RECENT TRENDS IN URBAN GROWTH AND POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION IN CANADA'
3 PA'ITERNS OF URBAN AND REGIONAL GROWTH
The degree of economic and regional differentiation in Canada implies that changes in the aggregate components of population growth w d not be uniformly distributed among cities and regions. In fact a critical first step in assessing the implications of recent changes is a recognition that spatial variability in growth rates is an important policy concern. Uncertainty and variability are nothing new, as Table 1 indicates.
It is also evident in the Canadian context that different aggregate growth rates and different combinations of the components of population growth produce markedly differ- ent spatial patterns. During periods of rapid apgrep-,'f growth (particularly high rates of natural increase) almost all areas witness grow ' h. During periods of high foreign immi- gration growth tends t o become more focused spatially. Similarly, as the contribution of natural increase t o aggregate growtn declines, spatial variability increases.
Urban ~ m w r h ond population shifts in Camdo 145
TARLE 2 Actual and projected demographic change in Canada, 1941-86 (population in
Household Age 1941- 1951- 1 9 5 6 1961- 1966- 1971- 1 9 7 6 1981-
a Source: Census of Canada, 1941-1971 ; calculations from Statistics Canada (1977b).
''
Note that the more significant changes are shown in italics.3.1 Metropolitan Growth and Concentration
The period of rapid postwar urban growth in Canada now appears t o be nearing an end. Urbanization as a structural and spatial process will continue but at a much reduced rate. The proportion of the Canadian population now living in urban centers, according to the traditional criteria (i.e., in urban places of over 1,000 population), has now reached 78% and is likely to converge on a stable figure of roughly 80%. Perhaps a more useful criterion is that relating to the process of metropolitan, i.e., the concentration of the population of a nation in its largest metropolitan centers. This process also has slowed in Canada, particularly in response to declining foreign immigration and stufts in inter- regional migration as well as the differing economic fortunes of metropolitan-based manu- facturing sectors of the economy.
In 1976 there were 24 urban centers in Canada which had populations of over 100,000, of which 23 were defmed as CMAs at that date (see Table 3). Obviously the average growth rates of these cities have declined in the recent census period (1971-76).
Moreover, there is little or no correlation between the size of centers and their population growth rates. .12lmost one-half of these centers are growing more slowly than the national xverage, and two (Windsor and Sudbury) registered absolute although slight population declines.
The very different growth performances of sectors of the Canadian economy is par- ticularly evident in these figures. Of the 11 centers which grew most rapidly in this period, eight are political capitals, including the national capital region (Ottawa-Hull). The remaining three grew for very different reasons: Calgary (oil investment), Kitchener- Waterloo (industrial overspill from Toronto and Hamilton), and to a lesser extent Vancouver (regional service functions, metals, forest industries, and climate). Of course these administrative capitals also serve other expanding roles for their provinces and f ~ r the entire nation (Victoria (retirement), Toronto (tertiary services), and Edmonton (northern development)) but the political function is nonetheless crucial in ensuring cuntinued growth.
TABLE 3 Metropolitan growth in Canada, 1961-1976~.
-
P Ka nk CMA (or CA)~ Population (thousands) Percentage change Q\ (1976) 1961- 1966 1971- 196lc (1%6)C 1966' (1971)~ 1971e 1976' 1 966C 1971d 1976e 1 Toronto 1,825 (2.157) 2,290 (2,628) 2 Montreal 2.1 10 (2,436) 2,571 (2,731) 3 Vancouver 790 (892) 933 (1,082) 4 Ottawa-Hull 430 (495) 5 29 (596) 5 Winnipeg 4 76 (509) 5 09 (540) 6 Edmonton 337 (40 1) 425 (491) 7 Quebec 358 (413) 437 (481) 8 Hamilton 395 (449) 457 (496) 9 Calgary 279 (331) 331 (403) 10 St. Catharines-~ia~aral 217 (229) 285 (302) 11 Kitcliener-Waterloo 155 (192) 192 (227) 12 London 181 (207) 254 (286) 13 Halifax 1 84 (198) 210 (223) 14 Windsor 193 (2 12) 238 (259) 15 Victoria 154 (1 75) 175 (196) 16 Sudbury 11 1 (1 17) 137 (155) 17 Regina 112 (131) 132 (141) 18 St. John's 9 1 (101) 118 (132) 19 OshawaP 80 (100) 106 (120) 20 Saskatoon 96 (116) 116 (126) 2 1 ~hicoutimi-~on~uikrel 105 (109) 133 (134) 22 Thunder Bayf 92 (96) 108 (112) 2 3 Saint John 96 (101) 104 (107) 24 sherbrookeh - - 80 (85) a Source: Statistics Canada (1977~). CA. Census Agglomeration. Based on 1966 census area definitions. Based on 1971 census area defiiitions. Based on 1976 census area definitions. CMAS were not defined until the 1971 census. CMAs were defined for the 1976 census; figures for years preceding 1971 are estimates. CA in 1976.T A B L E 4 The degree of metropolitan population concentration in Canada. 1941-1976.
