[flar]

I saw a chart like this for American cities so I decided to make one for Canadian cities. It does not chart population, it charts the population rank. There are conflicting populations for some cities prior to 1951, I took the population ranks I found most often in various atlases and almanacs. So it's not perfect but it is interesting.

Population Rank of Canadian Cities, 1851-2001

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/population.jpg

[someone123]

Interesting chart.

Quebec, Saint John, Halifax, and Kingston are all very interesting because they still feel somewhat Victorian. Halifax has very elaborate (for Canada) architecture from the mid-1800s and earlier followed by relatively little from the 1880-1930 period that makes up the bulk of older buildings in most other cities. Now there are also a lot of modern developments mixed in and the effect is pretty unique.

If you wanted to take the chart back further, Toronto and Saint John were relative newcomers. There were also strange boom towns like Shelburne, NS, which was the largest populated place in Canada at one point (~1770s-80s). Earlier than that, Louisbourg was a major centre that was fully dismantled in the 1750s, and Annapolis Royal was a capital that has since descended into obscurity.

[Boris2k7]

Looking at the chart, you can see how hard the Great Depression hit Calgary. It pretty much wasn't until the end of WWII and the 1947 Turner Valley oil discovery that the city started to climb again. And then there's the huge growth spurt during the last oil boom. Pretty soon, Ottawa and Calgary will switch positions on that chart as well.

[Metro-One]

I can also see Calgary becoming #4 soon, but I think the top 3 cities are set for a while, although I do think it is possible, maybe in 30 years or so, that metro Vancouver could pass Montreal. I know many people will say that is impossible etc... and take it as a personal attack, but just from looking at the past and the current momentum in the west and the slow down in the east it is possible. I still want to see a city in the far north on that list! Always wish ed that yellowknife was a big city, hehe.

[Tone]

Well because it is impossible. Mtl is almost twice bigger and is growing more than Vancouver every year...:tup:

[Acajack]

I can also see Calgary becoming #4 soon, but I think the top 3 cities are set for a while, although I do think it is possible, maybe in 30 years or so, that metro Vancouver could pass Montreal. I know many people will say that is impossible etc... and take it as a personal attack, but just from looking at the past and the current momentum in the west and the slow down in the east it is possible. I still want to see a city in the far north on that list! Always wish ed that yellowknife was a big city, hehe.

I don’t really care who wins the peeing match between Montreal and Vancouver for second place in Canada, but the numbers clearly show that they won’t likely be switching spots for a long time.

Montreal still has nearly 1.5 million more people than Vancouver, and Vancouver only grew by 9,000 more people than Montreal in the period cited in the other thread on migration. Although it’s true things can change, they don’t usually change that dramatically. At this rate, Vancouver will overtake Montreal in about 166 years.

[MolsonExport]

Fearless predictions for 2030 (metro areas):
1. Toronto
2. Montreal
3. Vancouver
4. Calgary
5. Edmonton
6. Ottawa
7. Hamilton
8. Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge-Guelph
9. Quebec City
10. Winnipeg

[samne]

Look at Toronto And Quebec battle it out 1850-1880.

What happened to Quebec around 1900? ...thats a huge drop.

[mmmatt]

Look at Toronto And Quebec battle it out 1850-1880.

What happened to Quebec around 1900? ...thats a huge drop.

That doesnt necessarily mean something bad happened to Quebec, could just mean very good things were happeneing to the cities which overtook it.

[Wooster]

Very interesting chart.

[jeremy_haak]

The chart is deceptive, as it reads as growth and decline for an individual city, even though it does not reflect on that at all. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see.

[Coldrsx]

Vancouver is insane on this graph.

[flar]

Look at Toronto And Quebec battle it out 1850-1880.

What happened to Quebec around 1900? ...thats a huge drop.

The chart is deceptive, as it reads as growth and decline for an individual city, even though it does not reflect on that at all. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see.


Quebec's population didn't drop, it was just not growing as fast as some of the newer cities. The chart is deceptive if you are thinking about absolute populations. The chart is a better indicator of the relative importance of cities.

Places like Halifax and Saint John were very important early on. You can see the westward expansion, first Ontario, then Winnipeg and Vancouver, then Calgary and Edmonton. You can see that Winnipeg and Hamilton declined at the same time Edmonton and Calgary were ascending.


Mon, Tor, Que, Ham and Ott are consistently in the top 10 during the past 150 years while western cities replaced eastern cities at the beginning and end of the time period.

[le calmar]

Impressive the way Vancouver comes out of nowhere. St John was a metropolis up to the 1880's, and then was replaced by Vancouver.

[Tone]

I can also see Calgary becoming #4 soon, but I think the top 3 cities are set for a while, although I do think it is possible, maybe in 30 years or so, that metro Vancouver could pass Montreal. I know many people will say that is impossible etc... and take it as a personal attack, but just from looking at the past and the current momentum in the west and the slow down in the east it is possible. I still want to see a city in the far north on that list! Always wish ed that yellowknife was a big city, hehe.

I dont want to be an ass, but i really believe that Montreal is gonna be number 2 for a while. If you look at stat Can, you can see that from 2003 to 2007 (5 years period), Mtl grew by 120,000 compare to 140,000 for Van. It`s around 5000 people more a year so its gonna take a lot of Chinese to catch us if it ever continues at this rate in the future which I really doubt.

[Metro-One]

Yes, i am sure at one time people in Montreal laughed at the idea of Toronto being bigger :tup: I said it would take a longtime, just never say never, for all we know Edmonton one day could become #1, it is incredibly unlikely but strange things happen. Back when Winnipeg was the third largest city in Canada people at the time thought it was going to become the next Chicago, no one saw Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton surpassing it at the time. This is no knock on Montreal.

Ok - bad joke warning, if Quebec separated then Vancouver would become #2 over night!

Strange things happen

[ReginaGuy]

Cool chart, thanks flar

[LeftCoaster]

its gonna take a lot of Chinese to catch us

Hmm, that was a little offside... but i do agree I don't think it is likely Vancouver will catch Montreal in our lifetime or even our children's lifetimes... but its not impossible, stranger things have happened.

[graupner]

I can also see Calgary becoming #4 soon, but I think the top 3 cities are set for a while, although I do think it is possible, maybe in 30 years or so, that metro Vancouver could pass Montreal.

Have you made any calculations or you just threw that ?

IF the current exceptional growth ( Olympic games, real estate boom, chinese immigration) in Vancouver remains the same, AND IF the same crappy growth remains the same in Montreal, both CMA will be the same population in 244 years. .

