Ins Canada Report on the Demographic Situation

Ins Canada Report on the Demographic Situation
Catalogue 91-209E Annual
Ins
Report on the
Demographic Situation
in Canada 1993
Current Demographic Analysis
Mexico's Demographic Challenges
(An Overview)
eavielphi,A1111
Statistics
Canada
Statistique
Canada
■
P.{..10 1*
Canada
Data in Many Forms...
Statistics Canada disseminates data in a variety of forms. In addition to
publications, both standard and special tabulations are offered. Data are
available on CD, diskette, computer print-out, microfiche and microfilm, and
magnetic tape. Maps and other geographic reference materials are available
for some types of data. Direct on-line access to aggregated information is
possible through CANSIM, Statistics Canada's machine-readable data base
and retrieval system.
How to Obtain More Information
Inquiries about this publication and related statistics or services should be
directed to:
Research and Analysis Section,
Demography Division,
Statistics Canada, Ottawa, K1A OT6 (Telephone: 951-2327) or to the
Statistics Canada reference centre in:
Halifax
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Winnipeg
(1-902-426-5331)
(1-514-283-5725)
(1-613-951-8116)
(1-416-973-6586)
(1-204-983.4020)
Regina
(1-306-780-5405)
Edmonton
(1-403-495-3027)
Calgary
(1-403-292-6717)
Vancouver (1-604.666-3691)
Toll-free access is provided in all provinces and territories, for users who
reside outside the local dialing area of any of the regional reference centres.
Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Ontario
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Alberta and Northwest Territories
British Columbia and Yukon
Telecommunications Device for the
Hearing Impaired
Toll Free Order Only Line (Canada and
United States)
1-800-565-7192
1-800-361-2831
1-800-263-11a6
1-800-667-7164
1-800-661-7828
1-800-563-7828
1-800-663-1551
1-800-363-7629
1-800-267-6677
How to Order Publications
This and other Statistics Canada publications may be purchased from local
authorized agents and other community bookstores, through the local Statistics
Canada offices, or by mail order to Marketing Division, Sales and Service,
Statistics Canada, Ottawa, K1 A OT6.
1(613)951-7277
Facsimile Number 1(613)951-1584
National Toll Free Order Line: 1-800-267-6677
Toronto
Credit card only (973-8018)
Statistics Canada
Demography Division
Report on the
Demographic Situation
in Canada 1993
Current Demographic Analysis
Jean Dumas
Demography Division
Published by authority of the Minister
responsible for Statistics Canada
* Minister of Industry,
Science and Technology, 1994
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without prior written permission from
Licence Services, Marketing Division, Statistics Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K IA OT6.
March 1994
Price: Canada: $26.00 annually
United States: US$31.00 annually
Other Countries: US$36.00 annually
Catalogue No. 91-209E
ISSN 0715-9293
Ottawa
The text was originally written in French
Version francaise de cette publication disponible sur demande
(n° 91-209F au catalogue)
Note of Appreciation
Canada owes the success of its statistical system to a longstanding cooperation involving Statistics Canada, the citizens of
Canada, its businesses and governments. Accurate and timely
statistical information could not be produced without their
continued cooperation and goodwill.
Symbols
.. figures not available.
... figures not appropriate or not applicable.
- nil or zero.
-- amount too small to be expressed.
The last data analysed in this report were those available at time of writing.
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper
for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48 - 1984.
O
Supplementary
The reader should be reminded that the publication of successive versions
of the Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada does not render
previous versions obsolete. Rather, since a different substantive focus is
taken with each issue, the volumes actually complement each other. Furthermore, certain of the basic demographic topics are covered in serial format,
making the volumes a valuable source of time series data on the Canadian
demographic scene.
Preface
In 1993, Statistics Canada began producing new population estimates which
take into account categories of individuals formerly omitted from demographic
accounts (non-permanent residents and persons not enumerated in the Census).
The result is more accurate population data, including related demographic rates
and indices. Part I of this report, which chronicles Canada's most recent
demographic developments, takes into account these improvements.
With the heightened interest in Mexico arising from the North American Free
Trade Agreement, Part II of the report is particularly timely. It presents a
description of the Mexican population, with a view to situating it within the
North American context and facilitating a better understanding of its evolution,
its current conditions and its prospects for the future.
Ivan P. Fellegi
Chief Statistician of Canada
EDITORIAL BOARD
R. Beaujot, Professor,
Department of Sociology,
Western Ontario University
B. Laroche, Director,
Demography Division,
Statistics Canada
J. Coombs, Director General,
Institutions and Social
Statistics Branch
B. Petrie, Assistant Chief Statistician
Social Institutions and Labour
Statistics Field
J. Dumas, Coordinator,
Research and Analysis,
Demography Division
The author is grateful to Mean Lachapelle, Director of the Demolinguistic
Division at Statistics Canada, for his comments. He wishes to thank the
Demography Division members who helped in searching and verifying the data.
Sincere thanks are also due to all those involved in preparation of the manuscript: Alain Belanger, Eda Reganaz, Carol D'Aoust, Hugues Basque, Danielle
St-Germain, as well as the production team, in particular Suzanne Beauchamp,
who was in charge of composition. The translation is from Dreidre A. Mark.
CURRENT DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
In the same series :
- Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 1983, by Jean Dumas - 129 pages
(out of print).
- Fertility in Canada, from Baby-boom to Baby-bust,
$12.00
by Anatole Romaniuc - 156 pages -
- Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 1986,
$15.00
by Jean Dumas - 139 pages -
• Childbearing Performance of Married Canadian-born Women
• The Strenghtening of Majority Positions - by Mean Lachapelle
- Income of Immigrants, by R. Beaujot, K.G. Basavarajappa and R.B.P. Verma 106 pages - $20.00
- Caribbean Immigrants, by A. Richmond - 85 pages - $25.00
- New Trends in the Family, by Bali Ram - 96 pages - $25.00
- Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 1988,
$21.00
by Jean Dumas - 158 pages -
• The Termination of Pregnancy in a Population Perspective
• Long-term Consequences of Adolescent Marriage and Fertility, by C. Grinstaff
- Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 1990,
$26.00
by Jean Dumas - 113 pages -
• Recent Evolution of the Canadian and American Populations
- Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 1991,
$26.00
by Jean Dumas - 187 pages -
• Overview of the Principal World Migratory Flows Since World War II
- Marriage and Conjugal Life in Canada, by Jean Dumas and Yves Peron - 167 pages $38.00
- Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 1992,
$26.00
by Jean Dumas - 161 pages -
• Age Structure in Mutation - Two Centuries of Demographic Change, by Y. Lavoie
- Aging of the Population and Seniors in Canada, by Bertrand Desjardins - 128 pages $40.00
Coming Soon
- Beginning and End of Family Life, by R. Beaujot et al.
FOR FURTHER READING
Selected Publications from Statistics Canada
Title
Catalogue
Marriage and Conjugal Life in Canada, Occasional
91-534E
Revised Intercensal Population and Family Estimates,
1971-1991, Occasional
91.537E
(forthcoming)
Perspectives on Labour and Income, Quarterly
75-001 E
To order a publication you may telephone 1-613-951-7277 or use
facsimile number 1-613-951-1584. For toll free in Canada only telephone
1-800-267-6677. When ordering by telehone or facsimile a written
confirmation is not required.
Table of Contents
Page
Highlights
1
PART I
Demographic Accounts
7
New Components
Overall Impression
The Provinces
7
9
14
Canada in the World
15
Canada and the Principal Industrialized Countries
15
Autonomy of Population Estimates
21
.
Background
Improvement
More Progress to Come
Marriage and Divorce
1991 Nuptiality Table
Divorce
Births and Fertility
Births
Fertility
Birth Under Control
Abortion
Mortality
1990 Life Table
Major Causes of Death
The Impact of AIDS
How Does Canada Rank for Major Causes of Death?
21
23
26
28
30
37
38
38
38
39
39
42
42
44
44
44
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
Page
International Migration
Where Do They Come From
Where Are They Going?
Investors
Refugees
Some International Comparisons
Immigrants and Language
46
50
53
55
57
59
61
Interprovincial Migration
61
Migration Trends in Census Metropolitan Areas in Canada
66
Eastern Canada
Western Canada
Another Approach
Major Trends
Relations Between Census Metropolitan Areas and NonMetropolitan Areas
Census Metropolitan Areas and International Migration
Conclusion
68
69
69
70
Labour Force
Males
Participation Rates
Part-time Work
Full-time Work and Unemployment
Females
Participation Rates
Part-time Work
Unemployment
Overview
Conclusion
71
73
74
75
76
76
76
78
81
81
83
83
83
84
Box Table
Summary Table, Rates and Principal Demographic Indicators,
Canada, Provinces and Territories, 1985-1991
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
Table
1A. Statement of Population Change, Canada, 1972-1993
8
1B. Main Rates of the Demographic Accounts, Canada,
1972-1993
9
2. Countries with a Larger Population than Canada, 1950,
1984 and 1991
16
3. Main Demographic Indicators, by Industrialised Country,
1991 and 1992
17
4. Canadian Population by Cohort, Census Data Adjusted
for Undercoverage
24
5. Total Fertility Rates, Canada, (Excluding Newfoundland),
1971-1991
25
6. Cumulative Fertility by Cohort, Using Former and New
Population Estimates
27
7. Variations in the Sex Ratio for Some Cohorts According
to the Adjusted and Non-Adjusted Net Undercoverage of
the Census
27
8. Marriages, First Marriages, Remarriages, Canada, 1967-1991
29
9. Total First-Marriage Rate, Canada, Provinces and Territories,
1987 to 1991
32
WA. Male First-Marriage Table, Canada, 1990-1991
33
10B. Female First-Marriage Table, Canada, 1990-1991
34
11. Number of Singles at Age 50 from the First-Marriage Table,
Canada, 1976-1991
35
12. Singles at Age 50 Mean and Median Ages at First-Marriage,
According to the First-Marriage Table of 1991, Canada and
Provinces
35
13. Age-Specific Fertility and Total Fertility Rates by Birth Order
and Age of Mother, Quebec and the Rest of Canada,
1981-1991
40
14. Gain in Life Expectancy by Decade, Canada, 1921-1991
42
15. Cause-Specific Mortality Rate by Diseases of the Circulatory
System and by Tumors, by Sex, Canada, 1969-1991
16. Mortality Rate Due to Traffic Accidents by Age Group
and Sex, Canada, 1971, 1982-1991
43
45
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
Table
17. Deaths Due to Human Immunodeficiency Virus by Broad
Age Groups and Sex, Canada, 1987-1991
46
18. Standardized Mortality Rates Resulting from Cancer, by Sex,
per 100,000 People (Period 1980-1984)
47
19. Standardized Rates of Mortality from Cardiovascular Diseases,
by Sex, per 100,000 People (1980-1984 Period)
48
20. Immigrants to Canada by Category, 1981-1992
50
21. Immigrants Born in Communist Countries
51
22. Countries from which more than 4,000 Immigrants were
Admitted in Canada During the Last Four Years
52
23. Percentage Distribution of Admitted Immigrants by Intended
Province of Destination, Canada, 1956-1992
54
24. International Immigrants to the Province of Ontario by
Place of Birth, 1992
55
25. Immigrants in the Investor Category, Canada, 1986-1992
55
26. Investments of Investing Immigrants, Canada, 1989-1992
56
27. Distribution of Investing Immigrants by City of Destination,
Canada, 1992
56
28. Distribution of Investing Immigrants by Country of Origin,
Canada, 1992
57
29. Number of Refugee Demands in Canada, Individuals
Accepted or Refused as Landed Immigrants and Withdrawn
Requests
58
30. Inflows of Foreign Population into OECD Countries,
1980-1990
60
31. Net Migration for Provinces and Territories, 1970-1992
63
32. Annual Number of Interprovincial Migrants from Revenue
Canada Tax Files and Family Allowance Files, January
to December 1991
64
33. Annual Number of Interprovincial Migrants from Family
Allowances Files, January to December 1992
65
34. Growth Components of Census Metropolitan Areas,
1986-1991
67
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
Table
35. Percentage Distribution of In- and Out-Migrants According
to Some Geographical Characteristics by Census Metropolitan
Areas, 1986-1991
36. Net Migration Between Census Metropolitan Areas,
Canada, 1986-1991
37. Gains, Losses and Net Migration of the 25 Census
Metropolitan Areas in their Exchanges Between Themselves
and With Non-Metropolitan Areas
38. Proportion of In-Migrants Coming From Census
Agglomerations of the Province Among All In-Migrants
Coming from Census Agglomerations, 1991
39. Population Aged Five Years and Over, Living Outside Canada
Five Years Ago and Received as Immigrants Between 1986
and 1991, by Census Metropolitan Areas
40. Net Migration by Census Metropolitan Areas, 1986-1991
41. Age-Specific Participation Rates for Certain Male Cohorts,
Canada
42. Age of Certain Male Cohort Members During the Recessions
of 1983 and 1991 and Corresponding Unemployment Rates ...
68
70
72
72
73
74
77
79
Appendix
Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories,
by Provinces, 1972-1993
A2. Nuptiality
86
98
A3. Age-Specific First Marriage Rates for Male Cohorts,
1943-1974, and Female Cohorts, 1943-1976, Canada
99
A4. Fertility
A5. Mortality
A6. Estimated Life Expectancy at Different Ages, Canada,
1990 and 1991
A7. Immigrant Population in Canada by Country of Birth,
1980-1992
A8. Canadian Population as of January 1st, 1991 and 1992,
by Age and Sex
101
103
104
105
106
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
Page
Figure
1. Population of the 1967-1971 Birth Cohorts at Successive
Censuses Adjusted or Non Adjusted for Net Undercoverage,
22
Canada
2A. Age-specific First Marriage Rates for Recent Cohorts, Males,
30
Canada
2B. Age-specific First Marriage Rates for Recent Cohorts, Females,
31
Canada
3. First Marriage Probabilities, Canada (without Quebec)
36
and Quebec, 1991
4. Proportion Remaining Single and Mean Age at First Marriage,
37
by Province, 1991
5. Distribution of the Birth Index by Day of the Week, Canada,
39
1977-1990
Number
of
Immigrants
and
Immigration
Rates,
Canada,
6.
49
1944-1992
51
7. Immigrant Distribution by Class and Category, 1992
8. Canadian Population and Interprovincial Migration,
62
1950 to 1992
9. Participation Rates for Males, According to the Average
76
Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
10. Part Time Employment Rates for Males, According to the
77
Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
11. Full Time Employment Rates for Males, According to the
78
Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
12. Unemployment Rates for Males, According to the Average
79
Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
13. Participation Rates for Females, According to the Average
80
Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Employment
Rates
for
Females,
According
to
the
Average
14.
81
Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
15. Full Time Employment Rates for Females, According to the
82
Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
16. Part Time Employment Rates for Females, According to the
82
Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
17. Unemployment Rates for Females, According to the Average
84
Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
PART II
Presentation
Introduction
Geographical organization of the population
Mexican Sources of Demographic Data
Introduction
Censuses
Vital statistics
Under-registration
Late registration
Demographic surveys
111
111
115
115
115
116
119
120
120
122
Demographic Growth
124
Population policies
129
Birth Rate and Fertility
Fertility
1977 to 1982
1983 to 1988
The limits of contraception
The current situation
Consequences of decreased growth
Conclusion
Mortality
Trends in mortality
Infant mortality
Child mortality
Comparison of mortality in Canada and Mexico
Level of mortality in Mexico
Cause-specific mortality
Marriage in Mexico
Women and marriage
Men and marriage
Marriage tables
Common-law marriages
Marriage breakdown
131
131
135
136
136
139
144
146
147
147
151
151
154
156
156
156
157
157
163
163
164
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
Migrants at the Northern Border
Mexicans in the United States
Recent trends
Current situation
Results of analysis by Garcia y Griego
Labour force
What does the future hold?
Remittances
Internal Migration
Present-day migration
Urban population, rural population
Population and Workforce
Male labour force
Female labour force
Indigenous Populations
Geography of indigenous languages
In conclusion
Conclusion
Bibliography
166
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
176
176
180
184
185
186
188
191
193
194
213
Table
1A. Main Characteristics of Mexican Censuses, 1895 to 1990
117
1B. Main Characteristics of Canadian Censuses, 1851 to 1991
118
2. Registered Live Births by Age at Registration, Mexico,
1986-1989
122
3. Live Births by Year of Birth and Registration Year, Mexico,
1985-1989
123
4. Population from Different Scenarios for Mexico, Canada
and the United States according to Simple Calculations Using
Mean Annual Growth Rates, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030
128
5. Estimated Birth Rates from Calculations by Some Authors
or Organisms, Mexico, 1895-1990
132
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
Table
6. Selection of Fertility Rate Estimates for Mexico, by Age,
According to Different Authors, Different Methods,
Different Sources and for Different Years
133
7. Total Fertility Rates for Mexico According to Different
Sources and Different Methods of Calculations, 1962-1981 ...
134
8. Percentage Reduction in Fertility Rates by Age, for Two
Recent Periods and Distribution of Sterilized Women in 1984,
Mexico
137
9. Variations in the Annual Growth Rate of the Mexican
Population According to Three Hypotheses of the National
Population Council, 1970-2000
143
10. Gross Reproduction Rate and Projected Population According
to Three Hypothetical Annual Population Growth Rates,
Mexico
143
11. Life Expectancy at Birth Evaluated by Different Authors
and from Different Sources, Mexico, 1930-1990
12. Gain in Life Expectancy at Birth by Decade and Gains in
Life Expectancy due to Progress Against Infant and Juvenile
Mortality, Mexico, 1930 to 1989
148
150
13. Probabilities of Dying for Juveniles (Aged 1-4), Mexico
and Canada, 1930-1990
153
14. Life Expectancy at Birth at Different Dates According to
Two Different Sources, Mexico
154
15. Distribution of the Mexican and Canadian Population by Age
Group and Marital Status
158
16. Population Distribution by Marital Status and Five-year Age
Groups, Mexico, 1960-1990
160
17. Cumulated Proportion of Mexican Females Married Before
Age x, for Different Cohorts
162
18. Age at First Union by Type of Union (Females Aged 35 to 49),
Mexico
164
19. Females for Whom the First Union was Dissolved, by Cause
of Rupture and Cohort, Mexico
165
20. Females for Whom the First Union was Dissolved Before the
Age of 25 by Causes of Rupture and Cohort, Mexico
165
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
Page
Table
21. Number of Mexican Immigrants to the United States by
Decade, 1901 to 1990
22. Projection of Mexico's Population and Migration to and
From the United States
23. Projection of Mexico's Labor Force and Mexican-born
Work Force in the United States
24. Total Remittances from the United States to Mexico by
Sending Mechanism (Intermediate Estimates), 1990
25. Net Migration Flows by Mexican States, 1985-1990
(Population Aged 5 and Over at the end of the period)
26. Population Distribution by Size of Agglomeration, Mexico,
1960-1990
27. Changes in Urban and Non-urban Population, Mexico,
1960-1990
28. Percentage of Rural Population (Living in Agglomerations
Smaller than 2,500 inhabitants), by Region, Mexico, 1990
29. Urban Population by Size of City, Percentage of the Urban
Population and Growth, Mexico, 1960-1990
30. Main Characteristics of the Active Population of Mexico,
1970-1990
31. Main Native Languages Spoken in Mexico, 1990
(more than 200,000 people)
32. Population Aged 5 and Over, Speaking a Native Language
by Type of Language and Knowing of an Official Language,
Canada, 1990
33. Percentage of Population Speaking a Native Language and
Percentage of the Native Population Who Do Not Speak
Spanish, Population Aged 5 and Over, Selected Mexican
States, 1990
34. Distribution of Population Speaking a Native Language
by Age Group, Mexico, 1990
35. Changes in Total Population and in Population Speaking
a Native Language Between 1980 and 1990, a Cohort
Perspective
36. Distribution by State of Municipalities Where at Least 40%
of the Population Speaks a Native Language, Mexico
169
171
173
175
178
181
182
182
183
187
189
189
190
191
192
193
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
Appendix
Al. Population Distribution and Growth of the United States
of Mexico and Regions, 1960-1990
198
A2. Birth and Mortality Rates, Canada and Mexico, 1886-2024
202
A3. Age Dependency Ratio for Canada, the United States and
Mexico, 1931 to 2030
203
A4. Infant Mortality Rates (Observed and Estimated), Mexico,
1930-1990
204
A5a. Nuptiality Tables for Single, Males, 1970, 1980, 1990
205
A5b. Nuptiality Tables for Single, Females, 1970, 1980, 1990
206
A6. Mexican Population in 1990 by State, by Place of Birth and
Place of Residence 5 Years Earlier
207
A7. Labour Force by Region and Sex, Mexico, 1970 and 1990
208
A8. Internal Migration by Origin and Destination, Mexico,
1985-1990
209
Figure
1. Distribution of the Canadian (1991) and Mexican (1990)
Populations by Region
112
2. Map of Mexican Regions
113
3. Distribution of Registered Births by Cohort and Age at
Registration in 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974
121
4. Population of Mexico, Canada and the United States,
1891 to 2030
125
5. Birth and Death Rates, Mexico and Canada, 1895-2025
127
6A. Age Pyramids of the Canadian Population and the Mexican
Population at Different Census
140
6B. Age Pyramids of the Canadian Population for the Year 2001
and the Mexican Population for the Year 2000
142
7. Dependency Ratio for Canada, the United States and Mexico,
1931 to 2030
145
8. Life Expectancy at Birth by Sex, Canada and Mexico,
1921 to 1991
149
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Concluded
Page
Figure
9. Probability of Dying Before Age One, Canada and Mexico,
1921-1990
10. Age-specific Probability of Dying, Mexico 1985-90 and
Canada 1950-52
11. Percentages of the Mexican Population by State, According
to the State of Birth and the State of Residence in 1985
12. Participation Rate by Age Group and Sex, Mexico, 1970
and 1990 and Canada, 1971 and 1991
152
155
177
186
Box Table
Key Dates Marking Mexico's Recent History and Demographic
Development
114
The Mexico City Metropolitan Area (ZMCM)
179
Highlights
PART I
• The Canadian population as of January 1, 1993, is estimated at 28,593,400,
an increase of 321,000 people (1.13 %) over the last year.
• Saskatchewan's population continued to decline in 1993, while that of British
Columbia increased by 2.4 %, double the national growth rate of 1.1 %.
• From 1990 to 1991, the total number of marriages was down 8 % and 4.5 07o
from 1991 to 1992, a drop never before equalled in Canada. All provinces
showed a decrease in the total marriage rate and, with very few exceptions,
rates were down for all ages, indicating an overall downward trend compounded
perhaps by the effects of the recession.
