(no subject)
May. 5th, 2003 12:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldFrom the Globe and Mail:
Power to all the people
Canadians are concentrated in four metropolitan centres, says political scientist ANDREW PARKIN. They need a federal system that reflects that
By ANDREW PARKIN
Monday, May 5, 2003 - Page A17
The distribution of Canada's population is shifting dramatically, posing a real challenge to political decision-makers who hope to broker consensus among Canadians living in different parts of the country. It is a change that will encourage those who feel we need to rethink the way the Canadian federation operates.
Those who focus mainly on the issue of "western alienation" due to central Canadian influence miss the point. The issue of alienation is much wider. Uneven population growth means the gap in population size between the large provinces and the smaller ones is increasing.
From 1996 to 2001, Canada's population grew by 4 per cent, one of the lowest population growth rates in the country's history. In three provinces -- Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia -- population grew more rapidly than the average. Taken together, these provinces had a 6.5-per-cent increase in population since 1996. Over the same period, population in the other seven provinces combined grew by only 0.5 per cent. In Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, the population declined.
As a result, the unevenness of the country's population distribution is more dramatic than ever. In 1951, for example, there were about three Ontarians for every Atlantic Canadian; today the ratio is five to one. Similarly, in 1951, Quebec's population was 88 per cent the size of Ontario's; today it is only 63 per cent the size.
The growth of the larger provinces is fuelled by the expansion of their major cities. But the issue here is not urbanization -- which has been going on for decades. Rather, it is the fact that the growth of cities across the country has been uneven. In fact, population growth has been below average or even negative in more than half the country's 27 metropolitan areas.
What the 2001 census data reveal is that Canada's recent main population growth has occurred in only four major urban areas: Greater Montreal, Toronto and environs, the Edmonton-Calgary "corridor" and B.C.'s Lower Mainland. In these centres, population grew by 7.6 per cent between 1996 and 2001. In the rest of the country, it grew by only 0.5 per cent. One of every two Canadians now live in one of these four metropolitan centres. In fact, the population of Canada's six smallest provinces, taken together, amounts to only 28.7 per cent of the population of these four centres.
The four megacentres have been magnets to immigrants, skilled workers, professionals and investment. As population continues to concentrate, so will political power. More and more Canadians are living in an emerging "metropolitan Canada" that is far removed from the realities affecting those living in the hinterland, or in declining centres -- realities such as the rising costs of providing services in areas with declining, aging populations. The challenge for farmers in Saskatchewan, fishers in Newfoundland, or lumberjacks in rural B.C. to get their issues on the national agenda will increase exponentially.
It also will become increasingly difficult for big city mayors to accept the convention that major decisions affecting finance or health policy are debated at first ministers' conferences -- from which the political leaders of such large centres are excluded.
Greater Toronto already has a larger population than eight of the 10 provinces. Soon, Calgary and Edmonton will each have more people than Saskatchewan. From the standpoint of these cities, a federal system that recognizes only two levels of government is outdated.
Still, the issue is not transferring political clout from slow-growth constituencies to high-growth ones. If democracy becomes only a numbers game, there is a potential for existing regional grievances to deepen. Smaller provinces must not find themselves totally eclipsed by the growing centres.
What is needed is a form of federalism that is more flexible and responsive than ever before to the special needs of different constituencies. The bargaining table of the future must be more inclusive and asymmetrical, with room being made for constituencies as varied as the three northern territories and the southern metropolitan centres.
By being more creative in the search for compromise, Canadians will be able to respond to the real challenges of a country that is still young and in transformation.
Andrew Parkin is co-director of the Centre for Research and Information on Canada.
Power to all the people
Canadians are concentrated in four metropolitan centres, says political scientist ANDREW PARKIN. They need a federal system that reflects that
By ANDREW PARKIN
Monday, May 5, 2003 - Page A17
The distribution of Canada's population is shifting dramatically, posing a real challenge to political decision-makers who hope to broker consensus among Canadians living in different parts of the country. It is a change that will encourage those who feel we need to rethink the way the Canadian federation operates.
Those who focus mainly on the issue of "western alienation" due to central Canadian influence miss the point. The issue of alienation is much wider. Uneven population growth means the gap in population size between the large provinces and the smaller ones is increasing.
From 1996 to 2001, Canada's population grew by 4 per cent, one of the lowest population growth rates in the country's history. In three provinces -- Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia -- population grew more rapidly than the average. Taken together, these provinces had a 6.5-per-cent increase in population since 1996. Over the same period, population in the other seven provinces combined grew by only 0.5 per cent. In Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, the population declined.
As a result, the unevenness of the country's population distribution is more dramatic than ever. In 1951, for example, there were about three Ontarians for every Atlantic Canadian; today the ratio is five to one. Similarly, in 1951, Quebec's population was 88 per cent the size of Ontario's; today it is only 63 per cent the size.
The growth of the larger provinces is fuelled by the expansion of their major cities. But the issue here is not urbanization -- which has been going on for decades. Rather, it is the fact that the growth of cities across the country has been uneven. In fact, population growth has been below average or even negative in more than half the country's 27 metropolitan areas.
What the 2001 census data reveal is that Canada's recent main population growth has occurred in only four major urban areas: Greater Montreal, Toronto and environs, the Edmonton-Calgary "corridor" and B.C.'s Lower Mainland. In these centres, population grew by 7.6 per cent between 1996 and 2001. In the rest of the country, it grew by only 0.5 per cent. One of every two Canadians now live in one of these four metropolitan centres. In fact, the population of Canada's six smallest provinces, taken together, amounts to only 28.7 per cent of the population of these four centres.
The four megacentres have been magnets to immigrants, skilled workers, professionals and investment. As population continues to concentrate, so will political power. More and more Canadians are living in an emerging "metropolitan Canada" that is far removed from the realities affecting those living in the hinterland, or in declining centres -- realities such as the rising costs of providing services in areas with declining, aging populations. The challenge for farmers in Saskatchewan, fishers in Newfoundland, or lumberjacks in rural B.C. to get their issues on the national agenda will increase exponentially.
It also will become increasingly difficult for big city mayors to accept the convention that major decisions affecting finance or health policy are debated at first ministers' conferences -- from which the political leaders of such large centres are excluded.
Greater Toronto already has a larger population than eight of the 10 provinces. Soon, Calgary and Edmonton will each have more people than Saskatchewan. From the standpoint of these cities, a federal system that recognizes only two levels of government is outdated.
Still, the issue is not transferring political clout from slow-growth constituencies to high-growth ones. If democracy becomes only a numbers game, there is a potential for existing regional grievances to deepen. Smaller provinces must not find themselves totally eclipsed by the growing centres.
What is needed is a form of federalism that is more flexible and responsive than ever before to the special needs of different constituencies. The bargaining table of the future must be more inclusive and asymmetrical, with room being made for constituencies as varied as the three northern territories and the southern metropolitan centres.
By being more creative in the search for compromise, Canadians will be able to respond to the real challenges of a country that is still young and in transformation.
Andrew Parkin is co-director of the Centre for Research and Information on Canada.
