Canada’s Population Passing 42 Million in 2024 and 50 Million by 2031

Canada’s realtime population count is about 3 weeks from reaching 41 million people. On June 16, 2023, Statistics Canada announced that Canada’s population had reached 40 million people. Canada is adding over 100,000 per month with 868,000 added over less than eight months. This will each over 880,000 by Feb 16, 2024. 15% of the mostly international migrants increasing Canada’s population go to BC, about 50% to Ontario, 20% to Alberta and 10% to Quebec. Canada will likely end 2024 with about 42 million people. This will be about 48 million at end of 2029. Canada should pass 50 million in 2030 or 2031.

Ontario will pass 16 million this year and will be over 20 million before 2030.

British Columbia, Canada population is projected to grow from 5.5 million in 2023 to 7.9 million by 2046. BC’s population will grow by up to 44%, according to the provincial government’s newly released 2024 BC Stats report. This compares to the current populations of Greater Toronto (roughly 7.0 million), New York City (8.5 million), the province of Quebec (almost 9.0 million), and Washington state (roughly 8.0 million).

By 2046, the combined Lower Mainland/Southwest region — an area that includes not only Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley, but also the Sea to Sky Corridor and the Sunshine Coast — will reach a population of 4.9 million, representing an increase of 51% compared to 2023.

Metro Vancouver’s population is expected to reach and exceed three million residents in 2024, and if the projections hold another one million people will be added to the region by 2041 for a total of four million residents.

By 2029, the City of Surrey will become BC’s most populated city when it reaches 785,619 residents — squeaking past Vancouver’s 780,075 residents.

9 thoughts on “Canada’s Population Passing 42 Million in 2024 and 50 Million by 2031”

    • I was born in Canada and lived there about half of my life. It is also a developed country (top 10 economy) which is bucking the stagnant or declining population trend. I think the immigration policy could work by 2050 to boost the GDP to overtake Italy, France, UK, Germany and Japan. Italy, Germany and Japan going into or already in rapid decline. France and UK heading to stagnation.

      I have written my thesis in my articles. Do you have an analysis for a possible positive economic case for another major country that I am missing ? What is your case for some other country that I should be fascinated with?

      From 1990-2012, I was writing about about the rise of China. And China’s GDP and performance did grow. Then it started hitting the wall and now it has serious problems. BUT prior to the problems I was right in projecting and analyzing the rise. There were many who said they did not believe it. Famous analysts like Peter Zeihan, Gordon Chang were predicting the collapse of China every year from 2000 onwards and even before. Zeihan still predicting the collapse within 5-10 years. Finally, this will start to look more correct. But being wrong for 2 decades and being kind of right does not erase the very wrong analysis.

      Make a clear case about what you predict for Canada or other countries.

      Why not ask … why write 10+ articles about top 1-200. Out of 30,000+ articles. There have been hundreds of topics with over 10-20 articles.

      I have also been right in my predictions of Canada’s population and immigration growth.
      I am a futurist and I predict and I predict 98% correct.

      In 2018, Nextbigfuture predicted that Canada’s population would hit 40 million in 2023.

      This was a 3 million increase.

      There are world population focused websites that still project Canada’s live population count as UNDER 40 million in 2024.

      I was right in 2018 predicting 5 years into the future, when another site is wrong today about things that happened last year.

  1. Canada isn’t growing, it’s dying. Canadians made Canada, and now they’re being replaced. The people flooding in have no ties or connection to what once was.

    • Agreed. It’s frustrating. It will be hard to determine at what point Canada reached/ exceeded a tipping point of transitioning from a successful/ prosperous country (i would say 80s) with excellent work ethic, educational institutions to be proud of, technology sectors that created world class companies and products, strong GDP per capita numbers within similar types of G7 countries, a resilient culture of outdoors enthusiasts and urban sophistication — that then changed to a dumping ground for the ‘poor/ broken world’s’-top 10%’ and their ‘definitely not’ top 10% family, relatives, dependents, colleagues, and peers. Have we seen the ‘merit-based’ top 10% immigrants (only coming in at top 50% compared to locals) ALL create great value there, creating opportunity in their places of work, spreading knowledge and new thinking – not from what I heard: widespread nepotism and inter-cultural collusion-excluding all others; resentfullness at not getting automatic promotions, thereby blaming Canada’s allegedly racist culture; resistance at participating in local culture, commerce, and politics; huge one-culture neighborhoods with little opportunity for any other group at the entry level (looking at you Toronto/ Calgary suburbs) etc., etc.
      It’s not about being pure or white-bread anglos or racism — just the solid understanding that low-trust society cultures do not fit into first-world, high-trust systems — which prioritize work ethic, work identity, non-friend business relationships, technological visions, and other modern post-industrial ideas -different from- traditional low-trust society things such as family, neighborhood, bloodlines, heritage, friend-businesses, etc., etc. — all emotionally fraught cultural issues not compatible with New World forward-thinking values. There is nothing wrong with the other 75%+ of the World – it’s just that there is no net-positive techno-economic relationship happening in the sponsor country when other countries re-distribute their hordes. The only success for the bottom 75% is trickle-down at the pace the target country can handle as top 25% make tech/ economic items available.
      I imagine that Canada will have to fall out of the traditional G7 before people realize that ‘muddying the waters’ of great countries just undermines the entire world – likely by 2050. When globalization started as country-appropriate trade and offshoring – each country ‘knew its place’ and its citizens contributed as factory-workers or engineers or miners or financiers — but that just became a citizen redistribution, as if an Indian engineer was as useful and easily-integratable as a Canadian or British or US engineer in Canada -no.
      I trust that diversity initiatives, mass immigration, excessive globalization, and other such charitable work will soon be seen as what they are: counter-productive, destabilizing, and ultimately negative to all parties except the small few that ‘hit the jackpot’ escaping their poverty-stricken lives – funny how the news outlets that championed the newcomers never follow-up 10 years later to see how the arrivals are doing – they don’t want non-liberal Canada to know the truth – most immigrants underperfrom their degree-mill standing, their post-immigration profession, and their community’s expectations. Ho-hum. Perhaps they can sell their neglected million-dollar homes and buy a nice long retirement back in the old country.

      • It’s well put. I’ve often said: A country is just lines on a map it. It is not especially stable. A nation is a country with a single overriding set of cultural values. It’s potentially as stable as they come. An empire is just a collection of countries and not stable at all.

        The US special sauce (aside from a fortuitous beginning and an unmatched geographical position) is that it is an empire of fifty countries which, despite some differences, all have the same single overriding set of clear and simple cultural values (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). It is unique in all of history and if we ever succeed in undoing it, this planet may not see its like again.

  2. The current rate of population growth cannot be sustained without structural changes in the rate of housing supply development. So, I take long term extrapolations of current growth rates with a grain of salt.

    There are regulatory changes being done to ease new housing being built, but they are incremental. For 1.2M new residents per year, we’d need to be building 3x the amount of housing we are today, and as it stands much of the skilled construction labour is nearing retirement.

  3. So, is Canada “growing” faster through arriving immigrants than through native births? (as the US has this year)

Comments are closed.