[Vaillant]

Canada's population estimates

Fourth quarter 2009

Canada's population was estimated at 33,930,800 as of January 1, 2010, an increase of 57,500 or 0.17% from the level at October 1, 2009. Population growth remains fastest in Western Canada, with all provinces in the region recording percentage increases above the national level.

The population increase in the fourth quarter of 2009 was lower than the increase of 64,600 recorded for the same period in 2008. The two contributors to the country's population growth (natural increase and net international migration) both rose at a slightly slower pace.

The net inflow from international migration in the fourth quarter of 2009 amounted to 27,900, compared with 34,500 in the same quarter a year earlier. This was mostly a result of a larger decrease in non-permanent residents.

Atlantic Canada
Newfoundland and Labrador's population reached 510,800, up 0.10% from October 1, 2009, its fastest fourth-quarter growth rate since 1992. The main factor of the province's growth was a net inflow of 700 people resulting from interprovincial migration.

Prince Edward Island's population declined 0.10%. This was due primarily to a net outflow to interprovincial migration of about 400 people.

Nova Scotia's population was up 0.04%, while New Brunswick posted a 0.03% increase. These increases were mainly attributable to a net inflow from interprovincial migration. Nova Scotia's net inflow of 400 was its largest for a fourth quarter since 1999.

Central Canada
Quebec's population rose 0.17% to 7,870,000, the fastest fourth-quarter increase since 1988. The province recorded its first net inflow from interprovincial migration since 2003 for a fourth quarter.

In Ontario, the population rose by 0.12% to 13,134,500, the fastest fourth-quarter increase since 2003. Ontario's net outflow resulting from interprovincial migration was the smallest for a fourth quarter since 2001.

Western Canada
Manitoba's population increased by 0.23%. This growth was mostly due to a net inflow of 2,300 from international migration, which more than offset a net outflow from interprovincial migration.

The population of Saskatchewan rose by 0.29%, largely due to a net inflow from both interprovincial and international migration. Saskatchewan's population has been increasing since the second quarter of 2006.

Alberta's population increased 0.21% to just over 3,711,800, despite a net outflow of close to 2,800 people from interprovincial migration. This was the highest net outflow for any quarter since 1988. It was the second consecutive quarter of net outflow to interprovincial migration for Alberta.


Note to readers
This release provides data on the components of demographic growth of the fourth quarter of 2009 which contributed to the population estimates as of January 1, 2010.

The release also presents a brief analysis on recent demographic developments in population change at both the Canadian and provincial/territorial levels.

Due to the seasonality of demographic events, comparisons are made against the same quarter. Unless otherwise stated, the comparisons presented in the text concern the fourth quarters of 2008 and 2009.

Natural increase is the variation in population size over a given period as a result of the difference between the number of births and deaths.

International migration represents a movement of population between Canada and a foreign country that involves a change in the usual place of residence. A distinction is made with regard to immigrants, emigrants, returning emigrants, net temporary emigrants and net non-permanent residents.

Non-permanent residents (also called temporary residents) are people from another country who have a work or study permit, or who are refugee claimants, and family members living in Canada with them.

British Columbia's population rose by 14,300, or 0.32%, to just over 4,494,200. It was the second consecutive quarter in which the province recorded the fastest population increase among the provinces.

The increase was due mainly to a net inflow of about 9,000 people from international migration, the largest in the nation. At 2,300, British Columbia also posted the largest net inflow from interprovincial migration in the country.

The territories
All three territories posted population increases: Nunavut (+0.38%), the Northwest Territories (+0.09%) and Yukon (+0.09%).

The main factor of growth in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories was natural increase. In Yukon, the increase was due to both natural increase and net inflow from interprovincial migration.

[feepa]

First - don't we already have a fairly recent topic on this matter? ( http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=176898 )

Second - where's the link?

[Canadian Mind]

So we've hit 34 million by now?

Not bad. Can't wait for 40 million by 2027-28.

[vid]

We're probably just under 34,000,000 right now. Maybe in a couple weeks we'll pass it. But it's just an estimate, anyway.

