Most Canadians don’t know who Mark Wiseman is, much less why they should care about him. But in their increasingly desperate attempts to reach for any available straw, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada are trying to change that. Wiseman, who has agreed to advise Liberal leader Mark Carney, is the former chair of the Alberta Investment Management Corporation and former president and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Does he sound staid? Boring, even? Wrong: according to Poilievre and his proxies, Wiseman is a dangerous radical ideologue.
That’s because Wiseman is also associated with the Century Initiative, a group that advocates boosting Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100. “By bringing on Mr. Wiseman, it shows that Mark Carney supports the Liberal Century Initiative to nearly triple our population to 100 million people,” Poilievre said in response to a recent question on the topic. “That is the radical Liberal agenda on immigration.”
I suppose it’s good that Poilievre is indirectly supporting the beleaguered Canadian aluminum industry, given how much tinfoil consumption this has already generated. The truth, however, is that there is nothing radical about growing Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100. The underlying math implies a population growth rate of 1.17 per cent, which as Laval University economics professor Stephen Gordon noted on social media would be “well within the range we saw before Trudeau took power.”
In 1950 — the same distance into the past as 2100 is into the future — Canada’s population was just shy of 14 million. We’ve grown our population by 66 per cent since then. What the Century Initiative is putting on the table is less than 60 per cent growth over 75 years — a more modest increase than what we’ve already seen for generations.
Former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney described the idea a few years ago as “a new national policy,” harkening back to the one that helped build the country in the first place. As he told an audience back in 2021, “if we are going to maintain … our internal strength and our growth and our capacity and our outside influence, we need more people – a lot more.”
The combination of an aging population and declining birth rates is leading Canada, like every other developed nation on earth, into a demographic death trap. Absent a growing population, we’ll either need to pay a lot more taxes to fund the growing bill associated with an aging population or cut the benefits they’ve come to expect. As RBC economist Carrie Freestone wrote in a 2024 research note, “an aging population does create substantial costs for an economy that need to be paid at some point. Not being proactive in getting ahead of that curve is effectively passing on the costs to future taxpayers.”
It’s probably tempting — and maybe even irresistible — for Carney and his team to steer around this issue. The longstanding Canadian consensus around the benefits of immigration has collapsed over the last few years, and the government he inherited was responsible for a large part of that. Its failure to more quickly apprehend and address the housing crisis and the role surging immigration was playing in it contributed significantly to the 2023-24 collapse in the party’s own public support and poll numbers.
But there’s an opportunity here for the Liberals to reorient the immigration debate around our current circumstances. Right now, Canada could use a lot more of the internal strength, capacity and outside influence that former prime minister Mulroney referenced. And with the United States already hemorrhaging talented people — three prominent Yale professors, including historian Timothy Snyder, have already decamped for Canada — Canada has a generational opportunity to use immigration to its economic and cultural advantage.
A necessary precondition here are policies and investments around housing, transportation and healthcare that ensures we don’t repeat the mistakes of the last few years. But taken together (and pursued diligently) it could help Canada increase its global reach and influence — and reduce its economic and military reliance on the United States. Now, perhaps more than ever, that’s something that Canadians are open to supporting.
Leaning into the Century Initiative’s goals would also further disorient the Conservatives, mostly by tempting Poilievre and his proxies to go down conspiratorial rabbit holes rather than addressing the real issue in this campaign. During a recent panel appearance at the Empire Club, conservative strategist Kory Teneycke — who recently helped steer Doug Ford to yet another majority government — pointed out just how dangerous this kind of distraction is right now for the Conservatives. “You’ve gotta have a pivot that is taking some of the momentum of that issue shift and directing it towards things that are yours. It’s not going to happen if you're talking about the World Economic Forum and or the Century Initiative or god knows what other thing that is of little or no relevance to voters."
The Century Initiative’s manifesto says that “in an era of increasing global competition and uncertainty, long-term population planning is not just an opportunity — it’s a necessity for safeguarding Canada’s sovereignty and securing its place on the world stage.” Those sound like important priorities right now. Mark Carney should dare Pierre Poilievre to disagree.
