Demographic Changes in Canada from 1971 to 2001 Across an Urban-to-Rural Gradient

91F0015MWE

Main page

Introduction

Methodology

Findings

Tables and figures

Bibliography

More information

PDF version

Population growth since 1971

Population size is unevenly distributed among the eight types of areas under study and their distribution clearly reflects the “urban” use of the territory (Figure 2.1). In 2001, 23.6 million people, representing approximately four Canadians out of five, lived in one of the country’s metropolitan areas. The Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver metropolitan areas alone accounted for ten million inhabitants, even though they only make up one thousandth of Canada’s territory. In contrast, the rural areas had a total population of approximately six million people. Regions with no metropolitan influence (no MIZ) and the non-metropolitan areas in the territories were the least populated of all, with less than 400,000 residents, even though they covered more than half of Canada’s territory. 

The metropolitan areas also experienced the fastest population growth over the past 30 years (data not shown). Between 1971 and 2001, the population living in a metropolitan area (CMA or CA), as defined in 2001, rose from 16.2 to 23.6 million people, an increase of 45%. In comparison, the population living in a rural area, with 5.4 million inhabitants in 1971, only grew by 13% over these 30 years, resulting in 6.1 million residents in 2001. This differential growth is all the more remarkable because our methodology involves applying a constant geography over time, therefore, it does not take into consideration either the urban growth that stemmed from the gradual expansion of the territories covered by the major cities or the reclassification over time of the rural areas into urban areas.

However, there were significant differences between the rates of population growth for the various types of urban and rural areas identified here, as shown in Figure 2.2. Between the 1971 and 2001 censuses, the areas that had the strongest growth were either the most heavily populated metropolitan areas in the country or the rural areas that were classified in 2001 as having a strong MIZ. With growth rates of 55% and 52%, respectively, during the 30 year period, the six census metropolitan areas with 500,000 to 1.1 million inhabitants in 2001 and Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver were the regions that grew the fastest. In rural strongly influenced metropolitan areas, the population grew by 47% between 1971 and 2001, which is higher than in the medium and small metropolitan areas. However, for the other rural areas, demographic growth was considerably below the national average of 37%. In fact it was negative in the regions without any metropolitan influence.

Figure 2.3 shows the percentage variation of the population in the municipalities that give their name to the CMA (here called the “central municipalities”) and the population in the remaining municipalities of these CMAs (“peripheral municipalities”) for the nine CMAs with populations that surpassed 500,000 residents in 2001. The strong growth in the most heavily urbanized areas in the country between 1971 and 2001 conceals the fact that the growth was not constant across all time periods, and furthermore, there were two patterns of growth. Whereas the population in the peripheral municipalities grew by more than 100% between 1971 and 2001, it grew by only 23% in the central municipalities during that time, which is below the national average. In other words, the strong growth in the largest CMAs seems to be dependent on growth in their suburbs. This phenomenon may be due to the “saturation”¹ of the central municipalities which, by slowly exhausting the capacity for demographic growth, ended up spreading outwards, thereby contributing to the growth of these surrounding areas.

The urban spread could also reach beyond the borders of the metropolitan areas and contribute to the growth of the rural areas to which they are strongly connected. This is probably the way to interpret the data from Figure 2.4, which shows the growth in the different types of metropolitan areas and the strong MIZ areas associated with them. We can see that the growth in rural areas with strong MIZ areas seems to be very closely tied to the growth in the areas whose influence they are under. Thus, the strong MIZ areas with the highest growth between 1971 and 2001 are associated with metropolitan areas that also had the highest growth (500,000 or more), whereas the strong MIZ areas with the lowest growth are located next to urban areas with the lowest population growth over the past 30 years.

These results show that there is some variability in terms of population growth within certain types of areas used for this study. Naturally, it is not only the larger CMAs and strong MIZ areas that are subject to internal variability; this is also evident in the other types of regions. Thus, among medium and small metropolitan areas, we find areas whose populations more than doubled between 1971 and 2001—Barrie (Ontario), Lloydminster (Alberta), Wood Buffalo (Alberta) and Abbotsford (British Columbia)—as well as some whose populations declined during that time: Cape Breton (Nova Scotia), Sudbury (Ontario), Shawinigan (Quebec) and Port Alberni (British Columbia). Similarly, the different rural communities making up the moderate, weak and no MIZ categories did not all have the low population growth that we observed at the more aggregate level. This is evident from the fact that approximately 15% of municipalities in the moderate, weak or no MIZ category² saw their populations grow faster than the national average.

It would have been interesting to assess the extent to which these observations apply at the provincial and territorial levels. However, the types of areas defined for the purposes of this study are not all represented in every province and territory (see Table 1.1). Prince Edward Island and the territories do not have any metropolitan areas with more than 100,000 inhabitants, leaving them with only one of the four urban types. Two of the urban types, the regions that include urban areas with more than 500,000 inhabitants, are not represented in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Saskatchewan. In fact, only Quebec and Ontario have the eight types of areas used in the study. This is why, in Figure 2.5, we aggregated the areas to form only two groups, one with all of the metropolitan regions, the other with all of the rural regions.

As seen at the national level, demographic growth was larger in the urban areas than in the rural areas in every province and territory. Moreover, the urban areas in all provinces and territories saw their populations grow, which is also the case with almost all of the rural areas. The two exceptions are Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan, whose non-metropolitan populations declined between 1971 and 2001.  

The magnitude of the increase varied considerably among provinces. Only three provinces (Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia), as well as the territories, saw both their rural and urban areas grow more quickly than the rural and urban areas across Canada. The growth in rural and urban areas in the other provinces was lower than the national average during the period covered. Essentially, these differential increases reflect that Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are growing faster than the average, mainly because of strong immigration in the first case, strong immigration combined with positive interprovincial migration in the second, and significant increases from interprovincial migration combined with higher fertility rates in the case of Alberta (Statistics Canada, 2006A).  Moreover, they show that the trend among metropolitan areas to grow faster than rural areas is independent of provincial dynamics.

Notes

1. Population density might be a valid indicator of  “saturation” in the central municipalities. In 1971, the population density in the central municipalities of the largest metropolitan areas was nine times higher than in their peripheral municipalities (900 compared to 104 inhabitants per square kilometre).
2. Among municipalities with populations of at least 500 in 1971.