Statistics Canada Reports II

[MonctonRad]

Very interesting. Thanks. Using the FUA definition, I would imagine that Moncton, as of June 1st 2024, is likely on the doorstep of a 250,000 population (annual growth rate at present of 10-12,000 per year).

[Innsertnamehere]

Thanks, interesting to hear about Brantford qualifying for Toronto. I’m guessing it’s commuting to Hamilton which has commuters to Toronto, etc., creating a sort of chain of secondary cores?

The percentage commuting from Guelph to Waterloo is surprising.

[Taeolas]

Interesting numbers. As I noted in the Maritime Stats thread, I'm surprised Fredericton's bigger than Saint John. SJ just feels like it has more around it to be pulled into a FUA than Fredericton, so to see Freddy over it is surprising.

I'd love to see what the New Brunswick FUA's pull into each city.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

The last population estimates from July 1, 2023 are interesting to look at, and I have been pleased to read all of this thead. What is even more interesting, though, is that after the (vast and expensive) consultation that were held a few years before last census (2021), which I have taken part of, Statistics Canada have decided to maintain its census metropolitan area delineation method, rather than update to a method that is becoming standard worldwide, the Functional Urban Areas (developed in collaboration with OECD and EU).

Basically, this method is simple : there are urban centres or "cities" which are defined as continuous built-up spaces. All the municipalities where most of the population live in that continuous built-up space are considered part of the "city" (in other words, the urban core). There are thresholds for size, which are based on the number of jobs, density and population of said cores. For example, the core of a functional urban area of greater importance consists of a conurbation of at least 50k population, 10k jobs and 1500ppl/sqkm. There are many sources online where you can find the detail for this method. There is then a threshold of 15% commuting between "cities". It a city sends more than 15% of its working population to another city, it is considered as a secondary "urban core" of this second city. You understand that there is no such thing as Hamilton, Oshawa, Abbotsford, Valleyfield, etc. with this method. Which is the interesting part.

The delineation method that is used in Canada for CMAs is pretty much unique worldwide, which limits comparisons when it comes to urban matters (public health, urban growth, urban sprawl, etc.) I am a researcher attached to the Urban development chair at UdeM. For most of our analysis, we use, for Canada, the data for Functional Urban Areas (Aires d'attraction des villes en français). We can therefore do some comparisons with european cities, for example. We work closely with Statistics Canada : they provide us with the granular data (ex.: census blocks, attributes, etc., which are all public by the way), and mostly, the number of jobs by census block.

Anyway, as we keep track of this data, I thought I'd share it with you, in order to add another perspective when it comes to comparing urban areas in Canada. I will be glad to answer your questions, even though demographics is not my field of study - I work in environmental geography, landscape and cultural heritage. I may have to ask colleagues before being able to come back to you.


So, according to the July 1st 2023 estimates that were released recently, Canada's main Functional Urban Areas are :

Position. Population. Name

1.   8 854 488   Toronto, ON
2.   4 925 560   Montréal, QC
3.   3 342 027   Vancouver, BC
4.   1 787 183   Calgary, AB
5.   1 745 823   Ottawa / Gatineau, ON/QC
6.   1 597 116   Edmonton, AB
7.   1 005 982   Québec, QC
8.     998 548   Winnipeg, MB
9.     683 300   Kitchener / Cambridge / Waterloo, ON
10.    682 528   London, ON
11.    552 728   Halifax, NS
12.    453 695   Victoria, BC
13.    441 736   St. Catharines / Niagara Falls, ON
14.    434 729   Windsor, ON
15.    371 640   Saskatoon, SK
16.    291 198   Sherbrooke, QC
17.    290 871   Regina, SK
18.    253 027   St. John's, NL
19.    246 789   Kelowna, BC
20.    240 197   Moncton, NB
21.    235 600   Kingston, ON
22.    214 141   Guelph, ON
23.    213 244   Trois-Rivières, QC
24.    204 585   Red Deer, AB
25.    192 723   Sudbury, ON
26.    182 072   Saguenay, QC
27.    171 685   Belleville / Trenton, ON
28.    154 156   Lethbridge, AB
29.    152 330   Fredericton, NB
30.    151 501   Peterborough, ON
31.    149 516   Nanaimo, BC
32.    146 943   Saint John, NB
33.    132 733   Kamloops, BC
34.    131 212   Thunder Bay, ON
35.    129 190   Drummondville, QC
36.    122 182   Granby, QC
37.    116 452   Sarnia, ON
38.    113 755   Charlottetown, PE
39.    113 238   Chatham-Kent, ON
40.    111 033   Sydney (Cape Breton), NS
41.    104 789   Joliette, QC
42.    101 444   North Bay, ON
43.    100 484   Saint-Hyacinthe, QC
44.    100 006   Grande Prairie, AB