[Vaillant]

Current date and time
(Eastern)
2010/03/25 21:27:41

restrictions. Projected population
3 4 0 4 6 3 7 9

[Canadian Mind]

Where you get your info from Vaillant?

[Rico Rommheim]

Where you get your info from Vaillant?

he gets it from me.

[Vaillant]

Where you get your info from Vaillant?

sorry it come from there http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/pop-ca-eng.htm

[Pegger5]

sorry it come from there http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/pop-ca-eng.htm
The comments are your opinion only or actually written by StatsCan???

[Canadian Mind]

Thanks Vaillant. :)

[Nicko999]

Central Canada
Quebec's population rose 0.17% to 7,870,000, the fastest fourth-quarter increase since 1988. The province recorded its first net inflow from interprovincial migration since 2003 for a fourth quarter.

In Ontario, the population rose by 0.12% to 13,134,500, the fastest fourth-quarter increase since 2003. Ontario's net outflow resulting from interprovincial migration was the smallest for a fourth quarter since 2001.


Ontario is currently growing below the national level.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8353/scr1269572247.png
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100325/t100325a2-eng.htm

[le calmar]

^ That's surprising. Not to say that Alberta is fourth behind BC, Sask and Manitoba.

[Nicko999]

:previous: You forget Nunavut:D

[MolsonExport]

Quite something to see Quebec outpace Ontario in % growth...I am curious to see how much of that is reflected in CMA numbers for Montreal.
Thanks for posting the numbers, Vaillant.

[LeftCoaster]

I was having some fun on excel while wasting time in class and came up with some numbers for fun. Using the growth rates in the statscan numbers adjusted for 4 quarters I derived the following:

- In 137 years BC will overtake Ontario as the most populous province, at 25million people.

- In 355 years Alberta will pass Ontario with 71.7 million people... At this point BC will have a polulation of 404.3 million

- In 427 years BC will hit 1 billion residents

Interesting stuff.

* Disclaimer: I'm not retatrded please dont point out how useless and stupid these numbers are, I was just having fun.

[duper]

- In 137 years BC will overtake Ontario as the most populous province, at 25million people.

- In 355 years Alberta will pass Ontario with 71.7 million people... At this point BC will have a polulation of 404.3 million

- In 427 years BC will hit 1 billion residents

Interesting stuff.

* Disclaimer: I'm not retatrded please dont point out how useless and stupid these numbers are, I was just having fun.

LOL. I'll mark my calendar ;)

[raggedy13]

Here is a quick excel graph I made:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4042/4465317794_1a427dce09_o.gif

[raggedy13]

Total provincial growth over the last two quarters of 2009:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4465355886_169de7c1fe_o.gif

[Dmajackson]

Well at the pace we're growing Nova Scotia will pass the million mark in oh lets say 2'000 years ... :P

But seriously using just the numbers (not the percentages) we may pass the million mark around 2022.

[mike474]

Total provincial growth over the last two quarters of 2009:

A logical choice for someone from BC :yes:

[raggedy13]

^Ha, true. :D

I hadn't thought of that. I just added 3Q since there was an easy to find thread on the topic here. I should go look for the 1Q and 2Q as well...

[raggedy13]

Alright, so here are the numbers for all 4 quarters of 2009:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2741/4465891266_50265bcb23_o.gif

[raggedy13]

One interesting aspect of the above numbers is that the BC+AB population growth surpasses that of Ontario - 138,571 vs 137,126. And of course, after recently surpassing Quebec in population, BC+AB are vigorously pulling away.

Quebec: 7,870,026
BC+AB: 8,206, 077
Ontario: 13,134,455

[mike474]

Alright, so here are the numbers for all 4 quarters of 2009:

Crap, I take it back... Sask was beating Man in the second half of the year, but not for the full year. :haha:

[raggedy13]

^Well, at least you've got the current momentum. :shrug: ;)

I'm hoping BCs higher 3rd & 4th quarter growth rates continue on into this year. BCs economy isn't doing that bad but I'm not exactly sure why we're experiencing higher growth than other places.