• There were 3,005 fewer births in Canada in 1991 than the previous year. This
decrease, the first since 1987, was felt in all provinces except Ontario and
British Columbia. In these two provinces, there was a slight upswing, due more
to an increase in the number of women of child-bearing age than to the actual
fertility of these women.
• The total fertility rate was again up slightly in Quebec, at 1.65 children per
woman, and down slightly in the rest of Canada at 1.71. The rate for 1992
remains unchanged.
• First-marriage tables for 1991 indicate that of 100,000 people never married
at age 15, 23,000 males and 28,000 females would be still unmarried at age
50. The corresponding figures in 1976 were 7,000 and 8,000.
• The 1980s formed the first decade during which gains in life expectancy for
men were higher than those for women. Even though the gap between the sexes
decreased by one year over the decade, Canadian women were still ahead with
a life expectancy of 80.7 years compared to 74.2 for men. Canada ranks eighth
in the world for male life expectancy and fifth for that of women.
• Canada accepted 252,842 immigrants in 1992. In terms of country of birth
Hong Kong was in first place with 27,873 immigrants, followed by China
with 22,131. As usual, Ontario was the destination of close to 55 % of all
immigrants. With the diversification of countries of origin, the proportion of
immigrants who speak neither of Canada's official language is on the rise, and
in recent years has been close to half of the total, compared to 33 % in 1978.
- 2
• In 1991, Alberta and particularly British Columbia again recorded positive
internal migration balances. With the exception of Nova Scotia, which had
a slight gain, all other provinces had negative balances, with that of Saskatchewan being particularly significant at - 9,926. Losses for Quebec, which
had been down in recent years, increased in 1991 ( - 11,690).
• While migration between metropolitan area was large from 1986 to 1991, the
effect of such movements was relatively small with net gains occuring only
in cities west of Quebec.
• The most recent birth cohorts to arrive on the job market suffered most from
the economic recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s. Looking at the historical
record, those born after 1956 have experienced high unemployment rates
through their entire work life.
PART II
• Mexico is a country with a population of 84 million (about three times that
of Canada). It is made up of 32 states, of which 25 have a population of over
a million; however, half the population is concentrated in only seven states.
• Mexico has not yet completed its demographic transition and can thus expect
to experience relatively strong population growth in the future. The average
annual rate of increase in the 1980s was 2.5 To, notwithstanding continued
emigration to the United States.
• Since the turn of the century, the crude birth rate in Mexico remained between
40 and 45 per 1,000, with only slight fluctuations, until the mid-1970s. A
firm downward trend began in 1975. The total fertility rate dropped from
6.0 children per woman in 1975 to 4.4 in 1981 and 3.8 in 1986.
• The decline in fertility in Mexico was accelerated by strong incentives in favour
of contraception. The proportion of married Mexican women of child-bearing
age using some contraceptive method rose from 30 To in 1976 to 53 % in 1987.
• Between 1930 and 1990, male life expectancy in Mexico increased by 31.4 years,
and female life expectancy by 36.1 years, a record of swiftness for a population
of that size. These gains have meant that mortality in Mexico in 1990 is similar
to that experienced in Canada in 1950.
• Mexicans appear to marry earlier than Canadians. For example, in the 25-29 age
group, only 21 To of Mexican women had never married, while the figure for
Canadian women in the same age group was 30 To. Similarly, 29 To of Mexican
males aged 25 to 29 had never married, compared to 46 To of Canadian men.
-3• Between the 1980 and 1990 U.S. censuses, the number of Mexican immigrants
rose from 2.2 million to 4.4 million, an increase of 102.2% in 10 years.
• Mexicans start working younger, with 12 being the minimum age of the
working population. In the 1990 census, 11.1 % of boys 12 to 14 years of age
were in the labour force. People stay in the labour force longer, as well; the
participation rate for those 65 and over was 45.9 %, compared to 10.2 %
in Canada.
• Between 1960 and 1990, the proportion of Mexicans living in cities of over
100,000 rose from 18.7% to 44.4 %. Mexico City alone had approximately
18 % of the total Mexican population, and four cities accounted for 44 % of
the total urban population.
• Mexican populations "speaking an indigenous language" are mainly located
in the southern and central parts of the country. The 1990 census estimated
at over 6 million the number of people who speak an indigenous language,
or 7.9% of the Mexican population. The proportion of the Canadian population able to speak an aboriginal language was 0.4 %.
Part I
DEMOGRAPHIC ACCOUNTS'
The population of Canada on January 1, 1993 was estimated at 28,593,400,
an increase of 321,200 over last year, for a growth rate of 1.13%. This rate,
which is lower than that of last year, has been declining since 1988 (1;59%)
(tables lA and 1B), and is now slightly under the average for the last 21 years
(1.21%).
New Components
The total increment of 321,200 people is much less than in 1989, which marked
a peak (429,900) despite slightly higher natural increase and much higher net
international migration. This situation, which at first glance appears absurd,
is due to the balance between the inflow and outflow of temporary immigrants,
which is now included in the accounting, as are returning Canadians, i.e.
Canadians who had left the country and have once again taken up permanent
residence here (see chapter on recalculated estimates).
In actual fact, introducing non-residents does make demographic accounting
somewhat more difficult to understand, but it does make it more accurate, insofar
as the goal of these accounts is to show the number of people living in the country
on a given date and the phenomena responsible for their presence there.
Natural increment is an increase in the number of actual persons, while in the
accounts, at no time do immigrants correspond to the number of people physically entering the country during the year, since these are people who are granted
landed-immigrant status, some of whom had already been in the country since
the previous year or even before. The number of incoming non-residents is an
estimate of actual persons, based on the number of temporary residence permits
issued, but exiting non-residents are not all people leaving the country, since
part of the total is made up of people who have been granted immigrant status
and thus have only been moved from the non-resident to the immigrant column.
The result of these actual and statistical comings and goings is that the flow
increment is equal to the sum of international net migration (obtained by taking
the difference between landed immigrants and the estimated number of actual
emigrants) the balance of non-residents and returning Canadians.
For example, in 1990, the estimated increase in the number of people in
Canada due to migratory flows was 214,200 (international immigrants) — 11,000
(balance of non-permanent residents) + 19,400 (returning Canadians) — 39,600
(international emigrants) = 183,000, representing 48% of the total increase for
the year (Table 1A).
I
These accounts and their analyses are not comparable with those of previous years (see following
chapter on the autonomy of estimates).
-8-
Table 1A. Statement of Population Change, Canada, 1972-1993
(figures in thousands), New Estimates
In
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982 '
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 (PR)
1993 (PR)
Population
as of
January 1
22,157.8
22,414.5
22,718.2
23,044.4
23,371.0
23,660.7
23,921.8
24,146.1
24,422.1
24,744.2
25,061.8
25,330.3
25,574.7
25,818.3
26,064.5
26,361.7
26,707.8
27,136.7
27,566.6
27,951.6
28,272.2
28,593.4
Total
Growth
Births
(I)
(2)
256.7
303.7
326.2
326.6
289.7
261.1
224.3
276.0
322.1
317.6
268.5
244.4
243.6
246.2
297.2
346.1
428.9
429.9
385.0
320.6
321.2
...
347.3
343.4
345.7
359.3
360.0
362.2
358.4
366A
370.7
371.4
373.1
373.7
377.0
375.7
372.9
369.7
376.8
392.7
405.5
402.5
404.3
...
Natural
Increase
Internetional 1
Immigrants
Cana d-ianss
(3)
(4). (2)-(3)
(5)
(6)
162.4
164.0
166.8
167.2
167.0
167.5
168.2
168.2
171.5
171.0
174.4
174.5
175.7
181.3
184.2
185.0
190.0
191.0
192.0
195.6
199.0
...
184.9
179.4
178.9
192.1
193.0
194.7
190.2
197.9
199.2
200.4
198.7
199.2
201.3
194.4
188.7
184.7
186.8
201.7
213.5
122.0
184.2
218.5
187.9
149.4
114.9
86.3
112.1
143.1
128.6
121.2
89.2
88.2
84.3
99.2
152.1
161.9
192.0
214.2
230.8
248.7
...
37.1
37.8
36.0
36.4
36.1
32.3
31.8
30.3
27.6
25.4
28.3
26.8
26.2
27.3
25.4
24.2
21.5
21.1
19.4
7.26
...
...
Deaths
206.9
205.3
...
as of
January 1
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 (PR)
1993 (PR)
22,157.8
22,414.5
22,718.2
23,044.4
23,371.0
23,660.7
23,921.8
24,146.1
24,422.1
24,744.2
25,061.8
25,330.3
25,574.7
25,818.3
26,064.5
26,361.7
26,707.8
27,136.7
27,566.6
27,951.6
28,272.2
28,593.4
Nongerman nt
Residents5
(7)
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
119.9
164.8
...
Net
Out
Population
Returning
e
Growth
NonNonInternational
Residual4
by Flow
permanent
permanent
Migration
tional
Residents
Statistic3
Emigrants2 Residents5
(12) =
(13) =
(8)
(10)= (5)- (8) (11)= (7)- (9) (6)+00+ (1 0) (1)-(12)- (4)
(9)
Intern-
63.2
78.5
78.1
70.7
64.4
61.4
63.5
54.8
45.2
50.1
59.4
58.6
55.2
54.2
49.1
44.3
38.7
40.7
39.6
48.5
48.5
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
191.0
249.1
..
58.8
105.7
140.4
117.2
85.0
53.5
22.8
57.3
97.9
78.5
61.8
30.6
33.0
30.1
50.1
107.8
123.2
151.3
174.6
182.3
200.2
...
3.0
7.9
- 2.0
7.9
- 3.0
- 2.0
- 3.0
7.9
14.9
30.3
- 3.7
4.4
-0.3
11.0
46.5
40.9
108.9
67.4
- 11.0
- 71.1
- 84.3
...
98.8
151.4
174.5
161.6
118.1
83.8
51.6
95.5
140.4
134.2
86.4
61.7
58.8
68.4
122.1
172.9
253.6
239.7
183.1
118.46
115.97
...
-27.0
-27.1
- 27.2
- 27.1
- 21.4
-17.4
- 17.5
- 17.4
- 17.5
- 17.0
- 16.6
- 16.5
- 16.5
- 16.6
- 13.6
- 11.5
- 11.5
- 11.5
- 11.6
- 4.76
...
...
I Based on Employment and Immigration Canada data. 2 Estimates based on Family Allowance and Income Tax
files. 3 Difference between immigrants and emigrants. The difference is statistical because landed immigrants from one
year could have been in the country since the previous year or before and they were then counted as non-permanent residents. 4 The residual is made up of the distribution on five years of the error at the end of the census period. This error
is equal to the difference between the expected number at the census by the components method and Census adjusted
for net undercoverage. This error encompasses the errors on the components and on the Census adjusted for net undercoverage. 5 Before 1991 only the net migration can be estimated. 6 Returning Canadians for five months only (January
to May); data not available for 1992. 7 The real increase is underestimated because the 1992 data for Returning Canadians
are not available. (PR): Updated postcensal estimates, based on 1991, as of October 13, 1993. Note: All other data
are based on final intercensal estimates. Births and deaths were extracted from Vital Statistics publications. Calculations
based on unrounded data. Source: Statistics Canada, Demography Division.
-9-
Table 1B. Main Rates of the Demographic Accounts, Canada,
1972-1993 (per thousands)
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 (PR)
1993 (PR)
Population
as of
January 1
Total
Growth
Rate
22,157.8
22,414.5
22,718.2
23,044.4
23,371.0
23,660.7
23,921.8
24,146.1
24,422.1
24,744.2
25,061.8
25,330.3
25,574.7
25,818.3
26,064.5
26,361.7
26,707.8
27,136.7
27,566.6
27,951.6
28,272.2
28,593.4
11.52
13.46
14.26
14.07
12.32
10.97
9.33
11.37
13.10
12.75
10.66
9.60
9.48
9.49
11.34
13.04
15.93
15.72
13.87
11.40
11.30
...
Birth
Rate
15.58
15.22
15.11
15.48
15.31
15.22
14.91
15.08
15.08
14.91
14.81
14.68
14.67
14.48
14.23
13.93
14.00
14.36
14.61
14.32
14.22
...
Mortality
Rate
7.29
7.27
7.29
7.20
7.10
7.04
7.00
6.93
6.98
6.87
6.92
6.86
6.84
6.99
7.03
6.97
7.06
6.98
6.92
Natural
Increase
Rate
Net
International
Migration
Rater
Growth
Rate by
Flow3
8.30
7.95
7.82
8.28
8.21
8.18
7.91
8.15
8.10
8.05
7.89
7.83
7.83
7.49
7.20
6.96
6.94
7.37
7.69
2.64
4.68
6.14
5.05
3.61
2.25
0.95
2.36
3.98
3.15
2.45
1.20
1.28
1.16
1.91
4.06
4.58
5.53
6.29
6.48
7.04
...
3.22
5.51
6.44
5.80
4.11
2.79
1.42
3.22
5.00
4.71
2.77
1.78
1.65
2.00
4.14
6.08
8.99
8.34
6.18
4.042
4.082
...
6.96
7.36
7.00
...
7.22
...
Based on Employment and Immigration Canada data and estimates based on Family Allowance and Income
Tax files.
Returning Canadians for 1991 are only available from January to May and data are not available for 1992.
3 Takes into account Non-permanent Residents, Returning Canadians and residual.
(PR): Revised postcensal data, based in 1991, as of October 13, 1993.
Note: All other data are based on final intercensal estimates. Births and deaths were extracted from Vital Statistics publications. Calculations based on unrounded data.
Source: Statistics Canada, Demography Division.
2
Overall Impression
It would appear that the estimate of entries by flow seems overly high, since
natural increase is basically unquestionable and the sum of entries by flow and
natural increase yields a residual surplus to balance out total increase.
Due no doubt to the economic situation, there were apparently more nonpermanent residents leaving than arriving, particularly in 1991 and 1992.
Moreover, the significant inflows of 1988 and 1989 were due to a large surplus
of non-permanent residents, which in turn was caused by a large number of refugees whose applications were pending and who thus had obtained temporary
residence permits. Phenomena like these went unnoticed in the old accounts since
non-permanent residents were not taken into account.
- 10 -
Summary Table. Rates and Principal Demographic Indicators, Canada,
Provinces and Territories, 1985-1991
Year
Newfoundland
Prince
Edward
Island
Nova
Scotia
New
Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Birth Rate
(per 1,000)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
14.6
14.0
13.5
13.0
13.4
13.1
12.4
15.7
15.0
15.2
15.2
14.8
15.4
14.4
14.0
13.9
13.5
13.5
13.8
14.1
13.1
13.9
13.5
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.2
12.7
12.9
12.6
12.3
12.6
13.3
14.0
13.7
14.2
14.1
13.9
14.0
14.3
14.6
14.5
Mortality Rate
(per 1,000)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989•
1990
1991
6.1
6.1
6.3
6.2
6.4
6.7
6.5
8.7
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.3
8.7
9.1
8.2
8.1
7.9
8.2
8.3
8.1
7.9
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.0
6.8
7.0
Total Fertility Rate
(number of children
per woman
aged 15-49)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
...
...
1.53
1.47
1.53
1.52
1.44
1.86
1.78
1.82
1.85
1.83
1.93
1.85
1.60
1.58
1.55
1.57
1.62
1.68
1.58
1.57
1.53
1.51
1.53
1.55
1.58
1.54
1.40
1.37
1.37
1.43
1.53
1.64
1.65
1.60
1.60
1.58
1.59
1.63
1.67
1.66
Total First Marriage
Rate (per 1,000) 1,2
(Males aged 17-49,
Females aged 15-49)
1985 M .
F
1986 M
F
1987 M
F
1988 M
F
1989 M
F
1990 M
F
1991 M
F
555
532
615
600
623
596
657
634
689
678
668
664
609
606
723
73 1
740
765
691
701
741
747
795
796
755
753
690
699
651
662
630
650
651
672
671
710
674
707
626
662 '
578
611
659
669
638
653
632
646
687
711
678
705
651
682
593
620
488
515
462
460
449
457
460
488
461
479
438
481
695
708
681 .
698
688
718
705
761
727
770
725
769
666
705
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991 (PR)
1992 (PR)
8.5
8.0
7.3
6.8
7.1
6.4
5.9
6.2
7.0
6.3
6.5
6.7
6.5
6.7
5.3
5.1
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.3
5.5
6.0
5.2
4.9
6.7
6.0
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.4
5.3
6.1
5.6
5.3
5.7
6.3
7.1
6.8
'6.6
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
7.3
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991 (PR)
1992 (PR)
-3.6
-2.9
-2.1
1.6
1.2
2.4
1.7
-0.2
6.9
1.2
5.8
6.8
2.6 •
1.4
-8.3
9.2
5.4
4.9
3.5
6.4
7.2
5.9
5.1
1.9
2.8
1.8
4.2
5.5
6.6
8.0
2.3
1.6
6.0
8.9
8.7
11.2
10.5
9.9
9.6
9.2
14.2
Rate of Natural
Increase (per 1,000)
N.
Total Growth Rate
(per 1,000)
See notes at the end of this table.
400
443
7.8
7.5
7.5
18.4
21.3
23.8
21.6
16.0
13.0
12.9
Summary Table. Rates and Principal Demographic Indicators, Canada,
Provinces and Territories, 1985-1991 - Continued
Year
Mani- Saskattoba chewan
Alberta
British
Northwest
Columbia Yukon Territories
Canada
Birth Rate
(per 1,000)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
15.8
15.5
15.4
15.4
15.7
15.7
15.5
17.7
17.0
16.4
16.2
16.3
15.9
15.2
18.2
17.9
17.2
17.1
17.3
16.8
16.4
14.4
13.9
13.6
13.7
13.6
13.8
13.5
18.8
19.5
18.4
19.4
17.5
19.8
19.5
26.1
27.2
27.4
27.6
25.7
26.7
26.7
\
14.5
14.2
13.9
14.0
14.3
14.6
14.3
Mortality Rate
(per 1,000)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
8.1
8.1
7.9
8.2
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.9
7.7
8.0
8.0
5.5
5.6
5.4
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.6
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
5.0
4.6
4.2
5.1
3.5
4.1
3.9
3.9
4.2
3.5
3.9
4.3
3.8
3.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.0
Total Fertility Rate
(number of children
per woman
aged 15-49)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1.85
1.83
1.83
1.85
1.92
1.95
1.96
2.08
2.02
1.98
1.99
2.05
2.07
2.02
1.86
1.85
1.82
1.84
1.90
1.88
1.89
1.65
1.61
1.60
1.64
1.65
1.68
1.67
1.83
1.92
1.88
1.98
1.85
2.15
2.14
2.66
2.81
2.82
2.90
2.70
2.79
2.86
1.61
1.59
1.58
1.60
1.66
1.71
1.70
Total First Marriage 1985 M
Rate (per 1,000)1.2
F
(Males aged 17-49,
1986 M
Females aged 15-49)
F
1987 M
F
1988 M
F
1989 M
F
1990 M
F
1991 M
F
690
701
662
687
659
686
655
700
657
697
664
706
613
656
634
659
621
654
624
657
632
677
653
695
633
673
626
652
605
656
604
643
603
640
641
696
673
702
669
710
628
666
638
665
636
670
662
692
705
756
712
748
701
745
658
699
588
588
525
604
493
513
574
696
535
599
547
629
517
544
348
395
385
424
343
377
349
343
349
361
363
372
343
353
615
638
608
620
606
629
627
657
642
675
631
674
584
623
Rate of Natural
Increase (per 1,000)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991 (PR)
1992 (PR)
7.7
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.4
9.9
9.2
8.9
8.4
8.6
8.0
7.2
7.1
12.7
12.4
11.8
11.4
11.8
11.3
10.9
10. 7
7.3
6.9
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.4
6.1
13.9
14.8
14.3
14.5
14.0
15.7
15.7
14.9
22.3
23.0
23.9
23.7
21.4
22.9
22.9
21.4
7.5
7.2
7.0
6.9
7.4
7.7
7.4
7.2
Total Growth Rate
(per 1,000)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991 (PR)
1992 (PR)
8.7
6.4
4.8
1.7
1.3
3.2
1.8
2.11
6.4
2.7
-0.4
- 7.9
- 10.4
-8.3
-3.0
-1.0
9.1
6.0
4.6
14.3
17.9
20.3
14.0
11.3
9.6
11.2
18.8
23.6
27.4
26.6
21.3
23.6
9.7
31.3
28.1
36.0
23.6
22.9
36.9
55.3
.19.5
-1.8
11.5
19.6
23.4
31.8
26.8
10.6
9.5
11.3
13.0
15.9
15.7
13.9
11.4
11.3
See notes at the end of this table.
- 12 -
Summary Table. Rates and Principal Demographic Indicators, Canada,
Provinces and Territories, 1985-1991 - Continued
Year
Newfoundland
Prince
Edward
Island
Nova
Scotia
New
Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Population Aged 65+
as a Percentage of
the Total Population
on July 1
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991 (PR)
1992 (PR)
8.5
8.7
9.0
9.1
9.3
9.4
9.6
9.7
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.9
13.0
13.1
13.2
11.5
11.8
12.0
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.6
10.7
11.0
11.2
11.5
11.6
11.8
11.9
12.1
9.5
9.8
10.0
10.3
10.5
10.8
11.0
11.2
10.5
10.7
10.9
11.0
11.1
11.3
11.5
11.7
Total Age
Dependency Ratio
(in %)3
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
.