Comments
It's completely flawed thinking to imagine that we need to grow our population to 100 million. We are already stretching beyond earth's carrying capacity, not only around the world but especially in Canada. Canadians use more energy and resources per capita than all but 8 other countries. Tripling our population would result in massive loss of farmland, huge energy use increases (even if all carbon neutral, the carbon released from expanding the generation capacity to reach that need would be phenomenal), and a huge increase in food production needs at a time when prime farmland would be getting swallowed up by more housing and climate change would be exacerbating crop-destroying droughts and floods.
We should instead be moving towards natural depopulation. Declining populations are not necessarily a disaster - don't believe the fear-mongering of pronatalists (Elon Musk being a prominant one - Victor Orban and Vladimir Putin are as well). While there will be some challenges adjusting to a declining population, we already know that continued growth is the path to disaster - it's what got us into this mess. An ordered reduction in population in every country through voluntary individual family planning choices is the right way for us to get to long-term sustainability. Once we get there, steady state can be the goal, but we are at something like 4-5 earths of carrying capacity now. There's nothing special about Canada that says it should be going the opposite way the world should be going. We all need to do our part.
Robin Green, you put it very well.I one hundred percent agree with you. One hundred million people in Canada would be an absolute disaster! Just think of the natural spaces we enjoy and need that would be destroyed. They are being wrecked with just 40 million.
Somehow sober thought surrounding climate change has left the building, even among progressive politicians and outlets.
We’re all frothing at the mouth about protectionism everyone seems to forget we are in the middle of climate catastrophe that’s only getting worse
We've no time for an "ordered reduction" - it's the overconsuming people alive today who are the problem.
Exactly.
If Canadians electrified their domestic economy and adopted a much better conservation and urbanist ethic and thus cut their carbon footprint by 2/3, you can increase the population and provide a better quality of life.
Depopulation is a very dumb concept. How do you do that, exactly? Mass sterilization? Draconian one child laws? Forcing anti-libido drugs onto youth with jumping hormones? Building huge walls around mature cities and countries?
Those who promote such stupid ideas haven't done their research. The world's population growth is already slowing and will hit a peak at about 10 billion. How was this done? Education of women and girls, better economic opportunities in poor countries through things like micro loans and so forth.
Let natural demographics take care of the population. Focus instead on reducing per capita emmisions and energy consumption while maintaining or even improving the quality of life.
Agreed. And the whole demographic disaster thesis is far overblown. Consider the 50s. The paid workforce was largely men, with few women participating (they did lots of other stuff, but from "the economy"s point of view they weren't making money). Productivity was much lower than it is today. And there was a huge demographic that did no work and needed a great deal of care--the baby boomers when they were kids. Masses of schools and universities needed to be built to serve this huge demographic, mass vaccinations laid on, medical care for all the childhood illnesses back when kids got measles and tonsilitis and whatnot.
And . . . it was the greatest economic boom in history.
As a side note, for every time I see a "demographic doom from old people, nobody available to take care of them" pronouncement I also see a "mass unemployment doom from automation and AI" pronouncement. Maybe those people should talk to each other and figure out which of those dooms takes precedence, because they can't both happen.
Let us also note that Japan is far further into this aging-and-shrinking-population demographic event than we are, and they're basically doing fine. Their economic growth is low, but their economic growth PER CAPITA is OK. They have some economic problems, but those don't seem particularly related to the demographic issue.
All in all, I just don't buy it. The reason this is considered a problem is because it may force us to use some resources to help people that might otherwise have gone into the pockets of the ultra-wealthy.
Well said.
There are so many logical flaws in this counter argument it is difficult to know where to start! Boomers: Yes, there are a lot of us, and we are the richest generation of Canadians ever. Soon, in demographic terms, we will all be dead, and we will leave behind a smaller population of kids that will inherit all that wealth - surely enough $$ to fund a transition to a non-carbon economy, eh? And those immigrants will come from overseas, largely from countries that already have low birth rates, so the NET gain in world-wide population is not significant. As for all the energy we use - if we de-carbonize, then that will be a moot point too.
