This week, Statistics Canada reported that, for the first time in over 70 years, the country's population declined. Current estimates indicate a decline of around 102,000 people last year, leaving a total of 41,472,081 people in the country as of January 1, 2026.

Opinions on this are mixed. On the one hand, a declining population can help improve things like housing affordability and increase GDP per capita (total wealth becomes divided by fewer people). It can also help improve productivity by forcing a country to innovate in lieu of relying on physical labor.

But at the same time, there are consequences to a declining population. It can result in economic stagnation and it can topple the equilibrium of pension plans. Not enough young people paying into the system. Fewer savers. Fewer spenders. Fewer innovators.

It can also reduce the soft and hard powers of a country. According to the IMF: "...some historians attribute France’s 1871 defeat in the Franco-Prussian War to the low fertility and slow rate of population growth that stemmed from early and widespread use of contraception among married couples in France."

My own simplistic view is that growth is good. We want Canadians having babies and we want the absolute best and brightest and most ambitious from around the world clamouring to come here to innovate, start companies, and grow the total economy.

The good news is this continues to be our plan.

The leading factor in Canada's current population decline is fewer non-permanent residents. That is, temporary foreign workers, a great number of whom are/were international students. As many of you know, this policy is in response to a demographic shock that the country experienced between 2022 and 2024 that, among other things, lowered productivity levels.

Going forward, the federal plan is as follows:

• Dramatically reduce the number of temporary residents (international students and low-skill temporary workers). Again, this specific policy is largely responsible for the current population correction.

• Stabilize permanent immigration to 380,000 people per year from 2026 to 2028 (under 1% of the population).

• Admit most permanent immigrants under the "economic" classification. The target is 64% of all permanent residents by 2027. This is a class of applicants who are scored based on age (younger is better), education (smarter is better), language proficiency, and relevant work experience, with the goal of having them immediately contribute to the Canadian economy.

• Target 12% Francophone permanent resident admissions outside of Quebec by 2029. (As a self-proclaimed Francophile/Quebecophile and proponent of bilingualism, I laud this effort.)

What all of this should mean is that by the end of 2026, we are expected to "burn off" the wave of temporary residents leaving the country and, by 2027, we should return to steady and manageable population growth. This is one of the reasons why I believe that 2026-2027 will be a turning point for many of our housing markets, and hopefully the start of our next economic cycle.

Cover by Robbie Palmer on Unsplash

Chart from the Globe and Mail

The Brookings Institution recently published something called Metro Monitor 2026. It's an interactive dashboard that provides decision-makers with data on how the largest metro areas in the US performed between 2014 and 2024. You can check it out here.

As part of this analysis, they looked at the relationship between immigration and regional economic performance. More specifically, they examined how regional economies with growing immigrant populations have performed over the last decade, and how that growth has been shared across immigrant and native-born households.

To answer these questions, they looked at the change in the foreign-born share of the working-age population in the 196 largest metro areas, and then compared it to a variety of different economic markers. And what they found, not surprisingly, was that more immigrants tend to be better than fewer immigrants:

Metro areas with larger increases in the foreign-born share of their working-age population saw stronger growth in gross metropolitan product (GMP) and employment between 2014 and 2024, as well as in key prosperity metrics such as productivity and wage growth.

It increased employment rates for both native-born and foreign-born workers:

Between 2014 and 2024, employment rates in metro areas with the largest increases in their foreign-born workforce share were nearly 3 percentage points higher for both native-born and foreign-born workers than in metro areas with the smallest foreign-born workforce share increases. Put simply, metro areas with larger increases in the foreign-born share of their workforce tended to deliver stronger employment outcomes for both immigrant and native-born workers.

And it also increased median earnings, again for both native-born and foreign-born workers:

We find a similar pattern when examining changes in regional median earnings. Metropolitan economies with larger increases in the foreign-born share of their working-age population consistently recorded higher median earnings for both native-born and foreign-born workers.

Once again, we're reminded that, when managed properly, immigration isn't a zero-sum game. There is a common narrative that foreign-born workers depress wages and/or take opportunities away from native-born citizens. But the data suggests that the opposite is true.

Next up (or soon up): Let's talk about Canada's now-declining population.

Cover photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash

It's not hard to notice that public sentiment in Canada toward immigration has shifted dramatically over the past few years. When I tweet something positive about immigration, I know full well that the comments will be overwhelmingly negative and searing (mind you, it's Twitter).

But this isn't just the case on social media. A 2025 survey by the Environics Institute and TMU showed that the majority of Canadians believe there's simply too much immigration. And a more recent survey by Research Co. found that almost half of Canadians — a number that is up 9% since July 2025 — believe immigration is having a mostly negative effect on the country.

While I can appreciate where this is coming from, I think it's important to keep in mind that immigrants in Canada account for approximately one-third of all business owners with paid staff. They help create jobs. And they represent the majority of business owners when it comes to sectors like restaurants, grocery stores, and truck transportation. In sectors like "computer systems design and services" it's roughly 50/50 between immigrants and Canadian-born citizens.

Some of Canada's most notable companies and brands have also been founded by immigrants: Shopify, BlackBerry, Aldo, Magna, Hakim Optical, Molson Brewery, and many others. And in the US, it is reported that at least 59 of the top 100 highest-valued unicorn startups have a foreign-born founder! So, I am of the strong opinion that Canada benefits enormously when the best and brightest choose to come to our country in search of opportunity. It boosts prosperity for everyone.

But let's consider three objections that I have heard.

The first is that immigration is good, but we stopped attracting the best and brightest. Fine; if that's the case, we should better optimize for attracting the world's top talent. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The second is that it's important to first stop the best and brightest who are already here from leaving. And I would agree that this is critical. The "brain drain" needs to be stemmed. But at the same time, these do not need to be mutually exclusive activities. In fact, it may be best to think of it as solving the same problem: increasing opportunities for everyone both attracts and retains talent.

Lastly, I hear some people talk about "cultural continuity." The argument is that economic prosperity isn't everything. We need to also think about our national identity and the value of our local customs. I believe wholeheartedly in a strong Canadian identity. I'm profoundly proud to be Canadian. But what, specifically, must be continued? What should be allowed to change?

Let's consider my favourite city in the world, Toronto.

For roughly a hundred years, Toronto was an intolerant and primarily Anglo-Protestant city. Should that still be the case today in the name of "continuity"? If so, it's likely I wouldn't have been born here. I was raised Catholic, I went to a French-speaking school, and my ethnic background is primarily Irish, French, and Chinese (via South America).

Would the Protestants of Toronto have accepted my kind? It's unlikely on three accounts. Catholics were a problem. A French school would have been viewed as a rebellious political statement. And the Chinese Exclusion Act may have precluded my bloodline before I was born. A little discontinuity has been good for me — and others.

Photo by Richard Hong on Unsplash