Being pedantic, but yes it is. (I investigated as I found your statement surprising). That table is sorted by rounded value, which means the six countries whose density rounds to 4 are in more or less random order relative to each other, and also several entries near the bottom are not actual countries. Canada is the 8th least dense actual country there, counting Western Sahara. Here are the densities based on the population and area numbers in that table (reordered):

  Mauritania: 4.272157756864267
  Botswana: 3.8729690721649486
  Libya: 3.7956278345476657
  Canada: 3.712146921230246
  Guyana: 3.6238062232228834
  Suriname: 3.5159931632279333
  *French Guiana (France): 3.387099863528623
  Iceland: 3.2690582524271843
  Australia: 3.2368791361025395
  Namibia: 2.9702730179990002
  Western Sahara [note 10]: 2.13309022556391
  Mongolia: 2.0268419989310256
  *Falkland Islands (UKOT): 0.2656699252443933
  *Svalbard and Jan Mayen (Norway): 0.04253308128544423
  *Greenland (Denmark): 0.026113459945726992

50%+ of Canadians live south of the 45th parallel. However, that's only a minute fraction of Canada's land area. I've driven the road between Baie-Comeau, Quebec, and Labrador City, NL/Labrador. Seven hours at 100km/h, at least 5 hours of which the only signs of human life you see are the occasional vehicle driving in the opposite direction. Not much different if you drive around Northern Ontario, or start heading north from Edmonton or Prince George.

So yes, Canada has 37 million people and may or may not rank up there with the lowest densities in the world. But if you actually drive around Canada you'll quickly realize that the entire family is packed into one tiny closet when the rest of the house is completely empty.

With a strict definition of “country” it is exactly number 10