What do you think?
Rate this book
Maximum Canada: Why 35 Million Canadians Are Not Enough
To face the future, Canada needs more Canadians. But why and how many?
Canada’s population has always grown slowly, when it has grown at all. That wasn’t by accident. For centuries before Confederation and a century after, colonial economic policies and an inward-facing world view isolated this country, attracting few of the people and building few of the institutions needed to sustain a sovereign nation. In fact, during most years before 1967, a greater number of people fled Canada than immigrated to it. Canada’s growth has faltered and left us underpopulated ever since.
At Canada’s 150th anniversary, a more open, pluralist and international vision has largely overturned that colonial mindset and become consensus across the country and its major political parties. But that consensus is ever fragile. Our small population continues to hamper our competitive clout, our ability to act independently in an increasingly unstable world, and our capacity to build the resources we need to make our future viable.
In Maximum Canada , a bold and detailed vision for Canada’s future, award-winning author and Globe and Mail columnist Doug Saunders proposes a most audacious way to avoid global obscurity and create lasting prosperity, to build equality and reconciliation of indigenous and regional divides, and to ensure economic and ecological sustainability, Canada needs to triple its population.
Canada’s population has always grown slowly, when it has grown at all. That wasn’t by accident. For centuries before Confederation and a century after, colonial economic policies and an inward-facing world view isolated this country, attracting few of the people and building few of the institutions needed to sustain a sovereign nation. In fact, during most years before 1967, a greater number of people fled Canada than immigrated to it. Canada’s growth has faltered and left us underpopulated ever since.
At Canada’s 150th anniversary, a more open, pluralist and international vision has largely overturned that colonial mindset and become consensus across the country and its major political parties. But that consensus is ever fragile. Our small population continues to hamper our competitive clout, our ability to act independently in an increasingly unstable world, and our capacity to build the resources we need to make our future viable.
In Maximum Canada , a bold and detailed vision for Canada’s future, award-winning author and Globe and Mail columnist Doug Saunders proposes a most audacious way to avoid global obscurity and create lasting prosperity, to build equality and reconciliation of indigenous and regional divides, and to ensure economic and ecological sustainability, Canada needs to triple its population.
250 pages, Hardcover
Published September 19, 2017
41 people are currently reading
492 people want to read
About the author
Doug Saunders
3 books31 followersDoug Saunders (b. 1967) is a Canadian-British author and journalist.
He is the author of the books Arrival City: The Final Migration and Our Next World (2011) and The Myth of the Muslim Tide (2012) and is the international-affairs columnist for The Globe and Mail.
He served as the paper’s London-based European bureau chief for a decade, after having run the paper’s Los Angeles bureau, and has written extensively from East Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, the Middle East and North Africa. He writes a weekly column devoted to the larger themes and intellectual concepts behind international news, and has won the National Newspaper Award, Canada’s counterpart to the Pulitzer Prize, on five occasions.
He is the author of the books Arrival City: The Final Migration and Our Next World (2011) and The Myth of the Muslim Tide (2012) and is the international-affairs columnist for The Globe and Mail.
He served as the paper’s London-based European bureau chief for a decade, after having run the paper’s Los Angeles bureau, and has written extensively from East Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, the Middle East and North Africa. He writes a weekly column devoted to the larger themes and intellectual concepts behind international news, and has won the National Newspaper Award, Canada’s counterpart to the Pulitzer Prize, on five occasions.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
January 21, 2018
I really wanted to like this book - not least because I agree with the fundamentals of his thesis - Canada could use more people - particularly immigrants - our major cities need more density and need to invest in public transit... But this comes across first and foremost as a rather monomaniacal book. Saunders seems to think a higher population for Canada would naturally lead to a strong culture and a healthy economy with investment in public goods like public transit. But this ignores both the successes of many nations with smaller populations and the difficulty of weaning people off car-centred low-density living. A higher population, without political vision, would just lead to ever-greater sprawl around our major cities.
Moreover he has a frustratingly pollyanna-ish notion of how far Canada has come in its attitudes. He seems to think we have achieved a mature and benevolent relationship with first nations peoples, that the outbursts of anti-Muslim suspicion - particularly in Quebec - have been thoroughly vanquished and that most Canadians are now receptive to greater immigration, wherever it is from.
Lastly, he is prone to sloppy thinking. For example, he claims that inviting immigrants from poorer countries here would be good for climate change because immigrants when they get richer by coming here have declining fertility rates thus fewer carbon-emitting people. But this effect would be much more than offset by the huge difference in CO2 usage between the average Canadian and any citizen of a developing nation.
There's some interesting history at the start of the book of Canadian patterns of immigration and policies but like the rest of the book it is not clearly referenced and some of the repeated assertions are made without adequate evidence. It is interesting to read that immigration authorities discouraged non-farmers from coming but I would want to have read more about how this took place in practice. It seems more likely that Canada merely concentrated its attention on farmers and failed to try to recruit entrepreneurs - problematic but a lesser charge.
There is certainly a book to be written making the case for a number of Saunders' causes. His heart is largely in the right place. But I found this a frustratingly inadequate stab at it.
Moreover he has a frustratingly pollyanna-ish notion of how far Canada has come in its attitudes. He seems to think we have achieved a mature and benevolent relationship with first nations peoples, that the outbursts of anti-Muslim suspicion - particularly in Quebec - have been thoroughly vanquished and that most Canadians are now receptive to greater immigration, wherever it is from.
Lastly, he is prone to sloppy thinking. For example, he claims that inviting immigrants from poorer countries here would be good for climate change because immigrants when they get richer by coming here have declining fertility rates thus fewer carbon-emitting people. But this effect would be much more than offset by the huge difference in CO2 usage between the average Canadian and any citizen of a developing nation.
There's some interesting history at the start of the book of Canadian patterns of immigration and policies but like the rest of the book it is not clearly referenced and some of the repeated assertions are made without adequate evidence. It is interesting to read that immigration authorities discouraged non-farmers from coming but I would want to have read more about how this took place in practice. It seems more likely that Canada merely concentrated its attention on farmers and failed to try to recruit entrepreneurs - problematic but a lesser charge.
There is certainly a book to be written making the case for a number of Saunders' causes. His heart is largely in the right place. But I found this a frustratingly inadequate stab at it.
September 8, 2017
This is a book that I wish to share with all Canadians I know, and enthuse about it until they read it. After that, I want to take steps to ensure that the future envisioned in the book comes to pass.
Have you ever wondered why there is such a population difference between Canada and the United States? We take a fascinating look at the history of Canada, from the point of view of population, and the competing pulls of Britain and the United States. We review the history of Canada's First Nations, the past betrayals and the positive movement forward. We look at how various waves of immigrants came to Canada, and left Canada.
And we look at what it would mean to Canada - to our cities, to our wildernesses, to our environment, to funding for health care, education, pensions - if we increase our population to a more sustainable number. 100 million may or may not be the right number - but it would make Canada a better place (if done correctly, the author does go into some ways in which it may not work). I found the book connected areas that I hadn't previously connected, and I could see how various policies and past decisions had impacts.