The thing is, Montreal is well established. It went trough many recessions, it got slaughtered and it's not going anywhere.
243 years ago, Hamilton was a good candidate for the 3rd or even 2nd spot.


My question is : how can you say that within 30 years Vancouver could catch-up Montreal? even 100 years?? Do you know what it would take ??
Vancouver would have to grow by 50 000 people a year while Montreal gained no one. Very likely to happen.

I don't take it personnal really, I just find it funny when people throw statistics without first thinking about what they're saying.

[Acajack]

Ok - bad joke warning, if Quebec separated then Vancouver would become #2 over night!




And Montreal would be #1 again... in the Republic of Quebec! :haha:

[MolsonExport]

Have you made any calculations or you just threw that ?

IF the current exceptional growth ( Olympic games, real estate boom, chinese immigration) in Vancouver remains the same, AND IF the same crappy growth remains the same in Montreal, both CMA will be the same population in 244 years. .

The thing is, Montreal is well established. It went trough many recessions, it got slaughtered and it's not going anywhere.
243 years ago, Hamilton was a good candidate for the 3rd or even 2nd spot.


My question is : how can you say that within 30 years Vancouver could catch-up Montreal? even 100 years?? Do you know what it would take ??
Vancouver would have to grow by 50 000 people a year while Montreal gained no one. Very likely to happen.

I don't take it personnal really, I just find it funny when people throw statistics without first thinking about what they're saying.

good reply, Graup.

[Metro-One]

:previous: It was not meant to be taken as a serious estimate. I was just trying to stir up conversation, which i have done. I just want people to realize that by looking at these charts huge changes do happen from no where, so don't be so high and mighty in your standing right now. Vancouver is more than double Calgary, but i still don't rule out that one day i could see them pass vancouver, its not likely but you never know! And that was all i was saying for Vancouver vs. Montreal. Also population projections are only good for about 10 years in the future, there are so many variables that could occur between now and then. And I have heard that metro Abbotsford has shown some signs of wanting to become part of metro Vancouver with the two cities growing closer together each year, so if that happens vancouver would grow by 150 000 to 200 000 that year by default. Again, economics, war, natural events, changes in metro boundaries can all blindside a population projection.

[vid]

In 1914, Thunder Bay was bigger than Calgary and Edmonton. (Not combined, just bigger than either one.) We had around 50,000 people. (Mostly men, something like a 2:1 ratio.)

By 1915, we'd lost about 70% of our population. We didn't recover that population until the late 1930s. We've been between 100,000 and 110,000 since the mid 1960s.

[Doug]

My question is : how can you say that within 30 years Vancouver could catch-up Montreal? even 100 years?? Do you know what it would take ??
Vancouver would have to grow by 50 000 people a year while Montreal gained no one. Very likely to happen.

I don't take it personnal really, I just find it funny when people throw statistics without first thinking about what they're saying.

Location. Vancouver's catchment is growing much faster both in terms of GDP and population, which over the long term should translate into a higher potential for growth for the city itself. Asia, the Pacific Rim, the Western States, the Western provinces etc. are growing far more rapidly than Europe, the Eastern Seaboard, the US Midwest, the Eastern provinces.

[flar]

It'll be harder for wild fluctuations in the rankings to occur from now on. Those old fluctuations happened as the west was opened up. There are no more frontiers, just a bunch of mature cities.

[Acajack]

It'll be harder for wild fluctuations in the rankings to occur from now on. Those old fluctuations happened as the west was opened up. There are no more frontiers, just a bunch of mature cities.

This is a really good point.

[Dmajackson]

It also shows that the west was hit harder by the depression. It's barely noticable but Halifax came back during the depression and war because we didn't feel the depression like the dust bowls and drought out west. And every war in Canadian history has created a nice boom out here (along with some downsides which contributed to Halifax's decline in WWI).

I think we can say for sure that Saint John had the steepest drop (and its still dropping for now).

Of course halifax is the lucky number 13 right now :tup:

[Acajack]

Location. Vancouver's catchment is growing much faster both in terms of GDP and population, which over the long term should translate into a higher potential for growth for the city itself. Asia, the Pacific Rim, the Western States, the Western provinces etc. are growing far more rapidly than Europe, the Eastern Seaboard, the US Midwest, the Eastern provinces.

Although I sorta see your point about the economy, since this is a population discussion (yes, I know population growth is related to the economy), you should note that except for Europe, none of the areas you mentioned (Eastern Seabord of the US, Midwestern US, Atlantic CanadA) are significant contributors to Montreal's population growth.

I'd venture the same is true for Vancouver: most people moving to Vancouver aren't coming from Montana or even Oregon I suspect.

We have airplanes now - potential migrants don't have to be right next door in order to be numerous enough to boost your population.

[Doug]

Although I sorta see your point about the economy, since this is a population discussion (yes, I know population growth is related to the economy), you should note that except for Europe, none of the areas you mentioned (Eastern Seabord of the US, Midwestern US, Atlantic CanadA) are significant contributors to Montreal's population growth.

I'd venture the same is true for Vancouver: most people moving to Vancouver aren't coming from Montana or even Oregon I suspect.

We have airplanes now - potential migrants don't have to be right next door in order to be numerous enough to boost your population.

Economic growth drives population growth, not the other way around. Over the long term, economic growth in the western US will likely be higher than that in the eastern US just as growth in Asia will probably be higher than that in Europe. This in term suggests the potential for economic expansion, and therefore population growth, will be higher in a Pacific Rim city like Vancouver than it would be in Montreal. Migrants can come for anywhere, but geographic proximity still plays a huge role in economic growth.

[Coldrsx]

Location. Vancouver's catchment is growing much faster both in terms of GDP and population, which over the long term should translate into a higher potential for growth for the city itself. Asia, the Pacific Rim, the Western States, the Western provinces etc. are growing far more rapidly than Europe, the Eastern Seaboard, the US Midwest, the Eastern provinces.

not to mention the fact that the climate/flora of vancouver will begin to draw more people from not only Canada but around the world as time goes on. It is becoming a major retirement destination and attracts an unusually high percentage of young folks.

[Doug]

Retirees are only a factor while the population is aging. Once that trend slows, retirees will no longer be a growth market.

[jeffwhit]

looking at the lines right during the 70's you can pretty much watch Calgary and Winnipeg's fortunes pretty much reverse.

Vancouver's rise form nothing to a major city (by Canadian standards within the context of the era) is pretty astonishing.

While the chart is slightly deceptive, it is really interesting. Thanks for posting.