1990
1991 (PR)
1992 (PR)
69.4
67.9
66.3
64.7
62.9
61.2
59.6
58.4
69.2
68.4
68.0
67.6
67.4
67.3
67.1
67.0
61.5
60.9
60.7
60.3
59.6
59.2
58.9
58.8
63.0
62.2
62.0
61.4
60.7
60.1
59.6
59.1
52.2
52.0
52.0
52.1
52.2
52.7
53.4
53.9
55.0
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.6
54.9
55.5
56.1
Life Expectancy at
Birth (in years) 2
1981 M
F
1988 M
F
1989 M
F
1990 M
F
1991 M (P)
F (P)
72.0
78.7
73.1
79.3
73.1
79.2
73.3
79.4
73.5
79.6
72.8
80.5
73.1
80.9
72.9
80.8
72.6
80.8
72.5
80.6
71.0
78.4
72.5
79.6
72.8
79.7
73.2
80.0
73.6
80.4
71.1
79.2
73.0
80.2
73.3
80.4
73.7
80.5
74.0
80.8
71.1
78.7
72.3
79.8
72.7
80.2
72.9
80.5
73.2
80.7
72.3
79.0
73.7
80.0
74.1
80.3
74.3
80.4
74.6
80.6
Infant Mortality Rate
(per 1,000)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
10.8
8.0
7.6
9.3
8.2
9.2
7.8
4.0
6.7
6.6
7.1
6.2
6.0
6.9
7.9
8.4
7.4
6.5
5.8
6.3
5.7
9.6
8.3
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.2
6.1
7.3
7.1
7.1
6.5
6.8
6.2
5.9
7.3
7.2
6.6
6.6
6.8
6:3
6.3
Rate of Pregnancies
Terminated
(per 1,000 women
aged 15-44)4
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
2.9
2.5
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.6
5.7
0.4
0.4
1.2
2.3
0.3
1.7
0.8
8.0
7.9
7.8
8.0
9.3
8.9
10.6
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.3
9.8
9.6
10.1
11.0
11.2
13.8
13.7
12.0
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.7
15.9
16.4
See notes at the end of this table.
- 13 -
Summary Table. Rates and Principal Demographic Indicators, Canada,
Provinces and Territories, 1985-1991 - Concluded
Year
Population Aged 65+
as a Percentage of
the Total Population
on July 1
Northwest Canada
Mani- Saskat- Alberta British
Columbia Yukon Territories
toba chewan
14.2
7.8
7.9
8.3
8.5
8.6
8.8
8.9
9.1
11.5
11.9
12.2
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.6
12.8
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
2.8
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
10.2
10.5
10.7
10.9
11.0
11.2
11.4
11.6
64.0
63.8
64.1
64.3
64.6
65.0
65.3
65.7
70.3
70.5
70.8
71.1
71.8
72.9
73.5
74.0
55.9
56.0
56.6
56.8
56.9
57.3
57.7
58.2
56.9
57.2
57.5
57.4
57.4
57.5
57.6
57.8
50.5
50.0
49.5
48.1•
47.9
47.9
47.6
47.8
68.9
68.4
67.7
67.1
66.4
65.9
66.7
67.4
56.3
56.1
56.2
56.2
56.0
56.3
56.7
57.1
72.2
78.8
73.4
80.2
73.7
80.4
74.2
80.5
74.4
80.6
72.4
79.6
74.2
81.0
74.4
81.2
74.7
81.2
74.9
81.3
72.0
79.1
73.9
80.3
74.2
80.7
74.5
80.9
74.7
81.1
72.6
79.6
74.0
80.5
74.4
80.7
74.6
80.9
74.9
81.2
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991 (PR)
1992 (PR)
12.2
12.4
12.6
12.8
13.0
13.1
13.3
13.4
Total Age
Dependency Ratio
(in %)3
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991 (PR)
1992 (PR)
Life Expectancy at
Birth (in years)2
1981 M
F
1988 M
F
1989 M
F
1990 M
F
1991 M (P)
F (P)
12.4
12.6
12.8
13.0
13.4
13.7
14.0
...
...
...
...
71.9
79.0
73.3
80.0
73.7
80.4
73.9
80.5
74.2
80. 7
Infant Mortality Rate
(per 1,000)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
9.9
9.2
8.4
7.8
6.6
8.0
6.5
11.0
9.0
9.1
8.4
8.0
7.6
8.2
8.0
9.0
7.5
8.3
7.5
8.0
6.7
8.1
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.2
7.5
6.5
10.8
24.8
10.5
5.8
4.2
7.2
10.6
16.7
18.6
12.5
10.3
16.2
12.0
11.6
7.9
7.9
7.3
7.2
7.1
6.8
6.4
Rate of Pregnancies
Terminated
(per 1,000 women
aged 15-44)4
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
9.1
10.1
10.3
11.0
10.8
14.0
13.7
5.1
4.5
5.3
5.6
5.9
6.0
5.9
10.7
10.1
8.9
10.2
10.5
10.4
10.7
15.7
15.7
15.6
14.8
14.6
16.2
16.2
14.2
17.6
20.1
16.0
18.3
18.7
18.7
18.2
17.6
17.5
19.5
17.8
22.1
21.3
10.7
10.5
10.6
11.0
11.4
13.6
13.9
The rates are calculated using the average estimations of the population as of January 1, for successive years.
2 Calculated with former estimates.
3 Ratio between population aged 0-17, 65 + and 18-64.
4 From 1985 to 1989, for all provinces except Quebec, the rates only cover therapeutic abortions in canadian
hospitals. For 1990 and 1991, the rates include abortions made in hospitals and clinics. From 1985 to 1991,
the rates for Quebec are calculated with all known abortions (Regie de l'assurance maladie du Quebec).
(P) Preliminary.
(PR) Revised postcensal data, based on 1991 Census, October 13, 1993.
Note: For the years 1981-1987, see the 1988 Report.
- 14 Overall, the basic indicators tend to paint a relatively stationary picture of
the country over the past two decades. In the case of the death rate, the stability observed in place of the normally anticipated increase is a sign of progress
in the fight against death, since the population has aged considerably since 1972.
Also noteworthy was the reduction in the emigration rate, particularly in recent
years when immigration was on the rise. Weakening of the volume and rate of
emigration coupled with an increase in immigration is indicative of a particularly difficult change in the world economic and political situation and in the
origin of immigrants, a large proportion of whom are now refugees who are
little inclined to return to their country or go elsewhere.
The Provinces (Appendix Tables Al)
This 1.13% national increase was far from uniform across the country. The
hardest-hit province was Saskatchewan, which has been losing population since
1987. The new estimates nevertheless still rank it as a "millionaire", a category
it would have reached in 1984 and not 1985 as previously calculated, and not
dropped out of, even though the former estimates indicated that it lost this title
in 1990. The negative growth was due to interprovincial migration. Natural
increase and net international migration were positive, but are eclipsed by the
deficit in interprovincial migration and, to a certain extent, by that of nonpermanent residents.
In terms of volume, Ontario gained the most (136,700 people), or 43% of
total national growth. In second place was British Columbia with a quarter
of the country's growth (81,500 people), followed by Quebec and Alberta
(20% and 9%)). In terms of rates, however, British Columbia ranked first
with 2.36%, while Ontario lagged far behind with only 1.29%. Quebec's growth
rate was only 0.9% and that of Alberta 1.13%. The other provinces had only
minimal growth. Natural increase was on the decline nationally given the fact
that the drop in fertility is increasingly paired with an aging of the female
population of child-bearing age. Provinces that have chronic negative migratory balances, however, show the effects on total growth to a greater extent.
This was the case with the Atlantic Provinces where growth was practically
negligible. In the last 20-year, the rate of natural increase dropped by half in
New Brunswick, 40% in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and 65% in
Newfoundland. In Quebec and Alberta, the rate remained stable, fell by only
10% in Ontario, 14% in British Columbia, 19% in Manitoba and 17% in
Saskatchewan. _
This series of phenomena contributes to a concentration of the Canadian
population in a few fairly limited areas, particularly southern Quebec and
Ontario and southern British Columbia - while in most of Canada the population remains sparse.
- 15 -
CANADA IN THE WORLD
Canada ranked 29th in the world in terms of population in 1950, slipping to
31st place in 1984. In 1991, it was in 33rd place. The two countries current
ranking above it are the Ukraine and Tanzania.
The dismantling of the U.S.S.R. that began in 1984 has brought several minor
changes in this list. The sum of the former components would still place the
group in 3rd place, with 291,245 million; however this rank is currently held
by the United States since the two principal components of the U.S.S.R. (Russia
and the Ukraine) are in 6th and 23rd place respectively.
Certain countries, however, experienced such growth that they out-stripped
others that, only 10 years ago, placed ahead of them. Among these are Ethiopia,
which rose from 26th to 22nd, Turkey, which went from 19th to 15th and the
Philippines (from 17th to 14th). Others consequently, like Canada, lost ground:
among these were Italy, which fell from 14th to 17th place, France from 16th
to 18th, the United Kingdom from 15th to 16th, the Republic of Korea from
22nd to 24th, Spain from 23rd to 26th and Poland from 25th to 27th.
One remarkable phenomenon was the slowdown in annual rate of increase
for the majority of the 33 countries in Table 2, which are nevertheless drawn
from highly differing categories of development.
CANADA AND THE PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES
During 1992, the population of Canada grew over three times more rapidly
than that of the E.E.S. (European Economic Space) (11.3 per 1,000 compared
to 3.6 per 1,000). The rate of natural increase in the European Community (E. C.)
was 1.5 per 1,000, while that of Canada was 7.2 per 1,000. Growth due to
migration was 2.1 per 1,000 in Europe and 4.1 per 1,000 in Canada.
An examination of Table 3 may raise some confusion. For many countries,
including Canada, the total increase does not correspond, as might be expected,
to the sum of natural increase and net migration. This is because in many cases
net migration is determined solely by the difference between the number of international immigrants and emigrants, while other entries and errors are not taken
into consideration.
Based on data supplied by the countries involved, there were no significant
changes in the demographic behaviour of any of the industrialized countries.
On the basis of the total fertility rate, the trend in fertility is still minimally
down in Europe. For most countries, the rate is stationary, but the Mediterranean
peninsulas are still going through a period of major liberalization in laws
— 16 —
Average Annual
Increase Rate 1980- 1991
(per 1, 000)
a
■
r- ON VD Ch MC, WI VD VD V, VI
'..-;.0.-.cieee4.-;nioir ,ichAnaniericS
;..r Ch on Un r
O 1 NON
e4e.icr;Q-.
... e4
r4 eV
eq rn en !V
ei el el
1
re en el on
: Vp Vp 00 VD le el 00 vn el VD
•,-...e4n6 ,9: ;1 0;e4rgic;
re e4
0
.0
'‘e
4M
WMR , =1AnApi palRggM
*Nm.t,VDr.000,0.-.Ne
&
....
Population
(in thousands)
a
gVesfiy-aTIZT57,a''s011ispe2§60,ttyrfn
-00_glidfp," ,4*Lig.sv..,n,,,=1447.1ggAr.IgnA
.
-
5
*b
E0
V
E.,
.0
P.
0
V
O
a
.,
a r
es
a=
.0
.0s
.g.g8..Ett..
22 g 0 • v'...;, g -i,,r3 b-Q5E.,..9
g
S4 ,.5 r0
s.. g ..=. _.="0
v <.g .2 .0
0
'0 , •,15ge'S,grig
0 :a :5
N gm . ig t* . 11 0 :a 5 e -. . 2 g ..:5 .-sc Ii` >• az.a =0 LI
J: 0 2: m ce 4 al cs. 2 2 0 5 a F. 0 .. et F. J: w 41 :) m 2 on c, r4 Eig () .0 F- C.)
.
I'd v•
a
al IO
t ()
Average Annual
Increase Rate 1 974- 1984
(per 1,000)
aA
en
e.
NA
4°
.-.N e.
elenerell
1
""
.+N
h4 4' 44 44 '4 44 Ch C4 "4 '4 "4 4' 44 44 r- 44 Ch
A A F.1 A A A N1 A
gi g ;31
§F,q§282gga?R28?WelS82,90R22,92R8R
r.- 0.0 ,, sr-INcr-1 ,1.ch.t01'.1.qnrts..
d'
7 4,-1Cc&R*5;VP:G.T,e,g.=Vgng74gPlen
e• ._I, e4e4.-.....-.
4 -.
ON
Popu latio n
(in thousa nds)
o
..0
43
g
b
.0g 5 595
11.g.0r3 0 :71.0.1 ig'b1
av, -11
E
r
8
44
,..
= .0
c >,
.28 mAll".
.
8
.c
1,1t1,
°=g-00=e0
Vinnlanding,15144kgallanc!
*
,....„...."...,
Tra
g ,,,,,, g ,
2,
---.omg
o
8.0
,,;
'55
2
ga
u
A ,„
13 5
§8§§nagA2FASS0qP§P.Mehqp
m
,
.0
,-,0 eol,Nm
ch al.t,Nam.-c4
i l el
wt
m g;ar
yg
c
i.5
00
t
;2.
N 2
faai r4g 144gg
gg ""r5"
"
,
t2E
U
g
Dv
17, 6
E
...
a
a
O
Y3
,.
0
0
d g; " ""
" 4 nggi'Ai g
03
e
a
Population
(in thousands)
no en re 00 Op wl en et I Ch Ch VI ol 00 4101 VI VI WI Op el VD VI CD VI On en
O
< •
154
C
of
.s.
.
0,
VD a
N r-
0.4
cv
g
P.
Pg
se
szl
,Q
0 6 .00›,
gc,,,,j'ag-.Ti.->sP...mg
0 '.2 '8 '4 .g a i "Si c 1 U '
c
h
c
.5a
.0gi..
m g'.=t;Es4
E"
2.t.
° ''' ° g
6.<1 . r> z to a .1:5 . 'a. 2 '.3 V § .5 9
c
30..E4a4M3.2.'1:04(2'251:u2F-wo-tmactio
t2
:2
0
i.
0.
et
0
E
C:
1:1
—
F
a
O.
FBI
E "R
Y >..
..apg.go-:4:ga-
S v 1 1:: co 1g X
cac!ic5 c2.,..
°
g 41 32;f1..g
g -a Le E
EO ir
U
Q .E 1g*E•til it
E 03 g
Ts 74.
4 '4 0
t ''..g'b' f tag
=Id .11r. -gle,'",3
M
e, . 0., .
."' '"' ,%s 5 I 2 ,i
,„, g
; .
1 95.6
2, 165.0
481. 5
3,819. 6
336. 9
83.4
49. 1
1.8
44. 9
95.0
62. 5
0.2
3,482. 7
1 05. 2
59. 5
900. 8
93. 5
338. 2
526.0
31. 5
546.9
3.7
129.9
104.4
643. 1
housands)
Deaths
Do
" e
....
et
3 ±
2 4-,'''
See notes a t the en d of this table.
yr
Bir ths
.C1
Population as of
January 1, 1 993
0
Population as of
January 1, 1 992
Natural Increase
1■1
Country
1992I
Net Migration
—17—
a,
ch
—
e4
....g
v—I
g
1-4
ev
T
....
w)
&
...,
O,
a,
03
Females
0. .1.
. 0. 0. 1. ct
0
0. 0
'" 0.Nc•"1"1"v"-“Ims°
co 06 eg gg .. 46 gg cg gg P. 06
P. r
co rP.
r- P. P. P.
.
P
•
't
eg
r
0
0 00
't ''' °I •-: .0 clsi:
cg cg gg gg gg
co rr r.
:
•
ei
•I
rP: --"-:
:
"1 -6 "
A 2 A P
•
a°,..1-..j
I.
Si 7474 O
N 4 e4 P.
:
•
nt 01N
Tr -4 46
I
Males
Life Expectancy2
1 992
— 18 —
.4 .
0 0 °.
,e, ,.., sz ,e, ..., 0 ?RP. e., 3.0 74 Tec
0 0 0 0 0
co
N N N
cg en
4 men -. 4 C4 P.4 v6
P.
h h h h
P.
r r r- r-
N
P.
cs
es et et
a, 71 7-. 7::, en en ;I
N .4 u4 4 " 4 cg
P. P. P. P. P. P.
:
4D
r-
P. P. NO
't
sc:
P. t- t-
0
03
1∎1
01
1■1
Males
1■4
Life Expectancy5
1 991
C•41
ep,
Females
U
v. r"
a, r-
.4
ea
a
a s
a ...
.1,
:'o '1 '1 `t t-: room" '''
• cei g .-, 1`. OS CO CP; 1••■ CO CA
re 4,.
nr .r
r.• 00
t-i ei
1 1 ...
as
s
q% n, 1
P.
: '0 v. 0O1 el ", P. N
en ri 4.1 c5 N E4
• en en en
.s, 4
P.
h
00hhhhhh
h
h
el .1" 11 '41 n kec“*
ON CO IQ ON g 030 rn
hr co P.
oa h.
a'
CP:
h
CD
: '''''
CP:
h
01
h
:
•
00
C: .1? *1
53 coei
h co
..?
q
:v
'n
:
•
a: ': •m -. ,6
:
•
c:! en "
P.
sc. I v
t- .t
.l. q •fq '''
ri 6 " 4, ul Tr cg
P. r- P. P. P. P. v6
in
P. P. P. P. P.
ce! en so en " en en CD
P. P. mS 06 06 m5 cg P.
li.
" "ere7A -4 nt 'et nt
:
P.
P. mg m4 45 mg 45 m,
v."' 0 cc: v. el " " • " • ^ °:.' ''l
co 06 cg ki, CD P.
P.
`f""16' - ' al :
r mg mg 45 v6 ,41,
'0
r4
r- ch
:
P.
•
e 1 4^ st.
NO
:
h h
h h h h
«4
P.
g
Tr
43
P.
P. P. P.
C
O
C
O
In fant Mortality Rate
(per 1,000live births)
C
er
05
Total GrowthRate
(per 1,000)
U
St.
-4
&
-..
thlell ...0.., ei
00 r4 vS 00
00 P. P. 0
-.. P. P.
...
t...
A -.73 m,
P. 45 05
`43
:
ONO
en
P. r4 Ti
P. 000
C
nr
.0
o.
455i
.
V1
§
..
eg eel
.d. ,c; ,.
6 en eel
o
N Cr: NO 41 P. CO 0 h en h
mg
4 -.
mg
en c5 4 0 0 ..
■•
-.
N
NC
t el
I
m NO N •-■ h
CO
NO
el 0
:
NO .-4 0.0
46 " <5 " m5 -4 --,
mi
ei
-.
-. -■
•
0 Ten
01 '0 N 00 r.:
oi. m5 Ts.
-. 0 0
-. ml 46 .4
CO
00
CD
st. 0 "
:
N
.i
-. -. ri
.-. -.. • 4
•
N N
Ch ...
.
5
I .
s v
.° o 5 a.. . .g S -,
1T,4., 5EV5 ,..§ ,1).
v; .7, 2g. 8 .2
02 0 k:7 0 ul Gs. 41 ... '..1 z 11, :a
2
...6 ..4
a
at ..
.
mi
a
•-• E
a
<0 -a
r.. as 0, ce,
2E T. bang
" en
4 -4 en
.a V
›,a,
v..1"0
„,.1 .9 Ir,2
1:1 DJ @ 3 -ta nd 5
g -5 8 o; g 4
.t
S
HI 11
a: .. z ., 0
.
.
ea (4
-a •2 8
ea „ ..-‹.
17
E
.4
.=
t
1 :i 4,
g
' fg.
g'2 o o
2 X ..t Z ,-,
r..)
See notes at the end of this table.
C
00
4:, ,./ VI 0 n ..t. N .... co N
,i ,h ,4 41 -4 4, 41: w4
Coun try
O
czn
s.
O
Marriages 1992
rM
•c
yr
Marriages
Rate
Divorces
Rate
Divorces
Rate
(in thousands) (per 1,000) (in thousands) (per 1,000) (in thousands) (per 1,000)
O
Divorces 1 991
Divorces 1992
- 19 -
4.
N'1' 1: :
4R 7c! -ci:
e4(4-.0.0.-,
: `tE:: q '1 4: '''' •-"^a`.. 't `^ •-'^? ", 72
or444-.<-4 - eit-4-.c4r4e4-. r4 4
et -.
enaen.n......
eq •••; 4:i ,c; MOO
tel•-u
. m NO
6.
.1
en
:c175:•-..50.5.... el en007ne10!0n0 N ul
,I. <6 cS csi s-, r4 vi, r.i <6 e -, .0: e 1p so
m.-.4:5 me 4-e 4-4
4-4 eV 4-4
N
N 4.
:00
ei
:
: sc: `4
_ v:
• e4 na .-.
:q••
'
. cr;
.-,er
CV
:1-:•-.(s1
• ..r, 0'O
V.
1.•••
,.,
eitsir4cia-.
:" q al -1 61 1' •-' YR •-• .t. m C::: cl I•4 t... C•"•: sc.
ON..
-, -.t.4 4 eir4tNiele4r4.-, N ,-. esisro
: ‘q WD.t.
• NN•-•
4.■
WI V
55 'C' t.: q -..5q
V
:r '55 C5 4:: ...: 'e .4. '55 ."l'n t.0 .1 45
•-"e171
•4' 74:
.h
c? c? '1
A 6cA CT:5 0 4De46°C74''a P 5' 5 Pr. %
.-5 0/0
W.
-5
e‘i tse W ni '0.
...
b
...
,
el
co N .0 ch 41 1.4, VI V V (1 .4 4/1 C 00 0 .0 .e, en .0: N 147 Men
.e.; .1:5 5r; V'1 el. .53: .,-; sO .0 le: ,C; 5A'1 et ei ei ei ,C. ,C0 Vi 5,0 0101
:
,
""-"?^ 7:^c11."`00:v. '''' i-- g el'I' 71 4, g• 0.00
03 e.i fei e 5,-; CA ‘Ci 40 ej en Cs .n ni v.; en ... ce 5-: 5e.; c5 ..7 5.; 06 ri c)
,o ■ov,
askor.
-.<,-,i
.+ In .-tv-,.-.A..-•ao
, a .t <-4
N
- •-•
5-I In
en .0
.t.
<-4
en
4-i
ter
Ni
: 10-.. CA
• 4 °4 %4
...
: so en ....
• ,c, sc; ,ci
: eq q .1.
• .4. el 4
-<-40,
•-■
ee
,..,
Li §.
Ai -.
1.
O
...
V
T
O
.04
gb
a
Marriages
(in thousands)
B",
os
-. C.. I.*: .-“0 a: CO V. ".."1; 00 sp N 0000 CI c•1 -. CO N 'CI ‘t ‘•-.
.0 .0 .n .0 ...; er et vi No 14 I.: 4:5 IA v-; •cr ni •.* ‘t 10 e.i vi it; ,4:) cr; N
:'1 r.:
*ICA en 4::, COY. CA -1 ‘00•: 04 4D -1 .0
: 0, ...en
-
53
..P: es0Zi
..d.
..,,,,,
N
el Ch el et 00 er NOV
sj.g el gtZ.
4 e(4 -. Ren; 4 6 1 ■ 4 Egg.eni
en
444 4. 4-4 el V::I
en CP.
..7
r‘i
ei
q
• .1:1 ..r) mo
•
•
Mg5,4'
-4
T■
C.
ea
tai
N
TotalFertility Rate
E
&
-
-.5
T
...
st
.0;L0..erne., -.•.ofilo, oo
'11 "..1 't. ei P: •-'el `4: vl ‘r.
es
r..09 44,
Q. 00
N
•-• Yz N oo cn oo
:
V 'n 0.ci aq e .1
4 - ... (.0 ..5 cej ...
