Canada's Population Declines For First Time In History

[Economy 52,895]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-population-decline-first-time-9.7133643

 

Canada's population shrank 102,000 from Jan 2025 to Jan 2026 a 0.2% decline. It is the first time in history since Confederation in 1867 that this has occured.

 

Behind this, a sharp reversal in immigration policy especially when it comes to temporary residents (mainly temporary foreign workers and students)

 

Previously Canadas Immigration targets had been raised to 500,000 annually for permanent residences but no hard limit on temporary visa workers and students which caused the population to explode. Post pandemic Canada was growing over 1 Million people per year, a growth rate of over 3.5% (highest in developed world) which is a rate so high it is typically only seen in Africas highest fertility Nations and not seen in western world since the peak baby boom years in late 1950s. It also cased severe housing issues, healthcare and other social service strains

 

Permanent residents have been reduced to just over 300,000 annually which is still a solid number relative to population but temporary residences and students got a much stricter change and now the Government is targeting temporary residents to fall from a peak of 7% to below 5% of population

 

The outright decline should be a tenporary phenomenom as many temporary residences roll off expired visas in much greater numbers than new ones coming in. Once the roll ovet effect ends, population growth should resume but much slower and controlled than before

 

 

Edited March 23 by Economy

[BrandyFinest 880]

Interesting. Not related to this thread, but IK South Korea and Japan are talked about a lot in relation to their population decline. 

[Bronco 25,839]

5 hours ago, BrandyFinest said:

Interesting. Not related to this thread, but IK South Korea and Japan are talked about a lot in relation to their population decline. 

For them, its a case of the birth population declining. Their birth rates are deeper in the hole than fan opinions of Joanne & Chromatica. 
Yet Japan wants to blame it all on immigrants (which are younger and fighting their demographic issues) rather than addressing the fact that Japanese working culture is directly hostile to families. 

[Economy 52,895]

2 hours ago, Bronco said:

For them, its a case of the birth population declining. Their birth rates are deeper in the hole than fan opinions of Joanne & Chromatica. 
Yet Japan wants to blame it all on immigrants (which are younger and fighting their demographic issues) rather than addressing the fact that Japanese working culture is directly hostile to families. 

Funny enough in Canada i think unsistainable immogration  accelerated our birth rate decline. Canada used to be somewhere between middle of the pack in birth rates in developed world to maybe actually a bit above as Japan and almost all of Europe (minus scandinavia and France) were lower. Now Canadas has dropped a lot in last several years to almost as bad as some of the worst European Nations.

 

The extreme housing situation I believe is the biggest economic factor holding back household formation. You can have a job and afford to fee children but if you cant afford to move out of your parents basement or upgrade from a 400sqft to 500sqft 1 bedroom condo your probably not going to be very inclined to have children if you have no space

 

Canada has a lot of larger housing units compared to most Nations tbh. Probably only USA, Australia and NZ compete in home sizes especially in the suburbs (but even in the cities tbh)

 

The problem is all those homes are owned by GenX and to an extent the older boomers as well. They are past the point of having kids or starting families but they hold on to that existing stock of bigger homes while we no longer build many homes these days to add stock

 

I dont think anyone should be forced to sell their home, your home is something thats precious to you. But it is problematic in a way the older generations are no longer choosing to downsize.

[Bronco 25,839]

5 minutes ago, Economy said:

Funny enough in Canada i think unsistainable immogration  accelerated our birth rate decline. Canada used to be somewhere between middle of the pack in birth rates in developed world to maybe actually a bit above as Japan and almost all of Europe (minus scandinavia and France) were lower. Now Canadas has dropped a lot in last several years to almost as bad as some of the worst European Nations.

 

The extreme housing situation I believe is the biggest economic factor holding back household formation. You can have a job and afford to fee children but if you cant afford to move out of your parents basement or upgrade from a 400sqft to 500sqft 1 bedroom condo your probably not going to be very inclined to have children if you have no space

 

Canada has a lot of larger housing units compared to most Nations tbh. Probably only USA, Australia and NZ compete in home sizes especially in the suburbs (but even in the cities tbh)

 

The problem is all those homes are owned by GenX and to an extent the older boomers as well. They are past the point of having kids or starting families but they hold on to that existing stock of bigger homes while we no longer build many homes these days to add stock

 

I dont think anyone should be forced to sell their home, your home is something thats precious to you. But it is problematic in a way the older generations are no longer choosing to downsize.

It's a chicken & the egg situation tbh. 

The real issue, in virtually all advanced economies, is that governments increasingly abandoned long term economic planning in favour of "reganomics". Which led to a culture of tax cut governments ossicliating with tax & spend governments. With neither of the government models actually prioritising fixing the roof while was the sun was shining. 

And the switch from social housing dominating the housing stock to private ownership/buy to rents has created this strange narrative where normal investments are seen as something where you can potentially lose money due to the nature of the market but investments in housing need protecting and must not be allowed to lose. Which naturally means, governments are reluctant to expand housing stock as it would cause economic issues (because we decided it was sensible to build economies on scarce housing stock..). 

Immigration has exacerbated an issue that was already growing. Because it increases scarcity. 

But we're locked in a cycle now, that governments refuse to address, where naturalised populations are having less children & often having them later due to economic stresses delaying family planning. Which is resulting in a growing reliance on immigrant labour to fill the gaps created, which then further exacerbates the economic issues. Which then means that 2nd gen immigrant communities are displaying the same issues that the naturalised communities had which led to the 1st gen immigrants coming in. 

 

[Delulu Rogers 7,668]

9 hours ago, Economy said:

Previously Canadas Immigration targets had been raised to 500,000 annually for permanent residences but no hard limit on temporary visa workers and students which caused the population to explode.

I was always confused by this. Does this mean 500k NEW people are coming to the country on PRs or does it mean 500k people who have already been living in the country fro years on visas and permits etc getting converted to PR?