[Tone]

Hmm, that was a little offside... but i do agree I don't think it is likely Vancouver will catch Montreal in our lifetime or even our children's lifetimes... but its not impossible, stranger things have happened.

Sorry buddy, i didnt mean it in any bad way, who dosent like Chinese girls?:tup:

[Boreal]

Quite a roller-coaster Winnipeg paints.

[Aylmer]

Great Graph!

It would be interesting if someone could create something like that but with the actual population of the cities...

:)

[flar]

A line graph of the populations is easy to make, but it would take some creativity to make it readable. Montreal and Toronto (and Vancouver to some extent) are so much bigger than the other cities that their lines would shoot sky high while the others would just be a little knot at the bottom of the graph.

[someone123]

It also shows that the west was hit harder by the depression. It's barely noticable but Halifax came back during the depression and war because we didn't feel the depression like the dust bowls and drought out west. And every war in Canadian history has created a nice boom out here (along with some downsides which contributed to Halifax's decline in WWI).

Halifax was in a long relative decline prior to WWI but it's interesting to consider what kind of effect the explosion had on the city. It's really not comparable to any other disaster that occurred anywhere else in Canada. Thousands of people were killed outright (this did not happen in major fires), many more were injured, and a large percentage of the city's industry was decimated. Many of the factories were never rebuilt.

A line graph of the populations is easy to make, but it would take some creativity to make it readable. Montreal and Toronto (and Vancouver to some extent) are so much bigger than the other cities that their lines would shoot sky high while the others would just be a little knot at the bottom of the graph.

Just use a non-linear scale, e.g. logarithmic.

[fever]

A line graph of the populations is easy to make, but it would take some creativity to make it readable. Montreal and Toronto (and Vancouver to some extent) are so much bigger than the other cities that their lines would shoot sky high while the others would just be a little knot at the bottom of the graph.

How about a graph of each city's population/country population from confederation to present? It would be easy to do, and the results might be interesting

edit:
Just use a non-linear scale, e.g. logarithmic.
I was gonna say that. Population growth is roughly exponential so plot P*exp(-kt) vs. t where k is the country's growth rate. The graphs should be similar

[flar]

When I have a chance I'll make up some sort of graph(s) with the historical populations I have.

For now, here's something I hadn't actually looked at very closely. We focus on CMAs a lot but these are the populations of urban areas as defined by Statistics Canada. Basically these are populations for continuous urban areas, not counting nearby towns and exurbs separated by some distance like CMAs do.




rank Urban Area 2006 2001 growth% area km2 Density, 2006
1 Toronto (Ont.) 4753120 4375899 8.6 1748.57 2718.3
2 Montreal (Que.) 3316615 3161967 4.9 1676.62 1978.15
3 Vancouver (B.C.) 1953252 1834849 6.5 1135.61 1720
4 Calgary (Alta.) 988079 879252 12.4 704.46 1402.6
5 Edmonton (Alta.) 862544 782163 10.3 854.51 1009.4
6 Ottawa-Gatineau (Q/O) 860928 834799 3.1 512.29 1680.55
7 Quebec (Que.) 659545 635512 3.8 670.1 984.24
8 Hamilton (Ont.) 647634 620232 4.4 367.32 1763.13
9 Winnipeg (Man.) 641483 626956 2.3 448.92 1428.96
10 Kitchener (Ont.) 422514 387319 9.1 313.85 1346.22
11 London (Ont.) 353069 337866 4.5 218.04 1619.25
12 St.Cath-Niagara (Ont.) 308596 299950 2.9 382.68 806.41
13 Victoria (B.C.) 304683 288697 5.5 275.57 1105.64
14 Halifax (N.S.) 282924 276412 2.4 262.65 1077.2
15 Windsor (Ont.) 278765 265540 5 176.05 1583.46
16 Oshawa (Ont.) 269734 242831 11.1 162.48 1660.14
17 Saskatoon (Sask.) 202425 196811 2.9 149.56 1353.49
18 Regina (Sask.) 179246 178225 0.6 118.87 1507.9
19 Barrie (Ont.) 157501 129963 21.2 171.52 918.25
20 St. John's (N.L.) 151322 147378 2.7 182.62 828.61

[Dmajackson]

Halifax was in a long relative decline prior to WWI but it's interesting to consider what kind of effect the explosion had on the city. It's really not comparable to any other disaster that occurred anywhere else in Canada. Thousands of people were killed outright (this did not happen in major fires), many more were injured, and a large percentage of the city's industry was decimated. Many of the factories were never rebuilt.

Very true the explosion certainly did not help our ranking at all. If i remember my hiustory correctly 2'000 were killed (i dont know how many by fire) and upwards of 9'000 were injured. Many of those were blind. So the explosion had after shock with likely lower birth rates for various reasons.

The best estimate I could find is 46'000 pre-war, 60'000 during the war, and 58'000 in 1921. So approximately 3% of Halifax's population passed away and approximately 15% were injured :(

Amazingly though after this tragic hit on our population our city managed to reappear on the top-ten list in the depression/early WWII period and then gradually disappear to the 13th spot.

[trueviking]

Economic growth drives population growth, not the other way around. Over the long term, economic growth in the western US will likely be higher than that in the eastern US just as growth in Asia will probably be higher than that in Europe. This in term suggests the potential for economic expansion, and therefore population growth, will be higher in a Pacific Rim city like Vancouver than it would be in Montreal. Migrants can come for anywhere, but geographic proximity still plays a huge role in economic growth.

this has been true for the past 20 years though....vancouver has had substantially higher economic growth and all the geographic and immigrant advantages that you suggest, including the spike in the late 90's when hong kong switched.

when you look at the growth numbers though, since 1986 vancouver has gained 830 000 people and montreal has gained 750 000.

as a percentage, vancouver has grown just over 1% per year more than montreal, but montreal's just that much larger....and has reversed its sluggish population and economic growth of the 90's.

i agree with your premise but i dont think that any of us will be alive to see vancouver overtake montreal in population.

[Okstate]

You know you're a Yank when you thought Toronto was #1 wayyyy before the 1970's... Not to point any fingers or anything <<<<<<< :)

[jeremy_haak]

It'll be harder for wild fluctuations in the rankings to occur from now on. Those old fluctuations happened as the west was opened up. There are no more frontiers, just a bunch of mature cities.

Especially with global warming, the next frontier could be the north.

When I have a chance I'll make up some sort of graph(s) with the historical populations I have.

