Census Data

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/13/census-canada.html

In the story, it says Barrie, Ontario has the fastest growth. I don't much about Barrie. Any particular reason this city is growing so fast?

Of the provinces, Alberta leads the way in growth, driven by its strong oil and gas sector.

"Alberta has had a spectacular 10 per cent growth over the past five years and Ontario has had 6.6 per cent growth," said Arora.

Together, Ontario and Alberta represented 66 per cent of the country's new growth.

Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador were the only two provinces with a population decrease, while P.E.I.'s population remained unchanged.

[guyser]

In the story, it says Barrie, Ontario has the fastest growth. I don't much about Barrie. Any particular reason this city is growing so fast?

I must be trolling right behind you today Sir dobbin.

Barrie- One hour north of Toronto. Fairly easy commute to the industrial areas north of the city (TO) , the 407 allows for easier commuting. Low house prices relative to TO or Newmarket/Aurora/King City .

Close to ski areas, cottage country is a quick jaunt up the road, Lake Simcoe offers a ton for the outdoorsman.

Oh and they have the Barrie Colts .

As for me? Barrie has always held little appeal to me. Might be I could be stuck in the past as Barrie had a deplorable reputation as a town of hoodlums and drunks . I insure a group of apartments that are all inhabited by welfare recipients and the hassles that come from that. To relate, all my winnipeg friends say the same about Brandon. Does that help you ?

And the city was laid out by a planner that smoked waaaaaaaay too much crack. He put this here and that there and none of it made sense.

But I shall not belittle Barrie anymore....they have improved a lot in the past ten years.

[blueblood]

In the story, it says Barrie, Ontario has the fastest growth. I don't much about Barrie. Any particular reason this city is growing so fast?

I must be trolling right behind you today Sir dobbin.

Barrie- One hour north of Toronto. Fairly easy commute to the industrial areas north of the city (TO) , the 407 allows for easier commuting. Low house prices relative to TO or Newmarket/Aurora/King City .

Close to ski areas, cottage country is a quick jaunt up the road, Lake Simcoe offers a ton for the outdoorsman.

Oh and they have the Barrie Colts .

As for me? Barrie has always held little appeal to me. Might be I could be stuck in the past as Barrie had a deplorable reputation as a town of hoodlums and drunks . I insure a group of apartments that are all inhabited by welfare recipients and the hassles that come from that. To relate, all my winnipeg friends say the same about Brandon. Does that help you ?

And the city was laid out by a planner that smoked waaaaaaaay too much crack. He put this here and that there and none of it made sense.

But I shall not belittle Barrie anymore....they have improved a lot in the past ten years.

Brandon isn't too bad for hoodlums and drunks. Most of the skids there I hate to say come from the reserves and live in the "downtown" part. Essentially Brandon is pretty much a real real big "small town". It has a real big small town atmosphere, it's nice to go to a place with the services of a big city and not get the attitude or crap that goes with a big city.

[jdobbin]

I must be trolling right behind you today Sir dobbin.

Barrie- One hour north of Toronto. Fairly easy commute to the industrial areas north of the city (TO) , the 407 allows for easier commuting. Low house prices relative to TO or Newmarket/Aurora/King City .

Close to ski areas, cottage country is a quick jaunt up the road, Lake Simcoe offers a ton for the outdoorsman.

Oh and they have the Barrie Colts .

As for me? Barrie has always held little appeal to me. Might be I could be stuck in the past as Barrie had a deplorable reputation as a town of hoodlums and drunks . I insure a group of apartments that are all inhabited by welfare recipients and the hassles that come from that. To relate, all my winnipeg friends say the same about Brandon. Does that help you ?

And the city was laid out by a planner that smoked waaaaaaaay too much crack. He put this here and that there and none of it made sense.

But I shall not belittle Barrie anymore....they have improved a lot in the past ten years.

I know Camp Borden is nearby because my father was there. I don't remember him speaking about Barrie though.

I couldn't find was industries were responsible for such growth when I did a cursory look. I didn't consider that people might be commuting to Toronto or its suburbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrie%2C_Ontario

As for Brandon, , I work with many rural people from small towns like Hamiota, Austin, Steinbach and in the north, Thompson. I've never heard of anyone speaking ill of Brandon except that it is small for the second largest city in the province.