Seriously, I'm not a great fan of growth, but to assume that 1% per annum is a disaster is ridiculous (see comments about decarbonizing). And as for sprawling all over the best farmland in pre-1950-style suburbs - well that's up to your generation to avoid - we instituted the Agricultural Land Reserve in BC. The urban design skills and models for '15 min. cities' are here for the taking already.
Max gives his point of view of a Canada with a population of 100 M.
But he conveniently forgets that Canada is a country of Two Solitudes. In English-speaking Canada, it is strickly a question of the pros and cons of such a policy. But as a linguistic minority, and since English is the dominant language, integration of immigrants in our languague and culture IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE for us. It goes back to the Durham report (1839) where one of the cornerstone of this hostile, discrimatory « to swamp the French» policy was immigration. After 2 centuries of bucking this kind of hostile discrimination, we have a knee-jerk reaction.
Yes, we have to integrate newcomers; «la francisation » goes on with some ups and downs. I can provide a long list of politicians and artists whose parents (or themselves) were born in a foreign country. Whether their names be Dany Laferrière, Kim Thuy, Boucar Diouf, Amir Khadir or Pablo Rodriguez, each is now a plus in the promotion of our language.
Given that, worldwide, English is the dominant language, and in a world of modern communications, how can a linguistic minority survive AND THRIVE in a Canada of 100 Millions?
I too agree with Robin Green. CNO neglects to mention a single issue associated with a growing population, very disappointing and negligent. If the entire world took this approach (and many are) we could forecast a world population of over 20 billion people. Why do you think there is so much geopolitical strife in the world today? And that’s with 8 billion.
"...we could forecast a world population of over 20 billion people."
Poppycock. Please do a modicum of research into world demographic trends. That will take all of 5 seconds on Google.
We should stop listening to people who want to scapegoat immigrants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRA3QLPw1jc) for poor policy choices made by our governments.
Canada must be emitting zero carbon as soon as possible, so whether we have 38 m or 100 m people is irrelevant from a climate standpoint.
I highly recommend Gaia Vince's book 'Nomad Century', an argument for accepting climate migrants as part of our responsibility as a country causing climate breakdown and a powerful argument for how migration makes both the receiving and original home countries stronger.
Let me qualify "irrelevant from a climate standpoint."
If, as Robin Green writes, even the upfront carbon to create carbon-free energy infrastructure will be much greater with more people, what would Robin suggest? That people stay in Global South countries and don't get infrastructure that's similar to ours in Canada?
Think about that for a minute. Does anyone really want to argue that Canada should remain an overconsuming nation - keeping others out, lest they also overconsume - with the places they are currently living not allowed to develop similar infrastructure to what we have in Canada?
Robin's argument is really for Canada to buckle down and do its part in rapidly reducing consumption and decarbonising (heat pumps, better building codes, compact cities, vastly better public transit, etc.); that part I think we can agree on. People moving around on a globe experiencing climate breakdown is inevitable; let's think about this without using false climate arguments as a shield against welcoming some of them.
Excellent comment.
Canada has 10 million km2 of land. Granted, the lower third is where most of us reside, but that's still far, far larger than most countries have.
Canada has room to accommodate immigrants and refugees. Space isn't a legit concern. Per capita consumption is where we need to focus on becoming more efficient, and that can only help also mitigate housing shortages and food security. Comfortable low rise density and nearby continuous sidewalk retail can work wonders in that regard.
Electricity is 90% efficient in creating work. Burning fossil fuels is 10%-15% efficient in creating work, but is very good at generating megatonnes of CO2 laden waste heat. Electrification is one of the best methods to lower emissions and use dramatically less energy to create the same amount of work as burning hydrocarbons. That's just physics.
Living in compact walkable and transit-oriented communities and protecting food producing land immediately adjacent to our cities is also a very effective set of policies.
The peak in fossil fuel demand is just around the corner. That is a very good opportunity to plan for and budget a national smart electricity grid and to focus on improving the efficacy of our cities where 85% of us live.
There will always be room for immigration. All that and the above issues require is a plan. Even the complications and setbacks imposed on us by Trump are one big set of opportunities to recalibrate Canada for the better.