For now, here's something I hadn't actually looked at very closely. We focus on CMAs a lot but these are the populations of urban areas as defined by Statistics Canada. Basically these are populations for continuous urban areas, not counting nearby towns and exurbs separated by some distance like CMAs do.




rank Urban Area 2006 2001 growth% area km2 Density, 2006
1 Toronto (Ont.) 4753120 4375899 8.6 1748.57 2718.3
2 Montreal (Que.) 3316615 3161967 4.9 1676.62 1978.15
3 Vancouver (B.C.) 1953252 1834849 6.5 1135.61 1720
4 Calgary (Alta.) 988079 879252 12.4 704.46 1402.6
5 Edmonton (Alta.) 862544 782163 10.3 854.51 1009.4
6 Ottawa-Gatineau (Q/O) 860928 834799 3.1 512.29 1680.55
7 Quebec (Que.) 659545 635512 3.8 670.1 984.24
8 Hamilton (Ont.) 647634 620232 4.4 367.32 1763.13
9 Winnipeg (Man.) 641483 626956 2.3 448.92 1428.96
10 Kitchener (Ont.) 422514 387319 9.1 313.85 1346.22
11 London (Ont.) 353069 337866 4.5 218.04 1619.25
12 St.Cath-Niagara (Ont.) 308596 299950 2.9 382.68 806.41
13 Victoria (B.C.) 304683 288697 5.5 275.57 1105.64
14 Halifax (N.S.) 282924 276412 2.4 262.65 1077.2
15 Windsor (Ont.) 278765 265540 5 176.05 1583.46
16 Oshawa (Ont.) 269734 242831 11.1 162.48 1660.14
17 Saskatoon (Sask.) 202425 196811 2.9 149.56 1353.49
18 Regina (Sask.) 179246 178225 0.6 118.87 1507.9
19 Barrie (Ont.) 157501 129963 21.2 171.52 918.25
20 St. John's (N.L.) 151322 147378 2.7 182.62 828.61


There is no perfect statistic, and this one is vulnerable to problems as well. For example, it is quite common for parts of a CMA to be separate from the rest of the region either due to factors such as an existing separate town or city being incorporated into the CMA, or due to planning decisions such as the greenbelt in Ottawa.

[flar]

I like the urban area measure, in many ways it is a better measure than CMA for the purposes of comparing cities.

I also used "urban area" for some residential density comparison's I did a while back: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138325

[Great Dane]

Looking at the chart, you can see how hard the Great Depression hit Calgary. It pretty much wasn't until the end of WWII and the 1947 Turner Valley oil discovery that the city started to climb again. And then there's the huge growth spurt during the last oil boom. Pretty soon, Ottawa and Calgary will switch positions on that chart as well.

Is this Municipal wise or Metropolitan wise? Metro Edmonton will also surpass Ottawa pretty soon.

[Boris2k7]

^ CMA-wise. Calgary is already the third largest municipality in Canada, behind Toronto and Montreal.

[Only The Lonely..]

Fearless predictions for 2030 (metro areas):
1. Toronto
2. Montreal
3. Vancouver
4. Calgary
5. Edmonton
6. Ottawa
7. Hamilton
8. Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge-Guelph
9. Quebec City
10. Winnipeg

What!?! K-W with a pop of 300,000+ eclipsing Winnipeg in the next 30 years, that's a bit optimistic don't you think????

Keep in mind that Winnipeg is enjoying its best growth in years!

We'll be a city of 1,000,000 easily by 2030 using conservative estimates and will possibly reach that mark a lot sooner rather than later.

Considering the fact that most immigrants to MB settle in Winnipeg's metro area, in 2000 we had 500 immigrants a year and today we are receiving 20,000 immigrants a year. By 2012 we'll be attracting close to 40,000 immigrants a year with the vast majority of which settling within Metro Winnipeg.

[Only The Lonely..]

In 1914, Thunder Bay was bigger than Calgary and Edmonton. (Not combined, just bigger than either one.) We had around 50,000 people. (Mostly men, something like a 2:1 ratio.)

By 1915, we'd lost about 70% of our population. We didn't recover that population until the late 1930s. We've been between 100,000 and 110,000 since the mid 1960s.

What a shame. You guys and Duluth were both screwed after 1920. I wish you were bigger, i've always liked T-Bay MB. :)

[flar]

The Kitchener area is growing very fast. Kitchener itself has something close to 300,000, but then there is Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph each at well over 100,000 and then a bunch of surrounding towns. If its high rate of growth continues, K-W will threaten the longstanding Hamilton-Winnipeg-Quebec triumvirate.

[MolsonExport]

SUMMARY:The Province of Ontario Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe includes a 2031 population projection of 729,000 for the Region of Waterloo...
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/afedf1d73f0791a185256af00073fa7c/0776E1882A72B3DC85256B1B006F8ADB/$file/Interim_Population_forecasts.pdf?openelement

These projections do not include Guelph, but the cities grow together by this point.

[koops65]

Current numbers:
Kitchener - 214 000
Cambridge - 118 000
Waterloo - 115 000
Total = 447 000
Waterloo Region - 508 000
The growth projections would put Waterloo Region's population in 2030 near what Winnipeg's is now. Unless they experience no growth at all (highly unlikely) we won't be surpassing them any time soon...

[jeremy_haak]

Current numbers:
Kitchener - 214 000
Cambridge - 118 000
Waterloo - 115 000
Total = 447 000
Waterloo Region - 508 000
The growth projections would put Waterloo Region's population in 2030 near what Winnipeg's is now. Unless they experience no growth at all (highly unlikely) we won't be surpassing them any time soon...

The Ontario Ministry of Finance projections (http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/economy/demographics/projections/2007/demog07t6.html) give a combined population for Waterloo Region and Wellington County (Guelph) as 925,500 with the obvious caveat that this is a projection. Since Guelph is already individually a CMA in its own right, it will not become a part of the Kitchener CMA without changes to the rules used by Statistics Canada. I also doubt that they would constitute a single urban area, as that would require most of the future growth to occur between Kitchener and Guelph, which is presently not the case. Nevertheless, they will probably become even more closely intertwined over the next thirty years.

[Cambridgite]

What!?! K-W with a pop of 300,000+ eclipsing Winnipeg in the next 30 years, that's a bit optimistic don't you think????

Keep in mind that Winnipeg is enjoying its best growth in years!

We'll be a city of 1,000,000 easily by 2030 using conservative estimates and will possibly reach that mark a lot sooner rather than later.

