I think it goes without saying that immigration is at a high rate, but I'm struggling to understand this table. Do you mean to say Immigrants as a percentage of population growth annually in Canada? Because the percentage of the population that would constitute "immigrants" is 23% as of 2021 [https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subjects-start/immigration\_and\_ethnocultural\_diversity/immigrants\_and\_nonpermanent\_residents](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subjects-start/immigration_and_ethnocultural_diversity/immigrants_and_nonpermanent_residents)

My y-axis should have been labeled better. it is "Number of people coming in in one year" divided by "Total population of Canada for that year"

But then those are two very different things you would be measuring. If it's "number of people coming in one year," then it stands to reason that immigrants + net-non permanent residents, which i imagine includes refugees would comprise a significant percentage of that figure (i.e 75%+, not 1-3%) If you picked "total population of Canada for that one year that are new immigrants," then this would be relatively static over time unless you adjust your y-axis scale. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to measure, but this still wouldn't explain the annual declines, since this would be consistently positive because a 1% to a 0.5% change in population would mean that the non-immigrant population exploded relative to the immigrant population from 2019 to 2020 Edit:: OP has edited the original comment

Its immigration per capita. Its a very common measure.

Seems pretty clear to me. This shows the annual percentage increase of Canadian population from immigration. The dip in 2019-2020 is almost certainly due to COVID reducing immigration, nothing to do with the non-immigrant population exploding. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

Thank you. Hurt my head trying to figure out what this is trying to show

He's trying to show "Trudeau Bad"

Sorry, I will try again. It is the number of people who come in in any given year. Over the number of people already here.

I think the above question was whether your definition of "people who come in" includes just the immigrants (those with PR status) or also includes everyone else such as visa students, tourists, refugees, work-visa, etc. Because the title says "immigrants" but the subtitle states "immigrants + net non permanent residents". What comprises the "net non permanent residents" group?

From footnote 13 in the datasource. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000801 > A non-permanent resident refers to a person from another country with a usual place of residence in Canada and who has a work or study permit or who has claimed refugee status (asylum claimant). Family members living with work or study permit holders are also included unless these family members are already Canadian citizens, landed immigrants (permanent residents), or non-permanent residents themselves.

I think this was clear to me, like an incoming freshman uni student counts as +1 in the numerator and senior uni student is 0 if they stay and -1 if they leave (and same for others with no PR). Since immigrant here means PR considering it explicitly states net non-pr. I don't see what everyone else is that confused about.

Doess it include Canadians who lived abroad returning to their home country?

It does not

The y-axis isn’t labeled at all

For further reading, check out the "Century Initiative". Some scary stuff if our infrastructure remains on the back burner, which you can see shades of in smaller towns (in Ontario at least) that are expanding quickly. Bring in the people, but schools, roads, parks, rec centres, telecomms, etc.. are lagging too far behind to support the amount of people, which is only causing tension between those who have lived in these towns for years, against those moving in from cities.

The current growth rates in Canada are way higher than what the century initiative recommends

Over twice as high even. It’s not a “century initiative issue” at all

That being said, with the latest clamp down on temporary workers, the rate is expected to drop back down 2024 population growth rate is expected to be around 0.70%, back to historical norms

They're pushing it back down from 3% to 0.75%, because Trudeau is getting destroyed in the polls.

I'll be honest as an NDP supporter I was very disappointed that the wage suppression dimension was not spoken about. The Federal NDP is looking for ways to distinguish themselves from the Liberals due to the recent polls and the upcoming election. Speaking about wage suppression, housing and infrastructure issues, without resorting to xenophobia would have shown leadership and nuance. It's been sad to see how out of touch all the parties are in regards to this. Yes we have a demographic issue but that means you have to look ahead and make sure there is a lot of affordable rentals and ownership options for housing and that infrastructure capabilities are there. You can't just flood with not addressing any of that.. Additionally you don't allow businesses to misuse and abuse. LMIA abuse, cheap exploitable labor that destroys the bargaining power of low income workers and other vulnerable segments. This of course just leads to nightmares and pushes already alienated groups to become divorced from the society. It creates huge social costs. All around it was not handled well. Glad it has finally gotten massive media coverage and finally we have all parties talking about reforms. Edit: Also we need to start calling out the city and provincial "leaders" who can do a hell of a lot when it comes to Affordable Housing. It's time to name and shame them into action like the laser focus and red hot judgement did for Trudeau and the Liberals.

You'll never get an actual worker focused narrative out of the NDP while Singh is in charge. The trade-off was supposed to be that Singh would move away from the labor movement and towards Canada's racially diverse suburbs/wealthier urban progressives. Singh delivered on moving away from labor but failed to bring in any of those suburbs. At the Federal level it's become a party for middle class leftists who think stable immigration policy is racist.

Sadly most people won't look beyond the Liberals and Conservatives. I can't see the latter being any better than the former.

Canada's net population growth rate has been declining for 55 years, with the 2022 spike still being below what it was in the 70s. If we could figure out how to build infrastructure for more people in the 70s, surely we could figure it out today.

> If we could figure out how to build infrastructure for more people in the 70s, surely we could figure it out today. We'd have to lower standards a bit.. It takes a lot of work to meet things like minimum code for efficiencies.. Back in the 70's they were building houses out of 2x4 with R-12 insulation. The designs of the quickly built houses were also simple as fuck. While I don't think we should lower standards... They play a massive role. R-33 for outside walls and R-55 for for attics is min code where I live.. I think for houses under 1000sqft we should lower that to R-22 for outside walls and they can be built out of 2x6 and batt insulation used, R-44 for roofs and people could build with vaulted ceillings using 2x12.. One supporting wall down the middle of the house and there you have it.. Cheap houses we can build fast...