More to the excellent points by Robin Green and Hugh Ryder, the flawed and tired logic of needing more people to handle the aging problem etc., what is the world going to do when significant numbers of women in developing countries become better educated and families become more financially secure? The pundits tell us (for decades) that population growth will slow significantly and will even decrease. Then how are countries going to handle the "aging out" or decreasing population issues facing them? Not to mention that if we get to 100 million, what does a country do when that notably larger population starts "aging out"? Fill it with more people? 150 million? 200 million? It's an argument that takes the past history and projects to the future as if that is the only practical solution, even if it makes no real sense when critically evaluated. Time to stop listening to those who can't come up with a better solution -- namely, dealing with the aging issue using other goggles for vision. Technological improvements and robotic production lines could be proffered, etc. Of course, that only brings on a whole new set of problems. (Time could allow me to offer a better articulation of this issue, but given the ways things go, this article and its comments have probably already "aged out", with people moving on.)
We don't need to argue that more people are needed because we're an aging population to argue for continuing to accept migrants. We don't even need to argue that it will benefit us all (though it undoubtedly will). We can just look south and realize that Don/Elon are attacking migration.
Precisely. And I'd add Victor Orban and the Alternative for Germany whose right wing focus os first and foremost on banning migrants, let alone strangling off immigration.
Reading this comment reminded me of my mother, and then my dad.
My mother lost her independence and spent four months in hospital. She never went home again, and was instead shipped off to a care facility not of her or our choice, but with top line care nonetheless.
In one regard that was a success story because she lived for another 12 years with a reasonably good quality of life. She would never have had another 12 years without the immigrants who worked there. There wasn't a single first generation NON-immigrant out of the 150 staff who worked the floor and tended to resident patients in that care facility. Not one! The only second+ generation Canadians present in the facility worked in management, and they didn't even care to eat the food from their own cafeteria.
The staff were pretty evenly divided among people with limited foreign nursing experience between Filipinos, Africans and South Asians. These are the people who kept my mother alive and well for years, despite her multiple health issues. Long term relationships were built and tears were shed when my mother passed. This is the same situation in every care facility across the nation. Millions of immigrants are looking after our elders and doing jobs we would never do.
So what's the alternative -- robotics? That is completely ludicrous. This is not a science fiction comic book. Younger generations looking after their elders? That's already happening and it's taking a huge toll. I know that from first hand experience. Emotional and physical burn out and weeks of unpaid time off of work are the penalties paid by family, most of whom are not adequately equipped to deal with medication management, lifting an elder into and out of bed without mechanical aids, being available 24/7 to help an ailing parent to the bathroom and back every two hours, managing meals and so on.
Frail elders looking after their elderly, infirm spouses are especially vulnerable to an early demise. My 89-year old dad succumbed quickly after looking after my step mother for a year before she could get a bed at a care facility.
There is no substitution for immigrant labour. Period. Moreover, it's a path to citizenship just as valid as our own from previous generations of immigrants.
The climate fight is a different battle. Why should immigrants and refugees be rejected with discredited arguments from the left that magically tie immigrants to the notion of unlimited growth and high emissions? That argument is eerily parallel with the right wing anti-immigrant stance based on maintaining racial purity, or to eugenics where the mentally ill and those with chronic diseases are sterilized without their or their family's consent. Next in line is the aged.
By all means, build more housing with new levels of energy efficiency, fund heat pumps across the land, build our urban rail, electrify everything, lower our per capita emissions, increase funding for education and health care at home and in the developing world, but leave immigrants alone.
I too disagree with the premise of this article, that more people will solve our problems. Normally I skip these articles, but decided to read this one with the hopes that perhaps my mind would be changed by new information. None was forthcoming.
It will be interesting to see the population trajectory as it becomes ever more influenced by various factors. Included in these is the fertility decline (one in seven couples cannot conceive today), climate migration (bringing 2 tonne CO2/year people into a “developed” country where they aspire to attain our 14 tonne CO2/year lifestyle), vast parts of the US becoming uninhabitable, causing northern migration, etc.
Because of all this we had better become more welcoming to newcomers, regardless of their origins, as we likely will have no choice as to whether they come here or not. People are people and our best defence of democracy will be integrating them and making all of society more equal. A society that strives for equality is happier and safer for all.
