Talk:Population of Canada

Lack of source.
There wasn't really any source for the projection that "canada's population will reach 40,000,000 by 2010" so I deleted it. 11 million population of canada

the size (area) given to metro cities in the US is much different than in Canada making Canadian cities slightly underrated in population
checkout cities like Denver, Houston, even Philadelphia. they are given areas more comparable to the horseshoe area around Toronto than metro Toronto. by that measure Toronto is a lot closer to being the 4th largest city in North America that includes Mexico, USA, Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sentence in lead section - What does it actually mean?
The more I look at this sentence from the lead section, the less I understand it.
 * Canada makes up 0.5% of the world population, and Canadians make up 0.53% or 1 in 189 globally.

What's the difference between the first part and the second part, they have the same meaning to me. And why are the numbers different (0.5 vs. 0.53)? The sentence seems to be inconsistent. In other words, Either Canada makes up 0.53% of the world population, or Canadians make up 0.5% or 1 in 189 globally. And what world population was used to compute 1 in 189? Why say it both ways? It's unverifiable as stated, except with a number of assumptions. Any suggestions to improve this? DonToto (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅..made it short and added ref. Moxy (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Title
"List of population of Canada by years" is ungrammatical. Page should be redirected to Population of Canada by year. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅..i will start to fix redirects..if someone got a bot for this that would be great.Moxy (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Title
....All those dead babies..... My problem is with the paragraph: "The year with the most population growth was during the peak of the Post-World War II baby boom in 1956-1957, when the population grew by over 529,000, in a single twelve month period.[8] The Canadian baby boom defined from 1947 to 1966, saw more than 400,000 babies born." ...so one year (1956-1957) 529000 babies are born... and the period encompassing that year 1947 to 1966 there are a total for all those years of 400000 babies born. What that means is 529000-400000=129000 babies died and the other years from 1947 to 1966 there were no babies born (but wait, we can do this other ways) 529000 + 2000 babies born every year minus a catastrophic meteor crashing into the earth killing 165000 babies gives us a total of 400000 for the period from 1947 to 1966. ...The numbers add up wonky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.90.234 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC) If you're trying to figure out why our population is incredibly low compared to say "Russia" which is in the same geographical situation and still a super power.. it's because when the globalists started introducing population control.. we fell for it hook line and sinker. Only instead of castration we opted for birth control including vasectomy ... smaller families.. or no children at all. May as well have lined up to be castrated.. it's the same basically. Even if you get the math all straight on this .. it still doesn't make any sense except in that context. The lack of population growth in such a large and rich country stands out like a sore thumb. http://www.theriseofthefourthreich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.228.44 (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute with intro about arable land (can it be removed or reworded in the intro)
Implying that Canada has a modest population density when taking out non arable land is wrong. Canada contains over a third of the world’s boreal forest, one fifth of the world’s temperate rainforest, and a tenth of the total global forest cover. Canada has the second major repository of northern forests, after Russia. Canada’s boreal forest is one of the three largest ‘frontier forests’ remaining on the planet. Canada’s relatively undisturbed forest areas are sufficiently large to maintain all of their native biodiversity.

Forests comprise 45% and freshwaters comprise 9% of Canada’s area. The timber productive forestland totals almost 2.5 million square kilometers, or about one quarter of Canada’s land area.

Global Forest Watch: Canada - Index

in some provinces like Nova Scotia 77 % of the area is considered forested and that doesn't include tree cover in urban areas. altogether it could be as high as 85 %. New Brunswick it's 90 % http://www.new-brunswick.net/new-bru...gentravel.html the area of dense forests in Quebec is the size of Norway and Sweden combined. 33 MILLION HECTARES OF FOREST LAND IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORES http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages..._a_forest.aspx

tree cover in Australia is 5 % tree cover in Canada is 45 %

Canada's forests occupy 1.5 times the land area of the entire European Community (EU 300 million Canada 34 million there's a big difference in population density). "North America's forests are abundant and growing. Between them, Canada and the United States contain 15 percent (10 percent in Canada and 5 percent in the U.S.) of the Earth's forest cover" that means there are more trees in Canada than the USA. http://www.hpva.org/products/facts.aspGrmike (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)grmikeGrmike (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)grmike
 * Reworded last sentence of the intro based on NB and NS. Combined they have about 80-85% forest cover but their population density is less than that of Sweden which is described as having a lot population density in its wikipedia article.  NS and NB are ranked among Canada's most densely populated regions but they still pale in comparison to European countries even the low populated ones.Grmike (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)grmike