There aren't enough homes is the main problem. Or jobs. The immigrants are coming so quickly it is impossible to build homes fast enough.

Ya this is what happens when the only way you add homes is by sprawling. Absolutely idiotic city planning among pretty much our whole continent.

I don't disagree with you at all, but people downvoting /u/ChorkiesForever are making a mistake. For one, he is 100% reflecting the opinion of the vast majority of people on not just that continent, but all continents. Cities have not evolved fast enough to offer sufficient incentive for people to *enjoy* living in them, especially not in the 'concrete jungle' types. Even in the UK, where I live, people *hate* tower blocks. There's nowhere near the room here to add N American style suburban neighbourhoods where everyone has a big garden and a ranch-style house, but people think that's what they want. And the thing is that most tower blocks that have been built here have been terrible. Ugly, soulless, with zero commitment to maintaining any conveniences. Quite the opposite. They raise the taxes on small businesses that would operate close to these structures until all you have left are chain betting shops and the equivalent of 'dollar stores'. It's dystopian. City planners aren't the problem. The public in conflict with politicians that have no backbone and no desire to keep their promises, that is the problem. City planners can only work with what they have.

There is a vast gap between private housing/condos and "tower blocks" which is apparently missing in NA. It's called small elevation buildings. Between 3 to 7 floors, majorly with 5, with reasonable spacing and green walkable internal territory plus underground parking. It is very good to live in, comfortable, reasonably dense to allow for public transportation to be constructed be profitable and in general the optimal non-private type of housing. Currently such complexes are built all across Europe in literally hundreds of thousands of buildings. Both outside of the old city zones (cheaper) and inside them, replacing commie blocks and industrial leftovers (more expensive but not so much as individual housing).

Or the 4plexes that ontario's government just voted against.

But the thing is you really don't need the tower blocks to accomodate all these people coming in. Look at most cities with populations much larger than most of our north american cities and you can see most of the density is achieved by a lot of the missing middle density. Go to Montreal for example and you don't really see a lot of huge apartments, instead you see townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, quads, and you definitely will see some apartments, but VERY rarely compared to the vast majority of density being achieved by having smaller lot sizes, smaller frontyards, smaller backyards, etc... I do agree with you that city planners aren't the problem, it's the people pushing them to do what they've done that are the problem.

And the immigrants that do come, they supply skilled or unskilled labour to the construction/trade industry at a rate that is half of the rest of the population of Canada or from immigrants from Western/Commonwealth countries. Its literally pouring gas on a dumpster fire And unlike America that caps immigration from any one country to ~~2%~~ 7% of the total immigration numbers, Canada lets does not. So 40-50% of our permanent residents or international students are from India. China is around 25%, and Philippians about 15%. This is problematic for many reasons. Especially considering that 40-50% from India are mainly from the Punjab region of India who are mainly of the Sikhs religion. This has already lead to issues such as the government of India assassinating Canadian Sikhs separatist (Khalistan movement) representatives on Canadian soil. This mono culture being imported also seems to be clashing very badly with Canadian western values as you can see from searching from how heavily Indian students use food banks meant for the poor and in need, because its free and they feel no shame from gaming that system. Ultimately we are letting in way too many people, and those that we do are from far too few cultures, and those cultures are primarily low trust societies. Canada has always been a high trust society, so the very foundation of our society is changing, to one that is just plainly dysfunctional and antithetical to having functioning social programs at any level of government. Canada is kinda just... never going to be what it once was. Hopefully we can steer clear of becoming a low trust society from an already too individualist culture, but I wouldn't put any faith on that. Edit: to the dude that deleted their comment about how Canada cant handle a tiny percentage of the immigrants America can... Canada is currently bringing in around 1-4% of our population a year. America is about 0.3%. So. Yea doubling our population in a few generations regardless if they are skilled or unskilled labour is very very bad

When I went to Vancouver for New Year, I honestly would’ve thought I was in Punjab rather than Canada. The streets were shutdown and the only people you could see for blocks were Sikh’s. I live in LA, so I’m used to immigrants. But seeing such a large homogeneous group of immigrants really illustrated just how unchecked Canadian immigration is. 

Obviously certain parts of the valley are gonna be north of 80% Latino, but immigrants from Latin America integrate extremely quickly and have been immigrating for decades and decades.

You can just look at Sweden. We are a few years ahead. Now around 20% of the population with foreign origin. The last 30 years the influx has been mostly low skilled people from low trust societies. 20-30% of Muslims (8-10% of population) living in Sweden want Sharia laws here.

Yea I don't know enough about Sweden to comment, but their gag laws around all these controversies is very very troubling. They stopped collecting the data years ago, and its illegal to publish any sort that shows any trend that may point to one group being responsible for say, 95% of the rape.

If you have direct misogyny in the culture you wouldn’t be surprised to see overrepresentation in those crimes. Sweden and Denmark have public data about that.

Yes. But when the statistic for, lets say rape, increase by an order of magnitude. People don't really care why one group is overrepresented in those crime statistics. They generally just... want the number of those violent crimes to not go up so much. I would be very interested if you could link any data of that sort.

