afransen
Senior Member
I don't think 1M per year is inherently bad. We would just need to ensure we have the infrastructure in place to absorb and integrate that immigration, without relaxing standards.
|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
Richard White
Senior Member
This would make for a great post-covid rebuilding project. Infrastructure projects throughout Canada to rebuild the economy. City building... not just sewer replacement.
Help build up cities so they can support immigration.
WislaHD
Superstar
The urbanist in me certainly images a timeline where places like Moncton, London, and Red Deer develop into major Canadian cities. A second tier of big city behind the six major cities in the country.
afransen
Senior Member
I think we have to be careful with this. Maybe provide an expedited process for people who agree to live in one of these cities for 3 years.
Richard White
Senior Member
Perhaps but at the same time the major cities are overloaded with new immigrants and simply cannot handle more people. There needs to be some sort of incentive to live in cities other than Toronto, Vancouver, etc.
jayme2016
Active Member
Its not just those 3 cities look at Ottawa start with housing prices that catching up Toronto and Vancouver there is no room in shelters and hospitals are well over cap.
Jasmine18
Senior Member
I think the question do we want canada to remain a rather medium size nation or go to 100 million.
We have seen once countries get a larger population, their problems grow exponentially.
We have seen once countries get a larger population, their problems grow exponentially.
jayme2016
Active Member
If you look at countries that had a few million a year it lead to major issues what groups are calling on Canadato do is bring in 10-15 million a year that would cripple the country.
Richard White
Senior Member
Exactly. The system is backlogged as it is and can't handle many more people.
They need to pause immigration if anything to play catch up
jayme2016
Active Member
If the PM came out and said were going to bring in 100 million from 2030-2050 and we will spend 2020-2030 getting ready i think most would support that.
Jasmine18
Senior Member
jayme2016
Active Member
I am not sure if he would.
Northern Light
Superstar
As a person who is entirely pro-immigration...........
Uh, yes he would.
That's too aggressive a number.
The cost of readying infrastructure for that number would be enormous.
It would also have huge implications.
Take a look:
If, the Goldenhorse took only 1/3 of that number (well less than our current share of new immigrants)
You're talking about about increasing the population here by 20M, to roughly 30M
That's staggering.
Even with large-scale intensification it would near impossible to do without going well into the Greenbelt for development.
Toronto already has notoriously bad commutes.
The O/L / Relief Line isn't really to address growth like that, its to catch us up to where we need to be now; the same could be said for the base level of GO Expansion/RER
You're talking about a scenario with a GO Midtown line; the missing link, GO to Bolton, GO to Uxbridge, GO to Orillia, and GO to Brantford.
You're also talking about a completed Sheppard Subway (Sheppard West to STC); the relief line/OL going to Steeles, not Sheppard, and likely another Relief Line on top of that.
Never mind a Line 2 extension to Mississauga and a bevy of LRT projects.
This isn't Billions or Tens of Billions is well over 150B new transportation infrastructure alone, in the GTA, alone.
That doesn't address sewers, water mains, hospitals, schools etc etc.
****
Now imagine how the places that get the other 2/3 of immigrants will feel.
Some small communities would love a few hundred or thousand new citizens.
But are Haligonians ready to from 400,000 to 2,000,000?
Vancouver could stand some additional intensification; but even a wall of hirises in North Vancouver isn't going to get you room for an extra 4,000,000.
Montreal/QC would have huge concerns about the French language being swamped.
You need to picture an Edmonton and Calgary at 4M+ each and likely Winnipeg too.
I think you need to restrain your sense of scale.
100M by 2100 is believable (whether we want that is a different question)
100M by 2080 is pushing the boundaries of plausible and unlikely to receive a positive reception.
But by 2050? Next to zero chance.
Too ambitious, too lifestyle altering, too drastic, too soon and too expensive.
afransen
Senior Member
Strawman. No one is suggesting 10-15M per year. It would be impossible to do, anyway.
jayme2016
Active Member
In fact there are groups wantting Canada to bring in 100 million in 10 years.