N
ee
ea co
01
50
cower 5... 54 e4 5n Clio -. CA N 0
°4 '''' nt":-. 0:•-"0"
4 -......e4.-.c4-.
.n `9.17r1 ,-: •-"
el sa? 4:?`4
N
•
•
er,
:00
v.
.4
ci
N
:
.5.
: CA N e ... oh
r" 4, N.c::c1
4 4 -.eq.,
: .,,.
. <-4 0
•
-.•:
''' e4 '''
: ... .C.
• ar-'
-.....4
:
0
Coun try
e.
or
oo
-1.0 te
E
g .,
. Ts
N
<4 %
-a u
2e g.....,
-a xe
L2
leelagg,,qa2
-5
,.. awma
u
clicoowic.t.-'4Za.
q t.).
.,.0cs.p. 2 ''...
g a ga iB.c 't
gag
"ETi t,
''
atz-zov).!
....
V
'''
v,
. ...cg
" 011, f b
g
g
g-E. a
c
t.)1z azg
- 20 -
governing divorce, abortion and contraception, and fertility rates are thus still
quite low: 1.41, 1.23 and 1.26 for Greece, Spain and Italy, respectively. These
rates are the result of delayed child-bearing by the younger birth cohorts at a
time when older cohorts have very low fertility rates since they have already had
all the children they wanted. The countries of northern Europe, however, have
returned to total fertility rates closer to the cumulative fertility of participating
birth cohorts since the effects of the change in tempo initiated some time ago
are now dwindling. The new tempo of fertility has seemed to stabilize and is
affected by the fairly late arrival of children. Thus, Finland had a total fertility
rate of 1.86, Norway 1.88 and Sweden 2.09.
In absolute terms, Germany shows an increasingly negative natural increase
because of an aging population whose fertility has long been low.
Portugal and Ireland were the only European countries with negative migration balances, while Italy is increasingly a receiving country. The position of
Greece is uncertain, since the slight decline in net migration is not easy to explain
and may be temporary. Admittance of expatriate Greeks and deportation of
Albanians make for irregular trends in statistics.
In the great majority of industrialized countries, marriage was on the decline,
while the divorce rate was generally up slightly. This slight change reflects the
world economic situation, which is on the whole sombre enough to influence
demographic phenomena.
On the other hand, a great many countries showed a significant decrease in
infant mortality rates between 1991 and 1992.
Bearing in mind the reservations expressed regarding migration accounts,
certain industrialized countries, which even quite recently had high immigration
rates, tended to have positive but lower balances. This was the case of Germany
and Austria and one receiving country, Australia. Since the ending of the "White
Australia Policy", this country, like Canada, has seen major fluctuations in
its attitudes regarding immigration. The result has been that, within a few years,
major flows have been seen in the number of landed immigrants and the origin
of these immigrants. Not only did the number of entries decrease in 1991, plans
for 1992-93 forecast a much greater reduction, and low admission levels 2 are
expected for several years to come. The number of refugees admitted will be
down by 2,000, skilled independent workers will decrease by 55% (to 13,400)
and those in the concessional, or assisted, family category by 68% (to 6,000).
The number of immigrants dropped from 136,000 in 1988-89 to 80,000 in
1992-93 - a decline of 41%.
2
SOPEMI, 1992.
- 21 -
AUTONOMY OF POPULATION ESTIMATES
Background
Apart from providing justification for parliamentary representation of
regions by the size of their population, Canada has over time set up a number
of national programs aimed at an equitable redistribution of the country's
wealth, also on the basis of the size of the sub-populations involved. This is one
of the main reasons for the almost constant updating of population estimates
at various geographical levels. These estimates are based on natural changes in
population (births and deaths) and internal and international migratory flows.
However carefully these estimates are calculated, they can only be based on an
exhaustive counting of the entire population at a given moment in time, i.e.,
a census. This is one of the oldest institutions found in almost all countries. In
Canada, censuses began centuries before the keeping of continuous accounts
of demographic events. Occurring at intervals over time, they were until recently
the only reliable way of determining the volume and structure of the country's
population and its components. It should come as no surprise, then, that
considerable care is taken in preparing a census, and a major operation in logistics goes into carrying it out. Societies change, however, and such phenomena
as the increase in numbers, greater mobility of the population, and diminished
concern by individuals for the interests of the group have hindered the taking
of censuses in all countries, rendering the operation increasingly difficult despite
advances in logistics.
The quality of enumeration of a census depends mainly on the extent of
under-enumeration, but there are also cases of over-enumeration. Since the
former is almost always greater than the latter, there is almost always a net
under-enumeration. Under-enumeration is the result of inevitable weaknesses
in the data-collection network, often exploited by those who, for whatever
reason, wish not to be enumerated. Over-enumeration, on the other hand, is
often due to a poor understanding by some people of the census process, with
the result that they are counted twice. It may also be due to certain persons
allowing themselves to be counted when they should not, while others may add
fictitious individuals with a view to increasing the size of their category. An
awareness of these imperfections has long motivated government agencies to
produce estimates using various statistics-based processes. In Canada, the
current Chief Statistician, Dr. Fellegi, began in 1961 to develop a means of
checking the efficiency of the counting "machine", the reverse record check.
Further improvements have been made to the system by Statistics Canada
methodologists. We can thus determine, starting with the 1966 census, the extent
to which census data for certain geographical areas and categories of people
are over-estimated. This knowledge is nevertheless not reliable enough to make
adjustments that cannot be questioned. To date, therefore, census figures have
necessarily been used as a basis for post-census estimates and as limits to which
inter-census estimates must be adjusted. From a legal standpoint and for
- 22 -
Figure 1
Population of the 1967-1971 Birth Cohorts at Successive Censuses
Adjusted or Non Adjusted for Net Undercoverage, Canada
Males
1,100,000
1,050,000
1,000,000
950,000
900,000
850,000
Year
Age group
1971
0-4
1976
5-9
1981
10-14
1986
15-19
1991
20-24
1986
15-19
1991
20-24
Females
1,100 000
1,050,000
1,000,000
950,000
900,000
850,000
Year
Age group
1971
0-4
1976
5-9
1981
10-14
Source: Demography Division, Estimates Section.
- 23 -
accounting purposes, the practice, for lack of a better system, has remained
acceptable and accepted. From an analytical point of view, however, the inherent
anomalies have always posed a problem. A comparison of numbers for one
group of birth cohorts from census to census clearly shows up irregularities
which can only be due to the incorrect enumeration of individuals in certain
categories. For example, it is normal that the population aged 0-4 (Figure 1),
augmented by immigrants during a five-year period, is larger five years later,
when the children are in the 5-9 age group. It can be demonstrated that the
numerical growth of these birth cohorts continues for the next ten years, but
when they move from the 15-19 age group to the 20-24 group, the number of
males decreases; however, this cannot be justified by either mortality or emigration, the extent of which are both known. Conversely, it may be satisfactorily
explained by the still-significant under-enumeration of this particularly mobile
group of young adults. It may also be seen that the corresponding group of
female birth cohorts does not show the same anomaly in its changes over time,
and this is quite in line with the knowledge we have of under-enumeration of
women, which is lower than for males at these ages.
Improvement
A systematic study of the many irregularities of various types, of which the
above case is an example, as well as progress by the methodologists at Statistics
Canada in methods for calculating errors in enumeration, convinced the Chief
Statistician that the population estimates based on them would certainly be
improved if they took into consideration the measurable weaknesses in recent
counts. It also proved desirable to include in the population of the country not
only returning Canadians, because of their increasing numbers since 1981, but
particularly non permanent residents, which in any case is a United Nations
requirement. Among these are of course refugees awaiting landed immigrant
status, students and workers with visas long enough to entitle them for social
programs and benefits. By including them in the accounts, the census remains
a "de jure" census, since the people in question may be considered as habitual
residents of Canada.
Census data are thus not adjusted and are always provided as is, but in 1991
non-residents have been added. For this reason, 1991 census figures are not
directly comparable with those of previous censuses. As for estimates, they will
now take into account net under-enumeration and will be calculated on different
dates from those of the census itself. The annual estimates are now calculated
on July 1, which corresponds to the middle of the year, as opposed to June 1
as was previously the case.
The result of this very long exercise is what is known as the new series of
estimates used to construct the demographic accounts table. Thus, although
estimates are always dependent on censuses, some distance has now been established between them and, unless otherwise specified, since September 16, 1993,
- 24 -
Table 4. Canadian Population by Cohort, Census Data Adjusted
for Undercoverage
Stocks
Age in 1971
1971
I
19761
1981 2
I
1986
1991
1,025,200
1,266,900
1,264,600
1,148,400
1,046,800
849,200
675,700
626,000
607,400
537,000
420,800
328,200
212,900
1,067,700
1,282,200
1,312,000
1,173,500
1,077,000
844,100
673,200
618,200
578,600
497,900
364,300
255,600
142,200
970,200
1,207,100
1,231,400
1,147,500
1,027,100
823,400
662,400
621,200
623,700
603,700
506,500
420,900
305,900
1,041,300
1,246,500
1,285,900
1,171,200
1,061,800
830,000
666,700
620,200
611,600
586,700
469,700
366,600
240,100
1,995,400
2,474,000
2,496,000
2,295,900
2,073,900
1,672,600
1,338,100
1,247,200
1,231,100
1,140,700
927,300
749,100
518,800
2,109,000
2,528,700
2,597,900
2,344,700
2,138,800
1,674,100
1,339,900
1,238,400
1,190,200
1,084,600
834,000
622,200
382,300
Males
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
940,700
1,161,600
1,191,500
1,104,000
999,500
844,000
689,500
664,300
658,200
625,200
527,600
480,100
386,900
980,900
1,173,500
1,220,400
1,144,200
1,052,400
861,700
692,200
659,000
642,200
602,400
500,500
441,700
344,000
993,200
1,216,500
1,262,600
1,135,700
1,053,600
856,200
702,000
643,400
627,300
573,600
466,500
392,900
283,400
Females
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
899,600
1,110,300
1,140,500
1,067,900
991,900
807,200
658,500
625,900
630,000
629,800
539,700
486,600
399,900
933,000
1,120,800
1,174,500
1,126,600
1,020,200
827,600
664,700
630,100
626,800
628,300
531,700
472,500
385,500
944,000
1,162,900
1,237,300
1,126,000
1,037,200
819,600
672,600
622,900
623,900
616,000
521,900
457,000
355,100
Both Sexes
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
1,840,300
2,271,900
2,332,000
2,171,900
1,991,400
1,651,200
1,348,000
1,290,200
1,288,200
1,255,000
1,067,300
966,700
786,800
1,913,900
2,294,300
2,394,900
2,270,800
2,072,600
1,689,300
1,356,900
1,289,100
1,269,000
1,230,700
1,032,200
914,200
729,500
1 The people are 5 years older than in 1971.
2 The people are 10 years older than in 1971,
1,937,200
2,379,400
2,499,900
2,261,700
2,090,800
1,675,800
1,374,600
1,266,300
1,251,200
1,189,600
988,400
849,900
638,500
etc.
Source: Demography Division, Estimates Section, July 1st, 1993.
-
25 -
Table 5. Total Fertility Rates (Former and New Estimates), Canada,
(Excluding Newfoundland), 1971-1991
Year/Age
Former Rates
New Rates
Change in %
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
T.F.R.
0.0398
0.1344
0.1420
0.0773
0.0336
0.0094
0.0006
2.1852
0.0387
0.1284
0.1380
0.0758
0.0333
0.0093
0.0006
2.1202
- 2.8
- 2.8
-1.9
-0.9
--- 3.0
1976:
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
T.F.R.
0.0334
0.1103
0.1299
0.0656
0.0211
0.0043
0.0003
1.8244
0.0327
0.1045
0.1263
0.0637
0.0208
0.0043
0.0003
1.7634
- 2.1
- 5.3
- 2.8
- 2.9
- 1.4
--- 3.3
1981:
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
T.F.R.
0.0264
0.0967
0.1269
0.0680
0.0194
0.0032
0.0002
1.7039
0.0257
0.0914
0.1233
0.0667
0.0191
0.0032
0.0002
1.6474
- 2.7
- 5.5
- 2.8
- 1.9
- 1.5
---3.3
1986:
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
T.F.R.
0.0235
0.0846
0.1244
0.0755
0.0225
0.0032
0.0001
1.6705
0.0228
0.0787
0.1190
0.0725
0.0223
0.0031
0.0001
1.5932
- 3.0
- 7.0
- 4.3
- 4.0
- 0.9
--- 4.6
1991:
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
T.F.R.
0.0269
0.0829
0.1288
0.0886
0.0295
0.0041
0.0002
1.8050
0.0256
0.0775
0.1207
0.0842
0.0285
0.0039
0.0002
1.6834
- 4.8
1971:
Note: Changes were not considered for extremely small rates.
Source: Demography Division, Estimates Section.
-4.5
-6.5
-6.3
-5.0
- 3.4
--- 6.7
- 26 -
it is the new series that is used, based on the most recent 1991 census. In future,
estimates will continue to be calculated by the method using components which
have become increasingly numerous, and these will be rectified when new census
figures become available and the accuracy of these figures has been assessed.
To avoid any unwelcome discontinuity in assessment of the demographic situation, population figures for the past 20 years have been recalculated.
The new series of estimates has made it necessary to recalculate demographic
rates and normal indices from 1971 on; however, the changes are not very large.
The negative effects of inadequate enumeration in the censuses on which estimates are based mainly affects the earlier years of adulthood, with a lesser effect
on children and older adults, so it is mainly the rates of phenomena frequent
at these ages that show slight changes (e.g. fertility, abortion, marriage, delinquency). Table 5 gives an example of the effects on fertility rates.
It is clear that the reduction in rates caused by correcting estimates is significant between ages 20 and 29 and then becomes smaller. The lowering of rates
due only to the increase in the denominator tends to become greater over time
due to the slight but constant rise in under-enumeration and the inclusion of
returning Canadians and temporary residents.
The effect on the total fertility rate, while not negligible, is nevertheless low,
and the changes do not affect trends and concern only the past.
Since the new estimates have been drawn up for 1971 on, we can calculate
the completed fertility in a uniform series for the 1951-1956 birth cohort groups,
whose members have, for all practices, come to the end of their fertile period
(Table 6). Here again, the difference between the results of calculations using
the old and new estimates is small (0.073 children or 3.8% of the value of the
rate). Although the difference between completed fertility rates is smaller than
between recent total fertility rates, this is due to the fact that the women for
whom completed fertility is being calculated have experienced slightly lower rates
early in their fertile lives.
Although not a significant factor, the rates calculated now with the new estimates are more rationally constructed than those published previously. The universes of the numerator and denominator are the same, which was not the case
before. The events (births, marriages, deaths, etc.) experienced by non-residents
were included as events, but the people responsible for them were not counted
in the population at risk.
More Progress to Come
Despite substantial improvements to estimates, all involved are aware that
certain unexplainable irregularities subsist in the series and that there is accordingly still room for improvement, as Table 7 would indicate.
-
27 -
Table 6. Cumulative Fertilityl by Cohort, Using Former and New
Population Estimates
Cohort
20 years
I 25 years
30 years
I
35 years
I
40 years
Former Estimates
1951-56
1956-61
1961-66
1966-71
1971-76
1,990
1,670
1,320
1,175
1,345
13,850
12,725
11,990
7,505
6,505
5,550
5,320
17,625
17,155
19,100
16,950
16,365
18,375
New Estimates
1951-56
1956-61
1961-66
1966-71
1971-76
1,935
1,635
1,285
1,140
1,280
13,325
12,155
11,855
7,160
6,205
5,220
5,015
I For 10,000 women.
Source: Demography Division, Estimates Section.
Table 7. Variations in the Sex Ratio for Some Cohorts According to the Adjusted
and Non-Adjusted Net Undercoverage of the Census
Age Groups
15-19 1 20-24
25-29 130-34 135-39
40-44
45-49
Cohort 1952-1956
Non-Adjusted
Adjusted
1.03
1.03
1.00
1.02
0.99
1.01
0.98
1.00
0.99
1.00
Cohort 1947-1951
Non-Adjusted
Adjusted
0.99
1.01
1.01
1.03
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.01
Cohort 1942-1946
Non-Adjusted
Adjusted
1.02
1.05
1.02
1.04
1.02
1.05
Source: Demography Division, Estimates Section and calculations by author.
1.01
1.03
1.01
1.02
- 28 -
As a rule, male mortality is a little higher than that of females, but since there
are more males born than females, the numbers of each sex tend to become equal
late in adult life and then give way, at each age, to larger numbers of women
than men. The male sex ratio, which is greater than 1 at birth, reaches this value
around age 40 and falls below unity for older age groups.
Table 7 shows that, in the new estimates as in the old, the trend in the sex
ratio is not in line with the model. We cannot attribute to immigration this
abnormal trend in the sex ratio with age, since for many years the sex ratio of
immigrants has been little different from that of the population born in Canada
and we thus cannot sustain the thesis of excess male emigration.
Attempts are thus being made to refine adjustments for certain age groups
to achieve better correspondence between the estimates where there are gaps
in coverage of the components of population change.
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
Since 1968, there have never been fewer marriages than in 1991 (172,251).
As opposed to 1968, however, the population of the age groups most likely to
marry (15-49) was 48% larger (14,709,240 instead of 9,931,338). As a result,
the "rate" that we can calculate for this year using these figures (11.7 per 1,000
instead of 17.3 per 1,000) is that much lower.
For over 20 years now, the near-constant number of marriages has been a
signal of a very clear trend towards fewer marriages shown by all indicators,
and this trend continues. It is true that 1991 was an especially bad year for
marriages, because of particularly hard economic times. The total number of
marriages, including remarriages, which was already down slightly in 1990
compared to 1989, fell this time by over 8%, a drop never before seen in the
history of Canada, with first marriages being as severely affected as remarriages
(Table 8). Total first marriage rates (Table 9) for both males and females thus
fell to levels which would have been unbelievable only a few years ago (584 for
males and 623 for females in 1991).
In past years, an almost regular decline was noted in rates for younger ages,
which was partially compensated by some increase in rates at later ages, indicating a later age at marriage. In 1991, on the other hand, all rates were on the
decline, with only minor exceptions. This would clearly indicate that to the general downward trend have been added the effects of the economic difficulties
which Canada is experiencing (Tables A3 in the Appendix and figures 2A
and 2B). All provinces again showed a drop in the rate, which had risen slightly
over the preceding three years. Quebec is at an all-time low with a rate of 400 per
1,000 for males and 443 per 1,000 for females, while the eastern provinces which
on the whole had the lowest rates also had the largest percentage declines.
— 29 —
-5
0 en NN 00N VI V VI VD VD CO VD V 00 V1 V 00 00 •-■ •-, sO V est ses
....!
'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
•
•
'
•
"
•
'
gs rs- s 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 V 4 4 4' 4 4
.2
0)
U
C
Number
Number andProportion o f
Remarriages in whichboth
Spouses had been
Previously Married
CO
se
O N os m se Si2 •-• Q •-, 7, 00 n1Qes1Q000nen0OstiOsVi
N 0 N Os en sO CA 0 en as N as a o N sr en 00 N en N N vs N Os
oleel en. - ■ o s kb Vs oc....0vt.-. 00 VD Nr ,i .0. 0 — 00 — .,., 00 s s
,... 00 — e.i. <Sr en 4 Vs n e- a; ceS a: 0 .-, -• (4 ....; ei ni NS Nd n. b 1,1
N N N N N N N N N N N N
"0
CO
U
"0
C
O
00
oN
rH
rl
'0
CO
.
L
Number and Proportion of
Marriages in which at least
one Spouse had bee n
Previously Married
v-I
2
en en •-• ON SO 00 .. sO V •-■ Os Ch n vs vs -. Os CT I.-. 0 0 00 t•-• eV en
S
NN
,...i
.,;
1
‘,5 s.c;
N
007 — en en 4 ..; s.6 N ed 06 c,4 c,; 6 en N N ni ni
N N N N N N N N N N N en en en en en en
0
td
C
r.
0
.0
§
Z
C
n en V eil 00 el n en 0 00 0 V Os § 0 Os es1 SO e4 00 SO vs sO en 00
-. en Os n Os 00
Sp_ 0
Vs vs
•a• n .o. ...., .0 n ,o No
as n
o
7. -..". °'
_ "R vi ° °I "1 ° N N e n.
en v". el. 7 `9 w'.. ^ '9. riNen. vl.
0 .-. 1-: Os •- ■ en sO Os eV en V sO 00
N NI en v-t vr ev
e4 Q vs
N N N N en en en en V NI. V. V V v vs vs vs vs vs vs so sO VD so vs
E
4,1
4
00
0.4
Eg
Z
eA
2
tso N
Males
CO
Number o f
First Marriages
L.
Females
0)
oo
00 eng.-, e4 v1v1h. ne•IVS0e400 sO vloohooriv tme4Oso
00 Go
el t... v-, en a
00 •-■ 0 el sO Q. .-. eV eV V V vs Vv I-- sO V 0 ... --. -. ca0 V 0000 Os as vi OD Ch UN 1... *II en Os N en ers
...: NS ni' R o: R •:.? ni c.6' R NO 4 4 NO mi' (4 R R Nd a 0; .4 . NO (,-; (.4
..., (r, No No No n N N No 4, (.1 u-■ 4.1 (n ...■ v..■ ..:4- .o. NI- en en V V V en
0 eE
CO Os
•() E
(4*
b
en 0, en N a N, 00 N OS SO V •- ■ 00 00 Os Q V Os ers V s 0 en n SO
000 en SO
en vs N es1 n Q 00 en en n .--. so n Q sO vs ers en en ON
00. en 00 N
vs en s. 0b ..., 00 N — a, .0. a, s.g 0 ...s. a, N . a,
— p: (...h...:, .s ,... N ,.... ...; .0, —. e. .0,
4:i.,. ..i. •or r: 00...; (...7 —
vi kel VD VD so N N N so v-■ vl vs vl vl tel vt Mr v v en en V' <I. V en
„Lcr,
'0 *4
co v.)
tu
"
b0
CI co
0
Z
"""
en.
