Canada is by far not the only country to face a population decline. Only a few states (mainly in South America and particularly in Africa) will see population growth.

Among the larger economies, China is the country with the most severe decrease in population according to researchers, while the country is less prepared than many others. In most Western countries and other democratic states like Japan and South Korea, societies that underwent fertility decline benefited from a so-called ‘demographic dividend’ - driven by a long period of economic growth with a relatively large working population compared to smaller numbers of dependents younger than 15 and older than 65. China’s dividend period started later (in the 1980s) than in other countries, and their fertility rate is now declining faster. This left China with a relatively low per capita income and, therefore, fewer resources to tackle the issues of an aging population.

Simply speaking, China got old before it got rich. This and the fact that China has a far less developed social welfare and pension system than we in the West will be an issue that is going to share the Chinese economy in the long run, but so far there are no clear signal how the country is addressing this.

So Canada and most (all?) democratic states are much better prepared for this demographic challenges ahead of us.

The MoU also says it will be,

… improving regulatory and governance frameworks, promoting environmental and social best practices …

Having said that, it is better if Canada does this with a partner where it can co-create the rules rather than relying on China or other countries where social and environmental rights are broken almost by default while supply chains remain a black box.

I hope, at least this is what they say.

… improving regulatory and governance frameworks, promoting environmental and social best practices …

No, all fine. Sorry if my comment was misleading.

There is ample evidence that inequality is on the rise in China.

According to the World Inequality Index, between 1999 and 2024, the top-1% in Canada grew their wealth from 26% to 29%.

In the same period in other countries, the top-1% changed their wealth:

• in Australia and New Zealand, more or less unchanged at around 23%
• in Europe, more or less unchanged around 25%
• in the USA, grew from 31% to 35%
• in China, grew from 19% to 30%
• in Russia, grew from 40% to 49%
• in Latin America, unchanged at around 36%
• Oceania, grew from 24% to 27%
• Sub-Saharan Africa, shrank from 38% to 34%

Worldwide, the top-1% share was stable at around 37%.

In the same period 1999-2024, the wealth of the bottom-50% in Canada slightly shrank from 15% to 14%. In other countries:

• in Australia and New Zealand, more or less unchanged at around 5%
• in Europe, more or less unchanged around 3%
• in the USA, grew from 0.6% to 1%
• in China, shrank from 14% to 6%
• in Russia, shrank from almost 7% to less than 3%
• in Latin America, unchanged at 2%
• Oceania, decreased from 3% to 2%
• Sub-Saharan Africa, slightly increased from below 2% to 2.1%

Worldwide, the bottom-50% grew their share of the total wealth slightly from 7% to 8%.

Source for the top 1%, here for the bottom 50%.

You can play around in the linked diagrams for other countries and regions.

A more comprehensive report proposes measures to address this issue:

… While Canada forced Chinese divestment from lithium projects in 2022 following national security reviews, Beaver Brook antimony operations remain under Chinese control despite similar strategic importance …

Enhanced foreign investment screening mechanisms should evaluate ongoing operational control rather than limiting reviews to acquisition transactions. Strategic assets under foreign ownership require continuous monitoring to ensure operations align with national security interests …

Policy recommendations include:

Apply uniform foreign ownership criteria across all critical minerals regardless of current market attention levels … Coordinate with allied nations to develop alternative supply chains and shared strategic reserves … Government procurement policies could prioritise suppliers with diversified, ally-based supply chains even at premium costs …

Source

Let’s hope the best.

He said that, though out of context it has a different spin.

Also, the original title is different from the one in this post here. It seems OP was looking for a sentence or two that supports a desired narrative, and the only thing they found was a video published by a right-wing media outlet.

I don’t support the Israel/US attack and don’t like Rutte to say the least, but this here is another piece of OP’s eternal anti-democratic, pro-China, pro-Russia propaganda stream.

I posted this in another thread, but it fits also here.