Considering the fact that most immigrants to MB settle in Winnipeg's metro area, in 2000 we had 500 immigrants a year and today we are receiving 20,000 immigrants a year. By 2012 we'll be attracting close to 40,000 immigrants a year with the vast majority of which settling within Metro Winnipeg.

You also have to consider outmigration as well. Sure, you may have 20,000 immigrants coming to Winnipeg every year, but how many of them stay? How many long-standing Winnipeg residents move out every year? Sure, Winnipeg may be growing, and will likely continue to, but your numbers make it seem as if Winnipeg's net growth averages 20,000 a year, which it does not.

Besides, KW area gets more than its fair share of immigration. In fact, almost a quarter of our population is born outside of Canada and that figure is on the rise, with huge amounts of immigration from the Asian continent in recent years.

[Cambridgite]

Current numbers:
Kitchener - 214 000
Cambridge - 118 000
Waterloo - 115 000
Total = 447 000
Waterloo Region - 508 000
The growth projections would put Waterloo Region's population in 2030 near what Winnipeg's is now. Unless they experience no growth at all (highly unlikely) we won't be surpassing them any time soon...

The Kitchener area is growing very fast. Kitchener itself has something close to 300,000, but then there is Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph each at well over 100,000 and then a bunch of surrounding towns. If its high rate of growth continues, K-W will threaten the longstanding Hamilton-Winnipeg-Quebec triumvirate.

They updated the signs a few months ago.

Kitchener: 220,000
Cambridge: 125,000
Waterloo: 119,000
Total: 464,000

They haven't updated the sign for the region, but Woolwich has been growing very rapidly, since the developments around Breslau are not technically in Kitchener yet. I would estimate a regional population somewhere in the vicinity of 520,000 the moment.

[craner]

the longstanding Hamilton-Winnipeg-Quebec triumvirate.

nice.

[ssiguy]

Kitchener MIGHT catch up with QC or Win in 30-40 years as both those cities are growing a good clip themselves.
By that time they will be right up against the GTA.
It's similar to Hamilton. By the CMA Hamilton is growing at an OK rate but that is very deceptive. Hamilton itself is growing slowly but the metro is growing faster due to the high rate of growth In Burlington which in many ways more of a Toronto suburb than a Hamilton one. Same goes for Oshawa.

[flar]

Actually Burlington's rate of growth is slowing and Hamilton's is increasing. Burlington is running out of space and in infill mode while suburban areas like Ancaster, Waterdown, Upper Stoney Creek, Grimsby and Hamilton's south mountain are booming as the GTA continues to expand west and south around Hamilton. Also, Burlington is much more strongly tied to Hamilton than it is to Toronto.

[Andy6]

What!?! K-W with a pop of 300,000+ eclipsing Winnipeg in the next 30 years, that's a bit optimistic don't you think????

Keep in mind that Winnipeg is enjoying its best growth in years!

We'll be a city of 1,000,000 easily by 2030 using conservative estimates and will possibly reach that mark a lot sooner rather than later.

Considering the fact that most immigrants to MB settle in Winnipeg's metro area, in 2000 we had 500 immigrants a year and today we are receiving 20,000 immigrants a year. By 2012 we'll be attracting close to 40,000 immigrants a year with the vast majority of which settling within Metro Winnipeg.

What do we want all these people for anyway? What if they turn out to be lousy people? This forum is far too focused on quantities over qualities.

[Rusty van Reddick]

^ CMA-wise. Calgary is already the third largest municipality in Canada, behind Toronto and Montreal.

"Already"? Before Toronto's megacity amalgamation, Calgary was the SECOND largest in Canada, after Montreal.

[Dmajackson]

Gotta love where I live. There's absolutely not confusion over what suburb is part of what city.

Moncton's reach out to maybe Amherst and Halifax reached out to Truro/Debert area which leaves a massive amount of land in the Cobequid Mtns as the clear barrier...

According to the municipal government Halifax is supposed to surpass 500'000 by 2025.

[raggedy13]

So, what do you all think are some smaller cities that may become much more important in say 50-100 years?

I'm sure most would agree if global warming runs its course some northern cities will surely become a little more nationally relevant like Yellowknife, Whitehorse, Iqaluit, etc. Perhaps Churchill will become an important port city for example.

For BC I can see Prince Rupert growing substantially over the next 50-100 years assuming its port operations are a success and continue to expand. It is in a beautiful part of the country and the weather is fairly pleasant by Canadian standards.

I could also see Kelowna becoming more prominent as it has seen quite rapid growth recently and in the long-term will likely become a more and more important midway city between Vancouver and Calgary as they too grow. Kelowna is also in a beautiful and unique region of the country and could really be booming if more people were aware of it both internationally and nationally.

[Metro-One]

I think for BC Kelowna is the biggest one to watch, it has been growing like mad in a region that has been growing like mad.

[caltrane74]

I will also come in on Kitchener Waterloo's side in the growth debate... The city is a communcations center goldmine!! - It's getting rich and powerful very fast even in a very down market. The thing I love about K-W is that they are not about making thier money off Canadians.. They are making their money totally off Americans.. once they have the leverage of market share in the united states and can totally see them doing the same in Europe and Asia. KW is making Apple look stupid. Honesty!!!

By the way, I really love those sexy tall blonde german girls in that town... - Can't get enough of them.

Can you say no to a tall blonde woman? - of course the kucf not!! - You gotta roll with these honies.. I've also caught up with my fair share hot hot slovian, croate, and czeck honies from there too....

[koops65]

:previous: Sure, there are lots of hot babes here. And yes, the population continues to increase at a good rate. What really sucks is that the number of tall buildings in Waterloo Region are increasing at an abysmal rate!

[MolsonExport]

I dunno, isn't KW caught up as much (or more) as the rest of the country in the recession? Isn't unemployment up around 10%?

[Scruff Bucket]

So, what do you all think are some smaller cities that may become much more important in say 50-100 years?

Don't forget Saskatoon and Regina! We've been steadily growing since people started moving back to our province and we're quickly becoming a significant economic, transportation and resource engine!

Back when the Saskatchewan Legislative building was being built in Regina (1908-1912), the leaders of the time were anticipating the provicnce's population to swell to several million within the century, and thus the large size of the facilities (the largest in the country)! While the legislative chambers is currently filled just over half its intended capacity with mla's (58 members with 100+ capacity), with continued population growth, the legislative assembly just might need to expand to fill the room! :tup:

[Ruckus]

Don't forget Saskatoon and Regina! We've been steadily growing since people started moving back to our province and we're quickly becoming a significant economic, transportation and resource engine!