It's well written, I enjoyed the book immensely, and it's an important book for Canadians. Highly, highly, recommended.
Note: I received my review copy from NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.
Have you ever wondered why there is such a population difference between Canada and the United States? We take a fascinating look at the history of Canada, from the point of view of population, and the competing pulls of Britain and the United States. We review the history of Canada's First Nations, the past betrayals and the positive movement forward. We look at how various waves of immigrants came to Canada, and left Canada.
And we look at what it would mean to Canada - to our cities, to our wildernesses, to our environment, to funding for health care, education, pensions - if we increase our population to a more sustainable number. 100 million may or may not be the right number - but it would make Canada a better place (if done correctly, the author does go into some ways in which it may not work). I found the book connected areas that I hadn't previously connected, and I could see how various policies and past decisions had impacts.
It's well written, I enjoyed the book immensely, and it's an important book for Canadians. Highly, highly, recommended.
Note: I received my review copy from NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.
August 29, 2022
I picked up this book because I share the author's assertion that Canada SHOULD institute immigration targets that would enable it to boast a population of 100 million. HOWEVER, Saunders' argument (particularly in 'Part One: The Minimizing Impulse) for why Canada has lagged behind the United States (his principal foil) is deeply flawed.
Firstly, by projecting the notion of a continental independent Canadian nation-state back into time, he fails to grasp the actual conditions under which generations of 'proto-Canadians' understood themselves and the world they inhabited.
Secondly, Saunders' glaring continentalist ideology (evidenced by his proclivity to quote Oscar Skelton - another Laurier fanboy) leads him to cherry-pick and distort economic statistics with vague date ranges that lack context thereby enabling him to further his argument that Canada's relationship with Britain retarded its economic development.
Thirdly, this book amounts to an ahistorical political hit piece that valorises Canada's Liberal Party (particularly Laurier) and condemns Canada's Conservative Party. Saunders' rank partisanship is unbecoming of someone that's been a major bureau chief for the Globe & Mail - and this is coming from someone who's only ever voted for the Liberals or the NDP. Examples of this habit are numerous but pages 84 - 88 demonstrate his bias in high-relief. Here, the leader of the opposition, Robert Borden is blamed for pandering to populists seeking to enshrine white supremacy into Canada's immigration policy in 1907, thereby forcing Laurier's hand in enacting the Dominion's harshest non-white immigration laws to date. Yet this framing ignores the fact that Laurier had already doubled the Chinese head tax to $100 in 1900 (a year before Borden became leader), and raised it to its maximum of $500 in 1903. The story of Canada's pernicious racist immigration policies stemmed from the Canadian electorate, not its political leaders, and can be more accurately assessed from a transnational perspective. Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds's work 'Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men's Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality' has taken this approach and is a tour de force. Using a transnational approach that places Canada, the USA, South Africa, and Australasia into the same framework the pair effectively demonstrates the importance of assessing complex issues from a broader perspective. They achieve this by articulating the rhythms of a global circulation of people, ideas, and 'racial knowledge' in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; a dynamic that is overlooked when one is merely attempting to score cheap political points by addressing immigration to Canada through a national lens.
Firstly, by projecting the notion of a continental independent Canadian nation-state back into time, he fails to grasp the actual conditions under which generations of 'proto-Canadians' understood themselves and the world they inhabited.
Secondly, Saunders' glaring continentalist ideology (evidenced by his proclivity to quote Oscar Skelton - another Laurier fanboy) leads him to cherry-pick and distort economic statistics with vague date ranges that lack context thereby enabling him to further his argument that Canada's relationship with Britain retarded its economic development.
Thirdly, this book amounts to an ahistorical political hit piece that valorises Canada's Liberal Party (particularly Laurier) and condemns Canada's Conservative Party. Saunders' rank partisanship is unbecoming of someone that's been a major bureau chief for the Globe & Mail - and this is coming from someone who's only ever voted for the Liberals or the NDP. Examples of this habit are numerous but pages 84 - 88 demonstrate his bias in high-relief. Here, the leader of the opposition, Robert Borden is blamed for pandering to populists seeking to enshrine white supremacy into Canada's immigration policy in 1907, thereby forcing Laurier's hand in enacting the Dominion's harshest non-white immigration laws to date. Yet this framing ignores the fact that Laurier had already doubled the Chinese head tax to $100 in 1900 (a year before Borden became leader), and raised it to its maximum of $500 in 1903. The story of Canada's pernicious racist immigration policies stemmed from the Canadian electorate, not its political leaders, and can be more accurately assessed from a transnational perspective. Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds's work 'Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men's Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality' has taken this approach and is a tour de force. Using a transnational approach that places Canada, the USA, South Africa, and Australasia into the same framework the pair effectively demonstrates the importance of assessing complex issues from a broader perspective. They achieve this by articulating the rhythms of a global circulation of people, ideas, and 'racial knowledge' in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; a dynamic that is overlooked when one is merely attempting to score cheap political points by addressing immigration to Canada through a national lens.
September 24, 2017
Highly informative and thought-provoking. I liked the first two parts that are more of a historical look back at why Canada never became a population powerhouse like the United States - all the different economic, political and cultural factors that shaped two very different countries (at times, this was a little depressing...so much of our talent has left for the U.S., in a historical trend, because of the lack of opportunities, markets, tax policies and more facing entrepreneurs in Canada...including the guy who invented American cheese! Yup, he was a Canuck!). Canada's historical inclination towards what Saunders calls our "minimizing impulse" was really interesting and frustrating to read about, because it's really prohibited our country from reaching its full potential - or at least, that's the message I took away. The modest, polite Canadian stereotype is there for a reason...but it's held us back in many ways.
The third part is where Saunders really gets into the meat of his argument - why (and how) Canada should target a population increase to approximately 100 million (a tripling of our current population of 35 million) by 2100. I found he offered practical ideas and recommendations for all three levels of government, but I remain unconvinced we can get there, largely because of a lack of political (and popular!) will. It's hard to start thinking about storms on the horizon when right now it's pretty sunny - especially as our economy is chugging along nicely right now. I'm already dreading the mid-century economic crunch Saunders is forecasting as our population continues to age.
A well-researched, engaging book on demographics and the dangers of underpopulation - who would have thought I'd ever write that?!
The third part is where Saunders really gets into the meat of his argument - why (and how) Canada should target a population increase to approximately 100 million (a tripling of our current population of 35 million) by 2100. I found he offered practical ideas and recommendations for all three levels of government, but I remain unconvinced we can get there, largely because of a lack of political (and popular!) will. It's hard to start thinking about storms on the horizon when right now it's pretty sunny - especially as our economy is chugging along nicely right now. I'm already dreading the mid-century economic crunch Saunders is forecasting as our population continues to age.
A well-researched, engaging book on demographics and the dangers of underpopulation - who would have thought I'd ever write that?!