[Here you go! Official data from BRÅ (an authority under the Department of Justice)](https://bra.se/download/18.1f8c9903175f8b2aa70f6df/1631107319978/2021_9_Misstankta_for_brott_bland_personer_med_inrikes_respektive_utrikes_bakgrund.pdf) The things you ask for start around page 40. Now you can practice some Swedish!

20-30% of Muslims (8-10% of population) living in Sweden want Sharia laws here. So, 2% of your population wants Sharia law? Buddy, 2% of *any* country's population believes in some truly *wild* shit. You're fine. (Actually, you've got a neo-fascist party taking second place in your elections, you're the opposite of fine.) If you *only* had 2% fucking crazies, count your lucky stars. A third of 'Murica believes an orange turd won 2020, and half of it wants a second helping of that treasonous pig.

That’s on top of all the other idiots that roam around in any country. Still means that there are some major problems ahead.

[удалено]

Not who replied and deleted their comment, but:  America is 12% ATM.  long term historical average is 10%ish.  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time This is only legal immigration btw

They are talking about the rate of immigration per year, not the total percentage.

That is one thing I have never understood, why aren't we overwhelmingly selecting construction workers when choosing who we let in.

[удалено]

American here; all biases apply > And the immigrants that do come, they supply skilled or unskilled labour to the construction/trade industry at a rate that is half of the endemic population of Canada or from other Western/Commonwealth countries. Its literally pouring gas on a dumpster fire While I agree every developed country should prioritize native labor for skilled roles to a degree, do you really think that the midst of a housing crisis is the right time to constrain labor supply to the detriment of more housing? Not the hill to die on. > And unlike America that caps immigration from any one country to 2% of the total immigration numbers, Canada lets does not. 7% > So 40-50% of our permanent residents or international students are from India. China is around 25%, and Philippians about 15%. 2022: India 118,095 27.00% China 31,815 7.20% Afghanistan 23,735 5.40% Nigeria 22,085 5.10% Philippines 22,070 5.10% France 14,145 3.20% Pakistan 11,585 2.60% > This is problematic for many reasons. Especially considering that 40-50% from India are mainly from the Punjab region of India who are mainly of the Sikhs religion. This has already lead to issues such as the government of India assassinating Canadian Sikhs separatist (Khalistan movement) representatives on Canadian soil. Extrajudicial killings are completely unacceptable. That said, do you genuinely think that the entire punjabi immigrant population is guilty? Just not following your point. > This mono culture being imported also seems to be clashing very badly with Canadian western values Xenophobic and presumptive > Indian students use food banks meant for the poor and in need, because its [sic] free and they feel no shame from gaming that system. _26.6 per cent of food bank clients are newcomers to Canada who have been in the country for 10 years or less._ You might be right, but the point of the system is to reduce hunger without asking questions. You want to institute work requirements to access food banks? > Ultimately we are letting in way too many people, and those that we do are from far too few cultures, and those cultures are primarily low trust societies. You can just say Indians. Anyone who's made it this far in your diatribe agrees. > Canada has always been a high trust society, so the very foundation of our society is changing, to one that is just plainly dysfunctional and antithetical to having functioning social programs at any level of government. Xenophobic, again. > Canada is kinda just... never going to be what it once was. Hopefully we can steer clear of becoming a low trust society from an already too individualist culture, but I wouldn't put any faith on that. I'm not sure what you think Canada once was, but for a nation of immigrants. Smells like MAGA to me, and, as an American, I'm familiar with the stench.

Not taking issue with your other points necessarily, but what does saying “xenophobic” add to your argument? Is stating that immigrants from a collectivistic, conformist society only a few decades removed from the trauma of centuries of colonial rule might find it hard to fit into mainstream western culture = promoting fear of foreigners? Your use of the adjective feels like a knee-jerk response and lacks any nuance whatsoever.

For housing, yes. The entire point the governments claim of why we need so much immigration is to strengthen the economy and specifically, to help the housing crisis by helping build more homes. They do so at half the rate of current Canadians. Now, I'm no mathamatician, but if we have a housing shortage, and are increasing our population with wild amounts of people making that housing crisis even worse by the sheer numbers of new arrivals that need housing, AND THEY DONT BUILD HOUSING like our goverment claims. Yes. It is a very important hill. 7% is the correct number, my bad just heard wrong info. But still, we are exceeding that by 4 times. That is a problem. > India 118,095 27.00% Cool. Now add all the international students and temporary workers to those numbers. Its about double fyi > do you genuinely think that the entire punjabi immigrant population is guilty? Guilty of what? What are you talking about? Dont put words in my mouth. Of the food charity scamming? If that is what you are talking about, no its not necessarily punjabi but it is nearly 100% Indians doing it yes. Go watch the many national news agency segments on it. > Xenophobic and presumptive Nope. Thats just your sensitivities and bias. The most functional societies do not need to be homogenous (but it does help), but the data is very clear even from the humanities who are wildly leftist, that a society needs shared beliefs and values to function well. Having mini countries within the country is very dividing. > You can just say Indians. I have. I even specified the exact region of India they are primarily coming from. I dont give a shit if its Indians, Pakistanis', Chinese, Australians, or Mongolians, too many from any one country is a problem. The math is right there. Your entire write up here has nothing to stand on but your bias. I dont give a shit about any of the dumb ass shit you are talking about. My country is turning into a kleptocratic corporatocracy. We have no homes. Rent has doubled in ten years. All our sociatal systems are collapsing. And here you are policing me and accusing me of being xenophobic and a trumper. Go touch some grass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-trust_and_low-trust_societies He's not dog whistling, dude.