[Nicko999]

If you guys calculate AB+BC why not do On+QC then?

[raggedy13]

^Because AB+BC combined being similar in population and land area to Quebec make for a more apt comparison. If I wanted to make an Eastern vs Western Canada comparison I might throw Ontario in there (among other provinces) but that is not what I was interested in doing. Don't worry, when AB+BC surpass ON+QC in population I'll be the first to start making those comparisons. ;)

[jmt18325]

^Because AB+BC combined being similar in population and land area to Quebec make for a more apt comparison.


I don't see how though. It's not like Vancouver is anything like Calgary. They aren't a block region that can be considered together.

[raggedy13]

A few years ago when the combined population of Alberta and BC surpassed Quebec's, the comparison was made by the media. All I did was take a look at how things have changed since, out of curiosity. I thought some people might find it interesting so I posted it.

It may not be as sensical or relevant as a singular province to province comparison but that doesn't make it any less interesting to me. :shrug: I'm not sure why people are fussing over it.

[Architype]

Newfoundland-Labrador had more growth than any of the Maritimes in 2009 (incl N.S.), yet there is aother thread here which predicts a great population loss by 2031. Who can really predict these things.

[jeremy_haak]

You can't. The forecasts are important though for various reasons, whether it be for a business anticipating where future growth is going to occur, or whether it be for a municipality determining how much land it needs to make available for population and employment growth. That also makes them inherently political.

[cornholio]

So we've hit 34 million by now?

Not bad. Can't wait for 40 million by 2027-28.

I cant wait till we begin to decrease, 20mill and stable would be nice. The world has to many f***in people already, we dont need anymore in Canada.

[Wishblade]

I cant wait till we begin to decrease, 20mill and stable would be nice. The world has to many f***in people already, we dont need anymore in Canada.

So you want stagnation? thats a great attitude to have on this forum :rolleyes:

[cornholio]

So you want stagnation? thats a great attitude to have on this forum :rolleyes:

I want sustainability and a high quality of life.

[Canadian Mind]

Not only that, but lower population density would make it harder to get around in this country. We are big enough that we could support 100 million people in this country without much issue. We have the space and an overabundant amount of resources. However, we should be smart in our future growth and land use, despite the abundant amount of space we have.

[Riise]

So you want stagnation? thats a great attitude to have on this forum :rolleyes:

Growth is not always necessary for development. A country of 20 million people can be way more productive than a country of 34 or 100 million if the former works more efficiently. This is what some of the discourse on sustainability focuses on, allowing for development to occur but not through growth of our throughput.

[Nicko999]

I cant wait till we begin to decrease, 20mill and stable would be nice. The world has to many f***in people already, we dont need anymore in Canada.

Say goodbye to skyscraper construction then.

[Bdog]

Growth is not always necessary for development. A country of 20 million people can be way more productive than a country of 34 or 100 million if the former works more efficiently. This is what some of the discourse on sustainability focuses on, allowing for development to occur but not through growth of our throughput.

Unfortunately, the way things are in our current economic system, growth IS necessary for development. To think that Canada can prosper without growth is naive (especially when in the next 2 decades, almost half of the population will be seniors)... Look at countries like Japan for an example of what a country with no growth has to face. I know all about Herman Daly's "development without growth" models, but our economic system is currently based on growth, and therefore it can't work... yet...

[Spocket]

I cant wait till we begin to decrease, 20mill and stable would be nice. The world has to many f***in people already, we dont need anymore in Canada.

What , are you feeling crowded or something ?
The world has too many people , not Canada. Canada doesn't have enough people to support the system it wants. Everything costs so much relative to the rest of the world because the bill is shared by considerably fewer people than in other nations. The only solution is to let the world move into Canada to even things out and then you can complain about overpopulation.

[vid]

But if we have more people we have to pay for them, too.