Back when the Saskatchewan Legislative building was being built in Regina (1908-1912), the leaders of the time were anticipating the provicnce's population to swell to several million within the century, and thus the large size of the facilities (the largest in the country)! While the legislative chambers is currently filled just over half its intended capacity with mla's (58 members with 100+ capacity), with continued population growth, the legislative assembly just might need to expand to fill the room! :tup:

Cool, I learned something new today :)

[Scruff Bucket]

^^^ Something that the teachers here make sure they drill into the minds of every one of the very young and impressionable! ... naw! :D My wife (though not my wife at the time of this anecdote) heard it when taking a guided tour of the legislative building when she was visiting from Toronto in the 90's. (She also got to chat with then Premier Roy Romanow after that same tour too, even though she didn't recognize him.)

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/saskatchewan_legislative_building.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Saskatchewan_Legislative_Building

[Alexcaban]

as a percentage, vancouver has grown just over 1% per year more than montreal, but montreal's just that much larger....and has reversed its sluggish population and economic growth of the 90's.

i agree with your premise but i dont think that any of us will be alive to see vancouver overtake montreal in population.

Montreal has long since recovered from a bad economy. Today it hosts HQ for world organizations such as:
International Civil Aviation Organization
World Anti-Doping Agency
International Air Transport Association IATA
International Council of Graphic Design Associations
and as well the aerospace industry is booming more then ever in Montreal

That being said I doubt Vancouver will ever surpass MTL population wise but you never know. By the 2011 census Montreal might even have enter into the 4 million mark since as of 2008 the population was 3.750.

[ue]

It'll be a long time but Vancouver will eventually surpass Montréal just due to growth rates, unless Vancouver turns into Detroit economy - for example.

[Nicko999]

It'll be a long time but Vancouver will eventually surpass Montréal just due to growth rates, unless Vancouver turns into Detroit economy - for example.

I don't think so... not even in 3040. Montreal's growth has increased over the years and the city still has that HUGE potentiel(50's,60's)

[Canadian Mind]

It'll be a long time but Vancouver will eventually surpass Montréal just due to growth rates, unless Vancouver turns into Detroit economy - for example.

Vancouver isn't based off of a single main industry, it has several: Natural resources, shipping, media, Tourism, and a well established technology and development centre.

[ue]

^Yes I know that. I was meaning the state of the economy, not what it was made up of. In the future all those industries could become not at all profitable...but I doubt it.

[Canadian Mind]

^Yes I know that. I was meaning the state of the economy, not what it was made up of. In the future all those industries could become not at all profitable...but I doubt it.


It's easy for one to fail and kill a city's economy. But the point of multiple industries is redundantcy, which is why Vancouver isn't anywhere near pulling a Detroit or a Dubai.

Nicko, Quebecs significants both ntionally and internationally has been declining for years. Montreal failed to fully capitalise on its potential, and it is Vancouvers time to shine. Thats not to say that 50 or 100 years down theRoad the spotlight wont go back to montreal, but in the short term all eyes are looking to T.O. and Vancouver, especially after this current reccesion and how they performed so well.

[ue]

^I'm no expert on Montréal but I always hear people rave, and I even see through pictures about how Montréal is Canada's true centre. The best vibrancy, multiculturalism, urbanism, stability (it isn't booming/bust), and architecture I've heard. More vibrant than a little less than 2x the size...Toronto. I'm not denying Vancouver or Toro isn't vibrant, because really they are, but I fail to see how Mont didn't capitalize on what it had. It's a gorgeous city that even Vancouver could look up to. Also Montréal looks more international to me, compared to other cities in Canada. Sort of like New York, it sort of reminds me of. Not growing lots, but known for being a cool good urban environment.

[raggedy13]

I think everybody here would agree that Montreal is a much more established, vibrant, and well-rounded city than Vancouver, and I'd say it is one of the best on the continent in this regard, and certainly in the country. I think most Vancouverites that know anything about Montreal love it and in general the city looks up to Montreal in many ways.

Current demographic trends may suggest that Vancouver will, far from now, surpass Montreal but Montreal is a city with huge potential and all the ingredients for success. It essentially has everything going for it, it's just waiting for some sort of spark to set off its next boom and then watch out. With the right factors coming together Montreal's growth rate could easily surpass Vancouver's.

[O-Town Hockey]

I'll be having my bachelor party in Montreal this weekend so I will let you guys know how things are looking. :cheers:

[ue]

I don't think it really needs to boom, that is Montréal. It is a built city, with all the amenities and the vibrancy of a great city. It doesn't need really to be booming. Sure build new things, but many cities that are already vibrant don't boom anymore, and good on them. Cities like New York might build lots, or Rome, but not to the extent as say the American SW.

[raggedy13]

I agree it doesn't need to boom as it is already a great city but I'm just trying to say that there is no reason it couldn't see accelerated growth in the future and that Vancouver overtaking it isn't an inevitability.

[Tone]

It'll be a long time but Vancouver will eventually surpass Montréal just due to growth rates, unless Vancouver turns into Detroit economy - for example.
Really? Using Stats Can CMA database, Vancouver added 128 724 from 2003 to 2008 compared to 171 640 for Montreal. How is it possible that a city that is almost 2 times smaller and growing slower catch the other?:shrug:

[kool maudit]

vancouver is growing faster in percentage terms... but really, we are getting into such long-term projections that it's basically prophecy at this point. nobody thought calgary would pass winnipeg in 1910 etc.

perhaps canada's largest city in 2150 will be prince rupert, and it will look like a sasquatch country hong kong.

[LotusLand]

I did a lot of research on Montreal back in college and what I found was that it had all the makings of being the centre of Canada, not Toronto. It had a strategic location, however it had one significant drawback, the french language. At the time Montreal had a greater population and more trade blah blah, but its French speaking population held them back. Now I'm not bashing the bilingualism I think thats is what makes Montreal, Montreal and I love the city. It's my favourite "east coast" city, including N.Y. and Boston. I'm from Vancouver and I love Montreal for all its vibrancy. It is far more vibrant than Toronto, but Toronto has stuff going for it as well. All three cities have their differences, which make them unique and equally great. To each their own,you know.

The real question is Calgary and Edmonton, I know many people who moved out there for work, who are now dying to come back because they don't like the extreme prolonged winter, I guess being on the west coast spoils you in that term. Will the climate and isolation of Calgary and Edmonton limit its population growth or atleast cap it. I don't know I've been a there a few times, and I refused a job there that was paying more but I couldn't sacrifice the quality of life.