November 6, 2020
In Maximum Canada, Doug Saunders argues that underpopulation is one of Canada's greatest threats to stability and prosperity—and always has been.
I came to this work after reading Extreme Economies and Shock of Gray, two works that explore the effects of aging populations. Right now, four Canadian workers are supporting every retired Canadian, but in the next twenty years that ratio will drop to 2:1 unless we find a way to produce more workers. Given that Canadian families currently opt for 1.7 children, which is below replacement and still falling, it seems like immigration is the best solution. I was pleased to read this week that our government is trying to increase immigration levels over the next four years to make up for the loss during coronavirus.
Saunders presents many more arguments in favor of density. Perhaps the most compelling is how hard it is to start any business in Canada because the domestic market is so small. Because this is Goodreads, one way into this analysis is stories. Britain, which has roughly 80 million people, produces tons of programs and novels aimed at their domestic audience. Because they can rely on that base, they can invest in this content to the point that it often finds an international audience. Canada, however, struggles to produce any of these shows. Because we are right next to the USA, which produces tons of content for its population of 350 million, it is all the more difficult. Saunders argues that this is true of nearly all businesses, excepting resource extraction. Our companies cannot rely on the domestic market to grow to the point that they can compete internationally, so they either become stifled or they leave the country. Consequently, Canada's economy is likely to face uphill battles as the international order moves recedes from free trade.
All in all, it's as though Canada faces not only the resource trap but also a population trap. Saunders' argument is interesting, but it also provides a lens for understanding Canadian history that was obvious and yet I'd never really considered. Maximum Canada was one of the best books I've read these last two months, though I suppose it will mostly appeal to Canadians. Recommended.
Notes.
I came to this work after reading Extreme Economies and Shock of Gray, two works that explore the effects of aging populations. Right now, four Canadian workers are supporting every retired Canadian, but in the next twenty years that ratio will drop to 2:1 unless we find a way to produce more workers. Given that Canadian families currently opt for 1.7 children, which is below replacement and still falling, it seems like immigration is the best solution. I was pleased to read this week that our government is trying to increase immigration levels over the next four years to make up for the loss during coronavirus.
Saunders presents many more arguments in favor of density. Perhaps the most compelling is how hard it is to start any business in Canada because the domestic market is so small. Because this is Goodreads, one way into this analysis is stories. Britain, which has roughly 80 million people, produces tons of programs and novels aimed at their domestic audience. Because they can rely on that base, they can invest in this content to the point that it often finds an international audience. Canada, however, struggles to produce any of these shows. Because we are right next to the USA, which produces tons of content for its population of 350 million, it is all the more difficult. Saunders argues that this is true of nearly all businesses, excepting resource extraction. Our companies cannot rely on the domestic market to grow to the point that they can compete internationally, so they either become stifled or they leave the country. Consequently, Canada's economy is likely to face uphill battles as the international order moves recedes from free trade.
All in all, it's as though Canada faces not only the resource trap but also a population trap. Saunders' argument is interesting, but it also provides a lens for understanding Canadian history that was obvious and yet I'd never really considered. Maximum Canada was one of the best books I've read these last two months, though I suppose it will mostly appeal to Canadians. Recommended.
Notes.
February 6, 2018
A very well-balanced and thoughtful read that doesn't feel like an overinflated magazine article or a flimsy read based on a clickbait premise. Saunders builds both a strong case for increasing immigration and population, first with a thorough and interesting historical review, and then with arguments both for and against his theory. It's highly readable and thoughtful without coming across as lecture or pedantry.
If there's a flaw to his premise, it's that perhaps he undersells some of the short-term growth pains, or fails to address how one drives population outside the large- and medium-sized cities, but he presents a compelling case and generally doesn't shy away from presenting the challenges inherent to a population drive.
If there's a flaw to his premise, it's that perhaps he undersells some of the short-term growth pains, or fails to address how one drives population outside the large- and medium-sized cities, but he presents a compelling case and generally doesn't shy away from presenting the challenges inherent to a population drive.
October 17, 2017
A cogent argument for significant population growth in Canada. The sections on health and long-term care are particularly poignant. The first half of the book is a history of Canada told through immigration policies and realities that will be a real eye-opener for anyone who, like me, took Canadian history in schools here in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
For a heavy topic, it's a lively read.
For a heavy topic, it's a lively read.
December 10, 2019
An interesting argument that is driven into the ground through incessant repetition, which could either be a poor attempt to pad a newspaper column to book length or simply reflective of the writer's lack of talent. The lack of any real attempt to grapple with the place of indigenous peoples — both historically and in Saunders' imagined, more populous future — is embarrassing.
December 30, 2020
Having just read One Billion Americans (Matthew Yglesias), I was worried that Maximum Canada would be too similar, given that Yglesias cites this book as an inspiration for writing his. I'm happy that isn't the case. Maximum Canada dedicates a majority of the book to detailing the history of Canada - as it pertains to immigration and trade policy - starting with its roots as a British colony, its evolution since, and its diversion from the United States. This history, while establishing Canada's identity, also provides the context for where the country is today and how it differs from (and lost to, in more ways than one) the United States.
I was surprised to see a majority of this book focus on history rather than policy, but it provided a strong foundation for the remainder of the book - and was educational about various immigration policies undertaken by former Prime Ministers. Saunders makes a fair number of comparisons between Canada and the United States - notably to highlight what was essentially a "brain drain" of Canadians in the 19th/early 20th century away from a country that was, at the time, almost solely oriented around building an natural resource economy exporting raw goods to the British empire. It is interesting to continue to see a modern-day brain drain of Canadians to the United States, once more, except now, it is in pursuit of increased wages and/or increased opportunity.
The latter half of the book presents the perils of underpopulation - increased healthcare costs as the population ages, reduced opportunity, depressed economic growth - and potential solutions - streamlining processes for highly-educated and accredited professionals to transfer/secure those certifications in Canada, increasing immigration quotas to roughly 400,000 immigrants a year (something which the current Federal government has committed to), and a subsidized universal childcare program similar to the one implemented in Quebec (to allow more caregivers, usually women, to return to the workforce earlier and advance their careers).
Saunders makes a few points here about population density being an negative factor - not populous enough to justify/financially support world-class public transit systems. To be fair, most major Canadian cities support reasonably decent transit, compared to US cities of similar sizes. That however, doesn't hide that we can do better. Canadian cities, compared to their American counterparts, are much more restricted in their abilities to raise funds for large capital projects, as they continue to be creatures of the provinces.
All levels of government have the opportunity here to step in and enact policies to support population growth/densification, especially in the context of climate change - better land use policy (municipal/provincial), enhanced child/family benefits (provincial/federal), and the construction of sustainable transit infrastructure (all levels) - although, typically an area that the federal government hasn't involved itself in too heavily, but which can transform the ways our cities function in the coming decades.
