January 19, 2024 - 7:00am

Population growth used to be determined by birth rates. But in the infertile West, it’s increasingly immigration policy which makes the difference. One might think, then, that no government would use this power beyond reasonable bounds. However, that’s to reckon without Justin Trudeau. During his eight years in office, the Canadian Prime Minister has pursued a recklessly liberal immigration policy. 

According to a report this week from the National Bank of Canada, “Canada’s population increased by more than 1.2 million” in 2023. That’s on top of the “rebound of 825,000 in 2022 after the Covid recession”. The country has 38 million people compared to Britain’s 68 million, but UK net immigration in the year to June 2023 was 0.67 million. By any standard, the Canadian level is astonishingly high. 

The report’s authors, Stéfane Marion and Alexandra Ducharme, are upfront about the advantages of immigration, which they say is “good for our potential growth”. However, they add that “all good things have their limits.” That should be an obvious point, even trite. But in respect to immigration, it needs to be said. 

Unlike other things that are good, but only up to a point — low interest rates, minimum wages, public borrowing — whole sections of respectable opinion refuse to face up to the limits of migration. Rather than tackle the difficult questions, Left-wingers and liberals resort to the politics of platitude. When Trudeau’s deputy Chrystia Freeland was questioned on the stresses of Canada’s population growth, she replied: “Canada has the social capacity to welcome immigrants.”

This chimes with a favourite slogan of the open borders crowd: “build a longer table, not a higher wall.” This might sound nice, but the thing about longer tables (or higher walls) is that they require investment. Marion and Ducharme argue that Canadian immigration is running at such a pace that it’s overwhelming the supply of capital. They refer to this predicament as a “population trap” — a term that has distinctly Malthusian connotations. 

Of course, no one is seriously arguing that rapid population growth will lead to food shortages. That’s a nightmare that Western economies have consigned to the famine-haunted past. But most of us have aspirations beyond not starving to death. Enough capital is therefore required to invest in production sufficient for our wider needs and wants: fulfilling jobs, affordable housing and accessible public services. 

If I’m reading Marion and Ducharme correctly, this is where excessive population growth could be exhausting economic resources. But is there any evidence that this is actually happening? 

One can start with Canada’s life-blighting rise in housing costs — by the far the steepest in the G7. By an amazing coincidence, Canada also has the highest level of immigration. These facts are obviously related, but expect the ultra-immigrationists to claim it’s not the number of arrivals which is the real problem. For instance, Freeland reckons that “we have to build more homes faster.” But if that’s such an easy solution, then why not peg immigration levels to house-building levels?

Not only would this put the horse before the cart, it would be a sign of good faith on the part of national leaders — assuming, of course, that they have any. 


Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_