Sometimes, we can't see the trees for the forest

Trevor Tombe is the latest economist arguing that Canada doesn’t need to worry so much about population aging or slower population growth. Studies suggest that slower population growth can boost GDP per capita, leading to a stronger economy even without adding more people. His article in The Hub is more nuanced than that simple summary, but it raises an important debate.

Having channelled my inner Johnny Cash over the past five years, my consulting work has taken me everywhere from Port Hawkesbury and Digby to Kenora, Bridgewater, Miramichi, Sackville, Botwood, Deer Lake, Chatham-Kent and dozens of other communities.

What strikes me is how different this debate looks on the ground.

Yes, if we dramatically increase oil production while slowing population growth, Canada may well increase GDP per capita. Economists may celebrate the productivity statistics. But are we missing the forest for the trees?

What about the hundreds of communities struggling simply to keep the demographic lights on?

This is why I believe we need a more human-centred approach to economic policy. Success isn’t just about GDP or productivity. It’s about ensuring that people across Canada have access to jobs, public services, health care, schools and thriving communities. Today, thousands of communities are already demographically underwater. They experience more deaths than births each year, and more than 30% of their workforce is 55 or older.

I was in Kenora recently and heard multiple stories about economic opportunities that couldn’t proceed because employers couldn’t find workers. Kenora is an attractive small city serving a regional population of perhaps 100,000 people. Why wouldn’t addressing its workforce shortage be one of our top public policy priorities?

In my view, Canada should be targeting population growth of at least 1.5% annually, while directing more of that growth to communities where it is needed most. Peel Region records roughly 250 births for every 100 deaths. Digby records closer to 50 births for every 100 deaths. These communities do not face the same demographic challenge and should not receive the same policy response.

I’ve said many times that not every community has the assets to become a high-growth success story. That’s reality. But government policy shouldn’t actively make their challenges worse.

Take Miramichi. The city welcomed about 300 permanent residents in 2024, roughly 1% of its population. That number was cut in half in 2025, and it remains unclear what 2026 will bring.

My concern is that hundreds of communities could enter a long-term downward spiral. As employers struggle to find workers, services decline. As services decline, more people leave. The shrinking population makes it even harder to sustain schools, health care, local businesses and municipal infrastructure. That spiral can continue for decades.

The past four or five years have shown that this outcome isn’t inevitable. Newcomers have chosen communities like Steinbach, Brandon, Yarmouth and Edmundston. We know people are willing to settle outside Canada’s largest metropolitan areas. The challenge now is creating the policy environment that supports continued attraction and, even more importantly, long-term retention.

Most of this growth will come through immigration. There is undeniably a growing backlash against newcomers in some parts of the country. If local governments are not committed to welcoming new residents, policy should focus on communities that are. Settlement is already difficult enough without resistance from city hall. Governments should prioritize places that are investing in housing, settlement services, workforce integration and community support.

Ultimately, we should ask ourselves a simple question: what is the purpose of economic growth?

Surely it is to sustain high-quality public services, modern infrastructure, vibrant communities and a strong social safety net. If we allow hundreds of communities to endure decades of demographic decline simply because it improves GDP per capita, then we’ve mistaken the measure for the objective.

In other words, we’ve been so busy looking at the ‘forest’ that we’ve lost sight of the individual ‘trees’.