concrete jungles with horrendous traffic jams?

You're aware Canada is quite large, right? The beautiful thing is that we can have bustling metropolises and also vast open and pristine wilderness. It's not a one-or-the-other kind of proposition.

Poverty is much higher in the US, a nation of 370 million, as is crime. I can't offhand think of one very lage nation doing all that well economically. The ones doing the best I can think of are smaller, more homogenous nations as in Scandinavia, belgium, the netherlands, etc.

Over the past several decades the US, Japan & Germany were the top 3 economies in the world. China recently took the No. 2 spot. Here's a list from wikipedia for your enjoyment. The number column indicates gdp.

1 United States 16,768,050 2 China 9,181,204 3 Japan 4,898,532 4 Germany 3,730,261 5 France 2,806,432 6 United Kingdom 2,678,455 7 Brazil 2,243,854 8 Italy 2,149,485 9 Russia 2,096,774 10 India 1,937,797

[John]

Which should demonstrate that you don't need to have 100 million people to have a strong military. Finland not only has a strong military but also strong social programs.

Canadians in general do not feel the need for a strong military, and that is not going to change just because you triple the size of the place. Finland can afford strong social programs and a strong military because Finland, despite being a social democratic nation, has it's public sector under better control. Everyone is reasonably compensated and there is little poverty, but they do not pay their teachers police, firefighters, and mid-level public servants $100k a year. Doctors and nurses are also paid a lot less.

Have a look at average monthly salaries in Finland http://www.worldsalaries.org/finland.shtml

Finland is also not a strong voice on the world diplomatic scene. Having a large and powerful military would help Canada become more of a force for good than we currently are. And I don't believe you can 100% predict what the public mood will be towards a large military if we have 100M people. We're looking at a century or so down the road...a lot can happen in that time frame.

[John]

I think buying toasters for a little less is a pretty poor reason to be tripling the population of Canada with all the inherent risks of social disorder and threats to stability and societal cohesiveness bringing in tens of millions more immigrants would bring. And I do not want to see my city tripling in size, thanks.

At a minimum of 250,000 immigrants per year for most of the past 24 years we have admitted well over 5,000,000 and I don't see any social disorder or threats to stability and social cohesiveness arising from new Canadians. What part of Canada do you live in?

Also...you still haven't clarified your previous reference to "native born" Canadians. What does that mean again?

[G Huxley]

John why don't you go live in Japan then?

Also did you know the Japanese like having a large population so much that they have perhaps the lowest birth rate of any country in the world?

Edited September 16, 2015 by G Huxley

[John]

John why don't you go live in Japan then?

Also did you know the Japanese like having a large population so much that they have perhaps the lowest birth rate of any country in the world?

Why should I go live in Japan?

So what if they have a low birthrate? Other large countries have higher birthrates.

[John]

John why don't you go live in Japan then?

Also did you know the Japanese like having a large population so much that they have perhaps the lowest birth rate of any country in the world?

Why don't you go live in the US? lol

[G Huxley]

"Why should I go live in Japan?"

Because you want a country with a hundred million people in it. Japan is the place for you.

"Why don't you go live in the US?"

Too many reasons to count, but the fact that 300+ million people live in the US is a good reason not to.

[Argus]

Large populations don't need to live in squalor. Japan has 127,000,000 on a group of tiny (compared to the size of Canada), mountainous islands and so live mainly on the coasts.

Here's a really great article on the subject. Admittedly...it's a vision of Canada which, to me, is very inspiring.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/what-would-a-canada-of-100-million-feel-like-more-comfortable-better-served-better-defended/article4186906/?page=all

Your article states the following:

We do not have enough people, given our dispersed geography, to form the cultural, educational and political institutions, the consumer markets, the technological, administrative and political talent pool, the infrastructure-building tax base, the creative and artistic mass necessary to have a leading role in the world.

I think Canada is a better place to live than Japan, than most of the rest of the planet, in fact. A lot of surveys and studies say the same. Either we're at or very close to the top.

You want to throw the dice and triple our population because you think it will maybe make us better? But what if it doesn't? You can't exactly have everyone leave, now can you?

Furthermore, back when Laurier was recruiting people he was looking for broad backs and nothing more. He was looking for farmers and fishermen and foresters. And he was recruiting in countries with the same social, educational and technological levels. When they came over they got right to work. No government support. No language training. Nothing.

Immigration today is vastly different, especially given our jobs now are focused around technolical and communications skills, and when you're bringing in people from third world countries where the technological and social levels are considerably below ours. Someone posted a thing about Sweden a few days back, which showed that the almost half the second generation of immigrants there is living in public housing and can't find work. Generous social benefits sure do take the pressure off the need for integrattion...

[Argus]

You're aware Canada is quite large, right? The beautiful thing is that we can have bustling metropolises and also vast open and pristine wilderness. It's not a one-or-the-other kind of proposition.

Sure, we can still have vast forests up north. I like the trees down south.

Over the past several decades the US, Japan & Germany were the top 3 economies in the world. China recently took the No. 2 spot.

Yes, a larger population means a larger GDP. So? As I've said before, increasing the pie is nice, but if there's more people eating that pie then nobody is actually any better off.

[Argus]

Finland is also not a strong voice on the world diplomatic scene. Having a large and powerful military would help Canada become more of a force for good than we currently are. And I don't believe you can 100% predict what the public mood will be towards a large military if we have 100M people. We're looking at a century or so down the road...a lot can happen in that time frame.

I too would like a stronger military. I think we could afford one and should afford one. But I don't feel having a stronger military and being more influential in the world is a reason to risk totally changing our way of life.

[Argus]

At a minimum of 250,000 immigrants per year for most of the past 24 years we have admitted well over 5,000,000 and I don't see any social disorder or threats to stability and social cohesiveness arising from new Canadians. What part of Canada do you live in?

I see would-be terrorists plotting to kill Canadians and behead the prime minister, for one. And bringing in five million over twenty five years is one thing. You're talking about bringing in millions every year.

Also...you still haven't clarified your previous reference to "native born" Canadians. What does that mean again?

It means those born here. Is this a strange concept to you?

Edited September 16, 2015 by Argus