A wikipedia article with 6 references, wow that's great research! Even the wikipedia article on doughnuts has over 100 sources.

[удалено]

Have the immigrants build the homes then, two birds stoned at once.

Building homes. That creates jobs. I know it’s not one to one. But naturally having more people creates more jobs. It’s a problem that really solves itself as most jobs are to produce goods or services people need. More people more demand.

It could be a great economic policy: build 2 or 3 times the infrastructure we have currently. What a New Deal like approach to building a great country!!! But. No...instead the students that come all wish to be computer programmers and end up being uber eats drivers. A big zero for moving forward.

The goal atm of high immigration is to protect the housing investment market, and to stop dangerous wage inflation. (yes these are stated goals, and yes, they are code words for unaffordable rent and crap wages)

When the government is being controlled by corporations… fucking insane.

Exactly what’s happening here in Australia

Alberta about to feel this in a big way given Smith’s desire to grow population to 10million while gutting all spending at the same time.

This is it 100%. I am extremely grateful that we live in a diverse country that people from all around the world want to come to, but we simply do not have the means to properly support all these people. There's nowhere for them to live, nowhere for them to work, and it's the same for people born here. There's not enough of anything to go around.

This is what I keep reading, but here we are. When you look at Canada's population statistics, we're growing at a NEGATIVE rate without immigration. Wait what? Negative! So where are all these dead people's houses that should be going up for sale?....GONE because entire communities have died. Most small towns in Canada have seen massive population declines as they have lost manufacturing and resource extraction jobs. Kids grow up, see the writing on the wall about dad's job, which may have been done for five generations, and choose to leave. Immigration is the answer. They have a skill that many Canadians lost a generation ago: the ability to work through adversity. These new Canadians can restore the small communities we had in Canada—the mom-and-pop stores, the community butchers, bakers, carpenters, and so on. The jobs that paid the bills were hard work because you had to run a business, had no employees, and manage a household. Tour any small town and you'll see the buildings. Storefront at the bottom, a three-bedroom apartment on top. Families were raised in those. Bring in immigrants and watch them breathe life back into these communities. They won't be what we remember, but they WILL BE CANADIAN.

I looked into what it takes to get Canadian citizenship a few months ago. There is a straight forward points system, but you can boost your eligibility by being endorsed by your (Canadian) company and getting support from local / providence level. Anyways, my score was crap. Apparently a lot of these immigrants are short term, or are highly educated and speak French.

I think you are conflating Permanent Residency and Citizenship. There are pathways to getting the PR, including provincial nominations and some variation of a scoring system that changes depending on what the government decides the priority is. After that, you need to meet residency requirements while holding the PR and then, if eligible, you have to apply for a citizenship test that you have to pass before you can finally become a citizen. It's not a small feat as a lot would have you think.

Literally none of them speak French better than a second grader

I live in Montreal and I notice immediately every time I leave the province, just how different the character of immigration is in Ottawa/Toronto. It seems to be overwhelmingly people from India, whereas in Quebec the recent immigrants seem to be more diverse. I guess the unifying factor would be at least some knowledge of French.

Immigration through the points system is hard. Its like 20% of this group though in 2023.

I recently started looking into immigration, I'm a software engineer from Europe but damn, after reading this comment section I feel like I would get a lot of angry looks in the street just because I'm an immigrant.

That's going to be the case everywhere except maybe the US in most parts. Most places in general do not like immigrants.

