¹ Hurd, W. B., “Population Movements in Canada 1921-31, and their Implications” (Papers and Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, vol. VI, 1934, pp. 220–37).Google Scholar

² For a more detailed discussion of the method see Hurd, , “Population Movements in Canada”, p. 225.Google Scholar

³ In addition to this number, there appears to have been a net rural-urban movement of children under 10 (in 1931) amounting to not less than 30,000. This figure was arrived at in the following manner. Appropriate survival ratios were derived from the 1931 All Canada Life Table and applied to total births in Canada for each year between 1921 to 1931 (Vital Statistics Reports). The expected number of survivors in 1931 was thus computed and compared with the total 0-9 years in the 1931 census. The comparison indicated a net loss of some 49,000 Canadian-born children in the afore-mentioned age classification, or 13.8 per cent, of the estimated net emigration to foreign countries of Canadian-born persons over 10 years of age. The bulk of Canadians emigrating abroad went to urban centres in the United States. It seemed reasonable to assume, therefore, that the internal movement of Canadian-born rural population to urban centres contained at least as large a percentage of children 0-9 as did the movement across the line. On this basis, there must have been a minimum of 71,600 Canadian-born children 0-9 (in 1931) included in the net rural-urban movement during the decade. As against this exodus, the census shows that 41,334 foreign-born children in the same age category settled in rural Canada during the decade, leaving on balance a net exodus of 30,266. This number, added to the estimated movement of persons over 10 (406,800), makes a grand total all ages of about 437,000.

⁴ The rural-urban exodus is related to natural increase in the following table:

Minus ( − ) sign signifies net gain.

*In computing the above percentages no account was taken of the number of children under 10 in 1931 moving away from rural parts during the decade. For Canada as a whole it is estimated that these represented about 7½ per cent, of the total net rural-urban emigration over 10 years of age, but since there appears to be no way of finding out whether the proportion was uniform throughout the Dominion it was not thought wise to attempt a correction. It is clear, however, that the actual movement of all ages was appreciably heavier than the above percentages indicate.

⁵ In addition to this 504,800 there appears to have been a net gain from outside sources of children under 10 (in 1931) amounting to about 64,800, bringing the total all ages up to 579,600. The 64,800 includes 42,800 foreign-born children 0-9 as shown in the 1931 census, plus 22,000 Canadian-born children from rural parts, the latter figure being obtained by applying the percentage mentioned in footnote 3 (13.8 per cent.) to the net urban gain in Canadian born 10 years and over, resulting from the rural-urban migration. As will be shown later, Canadian towns and cities absorbed only a portion of the total rural surplus.

⁶ The three provinces where urban population growth exceeded urban natural increase plus rural-urban migration were Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta. In the latter province there was no rural surplus and in the other two the rural surpluses were relatively smaller than elsewhere in the Dominion so that locally there was no considerable volume of excess rural population to absorb. Moreover, urban expansion in these three provinces and particularly in Ontario and British Columbia was adequate to take care not only of the local rural-urban exodus such as it was, but of much of that from other provinces as well. As was pointed out elsewhere ( Hurd, , “Population Movements in Canada”, pp. 222–4Google Scholar), inter-provincial migration actually did take place, especially from the Maritimes and the Prairie Provinces to Ontario, and from the eastern section of the Prairies to British Columbia. The present analysis suggests that much of this inter-provincial shifting was inter-urban. In the six other provinces, urban centres fell short of taking care of their own natural increase plus the local rural-urban exodus. The cities of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick failed to retain even their natural increase.

⁷ This figure was computed from the estimate given by Cassidy, H. M., Heakes, A. G., and Jackson, G. E., in “The Extent of Unemployment in Canada, 1929-32 (Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, vol. IV, 1932, pp. 5–20).Google Scholar Six out of the eight groups of industries studied are predominantly urban, viz., manufacturing, communications, transportation, construction, service, and trade, and the aggregate unemployment in these six groups (442,000), less an allowance for rural residents included therein, is taken as a rough measure of urban unemployment as at that date. It is admittedly only a rough approximation.

⁸ According to the same estimate unemployment in the six urban industries mentioned above had risen to almost 300,000 by January, 1930.

⁹ The population of Canada still contains a larger proportion of young and middle-aged adults than is required of a stationary population. Because of this abnormal age structure, vacancies in employment caused by death are fewer than normal expectation, and the required rate of industrial expansion would necessarily be higher than 20 per cent, to absorb natural increase alone.

¹⁰ In this connection, it is interesting to note that the back-to-the-land-movement in the United States had reversed by 1933 and the flow from country to city has been resumed despite the continued existence of heavy urban unemployment (see O. E. Baker, The Outlook for Rural Youth, Extension Service Circular 203, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington).

¹¹ The term “foreign” as used in this paper includes the British Isles and other British possessions as well as foreign countries generally.

¹² This number includes 519,600 persons 10 years and over in 1931 and 71,600 children 0-9 years. The previous estimate of 550,000 for Canadian born 10 years of age and over was secured by adding estimated net immigration all ages to the total net rural surplus 10 and over on the assumption that net immigration irrespective of age represents a new addition to the population and its presence involves the mathematical displacement of an equivalent number of Canadian born. Since then, the age distribution of the 1931 immigrant population has become available and a reasonably satisfactory method has been devised for estimating the net rural-urban exodus of Canadian-born children under 10 (in 1931). It is now possible to balance foreign born against Canadian born, age for age, and thereby to present a more accurate and complete picture.

¹³ Interprovincial shifts of native-born Canadians during the decade do not affect these conclusions. We are dealing with absorptive capacity and it is immaterial from this point of view whether a 1931 Canadian-born resident of British Columbia was born in that province or came from another province, thus replacing someone who was born locally and had moved elsewhere in Canada or to the United States.

¹⁴ The revised estimate of net emigration of Canadian born abroad (mainly to the United States) is 404,000 all ages. AH provinces contributed to this total except British Columbia whose towns and cities took care of the local rural surplus plus some 24,000 additional Canadian born. It is probable that these represented migration from the Prairie Provinces and eastern Canada rather than the repatriation of former Canadian-born residents returning from the United States. The distribution of the net losses, and their relative weight in the different sections of the Dominion, are shown in the tabulations below. They include only persons 10 years of age and over in 1931.

Minus (−) sign signifies net gain.

It will be seen at a glance that while the more populous provinces of Ontario and Quebec lost the largest absolute numbers, emigration of Canadian born was relatively much heavier in the Maritime and Prairie regions. As indicated earlier there was considerable shifting of Canadian born to the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and to the far western province of British Columbia. It makes no difference to the present argument whether Maritimers emigrated directly or moved to Ontario and an equivalent number of Ontario born moved to the United States. The proportions in the last two columns measure the relative capacity, or rather incapacity, of the several provinces as a whole to retain their local natural increase under conditions prevailing during the last decade. Prominent among these conditions were the extent and nature of industrial expansion and the volume and distribution of foreign immigration from abroad. It would appear that the generous tariff subsidies to which Professor Rogers has drawn attention have contributed to the population as well as industrial expansion of central Canada, although British Columbia seems to have overcome the handicap as to population (see A Submission on Dominion-Provincial Relations and the Fiscal Disabilities of Nova Scotia within the Canadian Federation, presented by Rogers, Norman McL., Royal Commission Economic Inquiry, Halifax, 1934 Google Scholar).

¹⁵ There were relatively three times more children 0-9 years of age in the net foreign immigration to rural parts than in that to the urban. This implies that there would also be relatively more in the 10-14 and 15-19 age groups.