I was surprised to see a majority of this book focus on history rather than policy, but it provided a strong foundation for the remainder of the book - and was educational about various immigration policies undertaken by former Prime Ministers. Saunders makes a fair number of comparisons between Canada and the United States - notably to highlight what was essentially a "brain drain" of Canadians in the 19th/early 20th century away from a country that was, at the time, almost solely oriented around building an natural resource economy exporting raw goods to the British empire. It is interesting to continue to see a modern-day brain drain of Canadians to the United States, once more, except now, it is in pursuit of increased wages and/or increased opportunity.
The latter half of the book presents the perils of underpopulation - increased healthcare costs as the population ages, reduced opportunity, depressed economic growth - and potential solutions - streamlining processes for highly-educated and accredited professionals to transfer/secure those certifications in Canada, increasing immigration quotas to roughly 400,000 immigrants a year (something which the current Federal government has committed to), and a subsidized universal childcare program similar to the one implemented in Quebec (to allow more caregivers, usually women, to return to the workforce earlier and advance their careers).
Saunders makes a few points here about population density being an negative factor - not populous enough to justify/financially support world-class public transit systems. To be fair, most major Canadian cities support reasonably decent transit, compared to US cities of similar sizes. That however, doesn't hide that we can do better. Canadian cities, compared to their American counterparts, are much more restricted in their abilities to raise funds for large capital projects, as they continue to be creatures of the provinces.
All levels of government have the opportunity here to step in and enact policies to support population growth/densification, especially in the context of climate change - better land use policy (municipal/provincial), enhanced child/family benefits (provincial/federal), and the construction of sustainable transit infrastructure (all levels) - although, typically an area that the federal government hasn't involved itself in too heavily, but which can transform the ways our cities function in the coming decades.
February 1, 2021
Thought provoking look at Canadian immigration and a call for a massive growth to benefit the country. Humane and highly readable history of Canadian immigration combined with an argument to grow the country. Rightly also considers arguments against in a fair way too. Recommended for anyone interested in Canada
December 23, 2024
Saunders starts a brief overview of Canadian history through the lens of immigration - lots of interesting tidbits and a unique perspective in this section.
The next portion of the book looks at the current Canadian population and the challenges we face. He explains why he feels Canada needs more people for success and he did a pretty good job at backing this up with evidence. He also steel-manned his argument by looking at the rational behind opposing immigration which I appreciated.
Straightforward read with some interesting points to consider. Would love to hear what Saunders thinks about the recent boom of immigration (I imagine he wouldn’t be a fan of how rapidly it’s increased) and the subsequent slowing of immigration that we’ve been seeing in the news recently.
The next portion of the book looks at the current Canadian population and the challenges we face. He explains why he feels Canada needs more people for success and he did a pretty good job at backing this up with evidence. He also steel-manned his argument by looking at the rational behind opposing immigration which I appreciated.
Straightforward read with some interesting points to consider. Would love to hear what Saunders thinks about the recent boom of immigration (I imagine he wouldn’t be a fan of how rapidly it’s increased) and the subsequent slowing of immigration that we’ve been seeing in the news recently.
August 13, 2020
I am very sympathetic to Maximum Canada's thesis but the book is poorly argued and lacking scholarly merit.
February 1, 2022
A must read to understand Canada's lethargic economic productivity, innovation, lack of transportation and 21st century cities.
February 1, 2018
Doug Saunders, in my view, is one of the few Canadians who are willing and capable of digging below our nation at its polishing level. He pushes aside those tired and self-glorifying notions of tolerance, diversity, stability, and good governance, confirming a reality of which I had long ago become convinced: Canada is very much a society of unfinished business and second-rate ambitions. In a nation as smug and contented as ours, a healthy dose of brutal self-honesty is very much needed.
Why, for instance, does a good majority of our land appear as bleak and undeveloped as North Korea from satellite view at night? Why do the Russians manage to populate their land, even more frigid and frozen than ours, with fully twice our density? That we are a big land with few people should be immediately obvious to the casual observer, but how did we arrive at this state?
As a former strategic outpost of Britain, we have never had to think for ourselves. The crucial questions of nationhood-culture, economic development, geopolitical strategy, among others-has always been left to others, and will remain in such a state in the absence of a significant existential crisis-war, political breakup, or natural disaster-of sufficient magnitude to shake this country out of its longstanding complacency.
The less rosy spin on our history, one that Saunders captures with eloquent potency, has it that colonialism had effectively limited us Canadians to a people of secondary importance, a nagging truth that continues to poison our national psyche to this day. While America to the south built thriving industries and bustling cities, the Dominion to the north seemed content with an insulated, ever-backward land of Anglo-Saxon farmers. We refrained from aiming high, instead settling for bronze. Across the world today, Canadians are regarded as polite, moderate, and sometimes self-deprecating. Bold? High-achieving? That's for others.
It is indeed a pity that a nation so young and so blessed with potential should be confined to mediocrity and underachievement. It is even more pitiful, in light of Saunders' very reasonable proposal of increasing our population to 100 million (and one that has garnered much national attention), that the level of apathy and worse, hostility in our public toward improving our lot remains pathetically high. In the channels of public discourse, we hear much stupidity and very little wisdom: calls of "no more Islamic conquest of our nation", "our bloated country is full", and "Canada will become a dirty, overcrowded s***hole". Even in 2017, our second-rate reflexes rear their ugly head every time we are called on to act bloody-minded and strategic. High-achieving, go-getting societies such as Germany, Israel, China, Singapore, India, and Korea would cringe at the defensive, reactionary cowards that populate this land. But a fat-and-happy nation like ours "thrives" on them.
If we now set our sights to the year 2100, what will we become? We could, if we manage to shake ourselves out of our colonial "cage", become a model to the world, active in all domains of the human experience, leading others beyond mere pronouncements, and engaged in first-rate pursuits for the betterment of humanity. Activities and achievements that today elude us-a thriving military, generous foreign aid, world-beating healthcare, avant-garde innovation, successful and internationally-famous multinationals, numerous Nobel prizes, space exploration, cutting-edge transportation technologies, large cities bustling with endless dynamism, paradigm-shifting culture, numerous Summer Olympic medalists-would become the norm. At 100 million, we would become the second-most-populated nation in the West, after the US, growing at a time when Europe is stagnating. Let's be clear: we would truly MEAN something on the world stage, prosperous and reputable as we are, if and when we attain that level of demographic clout. We would not just be an empty, insubstantial lecturer of "progressive values" and "strengthening the global middle class" as we are now.
Or are we smug and contented enough to reduce ourselves to a 21st-century Argentina, a once wealthy and promising society confined to under-performance, as much of the world, developed and underdeveloped alike, passes us by? It is a non-negligible possibility if we continue down our current path. How would we then feel about the strength and merit of our "progressive values", when our living standards and international prominence lose their shine in what will become a much-diminished society? Would we remain as comfortable boasting about how supposedly "successful" this place is?
As Canadians, the ultimate choice is ours. Doug Saunders offers an articulate, well-researched explanation as to why one of those choices is vastly more viable than the other.