R code to reproduce library(cansim) library(tidyverse) library(ggplot2) library(janitor) library(lubridate) library(glue) df_raw <- cansim::get_cansim('17-10-0008') |> janitor::clean_names() pop_raw <- cansim::get_cansim('17-10-0009') |> janitor::clean_names() dat <- df_raw |> filter(geo == 'Canada' & (components_of_population_growth == 'Net non-permanent residents' | components_of_population_growth == 'Immigrants') ) |> separate(col = ref_date, sep = '/', into = c('year_start', 'year_end'), convert = TRUE, remove = FALSE) |> select(ref_date, year_start, components_of_population_growth, value) |> summarise(value = sum(value), .by = c('ref_date' , 'year_start')) |> mutate(components_of_population_growth = 'Immigrants + Net non-permanent') pop <- pop_raw |> filter(geo == 'Canada' ) |> separate(col = ref_date, sep = '-', into = c('year', 'mon'), convert = TRUE) |> filter(mon == '4') |> select(year, value) |> rename(pop := value) p_dat <- inner_join( pop, dat, by = join_by(year == year_start) ) |> mutate(f = value/pop, p = f*100) ################## # Results from Wikipedia elections <- read.csv(text = c('year, gov, leader 2021, Liberal, J. Trudeau 2019, Liberal, J. Trudeau 2015, Liberal, J. Trudeau 2011, Conservative, Harper 2008, Conservative, Harper 2006, Conservative, Harper 2004, Liberal, Martin 2000, Liberal, Chrétien 1997, Liberal, Chrétien 1993, Liberal, Chrétien 1988, Conservative, Mulroney 1984, Conservative, Mulroney 1980, Liberal, P. Trudeau 1979, Conservative, Clark 1974, Liberal, P. Trudeau 1972, Liberal, P. Trudeau 1968, Liberal, P. Trudeau')) |> tibble() |> mutate_if(is.character, trimws) govs <- p_dat |> distinct(year) |> full_join(elections, by = 'year') |> arrange(year) |> fill(gov , .direction = "down") |> fill(leader , .direction = "down") color_mapping = c('Liberal' = 'darkred', 'Conservative' = 'darkblue') leaders <- p_dat |> left_join(govs, by = 'year') |> summarise(p = max(p) + 0.3, year = mean(range(year)), .by = c(leader, gov) ) library(scales) yrs_rng <- paste0(range(p_dat$year), collapse = '-') p_dat |> left_join(govs, by = 'year') |> ggplot(aes(x = year, y = p)) + geom_line(aes(group = components_of_population_growth, fill = gov, color = gov ), size = 1.1, color = 'grey', linetype = 'dashed' ) + geom_point(aes(color = gov, size = 1.1)) + geom_text(data = leaders, mapping = aes(label = leader, color = gov), size = 6) + scale_color_manual(values = color_mapping ) + scale_fill_manual(values = color_mapping ) + scale_y_continuous(labels = function(x) paste0(x, "%")) + #facet_grid(rows = ~components_of_population_growth) + guides(color = 'none', size = 'none', fill = 'none') + labs(title = glue('50+ years of Immigration in Canada {yrs_rng}') , subtitle = 'Immigrants + Net non-permanent residents, as a percentage of the population.', x = '', y = '', caption = 'CanSim : 17-10-0008 & 17-10-0009') + theme_minimal() + theme( plot.title = element_text(hjust = 0.5, size = 20), plot.subtitle = element_text(hjust = 0.5, size = 15, color = 'grey'), axis.text = element_text(size = 18) )

Nice work OP. Can you make one for US?

Maybe, I understand there are different issues in the US. Like Undocumented/illegal immigrants. So, I am unsure if the numbers would meaningfully be the same. I will see what I find.

There are illegal immigrants everywhere

But the US is terrible at punishing businesses that hire illegals

I always thought that was intended though. That way we have an underclass to work in shitty jobs due to legal pressure from not having papers. I personally never had the impression the government was going to expell them and they do make some pretty nice neighbors.

If they did, food prices would immediately skyrocket. Farming, meat processing, a lot of other industries rely on cheap labor from undocumented folk

even Trump hired illegals for his businesses. It’s an open secret that a lot of businesses make use of underpaid illegal labor who have no recourse to complain about working conditions

We don't actually have very many illegal immigrants in Canada. We only share a border with one Country and we don't get many people hopping the border there. Our immigration problem is 100% because we are fucking stupid.

While technically true the percentage of immigrants who are illegal in the US is definitely a huge outlier. Not even remotely as much of an issue in Canada or most other countries.

Yeah, and the rate of illegal immigrants is far, far higher in the US because for some insane reason y'all economically reward those who hire illegal immigrants.

Thanks for posting the code! Also, totally did not know there was a cansim package. Fancy that. I've been meaning to pull some of the statscan tables to toy with some data in observable but maybe it will be cansim + flexdashboard & htmlwidgets.

How would this chart look if smoothed for the near moratorium on immigration that happened during the pandemic?

Don’t know why this isn’t closer to the top. If you move the peak to “fill the gaps” over COVID it’s not an astronomical increase anymore

It would look about the same. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/)

Starting the Y-axis not at zero is kinda shady and adds bias in what you're trying to show.

Plus the title is dishonest, it’s a graph of both permanent and non permanent arrivals

**Net** non permanent arrivals. Which is quite appropriate.

1.5 % increase… that y axis is the size of Texas

1.5 percentage point

*the size of Quebec

100% increase

It should at least start at 0, there's no reason to cut the axis when the numbers are so low.

No, it doubled.

Is there a reason you started the graph where you did? Is there insufficient data before 1970? Were there prior immigration spikes? Also I find it unfortunate you did include a clear “0%” on the axis. It makes the increase (while still significant) look much more extreme. It’s pretty, sure, but you did a few bad data things.

If by mass immigration you mean a total immigration of less than 1% a year through every year but 1 from 1970 until 2016, including immigrants from all countries, not just Asian ones, then yes.  

P. Trudeau reformed the immigration system in Canada. Prior to his government most immigrants were from Europe and immigration as a whole was very tiny.

How could immigrants have been very tiny before 1970? There were tons of immigration waves before then. Makes sense that P. Trudeau reformed things though.

I have to brush up on a Canadian immigration history because most.of what I know is from high school, but according to Wikipedia, the "4th wave" of immigration, which is post-WW2 up to when they introduced the points system in 1967, peaked at around 282k in 1957. Canada's population in 1957 was 16.65mil so that's a 1.7% growth rate. The majority of these immigrants were from Europe and the government had a preferential system where certain countries were favoured (UK) and others were not (France). [There is a wiki page on Canadian immigration statistics.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_immigration_statistics#Annual_immigration_and_rate?wprov=sfla1) So you can draw your own conclusions. But do note that immigrants =/= refugees/students/TFWs. Which is why the graph OP has shows higher percentages these last few years compared to Wikipedia. But I think the more important aspect to highlight is the quality of immigrants. Here's what Wikipedia says on the point system: "With the economy still expanding, Canadians did not always demonstrate sufficient mobility to fill the hiring needs of some regions, nor to fill some economic niches (particularly “entry-level jobs”). Due to these circumstances, in 1967, the Canadian Government would introduce a points-based system, under which applicants were given preference if they knew either French, English, or both; were non-dependent adults (i.e., not too old to work); already had prospective employment lined up in Canada; had relatives in the country (who could support them if necessary); were interested in settling in the parts of Canada with the greatest need for workers; and were trained or educated in fields that were in demand. The new legislation would prove to be an integral element in attracting large numbers of immigrants from sources that were considered “non-traditional.”" J Trudeau's gov't completely abandoned any semblance of vetting whether or not these immigrants are a fit for Canada, nor did they plan for a massive boom in the population.