"...(bringing 2 tonne CO2/year people into a “developed” country where they aspire to attain our 14 tonne CO2/year lifestyle),..."
This requires yet another admonishment to do your research. Please cite the source of that little factoid. Don't know? Well I do. It's OPEC. You know, the organization that produces very rosy reports filled with fancy computed models of unlimited growth in oil demand to 2050 and beyond. The source that is loved by Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre.
Progressives have uncanny parallels with the right on energy and immigration. It's really disconcerting to read these statements right out of the Exxon and Aramco playbook in the CNO.
The problem isn't with the OPEC modelling, it's the assumptions they base them on. The most recent counter to the OPEC narrative comes from the IEA, Bloomberg NEF, Rystad, S&P Global and others, not exactly the type of organizations that aren't capable of independent research of ALL energy sources or who are incapable of producing computer models. Low and behold, they independently concluded that the peak in oil demand will arrive in or about the year 2030. Whether the peak is followed by a plateau or a steep decline (or somewhere in between) depends on the efficacy of alternative energy. On that note, solar is the cheapest form of energy ever invented, and combined with wind the investments are now approaching triple the investments in fossil fuels.
Further, OPEC ignored China in its is oil-is-forever take on the Global South. China is very active there and is building ports and railways and inundating developing nations with emission free renewables. This is not altruistic; China is building a roster of nations who are dependent on it for supplies and debt. China itself is 50% of the way to supplying all of its own energy requirements from renewables. In essence, a large anti-democratic authoritarian regime is now being the most effective instrument to decarbonise the world economy. The EU follows.
I have never believed that poverty stricken people in developing nations aspire to Land Rovers and palaces, even though many of their corrupt leaders do so. Our average suburb is riven with car and fossil fuel dependency and terrible urbanism, but that is fixable without lowering our quality of life. People in poor countries aspiring to freely increase their quality of life can do so with good education (especially for girls) and solar power. It's a simple but very effective start.
Alex wrote: "… solar is the cheapest form of energy ever invented, and combined with wind the investments are now approaching triple the investments in fossil fuels."
Not true. Why keep repeating this disinformation? Doing readers a disservice.
Per the IEA, $2 trillion is the value of the clean tech category in total. Renewable power = $771 B. Grids and storage = $452 B. Subtotal = $1,223 B.
Fossil fuels = $1,116 B.
The ratio is 1.1 to 1. Not double or triple.
The IEA compares investment in "clean technologies" — a long list of items grouped in several categories —versus fossil fuel supply and power generation.
The IEA compares two energy systems and throws in everything including the CCS kitchen sink on the clean tech side, but simply lists fossil fuel supply by itself, excluding downstream end-use. Fair comparison?
So we have heat pumps and EVs grouped separately from renewables under clean tech, but no gas furnaces and ICE cars under "unclean" tech.
The IEA's "clean technology" (not "renewables") category also includes CCS, which perpetuates fossil fuels.
In the end-use category, fossil-fuel related investments far exceed clean tech. Transportation fuels (ICE cars, aviation, shipping, long-distance trucking and cargo delivery, urban transit, and rail), gas furnaces, industrial heat (coal-fired boilers, gas turbines, industrial blast furnaces), steel-making, petrochemicals (including plastics and fertilizers), etc.
The IEA excludes all such investments from its calculation.
IEA: "Change in global oil demand in selected regions, 2023-2035" (2024)
Oil demand falls in Europe and N America, but grows elsewhere: China, India, SE Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
Further, clean energy investment is extremely uneven. China's clean tech investments exceed investments by the USA and EU combined, with developing nations lagging far behind.
The IEA projects that developing nations with two-thirds of the global population will continue to lag badly in clean energy investment. So what will they use instead?
Fossil fuels. For the majority of the world's population -- in the regions where energy demand is set to rise the most.
Fossil fuels have a two-centuries-plus head start. Major fossil fuel infrastructure (pipelines, oil tankers) lasts for decades. Even if more investment pours into clean tech today, much of the unclean tech remains in use — not superseded or retired.
The majority of fossil fuel infrastructure needed this century is already in place. Whereas most clean tech infrastructure is being built out from scratch. One more reason that the IEA's comparison is misleading.