Why, for instance, does a good majority of our land appear as bleak and undeveloped as North Korea from satellite view at night? Why do the Russians manage to populate their land, even more frigid and frozen than ours, with fully twice our density? That we are a big land with few people should be immediately obvious to the casual observer, but how did we arrive at this state?
As a former strategic outpost of Britain, we have never had to think for ourselves. The crucial questions of nationhood-culture, economic development, geopolitical strategy, among others-has always been left to others, and will remain in such a state in the absence of a significant existential crisis-war, political breakup, or natural disaster-of sufficient magnitude to shake this country out of its longstanding complacency.
The less rosy spin on our history, one that Saunders captures with eloquent potency, has it that colonialism had effectively limited us Canadians to a people of secondary importance, a nagging truth that continues to poison our national psyche to this day. While America to the south built thriving industries and bustling cities, the Dominion to the north seemed content with an insulated, ever-backward land of Anglo-Saxon farmers. We refrained from aiming high, instead settling for bronze. Across the world today, Canadians are regarded as polite, moderate, and sometimes self-deprecating. Bold? High-achieving? That's for others.
It is indeed a pity that a nation so young and so blessed with potential should be confined to mediocrity and underachievement. It is even more pitiful, in light of Saunders' very reasonable proposal of increasing our population to 100 million (and one that has garnered much national attention), that the level of apathy and worse, hostility in our public toward improving our lot remains pathetically high. In the channels of public discourse, we hear much stupidity and very little wisdom: calls of "no more Islamic conquest of our nation", "our bloated country is full", and "Canada will become a dirty, overcrowded s***hole". Even in 2017, our second-rate reflexes rear their ugly head every time we are called on to act bloody-minded and strategic. High-achieving, go-getting societies such as Germany, Israel, China, Singapore, India, and Korea would cringe at the defensive, reactionary cowards that populate this land. But a fat-and-happy nation like ours "thrives" on them.
If we now set our sights to the year 2100, what will we become? We could, if we manage to shake ourselves out of our colonial "cage", become a model to the world, active in all domains of the human experience, leading others beyond mere pronouncements, and engaged in first-rate pursuits for the betterment of humanity. Activities and achievements that today elude us-a thriving military, generous foreign aid, world-beating healthcare, avant-garde innovation, successful and internationally-famous multinationals, numerous Nobel prizes, space exploration, cutting-edge transportation technologies, large cities bustling with endless dynamism, paradigm-shifting culture, numerous Summer Olympic medalists-would become the norm. At 100 million, we would become the second-most-populated nation in the West, after the US, growing at a time when Europe is stagnating. Let's be clear: we would truly MEAN something on the world stage, prosperous and reputable as we are, if and when we attain that level of demographic clout. We would not just be an empty, insubstantial lecturer of "progressive values" and "strengthening the global middle class" as we are now.
Or are we smug and contented enough to reduce ourselves to a 21st-century Argentina, a once wealthy and promising society confined to under-performance, as much of the world, developed and underdeveloped alike, passes us by? It is a non-negligible possibility if we continue down our current path. How would we then feel about the strength and merit of our "progressive values", when our living standards and international prominence lose their shine in what will become a much-diminished society? Would we remain as comfortable boasting about how supposedly "successful" this place is?
As Canadians, the ultimate choice is ours. Doug Saunders offers an articulate, well-researched explanation as to why one of those choices is vastly more viable than the other.
October 25, 2017
I think I'm sold on the idea of growing Canada to 100 million people by 2100, but I wonder what our country will look like by that time.
May 20, 2018
This is an interesting analysis of the interplay between demographics and government policies in Canadian history. For too long, according to Doug Sauders, Canada adopted a minimalist approach to immigration and population growth policies. We were very selective in who we would welcome to our shores, and unwilling to invest in the economic and social policies needed to retain these newcomers. As a result, down to the Second a World War, with the exception of the Laurier years at the beginning of the 20th century, we recorded net losses in migration ( which were offset by high birth rates in Canada). In the past fifty years, Canada has opened its doors to more immigrants. But Saunders believes we have to do more, and aim at an ambitious target of 100 million citizens by the end of the century. This will require significant investments in education, housing and public transit. But the pay-off, he believes, will be a Canada much stronger both economically and socially, a home for innovation, economic growth, and a richer diversified society.
I had one concern. In his diagnosis, Daunders rightly identifies the exclusion and denigration of our indigenous peoples as part of our "minimalist" population policies. However, in his final chapters, there are no solutions offered on how to include our First Nations in the Canada he describes.
I had one concern. In his diagnosis, Daunders rightly identifies the exclusion and denigration of our indigenous peoples as part of our "minimalist" population policies. However, in his final chapters, there are no solutions offered on how to include our First Nations in the Canada he describes.
February 16, 2018
Doug has produced another well-researched and thoughtful discourse on an issue that exercises all Canadians' minds. As a relatively "new" immigrant to Canada, I got a short, but most useful historical perspective on Canadian politicians and their actions that have shaped this country and its peoples. Already a regular reader of Saunder's columns in the Globe and Mail, I am now a fan!
March 27, 2018
Very weak on the history, very conjectural on the demography. Some sparkly ideas but reductionist.
October 26, 2025
This is a summary of the history of immigration as a source of population growth in Canada and an argument for the positive value of the trend and the merits of continuing and strengthening the policy to reach a Canadian population of 100 million by 2100. The story begins with a vignette taken from Doug Saunders family in the 1830s resisting, loyalists and champions of a British ideal of Canada insular and anti-democratic. The narrative then continues with an overview of Canadian history focusing on attitudes to immigration and population beginning with the French colony in Nouvelle-France (present day Quebec) and continuing on through British conquest, the independence of the United States, the establishment of the modern Canadian state and various policies on immigration and population by the various colonial and Canadian government.
The central theme of the narrative is to identify and categorize certain trends in terms of either a minimizing or maximizing impulse. The minimizing impulse resists growing Canadian population through immigration, cultural pluralism, openness in trade or culture. While the maximizing impulse seeks to alleviate chronic problems of poverty and insecurity by achieving the population base that will allow Canada to become a productive economy in open trade with others. Thus the war of 1812 is discussed in terms of its creating a closed and insular attitude among the colonial authorities of the Canadian colonies. The Laurier administration is discussed in terms of its recognition of the importance of attempting to maximize population and so on.
This perspective offers a somewhat different evaluation of historical trends and figures in Canadian history than I was used to, although it is often more a question of emphasis. Certainly I had always associated Laurier with his immigration drive, Saunders emphasizes the ultimate urban nature of immigration compared to traditional narratives of Laurier seeking population to open and occupy the western prairies. It is an interesting perspective on Canadian history, although I can't speak to how accurate or representative it is.
Implicit in much of the book and explicit in the final parts is the implication of all this for current policy. The book is ultimately a polemic for the value and potential in embracing a continuing drive to maximize Canadian population in the present and into the future. Some worries and caveats are mentioned, however so are many incentives and considerations such as the fact that Canadian birth rates now below replacement level will no longer buoy population.