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved (discussion ran 49 days). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Population of Canada by year → Population of Canada or Population history of Canada – This article has evolved to be not just a year list but a page discuss population growth etc... and leads to all the other Canadian population stats articles --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest Population history of Canada instead as Population of Canada implies the scope is current population. Hwy43 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How about Demographic history of Canada? Plenty of countries have such articles, including your (mostly) friendly neighbors to the south. If that entails an expansion in scope, all the more better. I would recommend redirecting Population of Canada to Demographics of Canada, just as Population of the United States redirects to Demographics of the United States. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow its very disappointing to see all those population articles named demographics. Population density is just a part of the demographics of a country - like ethnicity, age etc.. I would never recommend we redirect  Population of.. to Demographics of... . WOW seeing that above leads me to believe there's lost of work to do out-there. Cant believe the Americans dont have an article on Population history wow just wow. -- Moxy (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Moxy, your just made reference to "an article on population history". That is exactly what this article is. Have you given any thought to what I suggested above? Hwy43 (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes Population history of Canada would be fine with me - just saying demographic is a much broader topic then just population. -- Moxy (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree demographic is too broad for what is presented here. I would support the requested move if the target is formally changed to Population history of Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Population history of Canada per WP:CRITERIA, specifically consistency. There are only two "Population history of" articles, and Population history of Egypt is the only one sort of about a modern state (it's much more about prehistoric and ancient Egypt). Yes, population is part of demographics, which is why I suggested moves that would expand the scope of the article. And it's perfectly logical to have a sub-topic redirect to the larger topic. There's nothing strange about that. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand what your saying - you think its best we merger this page with the demographics page? I see this as a stand alone topic that merits its own article as per  sources  and  -- Moxy (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. But I think the demographic history of Canada is a notable topic, and I think the population history is part of the demographic history. So I'd like to see this moved to that broader title to allow room for growth. Does that make sense? An article whose coverage is narrower than its scope usually needs either expansion or a narrower title; I think the former would be to the readers' benefit in this case. --BDD (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Population history of Canada per WP:CRITERIA. It is recognizable, natural, precise and concise, while I think the above argument of it not meeting WP:CRITERIA's "consistency" is weak. If there was ever a Demographic history of Canada article that was complete and lengthy, a sub-article about population history titled Population history of Canada would be consistent with the main/parent Demographic history of Canada article. Further, this is the most appropriate and accurate title of this article in its current state, which is what this requested move proposal is about. The proposal should not be a vehicle to push a scope expansion (make-work) project. I therefore oppose Demographic history of Canada on these grounds and also oppose the first option, Population of Canada, as it is too general (pending the outcome of the move, it may however be appropriate as a dab that lists Demographics of Canada and Population history of Canada). Hwy43 (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Population of Canada. Other words are necessarily implied. Today's population requires only a small section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Population of Canada per SmokeyJoe. A section should be added after the lede to summarize the characteristics of the current population. bd2412  T 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The heading - Aboriginals
Shouldn't the heading for section 1.1 read Aborigines (noun) and not Aboriginals (adjective)? Melbourne3163 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Aboriginals is often also employed to stand as a noun . "Aborigines" is a term normally used  for  Indigenous Australians. Also have to remember Aborigines has some derogatory associations... (Source for these POV,s - ) -- Moxy (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Population decline
I would like significant declines in populations listed. These declines would be from disease outbreaks such as smallpox.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Two-thirds of residents live within 100 km of southern U.S. border
I had heard a variant of this before so looked and found a source for it: It's on page 4 of Population size and growth in Canada : Key results from the 2016 Census. I haven't added it to the article itself because I wanted to avoid any perceived American bias, plus it may be redundant because the article already essentially says that if not in so many words. Mapsax (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Canadians don't live where they do to be near the US border. Toronto is about 32 kilometres from the border but the border is in the middle of Lake Ontario. Montreal was founded long before the US existed.

Missing text
Something missing at '*' before "90 wintering"?
 * Probably not, see this edit. Mapsax (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Quebec-Windsor Corridor.svg

Metropolitan cites in Canada
What is the population in Montreal?

In 2021 The population of Montreal was 1,762,949 and in 2022 followed with the population of the Montreal was 4.4 million over 4 million after LA and SF Houston and after Seattle and after Vancouver. Canada’s largest metropolitan area is Toronto, in Ontario. In 2022 Over 6.6 million people were living in the Toronto metropolitan City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.90.205 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a question relating to this article? Also, please note that a city's population may refer to any number of figures; see Census geographic units of Canada for details. You'll need to be clearer about which measure you are discussing, and with relevance to which article on Wikipedia. Mind  matrix  18:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Population of Canada
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Population of Canada's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Statistics Canada 2022a": From Demographics of Canada:  From Canada:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Who's Yves Landry?
I saw him in this article, but there was no link attached to him, I did a quick search, is this the cyclist Yves Landry ReserchingAndAnnotating (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, he's a demographer and researcher at the University of Montreal (or at least he was there when he wrote the article cited in that sentence. &mdash;—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! ReserchingAndAnnotating (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Born in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Yves Landry taught the history of North America, the history of Ancien Régime France and historical demography in several French and Canadian university institutions since 1986. He obtained a doctorate in modern history from the School of Advanced Studies in Social Sciences in 1990. His publications have mainly focused on the history of immigrants established in Canada in the 17th and 18th centuries. Winner of the Jean-Charles-Falardeau Prize (1993) and co-recipient of the Lionel-Groulx (1988) and Percy-W.-Foy (1993) prizes, he was director of the Research Program on French emigration to New France at the University of Caen Basse-Normandie from 2001 to 2006. Moxy 🍁 21:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Population of Canada one of the least per person per km in the entire world
According to Statistics Times the current U.N. figures is 4.3 km per square mile in Canada. What is missing from this article is that 4.3 km makes Canada on of the least populated per km in the entire world per km at 226th country out of 237 Countries, (U.N. figures from Statistics Times), Greenland being the least populated country per km. This fact should have been stated to show how low the population of Canada really is. This article is written in a Population Growth alarmist way. It is written like the movie "Soylent Green" made in 1973, based on the ideas of the book "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich, you take the population rate figures of New York, and you state in 2022 that there will be 40 million people in New York and all these horrible consequences, etc., when the actual truth is that New York had a population of around 7.9 million in 1973, lost almost a million the next 7 years, and now has a population of 8.3 million people, or an urban density of 2,309 per km...and that info on New York is all from Wikipedia statistics. The article is a "Waterworld" movie. 2600:1700:3B84:AA00:912F:CC97:62D4:DA6D (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We say "4.2 people per square kilometre".... Can't comment on the rest of the rant. Moxy 🍁 16:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)