[trueviking]

it would make more sense to combine alberta and saskatchewan if you need to create some kind of western block...psychologically, economically and politically they are more similar than BC and Alberta are.

other than physical adjacency, BC and alberta cant really be lumped together as an entity to counter quebec in a national teeter totter.

[trueviking]

Crap, I take it back... Sask was beating Man in the second half of the year, but not for the full year. :haha:

it was a good battle....better than 10 years ago when both provinces did nothing but lose people.

the nice part of 16 000 new people in manitoba is that with only one city, a minimum of 3/4 of that growth comes to winnipeg.

[le calmar]

it was a good battle....better than 10 years ago when both provinces did nothing but lose people.


I hope the same happens to the Maritimes in the future. It's hard to understand how one of the best part of Canada, with the East coast, the ocean, the warm sea (NB has the warmest sea north of Virginia, and much warmer than anywhere else in Canada) the beautiful and endless beaches and landscapes, a decent number of mid-sized cities, the historic towns and the not-too-cold climate cannot handle a strong growth. The best kept secret in Canada I guess! They are the only provinces that look like States in the US. Not too big, with a good part of their territory urbanized (unlike the other provinces where that's just 10%), the cities are close to each other, many small towns all over the territory. Maybe the only thing the Maritimes lacks is a metropolis.

[MonctonRad]

:previous:

Moncton is more than willing to fulfill it's destiny as the regional metropolis! :tup:

[Dmajackson]

:previous:

Moncton is more than willing to fulfill it's destiny as the regional metropolis! :tup:

Now now hasn't the 'Fax Machine taught you guys anything. ;)

I defenitely agree that the Maritimes needs a true metro area. Having our ~2 million inhabitants divided into almost 11 cities and countless towns isn't helping our pull on the federal or international level.

BTW for people who might be scratching their heads at the fact we have 11 cities they are; Halifax, Moncton, Saint John, Freddy, Charr'town, Summerside, Cape Breton, Edmunston, Miramichi, Campbellton, and Bathurst.

[jmt18325]

Cape Breton,.

You mean Sydney?

[softee]

:previous:

Moncton is more than willing to fulfill it's destiny as the regional metropolis! :tup:

I think Halifax has got that covered. ;)

[mike474]

You mean Sydney?

municipal amalgamation! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Breton_Regional_Municipality,_Nova_Scotia)

[MonctonRad]

I think Halifax has got that covered. ;)

Moncton may be second, but we try harder! :)

[jmt18325]

municipal amalgamation! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Breton_Regional_Municipality,_Nova_Scotia)

Yes, CBRM is a municipality, just like HRM. Sydney is a city.

[mike474]

I could be wrong, but I was under the imperssion that that amalgamation was absolute and there is no level of government below. If that's the case, Sydney's no more of a city than Scarborough. In any case, I think we get what the poster meant.

[Zassk]

I cant wait till we begin to decrease, 20mill and stable would be nice. The world has to many f***in people already, we dont need anymore in Canada.

Unfortunately, for the sake of the world's long-term health, we need to redistribute some of the world's population toward lower-density areas like Canada. The world population seems to be stabilizing toward a peak of 9-10 billion, but many areas are simply too populated. Places like Canada that can accommodate more people will need to provide relief for those that can't. So I doubt Canada will see any stability or contraction, even long after the world population has stabilized or begun contracting.

[Dmajackson]

Moncton may be second, but we try harder! :)

I'll give you that one I guess. ;)

Yes, CBRM is a municipality, just like HRM. Sydney is a city.

Well most people consider it a city but it is technically just a community in Cape Breton R.M. just like the city of Halifax is a community in H.R.M. All cities, towns and villages cease to exist in a municipal government.

I could be wrong, but I was under the imperssion that that amalgamation was absolute and there is no level of government below. If that's the case, Sydney's no more of a city than Scarborough. In any case, I think we get what the poster meant.

Bingo. At the local level Ecum Secum has the same poltical power as Downtown Halifax. Since we are physically larger then PEI there is community councils but they are under the same level of government as Regional Council.