Vancouver has a diversified economy which is only going to get stronger as the plethora of small business are on the cusp of greatness out here. Lululemon, 1-800 Got Junk etc.. there are hundreds out here like that. The entertainment industry is expanding, this despite the CTV's and CBC's of the world that base their major broadcasts out east.

Conclusion: After that incessant rant, Vancouver will not be more populous in our life time than Montreal unless it amalgamates with the Fraser Valley. :tup:

[Jimby]

I
The real question is Calgary and Edmonton, I know many people who moved out there for work, who are now dying to come back because they don't like the extreme prolonged winter, I guess being on the west coast spoils you in that term. Will the climate and isolation of Calgary and Edmonton limit its population growth or atleast cap it. I don't know I've been a there a few times, and I refused a job there that was paying more but I couldn't sacrifice the quality of life.



Ridiculous. You don't know what you are talking about.
Quality of life is such a subjective matter, and it is insulting for you to be saying quality of life is impossible in Calgary. Maybe it says more about your own rigid prejudiced thinking.

[LotusLand]

Ridiculous. You don't know what you are talking about.
Quality of life is such a subjective matter, and it is insulting for you to be saying quality of life is impossible in Calgary. Maybe it says more about your own rigid prejudiced thinking.

If you read my post I never said quality of life is impossible in Calgary. I said as a guy from the west coast not used to cold long winters I wouldn't move there as It doesn't jive with what I want in my life. It was my impression and few others who were BORN in VANCOUVER and moved out to Calgary for work and then came back, recently because THEY couldn't take the long winters anymore either. I love the west coast lifestyle, that is why I wouldn't live out east or in Alberta etc... nothing against Calgary as it is a great city, its JUST NOT FOR ME. To offend Calgarians was not my intent, it was based on my personal experiences soley.

[240glt]

I moved away from Vancouver for a better quality of life.

Sure Van has some attributes that make it very desireable, but Edmonton & Calgary do as well. It's really all about what your priorities are. For me it was a 20% higher wage, the short commute for work and the ability to own a house.

[LotusLand]

I moved away from Vancouver for a better quality of life.

Sure Van has some attributes that make it very desireable, but Edmonton & Calgary do as well. It's really all about what your priorities are. For me it was a 20% higher wage, the short commute for work and the ability to own a house.

Exactly my point. For me the wage wasn't as much of an issue, nor a priority as money to me doesn't mean as much as other things. I live within the city limits and work downtown. 20 minute commute in traffic with a decent wage more than enough to pay my mortgage. That is what works for me.

[MolsonExport]

perhaps canada's largest city in 2150 will be prince rupert, and it will look like a sasquatch country hong kong.

I got dibs on Old Crow (YT) :D

[240glt]

^^I had other reasons for moving to AB as well, but in all reality I did not find the transition difficult at all. There is a tangible difference between living in Van vs. Cal & Edmonton... I didn't consider it a nagative at the time & while I still will end up back in BC at some point, for me at this particular point in life, where I am & what I do provides me with a pretty good life. I think as long as you can say that about where you live/ work, your quality of life is reflected by that.

[LotusLand]

^^I had other reasons for moving to AB as well, but in all reality I did not find the transition difficult at all. There is a tangible difference between living in Van vs. Cal & Edmonton... I didn't consider it a nagative at the time & while I still will end up back in BC at some point, for me at this particular point in life, where I am & what I do provides me with a pretty good life. I think as long as you can say that about where you live/ work, your quality of life is reflected by that.

Here here! Well said. I did not intend to make the a Calgary Vs. Vancouver thing. Each are good, to each there own. :banana:

[ssiguy]

London is doing well...........steady as she goes due to it's very diversified economy. London has never had a boom/bust economy. Actually I'm a bit suprised that KW hasn't overtaken London yet.
A couple things that really stuck out for me..........Kelowna is groing so fast {I knew it was really growing but even those numbers surprised me} and how relativly slow growth is in Guelph and nearly non-exixtent in Peterborough.

[ssiguy]

As ussual I forget to metion a few things before I hit "enter"............grrrrrrrr.

According to Translink is going to be adding another one million people in the next 30 years. Well lets say it grows a whopping 50% faster than forecast it still wouldn't be at Montreal's current population. Vancouver will not overtake Montreal in our lifetimes , if ever. The only thing that could throw Montreal into a loop is politics. If separtism ever became a true political force and threat Montreal could begin to even loose population.

As for Ont Finance dept estimates......they can be WAY off base. As recently as 4 years ago, Windsor/Essex was expected to be the fastest growing area in all of S/W Ontario for the next 30 years and would take over London/Mid as the regions most populace county, which at one time it was.

Now, just a few years latter poor Winsdor is actually seeing her CMA declining due to the pounding it's economy {and citizens} are having to endure.

[ue]

Edmonton is an amazing city, Lotus, as is Calgary, but I kind of see where you're coming from. But it is a little insulting as your wording makes it seem like we have such crappy quality of life. We have a lot going for us, and your favourite Montréal, Québec also deals with a winter culture, and maintains a high quality of life - while not as obvious or pronounced I think Alberta does too. Also our winters aren't that bad, we rarely get blizzards anymore and there usually isn't that much snow. I always hear in winter the crazy storms they get in the East, but ususally not much in the west.

Calgary and Edmonton aren't that isolated, after all, they're 3hrs apart. But more isolated than say Ontario I guess. Outside our corridor, yes it's pretty isolated/rural outside the small cities. Doesn't help the first major US city is Boise and Salt Lake City from Alberta.

I think the reason Toronto became on top, or one of them, was because of the French in MTL. But I think MTL had a large English prescense when it was the largest. In this day, when one can get by (not living though) in Montréal by just English, yet the French culture remains is a bonus to the city and just adds to the vibrancy/culture of the city.

[Nicko999]

Edmonton is an amazing city, Lotus, as is Calgary, but I kind of see where you're coming from. But it is a little insulting as your wording makes it seem like we have such crappy quality of life. We have a lot going for us, and your favourite Montréal, Québec also deals with a winter culture, and maintains a high quality of life - while not as obvious or pronounced I think Alberta does too. Also our winters aren't that bad, we rarely get blizzards anymore and there usually isn't that much snow. I always hear in winter the crazy storms they get in the East, but ususally not much in the west.


When Lotus said: "the extreme prolonged winter" I think he meant those late snowfalls and cold snaps(snow in June a week ago).

As for the isolation, we all know Alberta IS isolated but that doesn't mean they can't have a good quality of life. When you live in Canada, no matter what province, you will have a high standard of living. I don't think isolation is slowing Alberta's growth.