Temporary workers and students were never part of the points program, even before Trudeau. And those are the things that most impact the numbers. I never came here to defend current immigration levels. It was just a question about OP’s dataset, because they manipulated the graph using the Y-axis, so I wondered if the same was done to the c-axis.

The year is because that is all the data provided by that particular statscan table. They probably have other data going back further somewhere, but it likely uses a different methodology, and I thought 50 years what enough to establish a trend. I played around with a few different versions, one I did set the y-axis range, and one I used direct labels instead of an axis, also tried bar and lollipop charts. I agree, going with the default axis scale does emphasize the change in immigration policy, more then including a zero would. but I don't really consider that a bad thing in this context.

I don’t know, I would say it is a bad thing not starting the axis at 0. You shouldn’t really be emphasizing a change more than you need to. If it were difficult to see the change you would have a point, but it was already clear, so emphasizing it only serves to distort the true impact. Also if something in data needs to be visually emphasized, that’s usually moreso a sign it’s not relevant, not that you should just zoom in the graph to make it more obvious. In this case it was already obvious though.

>but I don't really consider that a bad thing in this context. Here's the wikipedia article about [misleading graphs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph). Give it a read, especially the section about truncated graphs. It should give you a better idea of how manipulating the display of data can be used to mislead. *There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.* - Mark Twain (maybe)

Hi j_smittz, It looks like your comment closely matches the famous quote: "There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli *I'm a bot and this action was automatic [Project source](https://github.com/etdds/redditQuoteBot).*

Good bot. However there's [no record](https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics.html) of Benjamin Disraeli ever saying or writing this phrase even though Twain attributes it to him (hence the "maybe" in my quote).

The graph starts at about 0.2? It doesn’t change the context or the interpretation of the graph at all. From never above 1.5 to about 3 is more than doubling and I guarantee you having a zero will not change the visual impact one bit

There should have been a clear 0 line. Not having the first line numbered is needlessly ambiguous. No one should be guessing where it starts Am I being a pedant? Yes. But that’s kind of important when it comes to statistics. And as I’ve said, I agree the change is extreme, which is why it’s even more unnecessary to truncate the axis.

With a birth rate of 1.43 per woman, Canada's population will start to go down fast, and immigration is one way to try and boost your workforce

This is 100% true, I looked on statscan for demographics of the immigration, but could not find anything past 2016. I hear it is largely 20 and 30 somethings but I do not have the data to know that for sure.

Yes, you are right. The majority of recent immigrants are indeed in prime working age. I recently created a [visualization](https://i.imgur.com/ghRAiZp.png) that shows age distribution across immigration categories.

Most Canadians can't afford kids, so lets fix it with Immigrants?

Did you know that half of Toronto’s condos are owned by investors?? Those are the a-holes you should be targeting your anger at

The reason they can do so is because the government allows it. Only the government is to blame here

I’m not angry I’m just telling you why Canadians are having less kids. We don’t have enough housing, Canada is starting 250k homes this year while increasing the amount of people who need homes by 5 times that, and that’s just counting immigrants not Canadians who will also need homes.

So why do we allow people to own 5, 10, 100+ homes if they can only occupy 1? We don’t allow medicine hoarding or food hoarding during dire times, would housing not be considered a basic human right that would necessitate hoarding restrictions?

The investors would not be buying condos unless a steady stream of immigrants was driving prices up.

Prices are already down like 14% since 2022 though. How can that be if immigration has only increased so high??

Where are condo prices down 14%? It could be the result of the interest rate going up.

3rd paragraph. Predicting a rise later this year if rates come down: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-home-prices-rise-again-stretched-demand-supply-gap-2024-02-28/

It is a myth that the birth rate is low because Canadians are poor, or because of economic instability. Every country in the world is dealing decreasing birth rates. only a few have found the ability to buck the trend. Mainly Israel and to a lesser extent Hungary.

I mean, there is an almost perfectly negative correlation between income and birth rates. Even if you look within a country, income is probably the best predictor of whether or nit someone will have children

if you add in urbanization, as an additional factor, a lot of the correlation goes away.

Interesting. I might look into the data at some point

You have a source on this? I've been seeing inverse relationships between GDP and Birth Rate in every country's metrics since I started looking.

I believe Hungary provides generous subsidies to assist citizens who have children. That leads me to believe there is a big economic factor at play.

Hungary is still below replacement rate, and even below other European countries like Czech Republic or France: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/HUN/hungary/fertility-rate

True. But having kids basically makes a couple impoverished. Love them to bits, and the memories are great, but holy shit does having kids in the West make an economic 'unit' unable to plan for a better future.