With amalgamation came name changes. Halifax now refers to the former city or the municipality as a whole, Sydney is now commonly called Cape Breton, and (among other less desirable names) former Hants County is now East Hants and West Hants.

Heck, here's a dramatic example of how weirdly set-up HRM is; Sable Island is part of Downtown Halifax!

[Smevo]

:previous:

Exactly. Physically, CBRM is still a city (Sydney) and several towns (Glace Bay-Dominion (aka Glace Bay), North Sydney-Sydney Mines-Florence (aka Sydney Mines for statscan or Northside locally), New Waterford, and Louisbourg). Politically and officially, however, this city and these towns cease to exist, it's just Cape Breton with no community councils underneath. There's been a major desire for a name change ever since amalgamation, but nobody can agree on it and no council wants to actually tackle it since they know that they'll never get all the former communities to agree on a proper new name. :rolleyes:

Both HRM and CBRM were simply named after the county boundaries that became the RM's boundaries. In this way, Halifax had it easy, they got to keep their easily identifiable name. Cape Breton (the RM), on the other hand, immediately gets confused with Cape Breton (the Island). In reality, the RM contains 74% of the island's population in 24% of the island's area, and furthermore, the former towns (and their suburbs) contain 55% of the island's population in 1.3% of the island's area. (PS- we really need a new name for CBRM). :yes:

[MolsonExport]

Unfortunately, for the sake of the world's long-term health, we need to redistribute some of the world's population toward lower-density areas like Canada. The world population seems to be stabilizing toward a peak of 9-10 billion, but many areas are simply too populated. Places like Canada that can accommodate more people will need to provide relief for those that can't. So I doubt Canada will see any stability or contraction, even long after the world population has stabilized or begun contracting.

If Canada immediately accomodated another 100 million people, it would make not one iota of difference in a world with a population increasing by 75 million or more each and every year.

[Acajack]

:previous:

Exactly. Physically, CBRM is still a city (Sydney) and several towns (Glace Bay-Dominion (aka Glace Bay), North Sydney-Sydney Mines-Florence (aka Sydney Mines for statscan or Northside locally), New Waterford, and Louisbourg). Politically and officially, however, this city and these towns cease to exist, it's just Cape Breton with no community councils underneath. There's been a major desire for a name change ever since amalgamation, but nobody can agree on it and no council wants to actually tackle it since they know that they'll never get all the former communities to agree on a proper new name. :rolleyes:

Both HRM and CBRM were simply named after the county boundaries that became the RM's boundaries. In this way, Halifax had it easy, they got to keep their easily identifiable name. Cape Breton (the RM), on the other hand, immediately gets confused with Cape Breton (the Island). In reality, the RM contains 74% of the island's population in 24% of the island's area, and furthermore, the former towns (and their suburbs) contain 55% of the island's population in 1.3% of the island's area. (PS- we really need a new name for CBRM). :yes:

I know Nova Scotia quite well and admit to being confused by what is the CBRM and what isn't. You're absolutely right that this needs to be clarified somehow.

In Quebec there is actually the same problem with Saguenay (the region), Saguenay (the river) and, since the megamergers of 2002, Saguenay (the city).

The new city was made up of Chicoutimi, Jonquière, La Baie and a few smaller municipalities. Since there was a fierce rivalry between Chicoutimi and Jonquière in particular, they decided on a neutral but geographically confusing name: Saguenay.

It also sounds weird in French to say ''à Saguenay" (in Saguenay the city), as opposed to "au Saguenay" (in the Saguenay), which everyone was used to saying when referring to the region.

We are used to saying it with the word "Québec": "à Québec" refers to Quebec City, "au Québec" means the province, but somehow it doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely when it comes to Saguenay.

[MonctonRad]

I would think a good population target for Canada would be 60-75M people. This would place us in the same ballpark as the major European powers (UK, France, Germany and Italy) and would help to solidify our position as a major world economic power.

Although Canada is as large as all of Europe, our carrying capacity is relatively low due to the overwhelming influence of the Canadian Shield and the Arctic expanse. We therefore should not aspire to having 100M or so people.......it just wouldn't be practical and could negatively impact on our collective quality of life.