Russia has been restoring its military presence in the Arctic. In the past decade, it has revitalized Soviet-era bases, deployed missile defense systems, invested in domain awareness capabilities, increased aerial and maritime patrols, and stepped up its exercise schedule.

In response, NATO members and (the U.S., Canada, Sweden, Finland) increased their own regional military capabilities with a commensurate uptick in exercises, deployments, patrols, and capability investments.

You can see some information in the Arctic Military Activity Tracker.

Russia has been restoring its military presence in the Arctic. In the past decade, it has revitalized Soviet-era bases, deployed missile defense systems, invested in domain awareness capabilities, increased aerial and maritime patrols, and stepped up its exercise schedule.

In response, NATO members and (the U.S., Canada, Sweden, Finland) increased their own regional military capabilities with a commensurate uptick in exercises, deployments, patrols, and capability investments.

You can see some information in the Arctic Military Activity Tracker.

I am just wondering why they don’t do it in China where hundreds of workers in each plant are exposed to hazardous substances while manually adjusting valves and chemical flows, while the Canadian plant makes the process safer the workers and the environment.

Seems Canada makes a major step in the right direction.

Call it whatever you want. Unlike in China, however, where hundreds of workers in each plant are exposed to hazardous substances while manually adjusting valves and chemical flows across large separation systems, the Canadian plant is safer for the workers and the environment.

@Jhex@lemmy.world

In many Chinese plants, this work involves more than 200 workers manually adjusting valves and chemical flows across large separation systems.

At the Saskatchewan facility, much of the process will instead be controlled by an AI-based operating system. The system continuously analyses thousands of data points and adjusts the process in real time.

More reactions by Iranian Canadians:

… “It’s definitely a very bittersweet moment,” said Kimia Tehrani, an Iranian Canadian student and activist.

“I think I’m incredibly happy that a dictator that has taken over my life and my country over the past 46 years has finally died," she said.

“[But] I’m obviously very upset at the civilian lives that are at danger right now, I’m upset because my family is back home and I don’t know what the future holds for them" …

@ZiggyTheZygote@lemmy.ca

So what’s the people’s ROI, and in what public form does it come in? A reliable healthcare system hopefully?

Just a quick reminder that Russia, which is a dictatorship, has been attacking Ukraine and killed hundreds of thousand people, including civilians and children, abducted minors to ‘re-educate’ them in military camps, and caused material damages in infrastructure and other property, and committed some 200,000 war crimes so far.

And this is a tiny sample of what has been happening in Ukraine.

Asking then for the “people’s ROI” when Canada supports Ukraine reveals a abhorrent mindset.

[Here](War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)) is a more elaborated article.

Her remarks are absolutely accurate. She must know it because China tried to coerced Canada into a trade agreement via the Canada China Business Council, using Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig as sort of bargaining chips. Freeland was minister at the time.

Canada is also a great supporter of Ukraine in its war against Russia. It doesn’t make much sense to engage in a trade deal with China which is the single largest enabler of Moscow’s war machine and provides the economic lifeline for Putin.

It also contradicts Mark Carney’s own warning from April 2025 that named China the “largest security threat” for Canada.

Canada needs to diversify its trade. This trade deal with China is not diversification, though. It risks to become another dependence trap.

@wampus@lemmy.ca

Canada’s trade with EU countries and similar like-minded democracies in the Indo-Pacific is extremely low, there is a lot of potential. China will use any leverage in the future for political and economic coercion.

If Canada engages in some sort of ‘tit-for-tat’ business, it’s fair enough, but any trade deal will lead to unreasonably high risks for Canada’s independence.

Canada’s trade with EU countries and similar like-minded democracies in the Indo-Pacific is extremely low, there is a lot of potential. China will use any leverage in the future for political and economic coercion. China doesn’t necessarily need an ‘amphibious landing in Vancouver.’

China’s reliability depends on China’s government in the first place. It has nothing to do with the US nor anyone else. Beijing isn’t becoming better because Washington -or anyone else- is getting worse. The danger for Canada doesn’t come only from the south.