This book does not have footnotes, endnotes or other inline citation. It does include in the back matter an annotated bibliography that explains the sources for much of the narrative. Also in the text the name or researchers or institution of some study will be mentioned as source for this or that fact. This means that while it might be difficult to find the source for a given fact or figure, the source of the overall narratives seems accessible.
I read this as a library ebook in epub format on my e-reader. There were no problems with the text.
The central theme of the narrative is to identify and categorize certain trends in terms of either a minimizing or maximizing impulse. The minimizing impulse resists growing Canadian population through immigration, cultural pluralism, openness in trade or culture. While the maximizing impulse seeks to alleviate chronic problems of poverty and insecurity by achieving the population base that will allow Canada to become a productive economy in open trade with others. Thus the war of 1812 is discussed in terms of its creating a closed and insular attitude among the colonial authorities of the Canadian colonies. The Laurier administration is discussed in terms of its recognition of the importance of attempting to maximize population and so on.
This perspective offers a somewhat different evaluation of historical trends and figures in Canadian history than I was used to, although it is often more a question of emphasis. Certainly I had always associated Laurier with his immigration drive, Saunders emphasizes the ultimate urban nature of immigration compared to traditional narratives of Laurier seeking population to open and occupy the western prairies. It is an interesting perspective on Canadian history, although I can't speak to how accurate or representative it is.
Implicit in much of the book and explicit in the final parts is the implication of all this for current policy. The book is ultimately a polemic for the value and potential in embracing a continuing drive to maximize Canadian population in the present and into the future. Some worries and caveats are mentioned, however so are many incentives and considerations such as the fact that Canadian birth rates now below replacement level will no longer buoy population.
This book does not have footnotes, endnotes or other inline citation. It does include in the back matter an annotated bibliography that explains the sources for much of the narrative. Also in the text the name or researchers or institution of some study will be mentioned as source for this or that fact. This means that while it might be difficult to find the source for a given fact or figure, the source of the overall narratives seems accessible.
I read this as a library ebook in epub format on my e-reader. There were no problems with the text.
February 16, 2021
(Read as physical book)
I really liked this book. The first half (or 2/3rds?) of the book is about the history of Canada. While telling the story of Canada, Saunders's take is that for most of Canada's history (until the 60s), Canadians had a "minimum Canada" mindset. By this, he means that the focus was on populating and occupying the land, and exploiting natural resources that would be shipped backed to Britain. He argues that not only has this mindset held back Canada, but that it shaped the bad treatment of Indigenous peoples.
Apparently, for most of the 19th century, Canada experienced more emigration than immigration. Ambitious people preferred to seek their fortune in the US rather than stay in Canada and work on an isolated farm. You could get cheap land in Canada, but it was hard to prosper. Saunders argues that this wasn't due to bad climate (a lot of Quebecois moved a short distance to New England), but due to under population and policies that discouraged innovation, such as a lack of free trade with the US.
Under Laurier, Canada experienced an immigration boom and made tentative steps towards freetrade with the US. It is easy to imagine that Canada would be a much different place if these policies had continued. Canada would probably be a much more significant player in international affairs. We would probably have domestic vaccine production.
However, even under Laurier, the focus was on attracting farmers. The boom was eventually undone by racism and anti-Americanism. Things wouldn't really pickup again until the 60s and Lester B Pearson. Canada didn't even take in many refugees from Europe due to WW2, although the immigration of a great many Hungarians after the 1956 revolution marked a turning point.
After recounting history, Saunders argues that multiculturalism is part of the Canadian identity, since Canada was founded by three peoples (English, French and Indigenous). He makes the case that Canadian multiculturalism does a good job in integrating newcomers, rather than assimlating them.
Saunder doesn't dwell too much on reaching 100 million, but does make a convincing case that Canada would be better off with a larger population. He notes that achieving 100 million people by the end of the 21st century wouldn't require a dramatic increase in immigration numbers.
Saunders isn't some uncompromising idealogue. He presents potential arguments (challenges really) against increasing the population to 100 million.
Overall, very good book that has helped shape my views of Canada. I put it up there with "The Efficient Society: Why Canada Is as Close to Utopia as It Gets"
I really liked this book. The first half (or 2/3rds?) of the book is about the history of Canada. While telling the story of Canada, Saunders's take is that for most of Canada's history (until the 60s), Canadians had a "minimum Canada" mindset. By this, he means that the focus was on populating and occupying the land, and exploiting natural resources that would be shipped backed to Britain. He argues that not only has this mindset held back Canada, but that it shaped the bad treatment of Indigenous peoples.
Apparently, for most of the 19th century, Canada experienced more emigration than immigration. Ambitious people preferred to seek their fortune in the US rather than stay in Canada and work on an isolated farm. You could get cheap land in Canada, but it was hard to prosper. Saunders argues that this wasn't due to bad climate (a lot of Quebecois moved a short distance to New England), but due to under population and policies that discouraged innovation, such as a lack of free trade with the US.
Under Laurier, Canada experienced an immigration boom and made tentative steps towards freetrade with the US. It is easy to imagine that Canada would be a much different place if these policies had continued. Canada would probably be a much more significant player in international affairs. We would probably have domestic vaccine production.
However, even under Laurier, the focus was on attracting farmers. The boom was eventually undone by racism and anti-Americanism. Things wouldn't really pickup again until the 60s and Lester B Pearson. Canada didn't even take in many refugees from Europe due to WW2, although the immigration of a great many Hungarians after the 1956 revolution marked a turning point.
After recounting history, Saunders argues that multiculturalism is part of the Canadian identity, since Canada was founded by three peoples (English, French and Indigenous). He makes the case that Canadian multiculturalism does a good job in integrating newcomers, rather than assimlating them.
Saunder doesn't dwell too much on reaching 100 million, but does make a convincing case that Canada would be better off with a larger population. He notes that achieving 100 million people by the end of the 21st century wouldn't require a dramatic increase in immigration numbers.
Saunders isn't some uncompromising idealogue. He presents potential arguments (challenges really) against increasing the population to 100 million.
Overall, very good book that has helped shape my views of Canada. I put it up there with "The Efficient Society: Why Canada Is as Close to Utopia as It Gets"
August 27, 2023
First off, despite the title, this is not a comedy book, nor is the author a crank. Rather, Canadian journalist Doug Saunders makes a convincing case for preparing for, embracing, and encouraging more immigration to Canada to ameliorate the ills caused by historic underpopulation. As an American reader without any major stakes in the game, I generally felt like an amused bystander, yet found the book highly interesting from start to finish.
After all, by the time you reach adulthood, your ideas of the world have become more or less fixed, and any book that can change the way you view something is to be appreciated. This book certainly changed my conception of Canada.
Most strikingly, I had no idea that Canada was a second or even third rate country throughout the 19th century. I think most Americans generally perceive it as a slightly nicer version of the U.S., so it was quite shocking to learn what an economic and cultural backwater Canada had remained for so much of its history. Personally I've always rather derived pleasure from the absurd notion that Canada is British despite its slight geographic disadvantage of being located in North America, so I found it illuminating to learn just how counterproductive and even destructive this "minimal Canada" policy actually was to the development of the country and its people.