[August1991]

There were three things I noticed in the reports of this census. The first concerns how Canada's population will change in the future:

Thank immigration for Canada's relatively robust growth. An average 240,000 newcomers per year more than compensated for the country's flat fertility rate.

"It is unique and it's going to continue," said Laurent Martel, a Statistics Canada analyst.

"We're heading towards a point where immigration will be the only source of growth in Canada."

That point won't be reached until after 2030, when the peak of the baby boomers born in the 1950s and early '60s reach the end of their lifespans.

"You're going to see an increase in the number of deaths in Canada and the number of deaths will exceed the number of births - so natural increase will become negative," said Martel.

"The only factor of growth will then be immigration."

Link

Second, there is no debate about this. Political correctness has made a discussion impossible:

Given the critical importance, and magnitude, of immigration to Canadian population growth, the relative lack of public policy debate on the issue troubles many observers.

A candidate for the ADQ in the Quebec provincial election was dumped by his party on the weekend after telling a weekly newspaper that native Quebecers need to "boost their birth rate, otherwise the ethnics will swamp us."

Third, I have never seen Statistics-Canada speak in such terms about data. (In the Middle Ages, when the Pope issued a Bull Paper expressing full confidence in a bishop, it was an indication there was a problem):

Arora said the overall response rate was about 97 per cent, which is the historical norm. After the fact, the agency does "coverage measurement studies" on selected samples of the survey to verify accuracy. Typically, these tracing exercises (which won't be completed until autumn 2008) turn up an under-coverage rate of between two and three per cent, so estimated population totals are rounded up.

That's why Canada's estimated current population is actually around 33 million, but the census figure for May 16, 2006, shows 31,612,897 Canadians. The census count reflects only enumerated households.

"It is what it is," said Arora.

WTF?

Now we've got a federal bureaucracy that can't even fulfill its simplist mandate: count people in the country. Instead, it can provide complex data with complex analyses for complex questions that no one ever asked.

[leonardcohen]

There were three things I noticed in the reports of this census. The first concerns how Canada's population will change in the future:

Thank immigration for Canada's relatively robust growth. An average 240,000 newcomers per year more than compensated for the country's flat fertility rate.

I have never seen Statistics-Canada speak in such terms about data. (In the Middle Ages, when the Pope issued a Bull Paper expressing full confidence in a bishop, it was an indication there was a problem):

Arora said the overall response rate was about 97 per cent, which is the historical norm. After the fact, the agency does "coverage measurement studies" on selected samples of the survey to verify accuracy. Typically, these tracing exercises (which won't be completed until autumn 2008) turn up an under-coverage rate of between two and three per cent, so estimated population totals are rounded up.

That's why Canada's estimated current population is actually around 33 million, but the census figure for May 16, 2006, shows 31,612,897 Canadians. The census count reflects only enumerated households.

"It is what it is," said Arora.

WTF?

how we've got a federal bureaucracy that can't even fulfill its simplist mandate: count people in the country. Instead, it can provide complex data with complex analyses for complex questions that no one ever asked.

Aren't you being a bit hard on them? Perfection is hard to come by.

Two questions

1},what does the fertility rate need to be to maintain our population as it now stands?

2]What is the average response rate for other census being taken in other western nations and how do we compare with them?

[August1991]

Two questions

1},what does the fertility rate need to be to maintain our population as it now stands?

2]What is the average response rate for other census being taken in other western nations and how do we compare with them?

1. About 2.1 kids per mother. At present, we're at about 1.5. (No one ever mentions who is having these 1.5 kids.)

2. Dunno.

----

I hate to say this but it's true. It's cheaper for Canadians to import people than to make them themselves. In a global sense, it's probably better that we do too.

But many Canadians are about to enter a society of death, where people die. And the fewer young people around them will be very different from the people they have known.

BTW, a society of death is not a bad thing. It's quiet and calm. And older people have always viewed the young as immigrants.

[blueblood]

Two questions

1},what does the fertility rate need to be to maintain our population as it now stands?

2]What is the average response rate for other census being taken in other western nations and how do we compare with them?