• 000
Number o f
Marriages
.0
•‘41
fO
in
U
Os sO en 00 V 0 so V vs .I. ....t (..) - cp. est Q vs I-- sO CO -. 01 00 -..
n so 00 es1 esi n so N 0.0 v •cs• N -. 1/40 00 SO N ON Os •-, vs N
en vl
00 N .-+ V en V 0 00 en 00 en vs 000 0 en SO vs 0 ses -. n
NN
vc .-, (4 ot; .-. o cr; oc; n Nd R (di R .... Q ocT •.:1 (r; .to" (r ■ ni R go R (.4.
N
,,a ,.... 00 00 a, . as a, 0., 00 00 00 00 a, a, 00 00
00 00
N
00 00 .,
00 t....
."
•
6-
C
U .0
L
..•
>•*
as
0 .-. N en V vs sO N 00 as 0-. N en V vs sO N 00 Os 0-+
■0 ■0 VI hhhhhhhhh oo ^
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oN Cn
CA Os as
as Os Os Os Os Os 0411 cf, ON Os Os Os Os Os CA O'N ON Os ON CT T
O
N
pp
O
N
O
Gn
- 30 -
Figure 2A
Age-specific First Marriage Rates for Recent Cohorts,
Males, Canada
Rate per 10,000
1.300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
17 19 21 23 25
27
29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45
Age
Source:
Table A2.
1991 Nuptiality Table
As discussed in previous reports, 3 the total rate, by its very construction,
contains weaknesses that do not affect the marriage table which uses as the
denominator of the rates on which it is based only the population at risk.
Although this does not give it a predictive value, it is more effective than the
total marriage rate 3 in showing the behaviour of a fictitious cohort that at each
age followed the propensity to marry for the year in question. It was possible
to calculate the 1991 first marriage table using the census which counted the
3
1991 Report and Marriage and Conjugal Life in Canada.
-
31
-
Figure 2B
Age-specific First Marriage Rates for Recent Cohorts,
Females, Canada
Rate per 10,000
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45
Age
Source: Table A2.
number of people never legally married forming the denominator of rates 4
(tables 10A and 10B). This table indicates that, at the observed marriage rate,
of 100,000 never-married 15 year-old women, 23,279 will still be unmarried at
age 50, and of 100,000 men, 27,706 will not have married by that age. The
comparison with previous tables shows how rapidly the institution is falling into
disfavour. Quite recently, in 1976, the number of never-married individuals was
8,137 for males and 7,244 for females (Table 11).
4
Figures have not been adjusted for net under-enumeration. Consequently, marriage rates may
well be slightly over-estimated, particularly for the 20 year-olds, resulting in an under-estimate
of never-married persons.
ti
•-■
csi
NO
C
T
oo
IN
en
Os
%
v,
N.
en
kr%
t•-•
N
V,
sO
N
CO
s0
•-•
Op
•et•
Males
Os
SO
ei
Os
Cr,
SO
4,41
NO vl
NO
sO t•-•
4.0
N
1..
en
CIO
Females
a.,
Males 1 Females
- 32 -
00
h
VI
S
§
va
set
..,
ell
0
N
sO
4/1
O
N
vi
SO
1
1.:
en
-4
SO
e41
en
■B.
SO
VD
en
eel
en
N
en
r444
en
m
•:,
00
en
e444
V)
Os
N
t--
.s.
oo
g
SO
kr)
041,
eN
00
vs
SO
0
VI
sa
en
sO
3
Females
CO
OS
0
0.)
3
sO
Os
VD
t-■
sp
0
en
un
N
t•-•
1
et
Os
h
et'
0
r■
h
N
N
I,s0
•-•
h
.7
h
N
SO
•-•
0
h
h
Tr
vs
00
as
en
INSO
en
•-•
en
N
a,
1-1
ON
ON
eH
SO
s0
en
en
Os
SO
'0
so
N
ON
tel
N
'C
en
en
SID
..
eel
ti
eA
t■
h
0
ree
ON
co
sa
en
cn
r„.
*et
00
sO
e.
40
vr
t-N
N
h
41
SO
en
SID
":1*
en
NO
h
40'
N
0
4-4
h
--.
4-4
I--
00
op
•ar
s0
N
•-•
Q
N
,
...
,
h
Males
0
ON
00
ON
.-.
SO
as
NO
Females
ON
Males
0
00
4.1
2
00
00
as
--,
or
os
Ge)
or
e444
S0
o0
s0
ON
NO
41
SO
h
t...s0
eel
.en
Nt
t•-••
SO
s0
0
7
SD
O.
en
en
0
h
en
h
s0
NO
Os
s0
a
**et
h
eV
•••••
h
NO
en
N
..„
0
h
ON
en
NO
en
4.91
en
Os
4et
N
en
3
en
Os
en
V*
m
h
en
en
--,
..
N
0.
N
.„
en
,O
en
•O•
en
he
NO
VD
rel
SO
h
h
oo
SO
.0)
Females
00
OS
SO
N
0
h
h
CO
SO
ON
en
• -••
0
r■
N
se:II
sO
se
he
ecT
It■
en
V*
OD
SO
h
h
sO
SO
-.
00
en
i
N
en
h
SO
.ri
en
ON
e-,
h
ON
n1
sO
0
0
•••
03
ON
00
SO
0.
0
0.
Males
Os
v.,
ri
SO
• -•
.- t
se:,
NO
OS
Vi
N
en
SO
ON
•cr
V'
00
00
SO
Os
VI
sO
•O
N
NO
en
Q
sO
N
V:,
SO
en
en
s0
as
•el-
en
2
.1.
4-4
NO
SO
0
04
Vi
00
•
cdcd
Province
3
C
1..*
CO
WI
.—,
As
.1D
CY
8
0
=
2
.....
CO
"0
to
1-4
,t,
tu
....
MS
U
DJ
PI
W
1—.
L
1...
0
Cd .■
N
§
Il
=0
u-
a.)
Z
8
0
0
0
7.:
a.
cn
03
>
0
Z
g
CO
u
Z
tu
.0
a.)
0
CY
2
',
ra
0
0
0
0
.0
0
,
*0
e-
tl)
:0
°
ea.
0
tz
2
eb.4
.1
-6
U
d
e
.0
*o
0
T.:
s
>.
a
0
<
<
s)
A
C:1
.n
",!
<
0
<
U
u
z
•<
a.)
00
0:1
00
- 33 -
Table 10A. Male First-Marriage Table, Canada, 1990-1991
Age
Marriages
Population
Single
tx
9x
cx
litx
0.000010
0.000093
0.000396
0.002681
0.007365
0.015586
0.027284
0.042234
0.059053
0.072974
0.083884
0.084927
0.084564
0.080964
0.077681
0.069891
0.064185
0.057733
0.052235
0.046769
0.042275
0.037284
0.033686
0.029752
0.025968
0.022513
0.019582
0.018927
0.016745
0.014823
0.012862
0.010407
0.010931
0.010736
0.009295
0.008064
0.008086
0.006911
0.006993
0.006266
0.006655
100,000
99,999
99,990
99,950
99,682
98,948
97,406
94,748
90,747
85,388
79,157
72,517
66,358
60,746
55,828
51,491
47,893
44,819
42,231
40,025
38,153
36,540
35,178
33,993
32,982
32,125
31,402
30,787
30,204
29,698
29,258
28,882
28,581
28,269
27,965
1
9
40
268
734
1,542
2,658
4,002
5,359
6,231
6,640
6,159
5,612
4,918
4,337
3,599
3,074
2,588
2,206
1,872
1,613
1,362
1,185
1,011
856
723
615
583
506
440
376
301
312
303
260
223
222
188
189
168
178
Males
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Mean age
Median age
Modal age
2
18
74
507
1,406
3,064
5,246
7,688
10,272
12,218
13,739
13,645
12,495
10,788
9,144
7,482
6,008
4,719
3,840
3,035
2,397
1,906
1,505
1,151
909
710
546
467
385
315
226
166
158
144
113
94
85
68
66
56
61
193,075
193,965
186,935
188,820
190,200
195,055
189,650
178,190
168,800
161,320
156,910
153,840
141,510
127,845
113,140
103,305
90,600
79,370
71,585
63,365
55,490
50,155
43,925
38,095
34,550
31,160
27,585
24,440
22,770
21,060
17,420
15,820
14,375
13,295
12,100
11,610
10,470
9,805
9,405
8,830
9,060
28.78
27.45
25.00
0.000010
0.000093
0.000396
0.002685
0.007392
0.015708
0.027661
0.043145
0.060850
0.075738
0.087557
0.088693
0.088298
0.084380
0.080820
0.072421
0.066313
0.059449
0.053636
0.047889
0.043188
0.037992
0.034263
0.030201
0.026310
0.022770
0.019775
0.019108
0.016886
0.014934
0.012945
0.010461
0.010991
0.010794
0.009339
0.008096
0.008118
0.006935
0.007018
0.006285
0.006678
27,706
27,482
27,260
27,072
26,882
26,714
For the 15 to 49 age span.
Sources: Vital Statistics, census and calculations by author.
- 34 -
Table 10B. Female First-Marriage Table, Canada, 1990-1991
Age
Marriages
Population
Single
tx
qx
cx
mx
0.000192
0.001573
0.004398
0.015106
0.027386
0.042598
0.059749
0.076968
0.092778
0.102300
0.106203
0.100862
0.094261
0.084563
0.076255
0.066960
0.057388
0.051897
0.044679
0.040584
0.037000
0.032209
0.026001
0.022819
0.021738
0.018880
0.016221
0.016075
0.012916
0.011518
0.010031
0.010198
0.009426
0.008107
0.007808
0.006427
0.006594
0.006212
0.005060
0.004845
0.004799
100,000
99,981
99,824
99,385
97,883
95,203
91,147
85,701
79,105
71,766
64,424
57,582
51,774
46,894
42,928
39,655
37,000
34,876
33,066
31,589
30,307
29,186
28,246
27,511
26,883
26,299
25,802
25,384
24,976
24,653
24,369
24,125
23,879
23,654
23,462
19
157
439
1,501
2,681
4,055
5,446
6,596
7,339
7,342
6,842
5,808
4,880
3,965
3,273
2,655
2,123
1,810
1,477
1,282
1,121
940
734
628
584
497
419
408
323
284
244
246
225
192
183
150
153
143
116
110
109
Females
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Mean age
Median age
Modal age
35
288
779
2,695
4,920
7,830
10,364
12,252
13,472
13,645
13,205
11,897
9,970
7,978
6,318
5,037
3,822
3,030
2,338
1,896
1,502
1,198
873
662
568
452
353
319
233
195
142
131
111
91
79
60
57
52
39
36
35
182,515
182,650
176,735
177,025
177,195
179,885
168,270
153,050
138,465
126,560
117,730
112,000
100,780
90,355
79,695
72,705
64,680
56,870
51,160
45,770
39,830
36,595
33,120
28,680
25,845
23,715
21,585
19,685
17,885
16,790
14,035
12,780
11,720
11,180
10,015
9,305
8,540
8,345
7,590
7,310
7,275
26.67
25.41
24.00
0.000192
0.001574
0.004408
0.015221
0.027766
0.043525
0.061589
0.080049
0.097292
0.107814
0.112159
0.106219
0.098923
0.088296
0.079277
0.069280
0.059083
0.053279
0.045700
0.041425
0.037698
0.032737
0.026344
0.023082
0.021977
0.019060
0.016354
0.016205
0.013000
0.011584
0.010082
0.010250
0.009471
0.008140
0.007838
0.006448
0.006616
0.006231
0.005072
0.004856
0.004811
23,279
23,129
22,977
22,834
22,718
22,608
For the 15 to 49 age span.
Sources: Vital Statistics, census and calculations by author.
- 35 Table 11. Number of Singles at Age 50 from the First-Marriage Table,
Canada, 1976-1991
Year
1976
1981
1986
1991
Males
8,137
16,042
21,528
27,706
Females
7,244
14,691
19,689
23,279
Source: Statisecs Canada. Marriage and Conjugal Life in Canada, Appendix B, Catalogue
No. 91-534, Jean Dumas and Yves Peron.
Table 12. Singles at Age 501 Mean and Median Ages at First-Marriage, According
to the First-Marriage Table of 1991, Canada and Provinces
Number of Singles
Mean Age
Median Age
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Newfoundland
21,192
19,968
28.18
26.23
27.09
25.21
Prince Edward Island
14,910
13,516
27.89
25.93
26.52
24.99
Nova Scotia
23,371
20,373
28.57
26.63
27.21
25.40
New Brunswick
24,036
20,179
27.82
25.99
26.64
24.84
Quebec
47,579
42,496
29.28
27.31
27.83
25.79
Ontario
19,742
16,229
28.66
26.57
27.39
25.41
Manitoba
23,118
18,878
28.32
26.11
26.95
24.92
Saskatchewan
22,677
18,036
27.82
25.68
26.50
24.45
Alberta
22,887
17,526
28.58
26.30
27.31
25.09
British Columbia
23,865
18,045
28.98
26.74
27.76
25.54
Canada
27,706
23,179
28.78
26.67
27.45
25.41
First-marriage tables cannot be calculated for Yukon and the Northwest Territories due to small
number of marriages. Tables for Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island should be interpretated with care for the same reason.
Source: Author's calculations.
I
- 36 Figure 3
First Marriage Probabilities, Canada (without Quebec)
and Quebec, 1991
Per 1,000
120
Males
100
80
60
40
20
0
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
Age
Per 1,000
120
Females
100
80
60
40
Canada without
20
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
Age
Source: Nuptiality tables calculated by the author from marriages of singles provided
by the Canadian Centre for Health Infomation.
The sensitivity of the marriage rate to the current poor economic situation
certainly does not invalidate the trend, since the decline has been observed for
at least 15 years.
Like total events, the nuptiality table shows differences between provinces
(Table 12). The most noteworthy point is the very high never-married rate in
Quebec. Never-married individuals at age 50 in the table were close to twice as
numerous as those of other provinces and average age at marriage about one
year higher (figures 3 and 4). The second point is an exception: the intensity of
marriage in Prince Edward Island, which was over three times higher than that
of Quebec.
- 37 -
Figure 4
Proportion Remaining Single and Mean Age at First Marriage,
by Province, 1991
Proportion remaining single at age 50 (%)
50
Mean age at first mar iage
30
40
29
30
28
20
27
10
26
25
0
Nfld
P.E.I.
N.S.
N.B.
Que.
Ont.
Man.
Sask.
Alb.
B.C.
Source: Table A8.
Divorce
At the time of this analysis of the demographic situation, detailed figures
for 1991 divorces were not yet available. We know that 77,031 divorce decrees
were handed down, slightly less than in 1990 (78,152). From the standpoint
of life in a legal relationship, the legal system increased the number of unions
by 172,251 (marriages) and deducted close to half (45%) of this figure by
divorce.
- 38 -
BIRTHS AND FERTILITY
Births
The number of births in 1991 (402,481) was down 3,005 from the previous
year (Table A4 in the Appendix), following a steady rise since 1987 (369,742).
This slight decrease was enough to reduce the crude birth rate by a tenth of a
point to 14.2 per 1,000. All provinces with the exception of Ontario and British Columbia and both territories recorded declines. The reason for the increase
in Ontario and the stability in British Columbia is merely a question of the
number of women of child-bearing age, which increased in these two provinces
due to internal and international migration rather than a rise in fertility (see below).
While the number of births declined in Quebec, this was due to first and
second-order births, since higher-order births continued to increase.
In most
of the other provinces, all birth orders were involved in the drop except in
Ontario where fourth and fifth-order births were up by a few hundred. This
observation might lead us to conclude that Quebec government assistance
granted on third and subsequent births has been successful; however, preliminary data indicate that the number of births in 1992 was down. The few hundred more births in Ontario are no doubt due to the fact that Ontario has more
female immigrants than the rest of the country.
Fertility
Not unexpectedly, the new population estimates place fertility and total fertility rates at lower levels than those published in previous years, however, there
is no change in trends and comparisons (Table 13). During the past 11 years,
the level of fertility in period rates was lowest in 1987 for both Quebec and the
rest of Canada. The only noteworthy difference is the level of 1.37 children per
woman in Quebec, down from 1.42 and 1.65 for the rest of Canada instead
of 1.74. The period fertility rate was lower than previously estimated, as was
the cumulative fertility of birth cohorts.
The year 1991, not surprisingly, showed a lower T.F.R. than 1990 for all of
Canada with the exception of Quebec. The slight decline affected first, second
and third-order births, while in Quebec the increase in fertility, although also
slight, affected all orders and the total rate thus continued to rise. As with births,
however, we are already certain that the Quebec rate was down in 1992.
Fertility in the 35-39 age group for Canada as a whole has been rising for the
past 11 years. The rate for those 30-34 dipped slightly in the rest of Canada after
a significant and sustained increase for at least 10 years and continued to increase
in Quebec, although remaining at a much lower level than in the rest of Canada.
Fertility rates for those 20-24 in the rest of Canada were still down, losing 23%
over 11 years. These observations could lead us to conclude that child-bearing
is occurring increasingly later.
- 39 -
Figure 5
Distribution of the Birth Index by
Day of the Week,
Canada, 1977-1990
1.15
Wednesday
Tuesday
Thursday
1.10
1.05
It is less simple than in the case
of marriages to attribute the slight
decline to hard economic times,
since fertility is less subject to very
rapid changes than nuptiality,
particularly when levels are very
low. We may nevertheless reasonably assume that births were at
least deferred due to lower than
expected income levels for many
couples.
Friday
Birth Under Control
1.00
Monday
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1977
1980
1983
1986
1990
Source: Vital Statistics, unpublished data.
Practitioners have known for
some time how to induce delivery
in a woman whose baby is ready
to be born. 5 With this knowledge,
the birth of a child is increasingly
a social event, with more and
more births being induced as time
goes by to satisfy the wishes of the
mother, the family... or the
obstetrician. As a result, instead
of births being uniformly distributed throughout the week, examination of the statistics shows that
fewer and fewer births take place
on weekends (Figure 5).
Abortion
Abortion was up slightly in
1991 (95,059) over 1990 (92,901), an increase of 2,158, while births were down
by 3,005, from 405,486 to 402,481. If there was a direct relation between births
and abortion, we might say that we should have expected 92,213 abortions. The
link is far from being direct, however. The fact remains that, all other things
being equal, abortion appears to be gaining ground slightly over contraception.
We should bear in mind that the number of known abortions has never coincided
with the actual number of abortions. This increase in legal abortions was due
to the increase in abortions carried out in clinics (23,343 in 1991 compared to
20,236 in 1990). This increase in turn was predictable given the fact that the
number of clinics is increasing and so consequently is access to abortion itself.
Abortions in hospitals, on the other hand, were down from 71,069 to 70,262.
5
Gestation time is nothing more than a statistical measurement based on rather vague information.
-40-
TotalFertility Rate
co
'C
Teen 0
"' ,3
... rn
g 0000
l
t t o3o .N
.:.. h. . . "
I
nt P
al 5"....
,c< g .1
6
.1 4
- ,0
m
.e‘ .....-,
I ia,
n
.-.
e: rn
f. 4:1;'' *
N
4 n ..*'' 4.".1. 2243
a t°" e..
N
v
" 41. N
9
: . . '.-n
4. 0
-I c'
1... 1-... t-: r.: 1.-: 4:i. sc! IN: I-: v.: r.: 41 ..., tn un tr, ..-1 kr. u.., ...) 01 v., el el el el et el el el et ei el
000oe oeoczoo OOOOdocidcdOd oododededoo
]
gi ,i,. c, gl tr.:ti
. fa r.2
00 i 7.4 Qv ‘6,,,z e6 ,,,:: ::.,t Fs. ...... i 1. 2 ; A
1 A (74 ros r....,
il.:
3
en sa• A t- t- t- co tr: co co t- alo as oo
..,t-:-F.,0«,0,
- t....
a g -0,-.0
«... t-,
4::! IN:
I-, p tn r *el v.., .., .., w, 'el.., 0 .e,
go
00000000000 60666666666
00 ..., ..-■ ......,
,r,
<7, .14., .-. <7.
'6 .5
2 rnt A cj.,, g r.: ....
12;i. 8 r. iv.
c4 6 qun
0 GC
e4
.1 4.9
4 QP
.el un
4n SR
re 3
2:3
.le...,..
.,, ., VOcn ON ON
VD No. 4D 4D VD NV f... f.: f.: 1,.
N
0'
41 4n vn
Ml a
el el pi e., c4 ei el ei pt el, el
00066000600
gerisl.ig..2r,s, 3 Lei_ pr.;
-,
co co P. 4:3 .r. 21° 10 g g
ci
00600060000 OOOOOOOOOOci 06666666660
....
e i
t g
cg L)
4
&
=
0 1g
35-39
V
S? SI S4 3 ZIA SR g : O2 St ER S2 3 g iv- 7.= SS 2;,' t1 2 g '..T. 5S SO 5R t3 g g g 2g 2R al St
c5 c5 6
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
ci c5 <5 c5 6 c5 c5 -4 -4 -4 -4
c5 c5 6
.
I, ri 00 01 ta.- 4 :2 gg 003 ;-^.
0000000000o
8-1 $3 zel Zi-5 S-,' 1.43 ZD' S2 r-‘ 01. 01
.1 r, 7, .r.-, .7,* 7 r,-, .74 ro' 0N4
/g.,17,1t iva
AV, 8
pc) co s A p...., v2 o, yet. 3e,11 . n 4
tee....s A 4 53 a
.0 ‘6:5 wii P.:
.04 .4 mi P: P. g. co os O. 6 0
4 te, 0..; ..-; ..; so sc; No P
21
30-34
:SA
g u
8
... ... vl C4 Vn ... en
00 c4
... NO CK CK c.
'-' e.. el....? r: " q e- q 0: c°.
‘1) vn
4,n , ..r.
kri
NO VD
t■ c■ c-
N N
r■ 00 C.. -. YD 0 00 6 ..:. -. 4
-) .-!! .-: el -.1 oc.
, r.oneernceen
-
el
,rnronsn
-1 ? F.; g g g: r.- g r, p,, $ :A 3 :7 :74
3 El 4 4 A 4 3 V. ".:4 V.A r. 1 t-,,- r:, 1.-- r-00 cts 6 --: .. ei pi e.; .., ,e:; 'C P. 1.- P. t-. P: g o:. oci
-;•.i:
..;AIN
sZ
,2■ RR...;‘,
-. c.3
-. -.
N oc
ol oc
N N oc en en en en en en
Jo oo yo . . ,o eq 41 eit so
el `":: °` °° `1' 'e
1: '''' el
vi, r- 06 a: ....i Nt:
so .4 ..0 ..4
C4
CY
,. al
0 'a
t
25-29
et (NI
'1' '1 'N C. a': "r '4 e-: 77: '4
. _' el
en en en en en et et et .n wel VD
ao
f
0
g
g o
.o
.