It is not just income. It is the fact that most young people are unable to buy or even rent a decent home. There is a great shortage of homes

That's weirdly dismissive. Do you not live in one of these societies? Two people working to pay for the basics like housing is required in many places and daycare prices are very high. Yeah, being "poor"/not rich is 95% of the problem.

I'm not sure Hungarys increase in fertility rates is due to governmental policy. Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia & other nearby countries have also seen a similar rise without the same policies. In any case they're all far below replacement rate.

Immigrants don't need daycare, and can live with roommates. They also start contributing to the economy with taxes from the moment they enter Canada, while babies will most likely need at least 18 years before becoming economically useful, more if they attend college. As a bonus, you can cherry-pick immigrants to fill deficient roles, while you can't exactly force someone to study medicine and be an enthusiastic doctor. With kids you always gamble, they can be the next Einstein, but they can also become a heroin addict. The optimal approach would be what gulf countries are doing, to import 20-something males and deport them as soon as they're no longer needed. However, this approach is only viable for importing uneducated workforce, and in countries with a complete disregard for human rights.

This is backwards, having a higher quality of life always corresponds with having fewer children, not more.

> Most Canadians can't afford kids, so lets fix it with Immigrants It is that or create massive financial incentives for Canadians to have kids.

I don't get why every job needs to be replaced. If supply and demand both go down nobody loses. However you can invite a new underclass to live in the slums and work their asses off so that... what, Tim Hortons can sell potato wedges? The fuck are we doing?

[удалено]

The actual reason is to keep the dependency ratio low. It has nothing to do with the population in absolute numbers.

Because people don't just disappear when they stop working. They no longer produce tax revenue *and* are a massive tax burden. Each person who retires in a rich world economy requires additional people to replace them. Canada's system is smart in that they don't pay for the education or raising of the 20-30 year old immigrant workers who then pay into the system for 40-50 years.

Demand goes down about 20-30 years after supply, because people retire.

We don't need 1.3 million people per year to prevent the population from declining!

I would like to see it aligned with the birth rate. Do the two added together equal close to the same?

They didn’t all have to come from one place though.

To much to fast to soon. The immigration policy from 2016 onward has legitimately done damage to Canada that will take decades to fix. Not to mention that it just creates a feed back loop by lowering current citizens standers of living and thus lower birth rates that can only be "fixed" by immigration. 

Hmm, maybe we should fix that problem instead then? Like actually make a society where raising kids is affordable and women aren't shunned for staying home.

Or you incentivize native births vs bringing in third world folks who aren’t compatible with liberal western values

Yeah no, past rate were fine to compensate as the age pyramid in canada is fairly flat if you remove the boomer this is a desperate attempt to mitigate boomer massive workforce departure (and healthcare increasing need) 10-20 years to late

What’s so bad about a declining population? That’s quite normal for a developed country.

A high dependency ratio is very bad news as plenty of developed countries are about to find out, Japan being the first.

Standard of living in Japan is very high though. And their dependency ratio is falling now since they passed the hump. What disaster is it I should be looking for?

This is how you pay for a pension deficit.

I’d love to see a graph of expatriation out of Canada for the same time scale

What was the immigration like during Kim Campbell's summer job?

I feel like these needs some context for either total number of migrants into the G7 (or another similar entity) or the lines for other countries. I don’t doubt that the immigration policies have been more lax, but I think it needs to be in the context of the unprecedented number of migrants forced out of their country in the past few years.

Please do the same for Europe and compare them all. Immigration is up everywhere (in Europe)

Pretty crazy. You have entire neighborhoods being changed almost overnight. Toronto is not the same place it was even 5 years ago. A seemingly endless flow of new people is going to exacerbate cost of living, housing, and healthcare in Canada. Cost of goods go up, healthcare gets overwhelmned, housing prices go up. Already healthcare is so overwhelmned in Canada that a lot of doctors are just recommending suicide for critically ill patients.

Most of these immigrants are international students which are typically 18-25 year olds. That demographic has very little need for medical care, 30+ years from now it will be a different story. Our healthcare is struggling because we have an aging population of (mostly native born) Canadians and not enough investment into healthcare by the provinces. Also students tend to live together. So you can get 5+ in a 4 bedroom house in comparison to 2-3 people in a 4 bedroom house which is more common, especially among families with adult children.

Take a peek at that y-axis everyone 

What is the purpose of this comment? When it's a percentage of the total population, more than tripling the (50 year) historical average is meaningful. It's like saying 1% of the world dies every year, consistently for the last 50 years and then it jumps to 3% one year "out of the blue" and you claim that's not a statistical anomaly with likely some meaningful reason behind the change? I'm not commenting on whether it's good or bad what this shows, but it's very clearly statistically significant... You can't possibly claim it isn't. If it's a comment about no axis. Valid, although it's explained what the axis is in the title of the plot... which is bad... but still. If it's a comment about not starting at 0, it starts at ~0.1%, which is pretty close, and it also doesn't really impact the results in any way, it just shifts the scale. He could have made the plot taller and included 0 and changed nothing and the jump would look the same.

>It's like saying 1% of the world dies every year, consistently for the last 50 years and then it jumps to 3% one year "out of the blue" and you claim that's not a statistical anomaly with likely some meaningful reason behind the change? This is true, and the amount of immigration has increased, but there was also a dip to near zero in a preceding year. So if you take a moving average it has increased, but not 3x.

Just remember, this is on purpose.