A few remarks :

• There is a problem with the inconsistency of census subdivisions, espacially in BC and AB, where immense municipal districts create municipal enclaves within them. The urban areas in these 2 provinces, especially Alberta, tend to grow add no municipality for a few censuses, and then add like 10 or 15 in one census, because the sum of commuting worker for a whole municipal district and all of its enclaves combined reaches 15%. The same problem is experienced with the official Statistics Canada method.
• The Toronto FUA (functional urban area) comprises Hamilton, Oshawa, Barrie, Milton and Brantford, which are all secondary cores of category A. The statiscal "city" of Brantford sends 15,33% of its working population to Toronto and adjacent municipalities.
• In Vancouver, Abbotsford (A), Mission (C) and Chilliwack (B) are all considered as secondary cores.
• For Montreal, Saint-Jérôme (A), Salaberry-de-Valleyfield (B) and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu (B) are also considered as secondary cores. Saint-Hyacinthe, Sorel and Joliette are not close to become secondary cores.
• Outside of the larger 3 agglomerations, we note that Shawinigan, QC is only at 1,01% of commuting to becoming a secondary core to Trois-Rivières. We consider them separate for now. It is also interesting that Louiseville, a C-category "city", is now at 13.7% commuting to Trois-Rivières. But outside of the suburban world, these stats tend to take time to increase, and honestly, we would prefer not to see it happen.
• Sainte-Marie, QC sends 13.21% of its working force to Québec, QC. Seeing the growth of this rate in the last 2 censuses, the "city" should join QC in 5 or 10 years.
• Airdrie, AB, is a secondary core to Calgary (46% of commuting)
• Guelph, ON, is closer to be added to the FUA of Toronto (8,7% of commuting) than it is to join KCW (4,0% of commuting). Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo is not even close to join Toronto either (3.64% of commuting); it is still fairly independent.
• Vernon, BC and Kelowna are not close to merge.
• Cobourg, ON will not likely be integrated soon to Toronto, but it is getting closer (11% commuting). So is Midland (11% also). Brighton could eventually be integrated to Belleville-Trenton, but is not close enough for now (10.5%).
• Alma, QC could eventually join Saguenay, but it will take some time (understand : decades) (11% commuting). If Sorel grows more, it could also eventually be added to Montreal, but recent trends suggest otherwise (10%). Same goes for Coaticook to Sherbrooke (10.3%), and Cowansville to Granby (10%).
• Shediac is already integrated into the Moncton FUA (44% commuting for the combined town and parish).

I hope it was informative. Don't forget : these are all just stats, and they mostly are useful to compare apples to apples. This is not a popularity contest or an indicator of greatness.

Best post in this thread for a long time. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing your insider perspective and knowledge.

[MonctonGoldenTri]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

The last population estimates from July 1, 2023 are interesting to look at, and I have been pleased to read all of this thead. What is even more interesting, though, is that after the (vast and expensive) consultation that were held a few years before last census (2021), which I have taken part of, Statistics Canada have decided to maintain its census metropolitan area delineation method, rather than update to a method that is becoming standard worldwide, the Functional Urban Areas (developed in collaboration with OECD and EU).

Basically, this method is simple : there are urban centres or "cities" which are defined as continuous built-up spaces. All the municipalities where most of the population live in that continuous built-up space are considered part of the "city" (in other words, the urban core). There are thresholds for size, which are based on the number of jobs, density and population of said cores. For example, the core of a functional urban area of greater importance consists of a conurbation of at least 50k population, 10k jobs and 1500ppl/sqkm. There are many sources online where you can find the detail for this method. There is then a threshold of 15% commuting between "cities". It a city sends more than 15% of its working population to another city, it is considered as a secondary "urban core" of this second city. You understand that there is no such thing as Hamilton, Oshawa, Abbotsford, Valleyfield, etc. with this method. Which is the interesting part.