Y car Population of three Total Percentage of Percentage of
national metropolises national population in population in
(thousands) population three national 23 metropolitan
(thousands) metropolises areas
Measured in terms of aggregate populations, metropolitan concentration has also not increased during the last quinquennial census period (Table 4). The proportion of Canada's population resident in the three largest metropolitan areas remained roughly the same over the 1971-1976 period (29.7% in 1971 and 29.5% in 1976). Admittedly this is a rather crude index on which to discuss the issue of population decentralization. More- over, niost of the relative decline is attributable to the recent stagnation of growth in Montreal and to the fact that some of the growth of Toronto and Vancouver and other smallcr metropolitan areas has simply spread outside the CMA boundaries. The latter tlevelopment represents a continuation of the long-established process of interregional decentralization of population into increasingly distant portions of the urban field (Friedmann, 1973; Berry and Gillard, 1977; Blumenfeld, 1977). How much of the decline in metropolitan concentration isattributable to this process and how much of it represents decentralization on a larger regional scale is unclear.
An alternative view of urban growth is provided by aggregating populztion figures for the 125 FURS defined earlier (see Figure 1 and Table 5). When population growth rates are calculated for the five levels in this hierarchy it is evident that size is n o longer a principal determinant of growth (correlation coefficient r =
-
0.043). Growth rates were higher in 1971-1976 for those regional centers with populations of 300,00&500,000 and for smaller regional centers (50,00&100,000) than for the largest centers. In Canada at least, regional and economic diversity produces highly variable growth rates over time and between cities of different size. No simple generalizations, or economic-growth models, will suffice in this context.'TABLE 5 Population growth of urban<entered regions. by level in the urban hierarchy. 1971-1976.
Levcl in hierarchy ' Number Population Growth rate
of centers 1976 (thousands) 1971-1976 (%)
National metropolises 3 6.771 4 . 9
Major regional centers 8 4,829 8.4
Regional centers 14 3.453 3.7
Small rcc~onal centers 3 6 4.308 8.1
Local centers 6 4 3,633 5.1
Totals 125 22.994 6.4
148 L. S. Bourne
3.2 Migration Patterns
This variability in growth in part reflects differences in migration flows between regions and within the urban size hierarchy. For the latter, where the latest available data are for 1966-1971, a number of important shifts took place (Simmons, 1977). For some time the two largest metropolitan centers were exporting native-born population and gaining through foreign immigration. This trend has continued through into the 1970s, suggesting that the very recent declines in foreign immigration noted earlier are likely to have their most severe impact on the largest centers, and particularly the inner cities of those centers. Nevertheless, population growth did show a significantly high correlation with net migration (r = 0.799) and with foreign immigration (r = 0.5 14) during the earlier 1966- 197 1 period.
TABLE 6 Provincial growth rates and interprovincial migration, 1961-1976.
Province Average annual geometric Net interprovincial migrationb growth ratea (%)
1966-1971 1971-1976 1961-1966 1966-1971 1971-1976
Newfoundland 1.14 1.33
-
15,213 -19,344 -1,856a Sources: Statistics Canada (1971); Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (1977).
Source: Statistics Canada (1977d).
More recent data, on a provincial basis, reveal that a substantial shift in interregional growth and migration flows took place in the 1971-1976 period (Table 6). Growth rates fell in the industrial heartland (southern Ontario and QuCbec) and British Columbia and increased in the traditional periphery (the Atlantic and Prairie regions). Net provincial migration to British Columbia dropped while that to oil-rich Alberta increased substan- tially. In contrast, Ontario shifted from a positive balance of over 150,000 interprovincial migrants in 1966-1971 to a loss of about 38,000in 1971-1976. (It is interesting to note that the loss of population through migration in Quebec, although still high, actually declined between 1966-1971 and 1971- 1976. However, preliminary data for 1977, fol- lowing the election of the separatist Parti QuCbecois government in November 1976, indi- cate that the net outflow has again increased. How much of this outflow can be attri- buted to sectoral employment problems (the textile industries) which are particularly severe in QuCbec, to regional attractiveness (rapid growth in the west) which has affected
all of' eastern Canada, or to uncertainty o n the future political status of QuCbec is irnposs- lble to estimate.) Moreover, the three Maritime provinces registered a positive net
migration balance for the first time since the depression of the 1930s. Out-migration from Manitoba and Saskatchewan remained substantial but declined somewhat t o levels more typical of the early 1960s. If these trends were t o persist over the long term the future fabric o f urban (and regional) Canada could be very different from that in the past.