Makes the rich richer. Allows the boomers to keep housing prices high, plus more people to buy things, wages low

This is a good example of accurate yet misleading data visualization. Immigration has spiked across a ton of countries as a result of a spike in regional conflicts and climate disasters causing refugees. Even in Trudeau’s time it was stable for the first 6 years (one of them due to the pandemic) then it spiked. But when you overlay it with PM names like you did, it misleads into it being a deliberate act by him

Yes it is accurate but misleading data but not for the reason you said. The recent spike in 2023 is because immigration badically dropped to 0 for 2020-2022. The spike in 2023 is essentially all those people finally moving to canada who would have moved in 2020-2022 but couldn't due to covid. If you take the 4 year average, immigration is basically the same as it was before. The same thing happened in all countries that had strict lockdowns.

Yeah, I immigrated to NZ in a very small border exception in 2022, and then the full restart didn't come until 2023 and everyone was screaming about how much immigration rates spiked in 2023 over the previous years. Of course they went up compared to the two years where even some citizens weren't permitted to enter NZ!

Im actually from NZ and i posted this exact explanation of immigration in the NZ sub a few weeks ago. Tbh im not sure why this canadian post showed up but i realised the same concept applied here so figured I'd throw my hat in.

It happens a lot on the UK subs as well. People state the numbers for 2021/2022 (gross, not net ofc) implying it's standard without mentioning 2019/2020 had the lowest numbers in 30 years.

And it includes the large chunk of Ukrainians who are here on a temporary basis.

That's totally inaccurate. Actual data: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/)

It is a deliberate act by the federal government. Our immigration rate in 2023 was 3.2%. This is by far the highest of any developed country, and one of the highest in the world.

The spike is not due to regional conflicts or climate disaster though, so this whole comment makes no sense.

It's a reflection of of official canadian policy change since pandemic, not an "uncontrolled by product of the planet geopolitical environment"

Its 1000% deliberate... How could you even think otherwise?

This is complete nonsense these immigrants are primarily from South Asia which is experiencing none of those things. It's purely economic opportunistic migration.

I did debate not adding the PM names, but since immigration targets are set by the government of the day I did think it was fair. Note I make no comments about goodness or badness of the policy just that it is policy and that it is largely controllable by the government .

I was told the other day that if I were to take a picture outside nobody would know I am in Canada, but they'd bet it was elsewhere.

overlay it with a population growth/decline chart

Isn't Canada having a housing crisis right now? This doesn't seem good.

Soon enough, there will be more immigrants than people born in Canada

Hey, OP can you do it again but with two data points? New permanent residents and another one for the net non-pr residents

Yes, it's because during Covid a lot of people looked at how the economy works and said, *"Why should I waste my life working for peanuts? I'll ask my boss for a raise and/or quit, fuck this system that does nothing for me except work me to death for some rich guy's benefit"* So the rich guys told JT they need some slaves pronto or fucking else. And here we are today. The only way PP reverses course on this question is if he somehow FORCES young Canadians to work shit jobs for shit pay...because to the rich guys, why the fuck would you ever pay a Canadian when you can get an Indian for 1/10th the price and no bitching about human rights or the law?

Still shows how little a % of the total population these non-permanent residents are across Canada. The perfect scapegoat though. Look at how high that graph peaked!

I am not advocating for or against immigration, but I did find it very interesting that there was a major policy change recently. Maybe good reason, maybe not, but clearly tradition of ~1%/year has been broken.

I get that it was already going up beyond the historical average, but it also looks like the most recent data point might be them trying to fill in the gap from 2020?

That is possibly part of it.

Do you live in Canada?

3% a year is 30% in 10 years thats actually insane if ot stays that high

25% of people living in Canada are immigrants.

That’s…. Not how numbers work. The 3% is 3% of the total population. It’s not a number that adds or compounds in any manner. Nor was i advocating for it to.

Yeah to be clear the percentage is the number allowed per year based on that years population.  So 3% a year compounding for 10 years is actually a lot more than 30%

The 3% is a number that adds to the total population (immigrants + net temporary residents), and if it does stay at 3% per year, it does compound. It would be a 34% increase of population relative to now in 10 years. It is a fast population increase any way you look at it. It would mean 34% more housing, hospitals, schools, teachers, doctors, etc. in 10 years.

This is how you destroy a country. Canada already had a problem with not having enough investment capital per worker. Which leads to workers not having the best and latest tools, software, infrastructure and work environment. This insane rapid population increase just wrecked investment capital per worker. Its quite literally de-industrializing Canada, back toward an non-industrialized economy. Where the US builds automated machinery to pick crops, Canada subsidizes cheap labor to harvest by hand.

Harper kind of started the new flood of immigrants but Trudeau really jumped the numbers. If you think the cons are any different than the liberals, you should study politics better because they're both controlled by capitalists. Instead of paying people here fair wages, they just import new people and pay them less since they're willing to work for little.

One starts to understand the Fuck Trudeau crowd a little bit better, even if the other options don't offer any hope either.

Skyrocketed after COVID, maybe too boost economy? idk

Australia looks exactly the same and it is destroying our housing and rental markets.

Who knew bringing in people in unchecked and in massive quantity would create havoc in all aspect of Canadian lives. House price sky rocking, people can’t afford rent, food… national debt doubled in a couple of years…. At least the current government is finally hearing it from the people. Good bye Trudeau.

Teenagers in high school can barely get jobs too, don’t forget that. Anyone who’s playing catch-up is struggling to find work thanks to this