=
0'
,...
°I
I3' g
,4 t)
23
'4
0
a
,g0
t' g
0,
-. ...
el
.-
0
.6, r..1 ;.: .,. o6o 'A A
pp
ni v.; 00
i 00 00 vi vi
en el
N
<5 6 cS <5 <5 6 6
6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
IX (..)
CY
6
04 0
el el
C4 el en NO en 4, ... ,et
et
'C' .400 r C: q e' -' 4? n ^'
Is: tr; trl ,,q ,..c vl vi I-: co -, e
C4 C4 et cv et et et C4 C4 rn en
00 en C4 ON t■ 40 ... 00 YD et et
'n s'? q e" -:
4? -' c'e ^' P..
1000 en en ei .-, ei oei vi vl
f2 ER
..-.. 06
2g :t 7.. 22 4 S4 '..e. LI; f: C5 Y! PI ;4 1 ;i! en p. g ..; 4 S g 4 4 :i. T. ;;:! A $ t: 1.-:
cei ca: ce: g r. a: o• i ci.
4 4 4 .4 4. 4 4 4 ...,.........,
e.: Ao: so I.: t-: r- .0 4 4 4 .4 a: os cr. c.: o.: 04 oe. eti t-: p:
444444 •ernr-crn•ce
v
1..... 1 ec.,7 s rz cep 0... 4 Ao,
psi 8 A, ;.,..z ...., ER
..;040,040,44 0 .4,-.
ci ..:
4, et et et et et 41 4, 4, NO 4D
to
6 &o, ,.74 * :..,.... A s ...,-; s ,..8 s, .t. :...,- 2 s, 48,
Cl ce: p: GO p: 01 e.4 en v.; oc; oc:
Un et et et et et et et et et et
t...: ..e; 0000 ei en N pi 0.■ w.., ..,
PNIWSIZZIICISS AZS`,°,464FAGSS .Nn gl'SV.P-4"A'R.?.."`Og
.6 .6 .6 .-: r. r- r- 1.-: rzt-- NO
•-+ 6 6 ce■ co le.: ....: ...; .., 4
et
e4 -.: ct: P. 411 ei e4 wl 4,4 ,•4 en
4, vn 4n et et It et et et et et
en .., c4 e4 e4e4 C4 C4 CI
,.. N v. . 3,..t eg t. N .1 oe en
P.. o' 7 4:: ci: aq ,"1 ei t".. q ei
nt rj --, op V VD v-; oo 0 en ev
0,0% , ,r,
v't kr. .rt .3. er ..1. nt
3.0
*
on
so 00 00 en en pi 4 N C' en
'7' n °'? `I wl ^. '-' '''' 4° e- -1
ei et
es
co 04 ct; e ... c4
C4 C4 C4 C4 •-• es ... et C4 el
-. 0 x en en 4:, g .... co os -.
'4'. '..".) ..° 4:' '''' .'n .e. " '''. .4
4 4 re; re; re; WI re; re; 4 mi. et,
;,.. ;F., v..., ?:,:„ 4 r.:2 9 1.2 .r4 ost 00N -. 000 ' 0-.0.1 4,4,44,4,444.42,7,
..-; -a v, 4 4 4
4 4 «4 «; -et- ci
a ei ei e;
C4 ft C4 C4 et
1000 4
Nt 00 t- Ch 00 t.- el co 4, 4; en
oo oo .4 en co as •o: ON CO 414 Ch
C4 Ch et CA en .■-■ 4D 00 en
YD vl 41 41 VD ‘o co p.. C.
et et C4 el C4
00000000000
NN
....
ij
.0
V
=
ei pi et pi Pi ei
en
ee e
r- a.
.0
ci, O O 6 O O c; 6 ci, <6 O
O
C
C
ep ee
C4 •-•
NN
e; 4 .-; 4
et
co vs co oo 00 C4
el •-• -.
0'
CO U
ch cp.
S2 S2 St S2 SS SS OS gg ER a:
S2
2g S2 SS gS SS St ER E; SS
g2 S2 2g S2 SO SS SS gg Eg CS SS
ON Ch CT Ch CA Ch Ch CK ch
Ces Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch ON Ch Ch Ch
Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Os Ch Ch cn on
1-4
b
... 'El
55 0
OC
,...,
N
en
- 41 -
Total Fertility Rate
"A
g
U
r; .1
NN 2T8 1 12 9 4 P' go., g., v PI 'A g 4' r,,
G (4 zr, 6 Fi c.;,' .7-; rz: 0O
6 8 6 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 V.2 2 t;:l ,T,' 0-1 .7,. 2 8 g: s8
66666666666 00000000000
•
., 8 go, g (el & a f;n:,
. ,;,,, a; .... .,:2 ,7,1 .-. 00 yR
en 0 0 „..., re. - 2* re. 2,,
8 ?.... 4,d, ...., ,c,,, til .V.,
88
g8882222 s'aa L-3.§,5,"°,2,%.,2sgg..,-:
q
.
.
.
.
' • • *4
6066066600o 66660000066
6 ee 6 6 fie, 6 6 6 0
8
txt)
..ii
cy
en h h eJ V V We VD vl .17
. . ei V S .0
0 h We V 0 •-e en eel 0 ? •- ■ s2 r...;
...,hi.. 1.- v 40
gl .g
?„,
A R.N
- ,0..14
''''4 en. te`i en 7.1.
8883
ogg 9R
o Lt.
o'. A00000000000
.a ch
. . . 4'. ".
..
.^ gl
. 4.^4
en
. 8en ;41. v.,
se •o.
00666606600 00000000000
41 ...
.4...Z.
..- 4
9hhenntOse0.0eNOVI■
40-44
a g
04U
en-eenenhen.-,cceenhON Nenaes0.47.100.-4.-..-.
.", V V Y en nt "er ,t en en V 0% Os h N st0 We h e0 SO SO en hi .-. 0 e N en so. a, .... NO
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 (..; (.4 (.-; (•; (..; (..; (.; (.; 4 77
C
t
it
(4
0
a
..,,.
,44 ,
en e.. en en en en en e.. .-, 0n ce, en SO et 0. en Ces et h Co en en NO h Os h eV CA RI
et en en ei en en V en en en en en se en en en en "or en en en We en nt V .-• V en 00 h 03 oy!
0 6 6 a 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 e.i e..i r.. r.; e.i (...; c.i e. esi 4.4 <4
CY
e.... 5,1
O 1
t
I
g U
0,
.4.,
8,9Pg3.1.266 - q 53:;;PAN8 0" -05,111.1 4,13SgPIZAZSg1S N N N N N N N Nei re; r; ri N N ri Ni Ni ri ri ri N re o+ c:i .- re en ei 4r; N 05 a:
.§
.....
1.7,3 gl 2 ,v.: 2 g 43 F., 43 g .-
7
0'
N Ni
..-• OI
O 0
30-34
'6 g
04 U
.§
°
A
0'
..- g
O CS
7
,3 C
0,
14
VI
N
N
,,,,g pg 2 2 / W
7
,o, a, Ice ,4,. glalcesq, 1, 34 el 03 010
•
.4
(4
°1
A
t‘l 14
•0
0
S 0% LI VO * 'ON glt.":: 2 2, 9 8 ZS' * at rS
c% S,' 8 g 5".1 A A t9. 4 F.' "' «,' N t2
w.; ..; v; ..,-; ...; 0; v.. w., ms .. ,.; ,-; , N N N N r4 ,..; ei ,...; .0.
c,4 rsi 0-; . N ac;
ci ,.. ,,,s v..,
wo SO Iss N N 1.-•
tss 00 00 00 00
tss OS Os it 00 .-. Os It. VI Vs 00 VI el . Os en en 00 h. •-• Q .-. eV
.4. '-' C° ..° .4. '''' '''' Q9 4) Cil '''' w‘ .^ 'n '1. '1 el 7! el `! 'el sc.'
.4: 4 (.4 , •; (•.. (.; (..; (4 (.4 (.4 4
•
0
00 "et .011. en hl It en 0 IQ eIj2 en
7 7 el l'l " r: "" " .'' '"'
•
SO
0 44 4. Ni ce; 4-; p:
NO NO , WI NO NO I". N
C
0000
..-. .v. ,.., v, ,.., v. ,....
el 0,
el Cl .-I el el .-M: CP: C‘l e... 4::
en V, an an an an an st N I V at
A
es Os NO V, 101 •-• WI •-• VD •-• 'Cf.
'C'. C.'l
as el .., 5.1 01 *el 1.4 N N P. N
e'9 "e! °". ee! c'e' ": ". 010' 7 cm! `4! 7! el r: '7! "1 7. r: sc.
zO
-. •-• •-• en en -. ON Os Vs .0 h
hi (V hl hl 44 eq .-. e. .-. el .-.
e, 4., r.. ..., neen.-.000% mei h
Os 00 h • e) V en N v en h N
NN
"
NN
„.; " ,i N N „.;
as a, tn co N et re N 'CO en re oo enVQQ0-.00 W
h h We W we W.. we sO h h 00 We en -. en 00 ,a9 mg en N Os h;
00666066006 r...r.vi.,;(..;.0.:(•;6r..: oo
0 .-. re re el
N
CY
t
4- 0
O
cr■ . CO el 0
c; .. • ...• ee .-. N N se) co ,r; N ri ao 0+ N ee;
N
ce 0
kt
6
•-• h7 1,1 eV hl hl est n7 hi eV en
en
,.,„
cow .,.1.....
rn
st. A 4. 5 4 rn"' 4•n:. 'nc . ' ^' ' ,Pn . P ,"" ' m"
, ., 7-. `,' •' ' , 7
.4- 4 v.
" ' N O e'l 'n
":.' 8 E r'.t : 'Pi "4 2 m
r•:
SO
66666666060 4: 4 - a c ,
■ r- I.-
py co oo cr cc;
Os Cn Os 00 co cc h h r-
1,4U
b
y
u
.0
8
..., .0 -
N. oo 0 et oo 41 -.
hl 0 h. 00(Z)
tZe
•-. Z en `t V
en en en at. .7 /I) , /I) r. C19 el
-■ ... .-4 1D.
pimp .-1 ppl -• .-s ..
0000 0 000000 66660666666
0'
en
r.: set Os
oo
2 ,,,,, ..* ‘.0 m
r
o, %.
en hl ON
- , sci C/ a+
oo NNNN co ,o N N co F.
,...6p.:4- 0. oe;
•c,
0 "g
t
IX U
g
a,
0%
.....
kt
J3
8
82288288'888 388868688 00 sc.°0 6 6 M r. 4 ga 3
r4
e`
00066060060 06660606606 ce: a: cti N 45 ...: 4 ..-; sci r oti
N N N N N N N N N N N
CR
." c" ?
- . 0'
7 "
0. "
0.' zi e?
" 0
".
07 8 07 000
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 07 6.
- 4 '''
2. S '2. 2 c"
.2. c"e. v
O.'. cro "
0. '0
c. e4'
ci ci O O ci O 0 ci 4 4 4 4 4 . 4 w, ..-; N oo T-
00000000060
Z
C g
U
O'
r,
vouroare,„ sseagg c. 7., ..-8 g 2 a 4,2 cl cre, gg oc)::., g .6. Eg vo maneoetzgoo rog,.5, P4
4)
>"
..s ch as CI, Cn CT Os
..9
.Tsb
i0 a
...
Os Os CT Os CT ON CT ON Os ON OS Ch Os Os OS Os Os Os Os Os Cn Os 0,2, CA Os
+
4/1
E.
_. v
6'
Q
O
rn
;73. P.
as
o
- 42 -
MORTALITY
1990 Life Table
Over time, a number of techniques have been developed for drawing up life
tables, all of which adhere strictly to the same principle, using various statistical
refinements. Notwithstanding slight differences in the figures obtained depending
on the method chosen, when the same method is used consistently for a given
population, comparisons over time provide the desired information on changes
in the various parameters.
For the time being, the data shown in the Report on the Demographic
Situation in Canada come from the table constructed using the same method
over many years. 6 The accounts for deaths remain unquestioned, and all that
has varied are the estimates of population by age. In the next report a new series
of tables will be presented covering the period since 1971, although no significant variances are anticipated with the old tables. For the time being, if we merely
compare the preliminary table for 1990 without the deaths for 1991 and that
which includes the 1991 deaths now available, we can see that, for both males
and females, the 1990 preliminary table was a little optimistic. For 1991, we
obviously have only the preliminary table, and the minimal gain in life expectancies may not be real (table A6). According to Table 14, we must conclude
that the 1980s were the second best decade since 1921 for gains by males. For
females on the other hand, never since the 1920s have gains been so low, making
it the first decade during which males gained more ground than females.
According to the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO),
Canada ranks eighth for male life expectancy at birth, 2.6 years behind Japan.
For females, Canada is in fifth place, 1.9 years behind Japan which held first
place for both sexes.
Table 14. Gain in Life Expectancy (in years) by Decade, Canada, 1921-1991
Decade
Sex
19211931
19311941
19411951
19511961
19611971
19711981
19811991
Males
1.16
1.73
3.36
2.04
0.96
2.48
Females
1.45
4.25
4.59
3.36
2.19
2.60
2.71
1.66
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Health Information, D. Nagnur, Longevity and
Historical Life Tables, 1921-1981, Canada and Provinces.
6
Silins, J. et W. Zayachkowski. Canadian abridged life table, 1961-1963, Health and Welfare
Technical Report No. 1. Statistics Canada, Vital Statistics Section, 1966.
- 43 -
Table 15. Cause-Specific Mortality Rate by Diseases of the Circulatory System
and by Tumors, by Sex, Canada, 19694991 1
Year
Diseases of
the Circulatory
System`
Ischemic
Heart
,
Diseases'
Cerebrovascular
Tumors
and
Diseases4
Cancers5
74.41
73.57
72.45
73.58
71.00
70.39
67.49
64.17
61.21
58.69
56.50
53.49
51.36
48.09
45.33
43.98
41.77
40.45
39.61
37.90
38.44
37.00
36.22
169.37
173.73
175.32
177.02
178.25
175.70
179.32
178.57
182.40
182.87
183.52
183.25
187.67
185.37
183.82
186.76
90.58
87.32
86.41
86.31
81.73
81.81
79.46
74.45
69.92
66.12
64.85
61.87
59.65
57.13
54.02
50.98
49.98
49.67
46.24
46.40
45.10
41.68
42.20
132.30
134.77
134.83
137.49
135.88
136.40
136.71
136.80
139.19
142.22
142.40
142.60
143.53
141.71
141.82
143.87
Males
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
438.47
431.50
423.36
425.73
419.72
420.32
404.52
400.27
398.39
374.85
362.97
354.56
340.03
333.28
320.20
306.12
298.76
291.37
275.09
268.41
258.51
239.49
238.39
299.14
297.73
289.09
289.79
284.53
285.07
274.18
271.66
266.14
253.05
237.96
232.80
224.87
218.93
209.96
200.68
195.73
188.44
179.17
174.32
165.15
151.71
149.90
Females
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
363.54
351.71
342.54
341.65
335.05
332.95
318.28
309.05
298.59
289.00
278.88
277.09
263.16
259.87
247.29
239.43
233.61
230.55
216.41
211.94
203.25
191.57
192.14
204.35
200.24
192.24
191.55
190.07
190.05
178.17
174.28
169.11
164.90
151.93
150.92
143.52
141.57
133.93
131.70
125.74
124.51
117.74
113.78
108.10
102.71
101.91
Rate per 100,000, standardized using the 1976 Canadian population age structure.
2 Causes 390-459, 9th Revision of the ICD.
3 Causes 410-414, 9th Revision of the ICD.
4
Causes 430-438, 9th Revision of the ICD.
Causes 140-239, 9th Revision of the ICD.
Source: Data from Canadian Centre for Health Information, Catalogue Nos. 82-003 and 84-203
and calculations made by the Demography Division.
5
- 44 -
For males, and excluding Japan, the following countries ranked ahead of
Canada: Hong Kong, Greece, Sweden, Switzerland, Israel and the Netherlands,
and for females, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
Major Causes of Death
In the modern world, mortality is the demographic phenomenon that shows
the greatest inertia. Although we are never totally guaranteed that mortality will
not rise again, populations are slowly, with time, gaining ground against death.
After combating microbial disease, preventive and curative medicine has since
the 1960s marked unexpected success against cardio-vascular disease, which had
been rising steadily since the turn of the century. Adjusted rates for these causes
of death continued to decline, although gains over the past year were smaller
for males and up only slightly for females (Table 15).
Although progress in the fight against premature death due to cardio-vascular
disease will no doubt begin to slow down, it is anticipated that only advances
made in the fight against cancer would mark a stage in the increase in life expectancy. Although still in second place in causes of death, cancers seem destined
to increase still more (Table 15). A thorough discussion of the situation would,
however, require an analysis beyond the framework of this annual review. We
must reiterate that, despite the increase in cancer death rates, the fight has not
been in vain. The gains made in combatting other causes of death, and in
particular cardio-vascular disease, mask the more modest gains against cancer.
Mortality due to traffic accidents remained stationary (Table 16).
The Impact of AIDS
For five years now, deaths of HIV-positive individuals have been clearly
identified in the causes of death listed in the 9th revision (still in use) of the WHO
classification. This disease, which has claimed a considerable number of victims
world-wide, has not spared Canada, but it is not yet counted as one of the major
causes of death in this country (Table 17). Although the number of victims has
increased by 102% in the five-year period, the annual total number of deaths
is still only 1,062 (0.5% of total). No change has been observed in the overall
distribution of victims by age and sex. The overwhelming majority in 1991 were
men in the 30-44 age group (70% of the 1,004 male victims), while there was
a marginal increase in the number of female victims (total of 58 compared to
45 in 1990). We should, however, expect an increase in deaths in the coming
years, since a large number of people are infected, and their risk of developing
the disease is high, even though the latency period is long.
How Does Canada Rank for Major Causes of Death?
Two researchers with the Polish Demographic Society (Krystyna Drzewienieka
and Kamiriez Dzienio) have undertaken to standardize death rates due to cardiovascular disease and cancers in order to rank certain industrialized countries
— 45 —
I.
N
et
et
en
...
N00
00
-.
N
le)
,C1
e•0
X
en
lel
N
en
?e,4..i
.901
en
et
r.T.,
en
et
en
N
.-.
en
e-e$
00
N
lee
00
en
et,
00
n
:4
A
gi
l
te
00
Ile
00
Os
et)
00
en
et
..,,, rcio#,A
00
.•
I....
IN
CO
Ch
0
....
N
.-.
00
.-e
N
....
Cte
00
et
en
et
et
A
r-
:,....14
eil
GO
en
ON
CO
00
N
a
•-•
Vl
Vi
SO
V1
ON
0
.....
0
en
.O
to
OS
1 989I
X
N
0
o.,,
.0 .,,, .0.
N'
0
2
,D •o N — ..-,
en
en
ere
N
e-e
N
00
..
YID
..
eel
.....
N
—,
0
N
N
N
Os
N
et
en
N
en
4.n
et
en
N
en
00
00
Y:e
l0
te
VD
•-•
ON
0
SO
•-+
•-,
VI
•-•
N
N
'I
••
0,
fle
X
VD
eel
Tt
,t
MD
.-.
N
...1
0.
..
VI
t"--
ee # I 7,,,.. n A
00
40
Sn
SO
ON
OS
r:i
g
F.
r,s
en
(V
NO
.1
VI
Is.
CO
0
.-.
0,
ON
en
NO
CO
NO
fst
OS
0
E
O
.0
E
1987
0.
SO
.-.
en
.-•
ON
00
00
2
0
0
X
MI
NO
rs
ON
4
.;::
e,::
A 01 ,o ir,. r. 00 A 414.
A
A
#
en
et
eel
st
NO
.-,
N
e-e
ae
1.....‘000
le,
Cee
vl
eel
as
VI
SO
co # #
g4.e
f.1
g r- •z v., ,,:,.. vl . r..4, 74 .., r...,
N
00
N
00
0
Os
e•e
ON
•-•
0
•■1
N
g 1, g g r
•et
e.n
g r - .?,o, ,-....‘ n 4,
,
N
ON
NO
00
ON
0,
see
CO
N
00
0
—*en
't
eel
as
et
eeD
en
2
,0-
co
4.
v., ...,
eCe
en
r.
1....
:7,1
eel
en
N
v.
•■1
1 985
IL
.....
.-,
CO
00
CO
...
N
en
Os
•0
.0
Cr.
VI
en
tee
•
e.I
..
A
eV
0
a,
OS
a,
# ors N N
a,
a,
r.
00 00 00 r„ ,r1 tr...
.,Tr. 51t,
se,
ree
e.0
cre
a,
•- ■
....
co
0
.n
.1
Ch
00
a, I rn- ,r4 A Fr 74
.-,
a,
00
a,
r-
7,,
re., f..4
.4,.
Is.
is
OS
.--.
V'
Ir•-•
V'
CO
en
tee
00
.0.
en
et
2
4-1
0,
r.0.
..s.
,o •c ,0
.-.
X
...
en
.-■
Cee
co
0
ON
1 983
14
C
N
— a,
.-•
N
ON
CO
-5
NO
F.)
ON
1982
•tt
co
SO
X
en
ee0
0
.-. co
v. •-.
oe, en
, N
..... 00
.-•
N eel)
N
N
I.....
0
14
IN
•-•
•-•
N
00
N
N
en
vn 00
V'
'O.
N
en
8g
N
os
V.
ch
en
00
V,
ivi
en
ON
en
N
N
N
4,
a g F.,. n ...7,
en
4:,
X
•-•
"
'''',234g134PM r5e4R,v4-
U
--.
f.ON::
a,
VI
4- .c.: 4
§
E
8 2
g
:a a
..0 g
a NJ
—/ ,A, 6
6
,,,
.-•
.-4
NN
,-..i
bb
V;
es4
8.
en
,.; 4 'ii A .5, A sc41 g g A +
.1
en
8
et
8
.71
..
vl
.8
v-,
VD
o
N.
.1
V-
00
00
g
^
. h5"a
4 •-•
1-1
cn
0$
a
g
•• 14 CA
- 46 -
Table 17. Deaths Due to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (H.I.V.)
