Economy
Prosperity waning due to Ottawa’s misguided population growth policy

From the Fraser Institute
Federal ministers have finally acknowledged that soaring immigration has aggravated the housing affordability crisis and put added pressure on stretched public services.
Last week, in response to growing concern about fast-rising immigration levels, the Trudeau government announced it will cap the number of international student permits over the next two years. Canada’s population increased by 1.2 million last year, following a gain approaching one million in 2022, with these increases almost entirely due to immigration.
The most striking feature of the international migration data is the vertiginous rise in the number of “non-permanent residents” (NPRs). They have accounted for most of the newcomers arriving in Canada since 2020, dwarfing the ranks of new permanent immigrants. NPRs consist of temporary foreign workers and international students (many of whom also work), along with smaller numbers of asylum seekers and refugees, together with some of their families. The stock of NPRs has skyrocketed under the Trudeau government, reaching 2.5 million last year. This means one in every 16 people walking Canada’s streets is a “temporary” immigrant; in some large metro areas, the NPR share is significantly higher.
The federal government’s slapdash handling of immigration has caused problems for other levels of government. The dramatic increase of NPRs occurred without any advance notice, coordination or planning with the provinces, let alone the cities where most newcomers settle. After waving the issue away, federal ministers have finally acknowledged that soaring immigration has aggravated the housing affordability crisis and put added pressure on stretched public services. Remarkably, until last week’s announcement, there had been no federal government limit on student visas and no meaningful oversight of the rapidly expanding international education “industry,” which has largely driven the surge in NPRs.
In addition to the effects on housing demand and public services, Canada’s booming population has contributed to an erosion of prosperity, as measured by the value of economic output on a per-person basis. Nationally, per-person GDP fell by at least two per cent last year and is set for a repeat performance in 2024. Canada is getting poorer, even as our population increases faster than in any other developed country.
Why has the Trudeau government been so keen to turbo-charge population growth? The principal reason cited by federal ministers is to offset the effects of aging. Canada is indeed getting older, like every other developed country. Unfortunately, economic research finds that immigration has relatively little impact on the age structure of the population over time. Nor does it have a measurable influence—either positive or negative—on average incomes, wages or productivity. Simply put, most published academic research suggests that neither population size nor immigration are significantly correlated with higher levels of GDP per person.
It follows that Canada’s current economic development strategy—one premised on strong population growth—is unlikely to increase average incomes or living standards. It’s worth noting that many of the most affluent countries actually have small-to-modest-sized populations. According to the CIA World Factbook, of the 25 richest countries as measured by GDP per person, only one (the United States) is home to more than 20 million people. Among the 30 richest countries, just three meet the 20 million population threshold.
Ultimately, prosperity does not primarily depend on population size. It’s far more important for countries to be productive and innovative, to nurture entrepreneurial wealth creation, to build high-quality workforces, and establish and maintain well-functioning institutions. To improve incomes and living standards, Canadian policymakers should direct their efforts to these areas.
Author:
Bjorn Lomborg
Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is crazy high

From the Fraser Institute
The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.
Canada has made a legal commitment to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister Trudeau promised that climate action will “create jobs and economic growth” and the federal government insists it will create a “strong economy.” The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.
Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. Annual Canadian CO₂ emissions have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actually increased over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.
Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual CO₂ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One study shows that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.
Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.
In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we would already need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.
The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UN points out that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed to start reducing global carbon emissions, which last year hit a new record.
Data from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.
Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanity hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.
Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More than two billion mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides about 5 per cent of global energy.
Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence has declined only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use some nine centuries from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.
Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.
But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.
Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.
We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumers up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.
2025 Federal Election
POLL: Canadians want spending cuts

By Gage Haubrich
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing Canadians want the federal government to cut spending and shrink the size and cost of the bureaucracy.
“The poll shows most Canadians want the federal government to cut spending,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “Canadians know they pay too much tax because the government wastes too much money.”
Between 2019 and 2024, federal government spending increased 26 per cent even after accounting for inflation. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to federal government spending in the next five years. Results of the poll show:
- 43 per cent say reduce spending
- 20 per cent say increase spending
- 16 per cent say maintain spending
- 20 per cent don’t know
The federal government added 108,000 bureaucrats and increased the cost of the bureaucracy 73 per cent since 2016. Leger asked Canadians what they think should happen to the size and cost of the federal bureaucracy. Results of the poll show:
- 53 per cent say reduce
- 24 per cent say maintain
- 4 per cent say increase
- 19 per cent don’t know
Liberal Leader Mark Carney promised to “balance the operating budget in three years.” Leger asked Canadians if they believed Carney’s promise to balance the budget. Results of the poll show:
- 58 per cent are skeptical
- 32 per cent are confident
- 10 per cent don’t know
“Any politician that wants to fix the budget and cut taxes will need to shrink the size and cost of Ottawa’s bloated bureaucracy,” Haubrich said. “The polls show Canadians want to put the federal government on a diet and they won’t trust promises about balancing the budget unless politicians present credible plans.”
-
International2 days ago
Pope Francis has died aged 88
-
International2 days ago
JD Vance was one of the last people to meet Pope Francis
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
COVID-191 day ago
Nearly Half of “COVID-19 Deaths” Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
Business2 days ago
Canada Urgently Needs A Watchdog For Government Waste
-
2025 Federal Election14 hours ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
International2 days ago
Pope Francis Dies on Day after Easter