1. About 2.1 kids per mother. At present, we're at about 1.5. (No one ever mentions who is having these 1.5 kids.)

2. Dunno.

----

I hate to say this but it's true. It's cheaper for Canadians to import people than to make them themselves. In a global sense, it's probably better that we do too.

But many Canadians are about to enter a society of death, where people die. And the fewer young people around them will be very different from the people they have known.

BTW, a society of death is not a bad thing. It's quiet and calm. And older people have always viewed the young as immigrants.

Canada is already a society of death. Take a drive around rural Canada to confirm this.

[Renegade]

1. About 2.1 kids per mother. At present, we're at about 1.5. (No one ever mentions who is having these 1.5 kids.)

No this is the replacement rate, not the fertility rate. If you include immigration, then the fertility rate can be much lower than 2.1, Even at our current 1.5 rate, the population continues to grow.

--------------------

People seem to take as a given that unending and continual population growth is a good thing. I have to ask why. It would seem to me that there are as many good arguments for population stability, or decrease as for growth.

[blueblood]

1. About 2.1 kids per mother. At present, we're at about 1.5. (No one ever mentions who is having these 1.5 kids.)

No this is the replacement rate, not the fertility rate. If you include immigration, then the fertility rate can be much lower than 2.1, Even at our current 1.5 rate, the population continues to grow.

--------------------

People seem to take as a given that unending and continual population growth is a good thing. I have to ask why. It would seem to me that there are as many good arguments for population stability, or decrease as for growth.

I don't see how 1.5 can result in growth unless immigration is factored in as it takes 2 kids per couple just to replace the parents.

For your last question I think the answer is the same one as why immigration is encouraged.

[Renegade]

how 1.5 can result in growth unless immigration is factored in as it takes 2 kids per couple just to replace the parents.

Yes, it is factored in, as I said "if you include immigration".

For your last question I think the answer is the same one as why immigration is encouraged.

And what is the answer?

[Remiel]

Society of death indeed... According to the numbers, the growth for rural Canada is on average half that of urban Canada. It brings the question to my mind: Should we be doing something (or more of something) to be spreading out our population over wider areas?

[White Doors]

Society of death indeed... According to the numbers, the growth for rural Canada is on average half that of urban Canada. It brings the question to my mind: Should we be doing something (or more of something) to be spreading out our population over wider areas?

Good question, but it is better for the environment to have large urban areas. However, is it better for us?

Growing up in rural NB, it was a great place for a family. Who knows?

[Remiel]

When you say it is better for the environment, do you mean in terms of absolute area, or total area? I mean, would it be worse to have more equally urbanized areas of lesser size, or is it better to have super-massive ones like Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe?

Anyway, I live in a rural area about half an hour from the outskirts of one city and forty-five minutes from another on the other side (which is probably the same distance, but has a bay in between here and there. I like where I live, this is where I grew up, but as far as I can see there are substantially fewer children in the subdivision across the road, even though there are more houses. In some ways its like a retirement community.

[White Doors]

Young people are drawn to the city because of opportunity. I bet the fertility rate of rural moms is better than that of urban moms.

Maybe we need to have a way to encourage employers to locate in more rural areas. The internet was suppiosed to do that.. but so far?

Oh, I meant in absolute terms. smalelr sized cities certainly are more liveable. Some people insist on having the ability to go to NHL game though, even if they don't actually go. I don't get it myself.

Sometimes bigger isn't always better.

Ask anyone who has lived in Calgary for the past 15 years.

[blueblood]

Young people are drawn to the city because of opportunity. I bet the fertility rate of rural moms is better than that of urban moms.

Maybe we need to have a way to encourage employers to locate in more rural areas. The internet was suppiosed to do that.. but so far?

Oh, I meant in absolute terms. smalelr sized cities certainly are more liveable. Some people insist on having the ability to go to NHL game though, even if they don't actually go. I don't get it myself.

Sometimes bigger isn't always better.

Ask anyone who has lived in Calgary for the past 15 years.

If you want to encourage more employers to rural areas, send out manufacturing out there and drop the taxes.