I also came to understand the truth behind what you might call the "Is this celebrity dead, or Canadian?" phenomenon: talented individuals and Justin Bieber have to head south of the border to find a large enough market to achieve success. So many famous "American" celebrities, from William Shatner to Jim Carrey to Ryan Gosling, are actually Canadians who had to go to Hollywood to strike it big (only returning years later to Vancouver or Toronto as cheaper filming locations for American productions). We love fluffy articles about "10 celebrities you didn't know were Canadian" and now I understand the hard truth behind the phenomenon.
As a historian, I found the historical overview in the first two parts of the book to be the most rewarding and successful. This -- as opposed to the statistics, predictions, and forecasts of the third part -- is what fundamentally changed my perception of Canadian history and truly *made* Saunders's arguments about the future. Still, as an urban planning enthusiast, I also enjoyed his call to increase population density in order to combat sprawl and render public transit feasible.
In sum, I don't usually read "political" books (at least not ones about people who are still alive, or not yet born), but I thoroughly enjoyed this one.
After all, by the time you reach adulthood, your ideas of the world have become more or less fixed, and any book that can change the way you view something is to be appreciated. This book certainly changed my conception of Canada.
Most strikingly, I had no idea that Canada was a second or even third rate country throughout the 19th century. I think most Americans generally perceive it as a slightly nicer version of the U.S., so it was quite shocking to learn what an economic and cultural backwater Canada had remained for so much of its history. Personally I've always rather derived pleasure from the absurd notion that Canada is British despite its slight geographic disadvantage of being located in North America, so I found it illuminating to learn just how counterproductive and even destructive this "minimal Canada" policy actually was to the development of the country and its people.
I also came to understand the truth behind what you might call the "Is this celebrity dead, or Canadian?" phenomenon: talented individuals and Justin Bieber have to head south of the border to find a large enough market to achieve success. So many famous "American" celebrities, from William Shatner to Jim Carrey to Ryan Gosling, are actually Canadians who had to go to Hollywood to strike it big (only returning years later to Vancouver or Toronto as cheaper filming locations for American productions). We love fluffy articles about "10 celebrities you didn't know were Canadian" and now I understand the hard truth behind the phenomenon.
As a historian, I found the historical overview in the first two parts of the book to be the most rewarding and successful. This -- as opposed to the statistics, predictions, and forecasts of the third part -- is what fundamentally changed my perception of Canadian history and truly *made* Saunders's arguments about the future. Still, as an urban planning enthusiast, I also enjoyed his call to increase population density in order to combat sprawl and render public transit feasible.
In sum, I don't usually read "political" books (at least not ones about people who are still alive, or not yet born), but I thoroughly enjoyed this one.
July 22, 2018
The title immediately caught my eye. "Maximum Canada: Why 35 Million Canadians Are Not Enough" is a fascinating book. Doug Saunders systematically builds his argument that 100 million may be the ideal population for this country. He outlines how a small population, widely dispersed, puts severe constraints on this country's growth potential.
Saunders does a thorough review of Canada's demographic history. He points out how wrong government policies like British-only immigration, and high tariffs impeded national growth. Small thinking and restrictive nationalism stifled population growth and led many to Canadians to move to USA.
Saunders contrasts this with the brief periods when Canada had a more wide open policy on both immigration and trade, and how both the economy and the population flourished during such times. Saunders argues for reducing the bottlenecks that restrict growth.
Unlike America, within Canada there currently is a broad political consensus that immigration is good and needed. Saunders makes a strong case for growing Canada's population in the decades ahead through policies that encourage both natural growth (child bearing) and immigration. Both are needed to sustain an aging population.
While Donald Trump believes he can make America great by placing restrictions on immigration and erecting barriers to international trade, Saunders effectively argues that Canada will become great by opening its doors wide to both trade and immigration.
Whether you agree with his position or not, Doug Saunders presents a cogent argument for policies that can be used to shape the century ahead.
Saunders does a thorough review of Canada's demographic history. He points out how wrong government policies like British-only immigration, and high tariffs impeded national growth. Small thinking and restrictive nationalism stifled population growth and led many to Canadians to move to USA.
Saunders contrasts this with the brief periods when Canada had a more wide open policy on both immigration and trade, and how both the economy and the population flourished during such times. Saunders argues for reducing the bottlenecks that restrict growth.
Unlike America, within Canada there currently is a broad political consensus that immigration is good and needed. Saunders makes a strong case for growing Canada's population in the decades ahead through policies that encourage both natural growth (child bearing) and immigration. Both are needed to sustain an aging population.
While Donald Trump believes he can make America great by placing restrictions on immigration and erecting barriers to international trade, Saunders effectively argues that Canada will become great by opening its doors wide to both trade and immigration.
Whether you agree with his position or not, Doug Saunders presents a cogent argument for policies that can be used to shape the century ahead.
April 9, 2025
I picked up this book for a light read that affirmed my pro-immigration views, but the first two thirds ended up being a history lesson. Everything I was looking for was in part 3.
...But I happened to read it at the exact moment when the way that the country was screwed over by its historical ethno-nationalist, protectionist, pro-tariff impulses was an incredibly pertinent and interesting topic, so I didn't mind, actually. It was also interesting to see the origins of the anti-Americanism, a general feeling which still exists but is looking pretty good now actually. It also offers a feeling of regret for the missed opportunities, especially now, when Canada's underpopulation leaves us even more vulnerable to America's current political convulsion (very much mincing words). The book was published during Trump 1.0, so that's probably not a coincidence.
Unfortunate that the pendulum swung more anti-immigration even in Canada but we do have to pull ourselves together on housing either way. Fortunately the book did include "don't do this wrong or sentiment will turn against immigration" so it now comes off as prescient.
It was nice to see my policy wishlists showing up in the last chapter (dense mixed-use transit-oriented development centered around the biggest cities and university cities &c) but it really just blazed through it. Since most of the book is about the benefits of a higher population, it feels like auxiliary topics like housing and urbanism are written for people who already agree and not with any attempt at persuasion or critical thought. Perhaps the importance of house ownership for immigrants isn't at odds with densification with multifamily homes, but it at least could have been discussed! So ultimately I was still left feeling like I'd rather the third part was three times as long.
—I must say, 100M Canadians by 2100 seems like an incredibly modest goal if 100M is how much we need to reap the benefits.
...But I happened to read it at the exact moment when the way that the country was screwed over by its historical ethno-nationalist, protectionist, pro-tariff impulses was an incredibly pertinent and interesting topic, so I didn't mind, actually. It was also interesting to see the origins of the anti-Americanism, a general feeling which still exists but is looking pretty good now actually. It also offers a feeling of regret for the missed opportunities, especially now, when Canada's underpopulation leaves us even more vulnerable to America's current political convulsion (very much mincing words). The book was published during Trump 1.0, so that's probably not a coincidence.