[ue]

^I agree, but usually the random June falls are in SW Alberta, around Calgary due to the climate, closeness to mountains, Chinooks, etc. Edmonton doesn't usually get that, although we did have an odd light snow fall in May, but when it hit the ground it melted.

[Jeff]

do not underestimate churchill, mb with the ever-proliferating port season it is enjoying + polar bear capital and VIA still serving it! the MB gov is pushing it as much as it can with its apparent shorter than thunder bay/montreal sea routes! it used to have a 15k population US military base during the cold war era and it was the 1700's HBC headquarters at york factory....

[vid]

Thunder Bay's official position on Churchill, for obvious reasons, is "shut it down".

It would certainly create a strange conflict if we ever joined Manitoba.

[Rico Rommheim]

When you live in Canada, no matter what province, you will have a high standard of living.


not to divert the topic but tell that to the good people of our first nations reserve or to the inuits in our northern settlements.

[Canadian Mind]

not to divert the topic but tell that to the good people of our first nations reserve or to the inuits in our northern settlements.

Dude, you just opened up a big can of worms there.

My opinion is that natives on reserves should go out and get good jobs. I've seen it done; one of my highschool teahers used to live on the local reserve as a kid, but worked his fucking ass off to go out and actually get educated. He taught Art and Native American history the year I graduated. Had his own 350 000 dollar house 10 minute walk from work up on Ryan Road Hill, his own car which he used only to go grocery shopping or traveling, and otherwise had a standard of living far better than some whites in the area.

So I don't feel pity. If people want a better life for themselves, most have the power to do it on their own with little to no government assistance, nevermind having to outright beg for welfare cheques and housing. I'm not just talking about natives on reserves, I'm talking about people in general. Some of the lazyness in this country makes me want to puke. :yuck:

[Rico Rommheim]

Dude, you just opened up a big can of worms there.

My opinion is that natives on reserves should go out and get good jobs. I've seen it done; one of my highschool teahers used to live on the local reserve as a kid, but worked his fucking ass off to go out and actually get educated. He taught Art and Native American history the year I graduated. Had his own 350 000 dollar house 10 minute walk from work up on Ryan Road Hill, his own car which he used only to go grocery shopping or traveling, and otherwise had a standard of living far better than some whites in the area.

So I don't feel pity. If people want a better life for themselves, most have the power to do it on their own with little to no government assistance, nevermind having to outright beg for welfare cheques and housing. I'm not just talking about natives on reserves, I'm talking about people in general. Some of the lazyness in this country makes me want to puke. :yuck:

Jesus dude, you can't just go out in Nunavut and get a job at safeways, either you go hunt or you work for the gvt either way there aren't enough jobs in the north for everybody and not enough dwellings, resulting in shameful living conditions (which i've seen for myself). Now this is not because they're lazy, you try coming out in -50 every morning to hunt polar bears and seals and come home to a small flat with 4 families living there.

[vid]

My opinion is that natives on reserves should go out and get good jobs.

How?

There are no good jobs there unless the reserve is located near a mine (and discriminatory practises prevent the native people working in those mines from moving up the ladder--they never train people from reserves to be managers or supervisors) or has found some sort of creative niche (like a fly-in resort). Not all reserves have the luxury of being located near cities. In many cases, these communities are hundreds of kilometres from the next community. Their economies do not work in the same way ours do. You can't expect them to. As much as you hate to admit it, they have a lot in common with impoverished parts of Africa in that their economies are almost purely subsistence.

In addition to that, many of them lack proper educations. (Some communities don't even have schools or clinics, the most notable being Attawapiskat, where the government has repeatedly refused to build a school that isn't located on a toxic site.) They live in third world conditions (Tuberculosis rates on reserves are seven times higher due to overcrowding. The average home on a reserve houses about 6 people, compared to just over 2 for a house in a city) Many communities lack drinking water and sewage treatment. Many isolated reserves run on large diesel generators. (Rankin Inlet's generator broke down a few winters ago; the water pipes, which are overground due to permafrost, couldn't be heated, they all froze, and the entire community of over 2,000 had to be evacuated.) They're not allowed to own their properties. (Unlike in our cities, where you can buy and own a house, native people on reserves cannot own their properties. They must rent them from the government. Most other buildings are built by contract work from the south. They have little pride in what buildings exist, because they didn't build them and they don't own them.) I could go on.

If people want a better life for themselves, most have the power to do it on their own with little to no government assistance

You don't think they're trying? First Nations here in Northern Ontario are constantly coming up with plans to solve their problems. Government regulations (mostly from the Indian Act) keep preventing them. Canadian and Provincial laws are always skewed against them, and even when the government tries to include them in creating laws, like Ontario recently did with its Mining Act overhaul, it puts little weight on their concerns.

As much as the government assists them, it restricts them. You can't throw money at them and expect them to solve anything. (In many cases, windfall profits on reserves have made problems worse.)

nevermind having to outright beg for welfare cheques and housing.

And my last point--the government structure of some bands is demagogic. In many cases, members of these reserves really do have to beg their band leaders for welfare cheques and housing. In some communities, such as Fort William First Nation several years ago (a relatively prosperous reserve located beside a city of 120,000 people) where the band council made people up to get welfare money, there is extreme corruption. The problem here is that welfare isn't given to members of a reserve individually--the band government gets a lump sum and divides it among the population! It's just like African aid. The government almost always takes a disproportionately high cut of the money, whether it deserves any of that money or not. Reserves typically have several large families or family groups and it isn't uncommon for feuds to form between them, causing more problems at the government level. (See Peguis First Nation's recent political controversy.) The whole government structure of First Nations is flawed because the Canadian and Provincial governments don't give it the malleability to evolve away from these issues. Aboriginal people also lack a functioning justice system. How are they going to bring people do justice if they lack the ability to even do that? Many First Nations don't even have police! Of all detachments operated by Nishnawbe-aski Police, only one building meets building codes! Most have buckets for toilets. The jail in Kashechewan burned down, and because the cell was just built out of scrap, it couldn't be opened and the inmates burned to death. And these are the conditions that police on reserves have to deal with! That's the good job!

There are a lot of reserves with progressive councils that can do amazing things with what little resources they have, but you can't except every one to be like that. There is no real support for these people. We simply throw money at their problems and grandstand to win votes from urban people.

Canada literally has a third world nation in its back yard. About 80% of our land mass and 1% of our population is third world. Complaining that "they're lazy and should get off their asses and get good jobs" does absolutely nothing to solve these problems.