Fossil fuel investment is still growing. Which means our climate problem is growing worse. You can build all the clean tech in the world, but with rising GHG emissions the Earth will continue to warm. Adding clean tech to existing and expanding fossil fuel infrastructure does not solve our climate problem.
Energy demand continues to outpace renewable energy supply. Fossil fuels make up the difference.
As long as fossil-fuel investment increases, our emissions problems accelerates. Even if fossil-fuel investment holds steady or decreases, our emissions problem continues. It is only when renewables actually displace fossil fuels that emissions start to go down. We are not at that point yet. Investment in renewables is still in addition to increasing investment in fossil fuels.
IEA: "Upstream oil and gas investment is expected to increase by 7% in 2024 to reach USD 570 billion, following a 9% rise in 2023. This is being led by Middle East and Asian NOCs, which have increased their investments in oil and gas by over 50% since 2017, and which account for almost the entire rise in spending for 2023-2024.
"Investment in coal has been rising steadily in recent years, and more than 50 GW of unabated coal-fired power generation was approved in 2023, the most since 2015, and almost all of this was in China."
IEA: World Energy Investment 2024 report: Overview and key findings
If population growth is required to support our "aging population", that is a prescription for infinite growth.
Infinite growth in a finite world is unsustainable.
Economists, demographers, and politicians advocating infinite growth are disconnected from ecological realities. Our ecosystems are already degrading year by year. Population growth multiplies our average ecological footprint. A mass extinction is already underway.
How can anyone conscionably advocate for accelerating the loss and damage?
The solution to a massive influx of climate refugees is obviously to address climate change directly. Not wait for the problem to grow out of control
Some conservative politicians advocate massive population growth. Not just Liberals.
"Red Deer at 1 million? Danielle Smith dreams of a new Alberta metropolis" (CBC, Apr 13, 2024)
"Alberta called. Now it says too many people showed up' (Toronto Star, Sept. 24, 2024)
"It was just six months ago that Premier Danielle Smith was bragging about Alberta’s population growth and cheerfully predicting that we would hit 10 million people by 2050. Remember 'Alberta is Calling?'"
"Alberta government backs away from podcast comments made by Premier Smith, Calgary MLA" (CityNews Edmonton, August 9, 2024)
"Alberta’s governing UCP contradicted itself Friday regarding past comments made by both Premier Danielle Smith and Calgary-Lougheed MLA Eric Bouchard.
"The backing away followed heavy criticism, including from conservatives, over a pair of podcast videos regarding COVID-19 vaccines and doubling Alberta’s population to 10 million people by 2050.
"'Let’s have an aggressive target to double our population,' Smith told the Shaun Newman Podcast in January.
"'People are going to want to come here, and we have to embrace them, and we want to build this place out.'
Of course, conservative pro-growthers don't want just anybody. They want the right people. People who "share our values". Code for "white people".
why does it have to be through immigration and not growth internally? Can we not take the cost associated with immigration and inject it into the people already here?
Immigration will probably taper off long before 2100. By 2060, the entire planet could be at ZPG, and most of the "developing" countries will be a lot more "developed". They'll be on solar and wind energy, not dependent on foreign energy imports.
And their urge to emigrate could be rapidly falling.
India fell below replacement children/woman a few years ago. China is already shrinking. Immigration already depends on large chunks of the planet being third-rate places to be an educated middle-class person. If India, China, Iran became more democratic - and their public had a sense that things were headed uphill - immigration could fall sharply.
On the one hand, I'm sharply aware that immigration has proven to be a great way for fascists to take power - the USA is done, Germany, France, and Spain had near-death experiences for the Left there. And, of course, that you have to build the infrastructure, none more important than housing.
We should be pushing immigration as hard as we can - which is not-so-hard at the moment - by getting the housing rolling, and try to manage the backlash. Because the article is correct, that we want this growth; the problem isn't the shocking "100M in 75 years", it's that we won't get 75 years of it. Maybe not 35.
Canada's population was about 14 million in 1950 and is about 40 million today. That means it grew by 186% since 1950, not 66%.
Further growth to 100 million represents 150% growth, not 60%.
100% growth is a doubling of population.