Unfortunate that the pendulum swung more anti-immigration even in Canada but we do have to pull ourselves together on housing either way. Fortunately the book did include "don't do this wrong or sentiment will turn against immigration" so it now comes off as prescient.
It was nice to see my policy wishlists showing up in the last chapter (dense mixed-use transit-oriented development centered around the biggest cities and university cities &c) but it really just blazed through it. Since most of the book is about the benefits of a higher population, it feels like auxiliary topics like housing and urbanism are written for people who already agree and not with any attempt at persuasion or critical thought. Perhaps the importance of house ownership for immigrants isn't at odds with densification with multifamily homes, but it at least could have been discussed! So ultimately I was still left feeling like I'd rather the third part was three times as long.
—I must say, 100M Canadians by 2100 seems like an incredibly modest goal if 100M is how much we need to reap the benefits.
February 11, 2020
A different book than the one I was expecting. Saunders puts forth the idea that Canada should aim to be a nation of one hundred million people (currently we’re at about 38 million), by encouraging a much higher rate of immigration. The book is mostly an argument from history. It traces the shifts back and forth in Canada’s politics towards immigration, between phases where immigration was encouraged and diversity was welcomed (or at least tolerated), and phases where immigration was restricted and Canada discouraged differences and emphasized protectionism. Saunders argues that Canada prospered under the former approach.
That’s all well and good, but I wanted much more in the way of specifics for the present day - what advantages would such a large immigration rate bring, what would be the practical challenges of having 100 million people, and what would be the impact on our environment. He touches on these subjects, but only briefly and unsatisfyingly, in my view. Saunders is a wonderful current affairs columnist and I would have liked to hear much more of his views, instead of hearing about Wilfred Laurier.
That’s all well and good, but I wanted much more in the way of specifics for the present day - what advantages would such a large immigration rate bring, what would be the practical challenges of having 100 million people, and what would be the impact on our environment. He touches on these subjects, but only briefly and unsatisfyingly, in my view. Saunders is a wonderful current affairs columnist and I would have liked to hear much more of his views, instead of hearing about Wilfred Laurier.
August 10, 2020
I wasn't aware of the "minimalist" policies of past Canadian governments so it was interesting to learn about the deliberate attempt to limit the growth of the country by its own government. I knew about Canada's colonial mentality but I had no idea so many of its ruling class wanted it to be nothing more than a resource extractor for Britain. The biggest flaw in this book is Saunders' blind spot with respect to Modern Monetary Theory. He states throughout the book that Canada needs a bigger tax base to fund better services but as MMT proponents would argue, governments spend then tax (and not the other way around). I read this book unsure about its central premise and I can't say that I've changed my mind. Saunders does make it sound like a population of 100 million would be great but as he says near the end, there would need to be proper safeguards to make sure its equitable, which means a lot political organizing. This was going to be necessary anyway.
All in all, I guess this wasn't a wasted read but I definitely wouldn't have bought it and would recommend borrowing it from the library instead.
All in all, I guess this wasn't a wasted read but I definitely wouldn't have bought it and would recommend borrowing it from the library instead.
January 19, 2021
The first two-thirds of this book was primarily a history of immigration and population growth in Canada, which was unexpected but enlightening. The final third, which is the part that actually deals with the subtitle (why 35 million Canadians are not enough), suffered a bit from hand-waving syndrome, by which I mean Saunders would mention an issue and then sort of wave it off as being almost-magically solved by increased population. For example, one of his points for how increased immigration was good for the fight against climate change was that immigrants send money to their home countries...which decreases fertility rates there, hence stopping extreme population growth. As a debate coach, if I heard this from one of my middle school students, I'd call them on it, let alone a full-grown adult. However, his points are generally logically sound and I found myself truly engaging with his vision for Canada's future.
Also, when he mentions that ambitious Canadians often realize that they need to look elsewhere to fulfill their professional goals, I felt that. Underpopulation is indeed a problem for Canada, and Saunders is right in diagnosing it.
Also, when he mentions that ambitious Canadians often realize that they need to look elsewhere to fulfill their professional goals, I felt that. Underpopulation is indeed a problem for Canada, and Saunders is right in diagnosing it.
October 19, 2017
Another thorough work from Doug Saunders. I am a follower of his column in Globe and Mail and have read his bestseller "The Myth of the Muslim Tide". He is an avid researcher, and often provides quite a balanced perspective on demographic issues faced by today's societies. In this work, he effectively examines the long term future trends of population in Canada from an economic, social, political points of view. He argues that Canada needs to triple its population and reach 100 million by the end of this century to have strong and stable place in the world. He provides the reasons for his argument, presents the investments necessary to achieve it, and introduces the reader the risks involved. I think he did a convincing job putting his ideas of healthy population growth strengthened by fair comparisons to what's happening in the other parts of the world, especially Europe and the US. I'd say he convinced me that we need more people in Canada...
March 29, 2020
A concise, efficient and persuasive book, in many ways comparable to "The Myth of the Muslim Tide," the one other book I've read by his author. However, unlike "Myth," where he largely debunked widespread ideas about Europe's Muslim immigrant communities, Saunders here builds and develops an argument: that a "minimizing impulse," aimed at keeping a small, agrarian, resource-extracting and religious hampered Canada's economic and intellectual development; and that a "Maximum" Canada of 100 million inhabitants will help boost said development, grow creative classes and resolve economic and infrastructural inefficiencies. With well-researched background, "Maximum Canada" is not just a current affairs essay; it's also a history of Canada from an immigration and demographics perspective.
September 17, 2024
This is an excellent read - it explains a lot about the problems Canada has today. The benefits of having a small or large population, and the consequences. This is not just economics, but recalls the history of Canada, when the ‘raison d’être’ was as a supplier of raw materials to the home country, England. Politicians didn’t and still don’t realise that what they do has far-reaching consequences. Immigration, infrastructure, education, health, they are all linked - the order you develop them in makes a big difference! This is spelled out in great well researched detail in this book by Saunders, now a journalist for The Globe & Mail. Minimising or maximising - which is better? If 35 million people isn’t enough, then will 100 million be the solution? Not in my lifetime.
November 4, 2018
It always nagged at me why we were only 10% of the Americans population. This book explains how the bad policies imposed on us from the UK and continued for a lot of our early history stunted our growth. It wasn’t the cold weather.
It showed how Laurier was likely our greatest prime minister with 10% economic booms during his decade and 400,000 immigrants policies of growth. Until it was stopped by Bennett and other Tories after him - until Mulroney accepted the Donald commission and embraced free trade with the Americans.
If showed the dangers and costs of an aging population without an jncreased fertility and pro family policies coupled with modest continued immigration growth.
It showed how Laurier was likely our greatest prime minister with 10% economic booms during his decade and 400,000 immigrants policies of growth. Until it was stopped by Bennett and other Tories after him - until Mulroney accepted the Donald commission and embraced free trade with the Americans.
If showed the dangers and costs of an aging population without an jncreased fertility and pro family policies coupled with modest continued immigration growth.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews