Canada's 2006 Census numbers released today!

[Hatman 🍁]

Woohoo!

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Tables.cfm

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Any chance that the overapportionment of the Commons in favor of the Eastern Prairies, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada might be curbed any time soon?

If it were reapportioned using the US method and these numbers the change would be if the Commons were kept the same:
Canada   308
Newfoundland and Labrador 5 (-2)
Prince Edward Island 1 (-3)
Nova Scotia 9 (-2)
New Brunswick 7 (-3)
Quebec 73 (-2)
Ontario 118 (+12)
Manitoba 11 (-3)
Saskatchewan 9 (-5)
Alberta   32 (+4)
British Columbia 40 (+4)
Yukon Territory 1
Northwest Territories 1
Nunavut    1


If it's politically essential that PEI have more than 1 MCP, an additional 25 MCP's would do the trick.
Canada   333 (+25)
Newfoundland and Labrador 5 (-2)
Prince Edward Island 2 (-2)
Nova Scotia 10 (-1)
New Brunswick 8 (-2)
Quebec 79 (+4)
Ontario 127 (+21)
Manitoba 12 (-2)
Saskatchewan 10 (-4)
Alberta   34 (+6)
British Columbia 43 (+7)
Yukon Territory 1
Northwest Territories 1
Nunavut    1

Incidentally, Assuming that party seats per province remained proportional, then an adjustment of 2006 would have seen roughly the following results for that election:

Conservative Party of Canada    127 (+3)
Liberal Party of Canada    101 (-2)
Bloc Québécois    49 (-2)
New Democratic Party    30 (+1)
Independent 1

Still a conservative minority, but a Tory/Dipper coalition government would at least have been possible though unlikely in practice.

[minionofmidas]

There are at the point now, in Canada, where they do not remove a seat from a province under any circumstances, basically, and just add occasional new seats in Ontario, Alberta and BC to keep the unfairness down.

[Verily]

There are at the point now, in Canada, where they do not remove a seat from a province under any circumstances, basically, and just add occasional new seats in Ontario, Alberta and BC to keep the unfairness down.

More or less. The grandfather clause for seats is problematic to say the least. A party that ditched it, though, would be thrown out of all of their seats outside of Ontario and BC. (Alberta is too partisan, and it's all-Conservative.)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How often do they do a census?

Wrong forum btw

[Hatman 🍁]

How often do they do a census?

Wrong forum btw

Every 5 years.

And how is a forum called "Demographics" wrong for census information

Riding borders wont change until after the 2011 census I'm afraid. But, we could always do a fantasy reapportionment. I can do the formula if y'all want me to.

[Hatman 🍁]

Ok, here is the formula:

Take the population of Canada (31,612,897) and subtract the three territories from it (31,511,587) and divide that number by 279 to get the national quotient  (112,945). Now, divide each province by this number...

Newfoundland and Labrador (4) (they have to have at least  7)
Prince Edward Island (1)  (have to have at least  4)
Nova Scotia (8 ) (have to have  at least 11)
New Brunswick (6) (have to have  at least 10)
Quebec (67) (have to have at least  75)
Ontario (108) (+2) (have to have at least 95)
Manitoba (10) (have to have  at least 14)
Saskatchewan (9) (have to have at least 14)
Alberta (29) (+1) (have to have at least 21)
British Columbia (36) (no change) (have to have at least 28)

and of course, each of the territories are excluded from this, and they get one seat each. Due to special clauses, none of the provinces can lose seats under this scenario.

So, Alberta would gain one seat and Ontario would gain two seats, making the House of Commons a 311 seat legislature.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And how is a forum called "Demographics" wrong for census information

When it's a Canadian census and the board is a child of U.S. General Discussion.

[Hatman 🍁]

And how is a forum called "Demographics" wrong for census information

When it's a Canadian census and the board is a child of U.S. General Discussion.

Oh please. I could swear I saw some British stuff here somewhere.

[Cubby]

This is the correct forum for all Census information.

Glad to see only 2 provinces lose population (Newfoundland & Saskatchewan). According to one of the charts on Stat Can, the past 5 years saw higher growth than the '96-'01 period, which was very low by historical standards, if not the lowest.

I'm a bit disappointed with Alberta and British Columbia though. How can B.C. possibly be growing slower than the National average and Ontario? Its like Canada's California, lots of immigrants and Eastern transplants.

I thought Alberta would be closer to 3.5 Million by now with its great economic boom. Calgary did have a big increase though, its just under 1 million now. Alberta is still smaller than Connecticut.

I don't understand all the local government terminology in Canada. A lot of places are a name and a number. Fort McMurray isn't even incorporated, but "Wood Buffalo" gained 10,000 people??

Canada is too urban. It needs to increase its rural population. Immigrants should be encouraged to settle in rural areas instead of all going to the largest cities.

[Hatman 🍁]

I don't understand all the local government terminology in Canada. A lot of places are a name and a number. Fort McMurray isn't even incorporated, but "Wood Buffalo" gained 10,000 people??

Fort McMurray amalgamated with its surrounding improvement district to make Wood Buffalo.  It's certainly a boom town it the tar sands up there. That's why it's growing so fast.

It is certainly nice to see a lot of the cities that lost people in the 1996-2001 gain some back. Especially in Northern Ontario and the Atlantic provinces.

[Cubby]

I don't understand all the local government terminology in Canada. A lot of places are a name and a number. Fort McMurray isn't even incorporated, but "Wood Buffalo" gained 10,000 people??

Fort McMurray amalgamated with its surrounding improvement district to make Wood Buffalo.  It's certainly a boom town it the tar sands up there. That's why it's growing so fast.

It is certainly nice to see a lot of the cities that lost people in the 1996-2001 gain some back. Especially in Northern Ontario and the Atlantic provinces.

That was another thing I noticed, whats an "improvement district"?

I noticed that all the statistics were released today. Our Census Bureau staggers the information: the National and State numbers come out in late December, the county populations come out between March 10 and April 10m, (Any day now!). The City and Town populations come out in Late June/Early July and the racial statistics and other info comes out in September.

Its interesting that Canada's Parliament keeps expanding, while ours has been stuck at 435 for nearly a century. Canada and the U.K. both have about 100,000 people per seat, while we have 647,000. That is just sad.

[Hatman 🍁]

I don't understand all the local government terminology in Canada. A lot of places are a name and a number. Fort McMurray isn't even incorporated, but "Wood Buffalo" gained 10,000 people??

Fort McMurray amalgamated with its surrounding improvement district to make Wood Buffalo.  It's certainly a boom town it the tar sands up there. That's why it's growing so fast.

It is certainly nice to see a lot of the cities that lost people in the 1996-2001 gain some back. Especially in Northern Ontario and the Atlantic provinces.

That was another thing I noticed, whats an "improvement district"?

I noticed that all the statistics were released today. Our Census Bureau staggers the information: the National and State numbers come out in late December, the county populations come out between March 10 and April 10m, (Any day now!). The City and Town populations come out in Late June/Early July and the racial statistics and other info comes out in September.

Its interesting that Canada's Parliament keeps expanding, while ours has been stuck at 435 for nearly a century. Canada and the U.K. both have about 100,000 people per seat, while we have 647,000. That is just sad.

We stagger our results too. The specifics come out later (ie income and gender, race, etc.).

Btw, Im not too sure what an improvement district is, not living in Alberta and all. I don't think they are incorporated for one thing. I could be wrong. I do know, Alberta used to have tons of them, but there are only a few left.  Most have turned into counties.

[KEmperor]

I don't understand all the local government terminology in Canada. A lot of places are a name and a number. Fort McMurray isn't even incorporated, but "Wood Buffalo" gained 10,000 people??

Fort McMurray amalgamated with its surrounding improvement district to make Wood Buffalo.  It's certainly a boom town it the tar sands up there. That's why it's growing so fast.

It is certainly nice to see a lot of the cities that lost people in the 1996-2001 gain some back. Especially in Northern Ontario and the Atlantic provinces.

That was another thing I noticed, whats an "improvement district"?

I noticed that all the statistics were released today. Our Census Bureau staggers the information: the National and State numbers come out in late December, the county populations come out between March 10 and April 10m, (Any day now!). The City and Town populations come out in Late June/Early July and the racial statistics and other info comes out in September.

Its interesting that Canada's Parliament keeps expanding, while ours has been stuck at 435 for nearly a century. Canada and the U.K. both have about 100,000 people per seat, while we have 647,000. That is just sad.

It is.  Canada is so sparsely populated, but there's little to do when a huge chunk of the country is so cold.

[ag]

Canada doesn't have a climate (or a geography) particularly conductive to rural lifestyles.  And why do you want more people to leave in extremely distant, extremely cold areas which cannot be properly served with infrastructure, and where for well over 6 months a year there isn't really much to do? What is, say, economic or social rationale for such a policy?Unless, of course, you consider current rates of alcoholism in Canada to be too low and would like to have them increased. BTW, it's not as if Canadians didn't do fine in terms of agricultural production even with the few rural residents they have.

[Cubby]

Canada doesn't have a climate (or a geography) particularly conductive to rural lifestyles.  And why do you want more people to leave in extremely distant, extremely cold areas which cannot be properly served with infrastructure, and where for well over 6 months a year there isn't really much to do?

I love wilderness areas being left alone and protected. One reason I don't hate Lieberman is that he voted to protect ANWR, which is very important to me. But it just seems wasteful to have so few people on such a large land area (Smaller population than California on 25 times the land) I know its too cold to farm, but there must be other uses. They are talking about using trees for ethanol, b/c sugarcane and corn aren't efficient. It would be great to see Canada develop more.

What is, say, economic or social rationale for such a policy?Unless, of course, you consider current rates of alcoholism in Canada to be too low and would like to have them increased. BTW, it's not as if Canadians didn't do fine in terms of agricultural production even with the few rural residents they have.

You've made some good points. Alcoholism is a big problem in Alaska and Russia, I forget how boring it gets up there. I don't know why its so important to me, it just seems like Canada is all cities with few rural areas and the ones that exist are steadily losing people. The same thing is happening in the Western Great Plains. Its not good to have so many people crowded onto the coasts.