(Causes 042-044 in the I.C.D.) by Broad Age Groups and Sex,
Canada, 1987-1991
Age Groups
Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Total
Sex
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
0-14
15-29
30-44
45-59
60+
1
5
2
3
3
2
3
1
3
4
85
7
96
10
124
10
108
14
129
15
293
12
361
28
485
20
576
19
698
25
87
8
126
7
164
10
215
7
132
7
22
5
29
9
21
12
35
4
42
7
488
37
614
57
797
54
937
45
1,004
58
Source: Statistics Canada Canadian Centre for Health Information, Causes of Death, Annual.
by using the world population as the standard (tables 18 and 19). For cardiovascular disease, the results show that for the most recent period for which
rates could be calculated (1980-1984), Canada ranked a respectable seventh for
males and females (all ages combined) and ninth for males and females for death
due to the same causes in the 45-64 age group. In terms of progress achieved
since 1960-1964 (decrease of 36.7%), it ranked fourth in importance for both
males and females. Among the leading countries where mortality from these
causes was low we find France, Japan, Greece, Switzerland, the Netherlands
and Iceland.
In terms of deaths from cancers, Canada ranked 1 1 th for males and 15th for
females overall, and 11th for the 45-64 male age group and 18th for the female
group. The situation was much less favourable for cancers of the respiratory
system (19th place for males and 22nd out of 27 for females).
The choice of the world population as the standard population has the
tendency to give to Canada low adjusted rates, given that the world population
is a young population while the diseases analysed are degenerative diseases which
affect mainly older populations. But since the majority of countries in the group
analysed also have relatively old populations, the comparisons remain valid.
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
All 1992 immigrants were admitted under the 1976 law and not C-86, since
it came into effect only in the spring of 1993. The objectives set in 1990 for the
year 1992 (250,000) were reached and even slightly exceeded, since the number
of admissions was 252,842.
o.)
0.
o.)
c>.
aaa
x
a.■-
Ran king
Oh a
..,
: .
el
..,‘ 0 ,,,
-. •- ■ • ■
.1 ea ch g .0 -.. ae.
- : r.-.
.-. -■
• ■ e4 C4
2
0
06 vi y6
,.. 00 en en Ch on ‘t a'0 0.1 el ■C! e4
1...: o. un vs: v3 vn cl: 47 ..
r...:
: 11 .. ts 00
VD o: 46 r.:
0, an P. r4 r- 0.10 P. 0 A ea tt, ch .0
e4
: Met0 0 In
•-,
•-• el
: ... 00 ..n
r - ‘e? 1-. 1- e:e, 0.: .,e, q - ce 4:3 e-.
qb a, .4 ..) 0:.
00 oo ,c; es) -0: en
tt. 0 1 .0 .... 00 es
en 00 p. t- .. oo
: el q c:" e.-. ei
00 0 45 'CO
to ..... -.
: el .e:i oe.,
•-• •-•
--.
.-. or -,
e4 el
e4
ea
: Ch 0 0
li
v.: vi. r
e4 0.. at,
c6
yn
0
e;
r: vi
co
.-, .-..
e4 CC ... et ...
•-. •-•
ei el
8
8
,
0
0
(I)
eL
.5
cx,
Ranking
0.1
AllTypes o fCancer
as
Females
0
A ‘r (.4 cc. rn A
00
Ran king
00
01
0
00
.-. ....- r- .-..
4
Age Group 45-64I
00
13ea
-.t
All Ages
Cancer of
Respiratory System
- 47 -
11
g
r
N
-+ N
en ... c.
N N
...
N N N
.0 .... 00 et N co
at Cet N ne. N 45 Os et
e4 05 ori -c 00 vn t. c.N N 70 c. 0 45
el - CC et en 0101 el evr el 00 en .. r4
• ∎
g 0, - 0,,
.-.
E.4 N N
N
t- 451....
N
- en Itl •-• VD VD ne :
N 00 .., ..o.
r•I
•-■ IN ri •-• N
IV •-,
e? le: et: ei *I
N
...
N m - ;:.1 A !: r...4 A
01 e• Ch C4 N :
: en ••: 4545 en
u4 -. N N 46
.-. ... 0 0 00
'et
00 In en en •Ce
•-• IN •-•
:.1 en .1
o4 yi r.
0000 Ch 45 05
0 6 vi e4 cr:
0
to e4 0
0 •-/
0000
as
o.
0
.5
et
Ran king
E
0
AU Ages
Cancer of
Respiratory System
co
.0 p. 45 an co -. so .0. N et 00 en en ch
.
si0 kel V1 e. CO sO ..e1 ,0 0 e4 et Ch CO N
.. N
N .. N ... ... ... N
N
: en ND 41 N N
... N
N
: -. •• N 0 Ch et e4 0
.. -.
•-• N
: .1 N 0; et 10
: Ct: .1 10
- 0: 00 sn 4::.
.0 P. et .0 el
v ,,.. se
O
8
11
Ix
N ,.; ....: ,,.; vs ,., 0; - v 0 a, 00 'CO
..,-, cc et r... 0-, ,c1 ..e1 vl .1 4-• et .0 el an
r4 .1 or
N et. q r N
-
N
1.- - 00
WI an el VI .1
ca.
a)
5:
as
Age Group 45-64
0
All Types o fCancer
Males
00
..5
C
.0
r4,0r..0Dr..uncr,..00 un ,40-.0.
e4 . • . et . •..
et et . • . e4 ....
N
:etOenetet
...., et
N
•elenvl
•
.-. .-.
00-.40e4e.
...
.-. ..-.
o
.
..s: .... .R .0 yo
t
a Vi 4' OS; st01 Eg 1.'4
tei :5; a .7A 4:; 4
en en en fl en el et en en en N et N e7,
C4
pa
0 0; co 1..- 0; ea ... e4
00
: .0 r`t CR 0 ...
7,4
Pi en re?
;C."
en en N .0 N
:
.cr r- ch
,s0.? ,4:! ers .0.
N 'd N
C5 '' ER 4';
N en en
gi
en WI' N en en
00
=
..17
g
00
E
N 00 .0 et .. gn 0 r, 10 N N
esI
04 et 04 ..-. .-• N N •-• N
.-•
N N
N
: et en SO Ch en
,-, el
.....
: •-■ e. ‘n 0 •- ■ 00 .1
.-4 .-4
....
o,
,4
g
O
<
g. z
00
n en
ej
of
of
e•';
N
pg
°° 'el ch 4D. 't. e". •*. -• '-' -. '1 '-'
cs6.9. 1.ty:2 0,01.. c0e.: 114 e_si ,0 .6
4 ;. -, ir. r4 .2 o• 00 : il 0, t2
: " '-' ‘e N. ‘‘)
-....: r • 02 e:
t- R v. to ..,
: en '-' el
..; •-• e.
en cc .6
ch 4D " O. cc:
S ‘08 .4:i ;4:: S
e.'
,:g
II
T3
1
1
, 9.
of E - 6
Ts
C
se
,0
.1; . ...4 Sgg
va
g .1.° •11.}
< 1:t el U Ca a." it
a..
%..
0:1
'a •el
telwgg
C
.3 o.. _ 'a
C
LI
g 'S of
, T...1 = 0
Z
S 11 ;1gc vt48 gilog N
I cc "' 5 e.
g-4'
F.'. o 6 6 x .g 1' ..: 2 2 e.c2,21,.)T, to'.42`L)
Id
a a.
aa
.
L
a.)
00
eH
O
00
Ranking I
Rate I
Age Group 45-64
-48-
a.)
et et 41 06 Ch VI Tt V) VD 00 el el en
en cd. co ei r: LA ei 44 ei A N e4 c4
el en 4.
VD Tt 06 r, er v) oo ,e. 0
44 en -4
-4 el
-. el el 44 4.
: 41 e- en N 41
N-4
N
e- : oo
00 40 e) en
et
c4 ei r.: e4
00 -. •-• at r,
el .4. 44 cl -4
:4t el en
N
4D Ch 01 CD 00
N.
-1
00
: 06 60 4D
N
-s os sei
e4 4i
-4
el
el 40 00 el 44.
46 et 00 en A
00 Tr -. ..
4. 4. 44. el
All Ages
O
O
O
n.
a.)
a.
t's
8
Rate
a.)
CD
Ranking
a.)
O 00 t- 40 44
4. 4. 4.
N
N
-4 44 N el 4. -4
ch .4 60 ,t 00 r.. 4. N el
.4
-. vs
esi Tr CD 41 eq CD
el
4. el -4 -4 el
: e.
N en 41 -. oo
: T 60 en
N
N -1
en
.4.
r- et q,
el
4. .-.
O
ns
YS
I
04
6.,
r, N so .o. --. ‘e ... CD N
Females
ON
0
0
N en 60 VD 40 en 4. ea vs en CT 41 co 41
e: 45 r: ei
en co en -.
: 41 en Ch 40 CD
ei -4 06
un eli mi 06 ..4 e vi ei --: e4
r- -. el CD 4. CD ce en Tr 41
Tr -.
SO 45 vn 40 el
en 4. 4. el el
el -4 rn en 4. el 4. el rn el -4 rn -4 el
-4
en 00 .1 el le:
e- e0-4
4.4.
sus 4, se‘ -. cs,
: CD -
r: c6 ei
y6 ei re; c6 -.
:a
A
p
N
y
O
1
a.)
gx.1
-4 4. N
N 4.
N
•
Tr 60 e) en 4 1
-4 N
• el
: r■ v. 41
r,
ch .• 06 00
O
uN
8
I
Ranking
N N 4. N
44
ev en Ch e- r- r... oo oo
r: c5 46 45 v4 cO cei i co 60
CA en VD Tr
un 4. 4.
cup Cs 4? CD
Tt 41 rn 00 Tr 4D
et t-
en 4. 0) 4. Tr 00 60
Tr Tr vl r- Tt VD el
•v1 t- VD .1 en
un 60 if -4 un
..1. ch
yr VD
60 en
4) rn
: 4. Tt en
un ei --:
C? -4 00
Tr en Tt
t- Ch CD t- 4,
e: c4 ei e4 e4
Cs el et el el
Tt Tt el vn 41
Males
C.)
E
Rate
Age Group 45-64
co.)
t.
"h.
00 00
4e
Tr ., .... ....
,m r, en r, se. cD
N
•• el -4
N
.4 at
N N 4. N
: 4D .1 Ch el CD
N -4
N
: el et CT
-4
-4
un r- el V) en
-. ..
-*
O
.
a
.M eri
N.4
I
1:4
All Ages
tow
C
. 113
Rate
C
Ranking
.
c> cp
r, es se 0 -• r4
un es .r Tr .. ce
et
00 44 41 C) (4) el 4. un 41 r- Tr fl
rn v6 Tt 4n en Tr el en Tt en el 4 el et
Net
: mD r ■ -4 41 el
el 00 -4 Tr 4.
4n el en Tr en
: VD 00 00
en
ea
r- 0
r4 ,t
40 00 4 V) Tr
C?
ul Ch el V) 47
en el el en en
.14
N
ez
m 04
se
0
Lu
el
>
0 :he
..-
eS
el 0 •,... 0 /0 •C1 .
.,2 id
1
.0
>••
43e
c
12
0 gi
""
TS
114 ld
.21 >6
0 aJ 0. C c c - N
1
liZNU.41zre1441 6. 6.ZSI)T6 es ei 0000,0.
Z
T4 CO CO () CI 1:1:
E
CO §
7:1 TI
s. m 'CI ep
45 b 6
to aa 1E9 ..=8=,..g. 9. 0 „.
,, Ls 0 c.a esz...=-=‘,..r. r..„„- r, .c .0
Z
z z ct. cu up up up ).
le. L. 0 0 C) nc z:.. 4:1 4-4
17.
06 C
T)
12
c
co
al
' T•
61 =
..... ,,,,
74
174 c ...
td
Al
O
a 0..
N
<
- alf.0
Zalm
..t c) ;4 z :)
Number ofimm igrants
— 49 —
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C)
O
CO
CD
C
4
cn
4
ea
0)
s
CD z
ei
co
C
co
r-
Ui
C.)
.1-"/5
C.)
Cr)
0
cc
o
C
O
rn
rn—
cci
E
E
0
0
-o
E
C
E
cC
0)
•—
E
E
"i5
w
.0
E
Z
Immig ration rate per 1, 000
C
(0
E
cd
ul
cs)
co
cy
cr UJtcn
0
N
1.0
0
0
0
0
- 50 -
Table 20. Immigrants to Canada by Category, 1981-1992
FamilyCategory
Refugees
Designated
Persons
Assisted
Relatives
Independent
Immigrants
Total
1981
No.
%
51,017
39.7
810
0.6
14,169
11.0
17,590
13.7
45,032
35.0
128,618
100.0
1982
No.
%
49,980
41.3
1,791
1.5
15,134
12.5
11,948
9.9
42,294
34.9
12,147
100.0
1983
No.
go
48,698
54.6
4,100
4.6
9,867
11.1
4,997
5.6
21,495
24.1
89,157
100.0
1984
No.
o/o
43,814
49.7
5,625
6.4
9,717
11.0
8,167
9.3
20,916
23.7
88,239
100.0
1985
No.
go
38,514
45.7
6,080
7.2
10,680
12.7
7,396
8.8
21,632
25.7
84,302
100.0
1986
No.
%
42,197
42.5
6,490
6.5
12,657
12.8
5,890
5.9
31,985
32.2
99,219
100.0
1987
No.
%
53,598
35.2
7,473
4.9
14,092
9.3
12,283
8.1
64,652
42.5
152,098
100.0
1988
No.
%
51,331
31.7
8,741
5.4
18,095
11.2
15,567
9.6
68,195
42.1
161,929
100.0
1989
No.
%
60,774
31.7
10,210
5.3
26,794
14.0
21,520
11.2
72,703
37.9
192,001
100.0
1990
No.
%
73,457
34.3
11,398
5.3
28,291
13.2
23,393
10.9
77,691
36.3
214,230
100.0
1991
No.
go
86,378
37.4
18,374
8.0
35,027
15.2
22,247
9.6
68,755
29.8
230,781
100.0
1992
No.
go
99,960
39.5
28,699
11.4
23,176
9.2
19,880
7.9
81,127
32.1
252,842
100.0
Source: Employment and Immigration Canada, Immigration Statistics, annual publication.
Of this number, 603/4 were admitted in the family and refugee categories, and
in designated classes, that is, persons not subject to the eligibility criteria of the
assessment unit system (Table 20).
Where Do They Come From?
With the dismantling of the U.S.S.R., many analysts expected a large wave
of emigration, mainly towards the European countries, but also towards countries that have traditionally been immigration destinations, such as Canada,
Australia and the United States. In fact, the only significant movements were
toward Germany and Austria, and they failed to reach anticipated levels.
Perhaps not enough time has yet passed between the event and its consequences.
- 51 -
Figure 7
Immigrant Distribution by Class and Category, 1992
Assisted relatives
19,880
Entrepreneurs
15,697
' Business
—s46;1'41
Independ ent s`,
10,007,
'Retired
5;479
•Investors
9,628
ether
. independents
47,505
Convention
refugees
28,699
Refugees
Designated
'classes .' •
.2j,176
99960
Source: Employment and Immigration Canada, Immigration Statistics, 1992.
Table 21. Immigrants Born in Communist Countries (frontier of 1985)
Year of Admission
Albania
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Estonia
East Germany
Hungary
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
U.S.S.R.
Yugoslavia
Total
% of admissions
1985
(84,302 admissions)
1992
(252,842 admissions)
1
49
929
1
32
642
1
3,642
938
376
516
7,127
8.5
112
1,120
823
62
15
782
76
11,912
3,290
2,803 +405 1
3,164 +4972
25,061
9.9
I Includes Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
2 Includes Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Source: Employment and Immigration Canada, Immigration Statistics for 1985 and 1992.
- 52 Table 22. Countries from which more than 4,000 Immigrants were Admitted
in Canada During the Last Four Years
Country of Birth
1989-19921
1991
1989-rage
Ave
19921
Tendancy
Hong Kong
China
Poland
India
Philippines
Libanon
Vietnam
United Kingdom
Sri Lanka
Portugal (Azores-Madeira)
United States
Iran
Jamaica
El Salvador
Taiwan
Trinidad and Tobago
Guyana
South Korea
Romania
Pakistan
Somalia
Haiti
U.S.S.R.
France
Ethiopia
Yugoslavia
Egypt
Malaysia
West Germany
Syria
Peru
Guatemala
Morocco
Chile
Fiji
Iraq
Nicaragua
Israel
Afghanistan
Ghana
Mexico
South Africa
Czechoslovakia
83,126
65,946
60,227
51,767
50,840
38,669
35,464
26,231
26,051
24,226
22,033
21,838
20,149
20,115
17,997
13,102
12,655
11,470
11,060
10,667
10,303
10,048
9,918
9,845
9,561
9,032
7,848
7,299
6,431
6,232
6,194
5,861
5,382
5,322
5,206
5,083
5,023
4,810
4,635
4,569
4,569
4,485
4,212
18,418
14,605
16,105
12,519
12,374
10,684
9,210
6,804
4,401
7,176
5,384
4,931
4,709
4,806
3,659
2,928
3,207
2,562
2,590
2,312
1,598
2,543
2,472
2,248
2,432
1,956
2,071
1,926
1,682
1,676
1,528
1,313
1,408
1,378
1,154
975
980
1,271
1,137
691
1,125
1,120
1,130
27,873
22,131
11,912
14,209
13,717
6,616
7,834
5,818
12,849
2,697
5,882
7,046
6,021
5,697
7,019
4,318
3,035
3,784
3,290
3,731
5,509
2,419
2,503
3,102
2,264
3,164
1,634
1,520
1,386
1,204
1,610
1,922
1,159
1,187
1,745
2,158
2,084
996
1,223
2,495
1,194
1,125
823
+
+
+
+
+
o
+
+
+
+
+
o
+
+
+
+
o
o
+
o
+
o
+
+
+
+
o
+
o
o
-
Total
775,501
192,469
219,905
+
1 Preliminary data as of August 31, 1992.
Source: Employment and Immigration Canada, Immigration Statistics, annual publication.
- 53 Admissions to Canada have certainly increased considerably, as shown in
Table 21, but without taking on drastic proportions given the increase in the
total number of immigrants admitted. They nevertheless represented 61% of
immigrants born in Europe. It should be emphasized, however, that these are
not among the most numerous anymore (Table A7 in the Appendix).
In 1992, Hong Kong moved back into first place in the list of countries from
which immigrants were admitted (27,873), followed closely by China (22,131)
(Table 22). These two countries alone supplied nearly 150,000 immigrants to
Canada in 4 years (1989-1992). This means that in the last four years almost
one immigrant out of six was born in China or Hong Kong. The third supplier
country, India, sent 14,209 people in 1992. Also noteworthy are a sharp increase
in immigrants from Sri Lanka (particularly as refugees) and a decrease in the
number arriving from Poland. For the latter, the decline is due to the increase
mobility enjoyed by Poles in Europe. The number of immigrants from the
Philippines was still on the rise (13,717).
In the refugee category, the highest proportions were Sri Lankans (4,786),
Somalis (4,010), Iranians (2,432), Vietnamese (1,777), Salvadorans (1,514),
Ethiopians (1,451), Iraqis (1,395) and Lebanese (1,370).
Where Are They Going?
The distribution of new arrivals in the Canadian provinces changes little from
one year to another (Table 23). Ontario received less than 50% of immigrants
only between 1981 and 1985, and in 1992 was host to nearly 55%. There are
a few differences in terms of provenance: 68% of Eastern Europeans chose this
province (Table 24), 52% of Asians, 73% of West Indians, 65% of South
Americans, 59% of Africans, 51% of those from the Middle East and only 47%
of those from North and Central America.
The very high proportion of Asian immigrants choosing Ontario contradicts
a commonly held idea that these people tend to settle mainly in British Columbia.
It is thought that they concentrate in that province mainly through internal
migration, where they seem to be so numerous, but this is far from clear.
Although this does not prove that there are no grounds to the theory, the 1991
census showed that the proportion of those born in Asia living in Ontario and
British Columbia respectively was the same as in the flow of immigrants from
Asia during recent years in these provinces. This impression comes from the
fact that in Ontario people originating in Southern, Eastern and Southeast Asia
represented 6.8% of the population while they accounted for 11% in British
Columbia.
- 54 en
--,
on
en
...
NO
O
ci,
ci
O
cr:
N
q q
-.
N
0
.
6
q
a
&
q
.Nr
8
—
N
..,
...;
....,
.4
8
o
el
kJ)
8
et
v
l7.1
mg
09
0
—
0
en
*Vs
0.1
El
et.
o
—,
0
q
.-.
•cr:
r.:
co
r..■
4
_
d
q
o
cr,
....
N
09
..
7
0
ep
OD
0,
en
i
^
O
i
.
o
‘g
e
—
...,
.. .;
N
r
t.
-
a:
r
-
c
N
—
q
o
8.,
q
cr,
8
....
q
el".!
0
el
0
^:
•
N
'3?
0
CA
•-.
—
E
....
E
73
m
e4
en
q
Os
q
R
cc'
,..,
al
—
°°.
0,
".
(.1
^:
0
q
0
8
8
oo
E
.4
0,..
8
—
....
00
g
—
...
Year
e
=
ci.Oci
8
—
c
O O
o
00
:
o
sc.'
r-
°
'4:
No
"
00
- —
O
ci
q
-.
43
-.
o
-
-:
.-
4
....
•cl.
4
iN
N
o'
..
el
o
'C
q
o
q
0
q
cn
q
N
8
cc.'
...
c°
4
—
":
a
q
o
q
—
"
N
"
4.
a:
q
v-■
-
N
O
"
e;
q
ei
a
el
^'
4
v,
e4
o
8
—
'3•3
r...;
-4.
cr
a:
ell
..,
._
ci;
00
N
8
E
00
6
a
Os
...
—
.d.
...
r-:
...
-.
VI
0
•-.
r
n
C.
00
00
V
11
.c
00
is
_.
*
—
..,
o;
—
6
e!
-.
—:
-.
.::
g
O.
..-,
r.;
a:
-,
Ir.:
=
ei
el
a
q
o
q
,..4
q
a
q
ci
o
8
.-,
00,
00
c.4
8
8
—
ch
2.
N
r-
=
-.
as
—
—
.0
Province
-0
g
N
t
0
1
g
5
t
Z
c
Js
§
E
.E
.5
"M
ti
1
- 55 -
Table 24. International Immigrants to the Province of Ontario
by Place of Birth, 1992
Number
Place of Birth
Africa
Eastern Europel
Rest of Europe
Caribbean
Middle East2
Asia
North and Central America
South America
Ontario
Canada
11,920
16,944
8,371
11,028
10,563
63,143
8,781
6,600
20,091
25,061
28,969
15,131
20,621
121,152
18,658
10,231
Percentage
59.3
67.6
28.9
72.9
51.2
52.1
47.1
64.5
Includes Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, U.S.S.R., Croatia,
Yugoslavia, East Germany, Slovenia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Albania, Bulgaria and Romania.