The delineation method that is used in Canada for CMAs is pretty much unique worldwide, which limits comparisons when it comes to urban matters (public health, urban growth, urban sprawl, etc.) I am a researcher attached to the Urban development chair at UdeM. For most of our analysis, we use, for Canada, the data for Functional Urban Areas (Aires d'attraction des villes en français). We can therefore do some comparisons with european cities, for example. We work closely with Statistics Canada : they provide us with the granular data (ex.: census blocks, attributes, etc., which are all public by the way), and mostly, the number of jobs by census block.

Anyway, as we keep track of this data, I thought I'd share it with you, in order to add another perspective when it comes to comparing urban areas in Canada. I will be glad to answer your questions, even though demographics is not my field of study - I work in environmental geography, landscape and cultural heritage. I may have to ask colleagues before being able to come back to you.


So, according to the July 1st 2023 estimates that were released recently, Canada's main Functional Urban Areas are :

Position. Population. Name

1.   8 854 488   Toronto, ON
2.   4 925 560   Montréal, QC
3.   3 342 027   Vancouver, BC
4.   1 787 183   Calgary, AB
5.   1 745 823   Ottawa / Gatineau, ON/QC
6.   1 597 116   Edmonton, AB
7.   1 005 982   Québec, QC
8.     998 548   Winnipeg, MB
9.     683 300   Kitchener / Cambridge / Waterloo, ON
10.    682 528   London, ON
11.    552 728   Halifax, NS
12.    453 695   Victoria, BC
13.    441 736   St. Catharines / Niagara Falls, ON
14.    434 729   Windsor, ON
15.    371 640   Saskatoon, SK
16.    291 198   Sherbrooke, QC
17.    290 871   Regina, SK
18.    253 027   St. John's, NL
19.    246 789   Kelowna, BC
20.    240 197   Moncton, NB
21.    235 600   Kingston, ON
22.    214 141   Guelph, ON
23.    213 244   Trois-Rivières, QC
24.    204 585   Red Deer, AB
25.    192 723   Sudbury, ON
26.    182 072   Saguenay, QC
27.    171 685   Belleville / Trenton, ON
28.    154 156   Lethbridge, AB
29.    152 330   Fredericton, NB
30.    151 501   Peterborough, ON
31.    149 516   Nanaimo, BC
32.    146 943   Saint John, NB
33.    132 733   Kamloops, BC
34.    131 212   Thunder Bay, ON
35.    129 190   Drummondville, QC
36.    122 182   Granby, QC
37.    116 452   Sarnia, ON
38.    113 755   Charlottetown, PE
39.    113 238   Chatham-Kent, ON
40.    111 033   Sydney (Cape Breton), NS
41.    104 789   Joliette, QC
42.    101 444   North Bay, ON
43.    100 484   Saint-Hyacinthe, QC
44.    100 006   Grande Prairie, AB

A few remarks :