[Argus]

I have asked before, and no one has ever provided a satisfactory answer as to why we need growth, as to how Canada is better off with 33 million than it was with 20 million, or how it will be better off with 40 million. There seems to be an absolute presumption that Canada needs to have ever more people. But no one seems to know why.

As I have posted before, we need relatively few immigrants in order to maintain our current population. We could cut immigration by two thirds or more, and only take in the very best. But that wouldn't be politically acceptable to the major parties. Immigration is not about what is best for Canada, but what is best for the politicians of the day.

[White Doors]

Or we could encourage a more self-sustaining birth rate through family friendly tax policies.

I agree, our immigration, per capita, is too high.

Canada does need a larger population though. For such a huge country we need the tax base in order to properly take care of it.

[jdobbin]

Or we could encourage a more self-sustaining birth rate through family friendly tax policies.

I agree, our immigration, per capita, is too high.

Canada does need a larger population though. For such a huge country we need the tax base in order to properly take care of it.

Using the tax system to encourage people to have children has not worked all that well in the nations that have tried it. It is poor policy.

Canada isn't going to suddenly go back to three or four children per family.

[blueblood]

I disagree, a larger population means more people lining up to the trough. Our social programs would even be more half assed than ever. If everyone was working and we didn't have as much expensive government programs more people would work, but the people want all these programs that we can't really afford.

[jdobbin]

If you want to encourage more employers to rural areas, send out manufacturing out there and drop the taxes.

Who will send manufacturing to rural areas and who will drop taxes?

Manufacturers generally need a more steady source of workers even when they have favourable taxes. It is a chicken and the egg thing. Rural areas ask businesses to locate in their area. Businesses says the population doesn't warrant it.

Generally, the better solution is to try and create more local businesses that grow over time. In Manitoba, we've seen that with Morden, Winkler, Steinbach and Brandon.

[guyser]

I have asked before, and no one has ever provided a satisfactory answer as to why we need growth, as to how Canada is better off with 33 million than it was with 20 million, or how it will be better off with 40 million. There seems to be an absolute presumption that Canada needs to have ever more people. But no one seems to know why.

We need growth to continue the standard of living this country has, and to keep on improving it. We have a large group of people rapidly approaching retirement age, or dropping dead. As it is now, our birth rate cannot sustain that.And as the demographic gets older, then we would be in a net deficit.

and only take in the very best. But that wouldn't be politically acceptable to the major parties. Immigration is not about what is best for Canada, but what is best for the politicians of the day.

Partly true, we do need to screen better and attract better, we are losing out to the other G7 nations , although I think we takle as many if not more than anyone else, the USA excepted.

But then again, the CPC is only allowing immigrants in so that they can have them vote CPC.

Immigrants are our future.

[Renegade]

We need growth to continue the standard of living this country has, and to keep on improving it. We have a large group of people rapidly approaching retirement age, or dropping dead. As it is now, our birth rate cannot sustain that.And as the demographic gets older, then we would be in a net deficit.

Does it not strike you that what you are describing is a pyramid scheme, and one which is not indefinately sustainable? Not only that, an increasing population base consumes resources and increases environmental impact. The standard of living is only sustained by the retirement community based upon taxes generated by the working population. Perhaps the solution is for the group approaching retirement and at the top of the pyramid to get used to a more realistic standard of living.

[Saturn]

Two questions

1},what does the fertility rate need to be to maintain our population as it now stands?

2]What is the average response rate for other census being taken in other western nations and how do we compare with them?

1) Depends on the age at which women have children. The current fertility rate is 1.5 and the natural growth rate is still positive (births exceed deaths).

2) About the highest in the developed world. In the US, it's under 70%. August is being an a**e again.

Hey, August, you have a great idea how to count everybody who doesn't want to be counted? Let's hear it.

[Saturn]

We need growth to continue the standard of living this country has, and to keep on improving it. We have a large group of people rapidly approaching retirement age, or dropping dead. As it is now, our birth rate cannot sustain that.And as the demographic gets older, then we would be in a net deficit.

So what you are saying is that our population must grow exponentially to maintain our standard of living. Have you considered what this actually means in terms of space and resources? The southern parts of the country are already very densely populated - at par with Europe. There really isn't any room for growth rates of the babyboom magnitude.