Part of the Canadian character is to have and to embrace our expansive wilderness areas. We should not jeopardize this. I think 60-75M people is a good compromise. :)

[Canadian Mind]

I would think a good population target for Canada would be 60-75M people. This would place us in the same ballpark as the major European powers (UK, France, Germany and Italy) and would help to solidify our position as a major world economic power.

Although Canada is as large as all of Europe, our carrying capacity is relatively low due to the overwhelming influence of the Canadian Shield and the Arctic expanse. We therefore should not aspire to having 100M or so people.......it just wouldn't be practical and could negatively impact on our collective quality of life.

Part of the Canadian character is to have and to embrace our expansive wilderness areas. We should not jeopardize this. I think 60-75M people is a good compromise. :)

I don't know if you've ever driven across this country or not, but the majority of our wilderness would not be threatened by urban encroachment even if we did triple our population. Just the trend toward sustainable, higher-density development in all of our cities ensures that even if they all grow by 3-4 times there current size, we'd be lucky (well, unlucky) if the total land area occupied more than doubles.

[vid]

Most Canadian shield development is quite spread out. If all the mine projects in this region are successful NWO will see a population boom and there is no doubt in my mind that that will mean more spread out suburbs, and little if any densification in existing urban areas. There is even talk of some communities in the far north becoming new cities like Fort MacMurray.

Heck, here's a dramatic example of how weirdly set-up HRM is; Sable Island is part of Downtown Halifax!

Thunder Bay has a by-law that states that any land added to the city through annexation or amalgamation will automatically be added to a ward comprising the southern third of Fort William. The only likely annexation the city would be doing, however, is to the north. The ward includes part of downtown and a bunch of islands in the lake, just like Downtown Halifax. We have another ward that includes half of each downtown and the large industrial area between them, plus a few patches of suburbs and the harbour. It would be like making everything with a kilometre of the harbour in HRM the same ward. It's messed up.

Political boundaries have become a little bit too arbitrary these days. :\

[Spocket]

But if we have more people we have to pay for them, too.

Uh...where do you think "we" get the money to pay for "them" ?

[vid]

If it is coming from them then what is the difference between having 30 million and 300 million?

[mylesmalley]

Riddle me this, Vid. When you Google "Moncton Ward Map" and click images, the third result is a map of Thunder Bay municipal wards. Thoughts?

[vid]

Considering that it points to the Thunder Bay Wikipedia article I have no idea what's going on. The image is used in the article for Thunder Bay City Council, which has a navigation box at the bottom of the screen which includes a link to Moncton City Council. I drew that map and edited Moncton City Council a couple years ago, so it could be drawing some weird connection through my Wikipedia profile.

[good_dude]

Province's population grows by 16,400
By: Larry Kusch
26/03/2010 1:00 AM |

MANITOBA'S population is booming.
Last year, the province had a net gain of 16,400 people, boosting its total to 1,228,984, according to statistics released said Thursday.

"That's the best calendar year gain we've had since at least 1971," said Jacqueline Storen with the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics. "The next closest we've had to that was in 1983, when we had 13,600."

The 1.4 per cent provincial gain was the fourth highest among Canadian provinces and higher than the Canadian average, according to Statistics Canada.

In the last quarter of the year, Manitoba's population growth, at 0.23 per cent, was third highest among provinces -- even exceeding Alberta's (0.21%). British Columbia and Saskatchewan were first and second respectively.

Manitoba continues to benefit from international immigration and a rising birth rate, Storen said. It gained 11,950 people from outside the country, while its 15,839 births were the highest since 1995.

However, Manitoba continued to lose people to other provinces last year. The net loss is estimated at 1,570.

Meanwhile, the bureau expects Manitoba's population to continue to rise this year. "We're expecting to see continuing growth -- at least similar growth to what we've seen in the past -- for the next few quarters," Storen said.

larry.kusch@freepress.mb.ca