• There is a problem with the inconsistency of census subdivisions, espacially in BC and AB, where immense municipal districts create municipal enclaves within them. The urban areas in these 2 provinces, especially Alberta, tend to grow add no municipality for a few censuses, and then add like 10 or 15 in one census, because the sum of commuting worker for a whole municipal district and all of its enclaves combined reaches 15%. The same problem is experienced with the official Statistics Canada method.
• The Toronto FUA (functional urban area) comprises Hamilton, Oshawa, Barrie, Milton and Brantford, which are all secondary cores of category A. The statiscal "city" of Brantford sends 15,33% of its working population to Toronto and adjacent municipalities.
• In Vancouver, Abbotsford (A), Mission (C) and Chilliwack (B) are all considered as secondary cores.
• For Montreal, Saint-Jérôme (A), Salaberry-de-Valleyfield (B) and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu (B) are also considered as secondary cores. Saint-Hyacinthe, Sorel and Joliette are not close to become secondary cores.
• Outside of the larger 3 agglomerations, we note that Shawinigan, QC is only at 1,01% of commuting to becoming a secondary core to Trois-Rivières. We consider them separate for now. It is also interesting that Louiseville, a C-category "city", is now at 13.7% commuting to Trois-Rivières. But outside of the suburban world, these stats tend to take time to increase, and honestly, we would prefer not to see it happen.
• Sainte-Marie, QC sends 13.21% of its working force to Québec, QC. Seeing the growth of this rate in the last 2 censuses, the "city" should join QC in 5 or 10 years.
• Airdrie, AB, is a secondary core to Calgary (46% of commuting)
• Guelph, ON, is closer to be added to the FUA of Toronto (8,7% of commuting) than it is to join KCW (4,0% of commuting). Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo is not even close to join Toronto either (3.64% of commuting); it is still fairly independent.
• Vernon, BC and Kelowna are not close to merge.
• Cobourg, ON will not likely be integrated soon to Toronto, but it is getting closer (11% commuting). So is Midland (11% also). Brighton could eventually be integrated to Belleville-Trenton, but is not close enough for now (10.5%).
• Alma, QC could eventually join Saguenay, but it will take some time (understand : decades) (11% commuting). If Sorel grows more, it could also eventually be added to Montreal, but recent trends suggest otherwise (10%). Same goes for Coaticook to Sherbrooke (10.3%), and Cowansville to Granby (10%).
• Shediac is already integrated into the Moncton FUA (44% commuting for the combined town and parish).

I hope it was informative. Don't forget : these are all just stats, and they mostly are useful to compare apples to apples. This is not a popularity contest or an indicator of greatness.

Impressive! I don't think anyone expected little Moncton to crack the top 20.

[davidivivid]

[*]Outside of the larger 3 agglomerations, we note that Shawinigan, QC is only at 1,01% of commuting to becoming a secondary core to Trois-Rivières. We consider them separate for now. It is also interesting that Louiseville, a C-category "city", is now at 13.7% commuting to Trois-Rivières. But outside of the suburban world, these stats tend to take time to increase, and honestly, we would prefer not to see it happen.

[*]Sainte-Marie, QC sends 13.21% of its working force to Québec, QC. Seeing the growth of this rate in the last 2 censuses, the "city" should join QC in 5 or 10 years.

The combined population of Shawinigan and Louiseville is about 58 000 people. It would eventually bump Trois-Rivières' population statistics considerably.

As for Sainte-Marie, it currently is home to more than 13 000 people.


As others have said, very interesting input by Laceoflight.

[LuluBobo]

I'm curious on the input data for FUA for Regina and Saskatoon. There are about 20,000 additional people in Regina FUA vs Regina CMA. I'm struggling to see where that would come from.

Outside Moose Jaw (35,000), no municipality within a half hour drive of the city is over 1,000 and isn't already in the CMA.

Do you know the commute flow from Moose Jaw to Regina?

Edit: Looks like 12.7% of Moose Jaw CSD commute to Regina for work

[MonctonRad]

Using the FUA definition, Toronto subsumes adjacent CMAs like Oshawa, Hamilton and Barrie to form a greater conurbation.

Does this mean that an FUA is similar to an American Census Statistical Area? If so, what are the differences between an FUA and CSA?

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Using the FUA definition, Toronto subsumes adjacent CMAs like Oshawa, Hamilton and Barrie to form a greater conurbation.

Does this mean that an FUA is similar to an American Census Statistical Area? If so, what are the differences between an FUA and CSA?

Appears similar. From wikipedia:

CSAs represent multiple metropolitan or micropolitan areas that have an employment interchange of at least 15% (% commuting from A to B plus % commuting from B to A).[3] CSAs often represent regions with overlapping labor and media markets.

[Acajack]

Is FUA something that only women have or can men have it too?

[MonctonRad]

I'm surprised there haven't been any howls of protest from the Hamilton or Winnipeg forumers.

Hamilton has disappeared (subsumed by Toronto).

Winnipeg has been surpassed by QC, and, to add insult to injury, the QC FUA is over 1M, while Winnipeg is still waiting in the wings.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Thanks, interesting to hear about Brantford qualifying for Toronto. I’m guessing it’s commuting to Hamilton which has commuters to Toronto, etc., creating a sort of chain of secondary cores?

The percentage commuting from Guelph to Waterloo is surprising.

I was going to ask the same thing.

i.e. if 15% of Hamilton commuters go to Toronto, that makes Hamilton part of "Toronto", and then if 15% of Brantford commuters go only as far as Hamilton, that counts as "Toronto" as well?

If the number of Hamilton commuters dropped off then that would affect Brantford without anything in Brantford changing?

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by jonny24

I was going to ask the same thing.

i.e. if 15% of Hamilton commuters go to Toronto, that makes Hamilton part of "Toronto", and then if 15% of Brantford commuters go only as far as Hamilton, that counts as "Toronto" as well?

If the number of Hamilton commuters dropped off then that would affect Brantford without anything in Brantford changing?

Yes, Hamilton is considered a secondary core within the urban area, so if 15% of another municipality commute to a secondary core, they sufficiently interact with the higher-level urban area (Toronto) and are thus included.

If I recall, the commuting numbers from Hamilton to Toronto are already above 20%, nearing the 25% US MSA threshold, so unlikely they drop off below the 15% threshold.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Yes, it's always been poly-centric and a collection of places. The time I'm remembering was in the 1980s. Didn't Statistics Canada change their criteria for CAs/CMAs back then?

From the Census Dictionary on CMAs:

2006-present: >100k overall; >50k in core
2001: >100k overall; >100k in core
1961-1996: >100k overall; cities >50k (not entirely clear what the exact criteria were here)

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm surprised there haven't been any howls of protest from the Hamilton or Winnipeg forumers.

Hamilton has disappeared (subsumed by Toronto).

Protesting statistics? Nah.

The "urban area" is basically continuous between Hamilton and Oshawa, with only small breaks remaining. There are larger ones west of Hamilton and between Toronto and Barrie, but functionally the municipalities are very connected. So it's not surprising. Stats Canada could name things differently, but that name would be quite long and gets longer with every update... "Toronto-centred region" or something to that effect would be more apt, though.

Hamiltonians are used to it anyway. It happens with other stats, and many of the services that were once locally provided by branch offices now reside in the Big Smoke as companies cut back on costs. The geographic proximity has its positives and negatives.

[Justanothermember]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm surprised there haven't been any howls of protest from the Hamilton or Winnipeg forumers.

Hamilton has disappeared (subsumed by Toronto).

Winnipeg has been surpassed by QC, and, to add insult to injury, the QC FUA is over 1M, while Winnipeg is still waiting in the wings.

Why would there be any protests? It's just a theoretical statistical method that a QC former is using to say they should be the first to reach one million people. No one is putting any real value or stock into it because that isn't how the actual numbers are added up.

It's just coffee talk

[phone]

Originally Posted by Justanothermember

Why would there be any protests? It's just a theoretical statistical method that a QC former is using to say they should be the first to reach one million people. No one is putting any real value or stock into it because that isn't how the actual numbers are added up.

It's just coffee talk

A QC forumer using a widely recognized international method of calculation. But sure, "Quebec" is the reason....

[Justanothermember]

Originally Posted by phone

A QC forumer using a widely recognized international method of calculation. But sure, "Quebec" is the reason....

Sure, but a method that isn't used by the Canadian Govt to calculate populations of urban areas. So at this point, it's just hypothetical discussion. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that

[phone]

Originally Posted by Justanothermember

Sure, but a method that isn't used by the Canadian Govt to calculate populations of urban areas. So at this point, it's just hypothetical discussion. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that

There's no lack of understanding here. Statistics is literally just hypothetical constructions based on various methodologies. Nothing makes CMAs more "right" than FUDs other than one has the blessing of the feds and has therefore become the domestic standard, while the other is considerably more useful in international comparisons, and, by proxy, internal analysis that's better informed by a broader context. Winnipeg is still Winnipeg either way.

[drew]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm surprised there haven't been any howls of protest from the Hamilton or Winnipeg forumers.

Hamilton has disappeared (subsumed by Toronto).

Winnipeg has been surpassed by QC, and, to add insult to injury, the QC FUA is over 1M, while Winnipeg is still waiting in the wings.

Meh. This changes nothing. Winnipeg is still officially in the lead, by a fair amount, as far as Stats Canada is confirmed.