2 Includes Israel, Libanon, Syria, Cyprus, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman,
Qatar, Yemen Arab Rep., Yemen Dem. Rep. and the Arab Emirates.
Source: Employment and Immigration Canada, Immigration Statistics, annual publication.
I
Investors
Since 1986, there has been a special class within the category of independent
immigrants, the investors. These are people who have a net worth of at least
half a million dollars and undertake to:
- invest $150,000 dollars, for a minimum of three years, in a province which
during the preceding year, received less than 310 of immigrants in the business
class, or
- invest $250,000 dollars in Canada for a minimum of three years, or
- invest $500,000 for a minimum of five years - these persons must have a
fortune of $700,000.
In all three cases, the investment must obviously create some economic benefit
for the province and contribute to job creation. The annual number of these
immigrants is growing steadily, as shown in Table 25.
Table 25. Immigrants in the Investor Category, Canada, 1986-1992
Category
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Principal Applicant
Dependants
Total
Dependants by Applicant
5
18
23
3.6
87
229
316
2.6
249
779
1,028
3.1
533
1,738
2,271
3.3
1,000
3,208
4,208
3.2
1,238
3,951
5,189
3.2
2,196
7,165
9,361
3.3
Source: Employment and Immigration Canada,
Immigration Statistics,
annual publication.
- 56 -
Table 26. Investments of Investing Immigrants, Canada, 1989-1992
(in dollars)
1990
1989
Number of Investing
Immigrants
Total Monies Declared
at Port of Entry
1991
Total
1989.1992
1992
533
1,000
1,238
2,196
4,967
67,150,000
127,962,000
169,123,000
176,536,000
540,771,000
Total Money of Applicants
with a Positive Final
1,173,995,000 2,312,085,000 3,492,264,000 4,571,753,000 11,550,097,000
Disposition
Average Money at Port
of Entry
Average Money Available
125,985
2,202,617
127,962
136,610
80,390
108,873
2,312,085
2,820,892
2,081,855
2,325,367
Source: Employment and Immigration Canada, Business Immigration: Immigrant Investor Program, 1989
to 1992, April 1, 1993.
Table 27. Distribution of Investing Immigrants by City of Destination,
Canada, 1992
City
Vancouver
Montreal
Toronto
Calgary
Halifax
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Saskatoon
Hamilton
Ottawa-Hull
Windsor
St-John's
Victoria
London
St-Catharines-Niagara
Kitchener
Other Cities
Total
Number
Distribution
4,098
1,931
1,748
43.8
20.6
18.7
315
225
104
79
71
58
53
27
17
15
3.4
2.4
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
13
11
6
4
586
9,361
0.0
6.3
100.0
Source: Employment and Immigration Canada, Business Immigration: Immigrant Investor Program, Statistical
Highlights, 1989 to 1992, April 1, 1993.
- 57 -
Table 28. Distribution of Investing Immigrants by Country of Origin,
Canada, 1992
Country of Origin
Hong Kong
Taiwan
South Korea
Philippines
Egypt
England
Jordan
United States
Saudi Arabia
Switzerland
Other Countries
Total
Number
Distribution
993
928
60
55
27
12
10
7
5
2
97
45.2
42.3
2.7
2.5
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
4.4
2,196
100.0
Source: Employment and Immigration Canada, Business Immigration: Immigrant Investor
Program, Statistical Highlights, 1989-1992, April 1, 1993.
From 1989 to 1992, these investors brought into Canada, in addition to the
investment for which they were accepted as immigrants, $109,000 per principal
applicant for immigrant status (Table 26). In fact, each of these immigrants
brought or was prepared to bring an average of $2,325,000 into Canada. As
might have been expected, it was the three major census metropolitan areas
which received these immigrants (in 1992 Vancouver 44%, Toronto 19%,
Montreal 21%) (Table 27), although we might be somewhat surprised by the
fact that Toronto was in the third place. Nearly 9 out of 10 (87.5%) of these
investors came from only two countries in 1992, Hong Kong (45.2%) and
Taiwan (42.3%). The remaining 12.5% was divided among the other countries
of the world, and of these, South Korea-was-responsible for 2.7% and the
Philippines 2.5% (Table 28).
Refugees
Canada is certainly one of the most open countries for those seeking asylum.
Every year, agents visit refugees camps and select a certain number of people
likely to settle successfully in Canada. When these people set foot on Canadian
soil, they are already cleared and are included among the immigrants admitted
as refugees. But there are others who make their own way to Canada and request
asylum. The majority of them arrive at the Canada/United States border. These
people are then investigated by Employment and Immigration Canada,
following which they are either admitted as immigrants or refused this status.
— 58 —
Table 29. Number of Refugee Demands in Canada, Individuals Accepted or
Refused as Landed Immigrants and Withdrawn Requests
Year
Demands
Accepted
Refused
Withdrawn
1989
1990
1991
1992
20,267
36,198
30,530
37,720
4,744
10,710
19,425
17,437
562
2,913
7,516
9,871
70
374
1,339
1,867
Source: Statistical Summary, Immigration and Refugee Board Commission, Refugee Determination
Division.
A certain number drop their applications. Those who were refused status may
appeal this decision, which involves procedures that to date have proved lengthy.
Table 29 gives the figures for recent years of asylum-seekers, those admitted and
refused and applications abandoned. It must be borne in mind that the accounts
are not "closed" each year, since processing of applications takes time and there
is always a waiting list of people who arrived the previous year or earlier.
It can be seen that the number of people admitted was fairly large in terms
of the number of applicants. The figures in Table 29 for the four years in
question would appear to indicate that close to 42% of applications are accepted,
17% rejected and 3% dropped. This percentage of admissions was considerably
higher than for any of the other OECD countries.
For example, according to information from SOPEMI, 7 requests for asylum
in the Netherlands rose from 7,500 in 1988 to 13,900 in 1989 and 21,208 in 1990,
but the number recognized as refugees was 1,428 in 1990.
In Germany, the number of applicants rose from 121,318 in 1989 to 193,063
in 1990, but the percentage recognition of refugee status, which had reached
29.2% in 1985, fell to 4.4% in 1990. In Norway, only 3% of applicants were
accepted in 1990 and 60% did not receive permission to remain in the country.
In Sweden, the quota for 1991-1992 was set at 3,250, and the number of applications in 1990 was 29,400. Switzerland accepted 571 people as refugees in 1990
out of a total of 35,836 applicants.
It should also be emphasized that people who are refused immigrant status
are not always deported. They should, like those who abandon their application,
leave the country, but there is no guarantee of this. They may attempt to live
there illegally, being either counted or missed by censuses, joining those who
remain in the country when their work permits or student visas expire, increasing the ranks of illegal immigrants, the total number of which of course cannot
be determined.
7
Continuous Reporting System on Migration.
- 59 -
Some International Comparisons
The other major countries that traditionally attract permanent immigrants
are Australia and the United States, and they may thus be compared with
Canada. Based on information supplied by SOPEMI (Continuous Reporting
System on Migration), the United States, excluding legalizations under IRCA
(Immigration Reform Control Act), admitted in recent years a little over 600,000
people a year for a population in the order of 250 million, for a rate of less
than 2.5 per 1,000; Australia some 130,000, for a population of 17 million, or
7.6 per 1,000. Canada, with 250,000 immigrants for a population of 28.5 million,
or 8.8 per 1,000, thus ranks first among the three.
In Australia, immigrants from Asia (not including western Asia) accounted
for 35% of those admitted in 1990, and people from the United Kingdom for
28%. Third place went to immigrants from Oceania (11%). But the figures show
that this country varies its sources of immigrants. For example, those from
southern Europe represented 5.9% of immigrants in 1983, 6.4% in 1986 and
3.1% in 1990. Immigrants from Oceania in 1988 represented 21% of all arrivals
and less than 9% in 1983.
Leaving aside the granting of status to illegal Mexican immigrants under
IRCA, the majority of immigrants to the United States come from Asia (41%
in 1988). Second place was shared by Mexicans and West Indians (17%), while
Europe contributed 10% and South America 6%. Because of quotas, there are
not, as in Australia, significant fluctuations from one year to the next.
The three countries admit refugees differently. On average, for the years 1988,
1989 and 1990, refugees represented about 15% of all immigrants to the U.S.,
while they amounted to 8% in Australia and 5.3% in Canada. However, the
number of immigrants and size of the population are not the same and, given
varying degrees of delay in procedures, we should not jump to the conclusion
that attitudes are fundamentally different in the three countries.
Family reunification is also a policy common to all three countries, but since
the categories are not the same, even numerical comparisons by period, to reduce
random annual variations, might be misleading as to the levels in each country.
Traditionally the European countries are distinguished from so-called host
countries. This custom originates in the fact that, from the 16th and 17th
centuries on, Europe has mainly been an area of emigration to the Americas
and Australia rather than receiving immigrants from the rest of the world. The
basis for this distinction is now becoming increasingly weak. On the one hand,
the Americas and Australia lose population each year through significant
volumes of emigration. On the other, although the countries of the New World
were formerly settlement countries as opposed to European countries where
immigration was quite often temporary for reasons of work, the difference tends
to diminish over time since the main motive for migration anywhere is the
▪
- 60 -
.
•
•
en
• .4
o
ON
,_,
Csi
VI
e%)
O1
vl
N
00
as
re;
re;
'1
ai
oo
oo
N
O
i•-•
as
4
.--.
en
r
r-e
2
N
-
a:
en
N
't.
•-,
.--.
un
0
as
et
r
a■
-.
4
-
oi•
N
c;
a:
et
0
co
-,/
Os
•-•
en
tr;
4
a:
d
srs
46
•••••
4
46
N
a:
as
en
Tr
N
0
Sr.
0
....
e.-
:
40
lel
3
ses
'''.
in
C.,
0
oo
N
N
srs
et
0 I.
ON
0
en
....
O
ntt
•-•
.4
...
0
0
ON
.--.
ON
en
a:
VI
en
08
en
■4;)
ad
N
4
r•-:
a.
Sr.
%,6
.4
0;
00
■.13
%CI
en
t•-•:
et
lel
et
et
∎0
■0.
as
•O
"7
'Tr
IN:
en
v.;
.4
4
vS
?
4
e•,-;
-
a:
vi
N
en
.--,
tes
•■=8 'RI
00
Sr.
•Vo V
g
4
1984
(4
et.
°°
0
r
00
•-,
v:.
N
en
-.
,e ,
1 ,
0
N
,;
4
en
N
-,
4
00
en
00
ON
..
en
N
Sr.
N
et
•-∎
en
en
4
7t
e4
■45
4
(v.)
..
....1
0
0
a
0.
a
wi
lei
in
06
VI
o
.in•
Sr.
Col
Sri
N
a
g
.4-. (/)
Z V>,
u ,A
K 0 ...
X
at 4,
.1. .1... ,=
Eg
0
0
o•
0
2
=
0
0
,_,cd
.
E
• a5
.O6. 00 ...0= .....f3I.s ...Ia,,, N .tc00
° .°m
bo
72.
'V .4
0...
Jo u ,-,s 5
:6 o 0 5
- '''
..•"'
1-•
u cs Z 1.). z 0.
0 > ,
5 . ;,.0 o - 8 ti v
su
0 .... Z ■-• • ‘.-5
0
o .2. 0
1:3
oo ° .o 5 •
.= - 3 • ..., _..,, ; V.
o
•
•-
E
N
ON
•
4
r4
N
srs
et
N.
■ii,
o4
.-4
gr;
N
N
...
en
..
.4
0
V;
N
••
vs
et
ON
∎ti
%0
O∎
f;
:
•
en
••
ci
a:
00
et
VD
'Tr
trl
00
:
VI
00
vi
N
r-:
oc;
N
-,
•
d
a;
06
VI
;Li
'I'
'et
NI'
rea
0
4
1-,
:
1982
11)
en
v.
0
• a).
1:1
-8 os 5
•Nd Cd .0
0
0
0
§
.0 .0
3 0
.,.. at
%.o
1985
O
s
-a
0 ■•■-•
c(%
O
au
4)
g
N
,11
votoe2.
2 . a. 4 0 .N .., a a
o
•E* . 5 5 5 .- .0 ‘•-•
0
0 0 0 °
5
..•
° ,..
,,, 5 •,,, as es
:o
`r.,_>•-•
5 r..'
....•
- cd0•,,,
•,
•-.85
.. 4)
0
-. .5
2
O
00
ON
.--.
ra
00
4
.--.
N
a;
Sr.
in
et
•-■
.--,
00
r
in
v..)
Cd "Ci
2 "g es
rs zit rsI.
0 0 08...
Vo. go.“."8.,
IL, ;e1 ti ,›. c.i 78 ' r, T.:
.... 0 ..%g ;•3 .t en „, ru.
8 .. 0
o
-..,,
: :2" : :: :
1 6.i ..0
.:4
,.., .
i '81 I
so
g
o
o
II
i...
go
4.,
E
tu
0
5
0
n
.4
ro
.ìg
u"
'.0
t
Z
0
.
t0 .2
Z
cn
-N
.
5
rn
E
0
0oo
.....o
-
.E
.5
• ..0
''. t 10 " 44 11 -•
.,,..,
-' a- . ‘0 " : :
„,ci, i 1 .4t. .4:'
2
i +a
: 1 C:1
2
'a22.' ,Orl
%) ga.1.,o0.-. 4=. 0.7°0°..z.=Co
2 02 r4
..
.2) es .%) 8
u.
ere•
u '3 u -a . O.
1....) 0 0 ...0,,..
= ,_
0 4--•"..... t
,.., ."
•.- 8.5
,_, ..., ■0-.
i.e
•0 0 .0:50
CC 8' 43"°"8 8
8
„.,
.r.
8 T.: .... ,.. ...
■■■•
-_o ....
-•-•• •■1.8 •r:
C .0
. .0 0
O 0 . C 0 C
Ile Ca Li P..1 CA La Cd 3w
4:.
N
en el• N
Source: SOPEM I1992.
.
i-•
0
,-,
- 61 -
possibility of finding work. Considerable improvements in communications
increasingly favour the growing exchanges of professionals, scientists and
technicians, and there is increasing administrative flexibility between developed
countries. It also seems clear that the great problems experienced with migration
by developed countries are caused by arrivals from the Third World, the
majority of whom are not used to the work situation in the host country, and
this is true for both Europe and the newer countries. For the moment, there
persists a very significant difference between the European countries and newer
countries, that of the status of "foreigner". Holders of this title in Europe may
reside in a country for a very long period, sometimes even their whole lives,
without becoming permanent residents and with much more limited rights and
privileges than the citizens of the country. This situation is fairly uncommon
in North America, where it is still fairly easy to obtain citizenship.
For the moment, the European countries do not keep uniform accounts of
migrations. Each uses its own categories, thus making overall comparisons
almost impossible (see 1991 Report, Part II). We will accordingly confine
urselves to reproducing recent SOPEMI data which show that immigration is
proportional neither to the size of a country nor to that of its population.
Immigrants and Language
With the diversification of countries of origin, the proportion of immigrants
speaking neither of the official languages is on the rise. Based on statistics from
Employment and Immigration Canada, this proportion was a third around 1978
and in recent years has been around half, although the most recent trend is
downward (50% in 1989, 47% in 1990 and 44% in 1991). Since close to 60%
of immigrants are headed for the labour force, the need to learn one language
or the other, or even both, is quickly felt. Canada provides these immigrants
with courses to aid in their integration. According to census figures, despite the
arrival of many people who spoke neither language, there were only 378,000
people in this situation in 1991! Even though some respondents tended to
overestimate their abilities somewhat, the fact remains that figures like these
are an indication of remarkable performance.
INTERPROVINCIAL MIGRATION
The mobility of a population is fairly closely linked to the economic vitality
of the country, provided we bear in mind there is often some lag between the
economic indicators and demographic reactions, particularly when an annual
observation unit is used. In Figure 8, we can clearly see the effects of the recession
of the first half of the 1980s. The drop in the curve from 1990 to 1991 may well
be destined to continue in 1992 and not rise as preliminary figures may have
indicated. Since 1972, there has also been a general trend towards lower mobility,
whereas since the 1950s this factor moved to a certain extent in parallel with
the growth of the population.
- 62 -
Figure 8
Canadian Population and
Interprovincial Migration,
1950 to 1992 (in millions)
Interprovincial
migration
Population
50
0.5
There are no surprises in the
1991 figures; the two far western
provinces and particularly British
Columbia are the only provinces
with a positive balance if we
consider Nova Scotia's gain of
1,400 people as an exception.
Migrants
The negative balance in Quebec,
which was smallest in 1986
( - 3,020), has since worsened
from one year to the next ( - 11,690
in 1991) (Table 31). Curiously
—03
30
enough, the Ontario balance was
only marginally negative, and
preliminary figures for 1992 do
not show this province losing to
population
any greater degree. The recession
20 — — 0.2
which, according to economic
indicators, affected Ontario more
severely than the rest of Canada,
apparently failed to cause as many
departures as had been feared.
Closer examination indicates that
the movements could only have
been toward Alberta and British
Columbia, since the other prov1
1 01
1
1
1
10 1
1
1
1
inces had little or nothing to offer
1951
1961
1971
1981
199
people who were not economically
Source Statistics Canada, Demography
at ease in Ontario. Ontario did in
Division, Estimates Section
fact chalk up deficits with these
two provinces in 1991 (4,105 with
the former and 11,470 with the
latter) (Table 32). The Ontario population is currently trapped to a certain extent.
At the very most, we might have expected new arrivals to be pushed back to
the Atlantic Provinces, as in the second half of the 70s when a nil balance
( - 316) was observed. It is a common observation that, when hard times come,
immigrants prefer to experience them in their home region.
40 —
— 0.4
Preliminary figures for 1992 (Table 33) show a negative balance of 3,600 for
Newfoundland, although this might be higher when the final figures become
available; continued high losses for the Prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan),
mainly to the far-western provinces; an increase in the negative balance for
Quebec, mainly to Ontario, and an overall deficit for the Atlantic Provinces with
Ontario in the order of 2,500 people, due to job losses in the fishing industry.
- 63 -
O1 ... 41
"a
Yukon and
N.W.T.
E.
F.
en 10 r- ... oo Ch eV t■ -e et Ch en 41 44 CD 41
41 Cn co C., en eV t- 6.. ti 40 YD
en Ch N t■ un cm
t■ 41 99
r11 gp mg
4
.0
ci gen
r: em .. ov
0
21 g4 7.1 g A P. A A
vl
t.:
:!
00"
en el 41 41 Ch r4 00 00 CD et Ch ..• h. en CD CY el Ch Ch Ch eV r■ CD
t■ r■ resli 4n 10. 4n Ch et On 4n et Vn rn ZS t- (-4 Ch on
."...r.".
" VD n. Q.' "1.'4.'1. CI 'D cc 1 (:::. . "°.."`t in 1 "r".°
e. 1 ... e. e. -. 1
1
.. e. •-• 1
I
N r4 e. 1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
00
Ch et t■ n 41 Nr go r. gm ... un 40 Ch Ch 4n gh 0 00 K.$ fl' 1. R szb
.7
r- en t4
en 41 MD cm CD ON 7it VD mp e fp go Of 7.. 7.1 ep Np co
0 v1 f0
vl CI 1
:1
.
1
:1
1.
2
ml
r
e
n
1
-1
vl
5
4:
'
:1
;7;
''
';'-'
3
,
1.
':1
t
cti ri Ll
il ill A en ei 1 1 ... g en 4 ;i 1
1
6.. N
en C% mit
r22
Nr
vl el ... 01
pc
en el cm at .1 oo -. co s.eo v1 el et el al wo.
un u-i
N en ... un vii Np op 0 ri ci (74 vs en .. v oo rn
N
4 4
;7 ;1
0 A P. ;14 A P. g7; gg 1.'4 21
N
.1. el
s .4.
■
N
Ch
Ch
00 00
46
8
ER.
CR.
.5.. ..,
1
eH
s
4,1 •-■ g
00 00 Cn en 41 NI. n eV en en ee 40 e. z8 ER ER 4 1
O.
eV 41
mp cp rn VD CD Ch CO r- un en ...
41 -.
....
e. CV en en en en .ce. mr
eV en 1 r4 f4 1
I
e%. g. CR
00
DO .0..
s° ;.:1 m
" 8R C.4.
ch ri sci ej 44 en 4 eq e. Ch
. 1"21 .m C3 gg rq
1
1
Os
"I.
41
1
i
VD
Eg
t■
CO
1
pc mn vo e. 41 41 Ch et .... 0 CO co en e. en mi. 9112 en 00 Ch 00 VD eV
ii ee on C) 6.. 00 N et C0 en e■ N
41 oo Ch Vn en v
rn 00 r4 g
el. Ch c4 el on 4" oo en 1■ 41 en VI 1-... un f■ CD CD co en 41 Ch
4 1 - el
vi tr cw; %0 o; vi co;
!
*C
O
"0
cf,
a.)
.1i
23 r
con
L.-•
d
1
r .... NF vs r;
1
1
1
m, ....
1
I
1
1
1
8 g; ;'4 2:i 8R...A Zi
gt 1:7; 8 V. N 2R gR Z.
vD r■ of 00 en 40 Tr Cn 1
(.... tv t- F5 4
n I- t-- eV vi
1
:E
1
1
1
1
Tr vi r4 0; en -. e4 --,
1
1
1
1 -1 -i i
1
1 -•1 ""1 - 1
1
n gt 71'
t•- C) r-
06
1
s
.t.
....
1
I d5
x ;3r' 8R
:2
oo 41
:A
O
(6 00 e. v$
oo
2R 4.1
r.- ER :1;
g -. 41 CT
E:
N
of
-, r4 Ti oci
I I I 1
1' 1 1 I
0
L.•
1
7).
2
4O
M
0
8R
gi. r.N..1
.1 .,
P
N
v n a7; .1. s'C'
gig .7-1
23 CR
45 h' Ch tg _
0 un
of 4 en ER %0
00 v) 4. ER
...
mf Gei oO vi ei vi 0 oti
un -.
1 CO
-e
vi
N
1
CO
1
4 CI1. ar
0
2
N 00
■
esl g 4 -
el
-6 rn -■ -. on en en et er -e
1
1 1
1
I
vi v
e■
1
e
1
en
4n
1
0
VD un -
a'
r r4
O
pp
!...! 83 gt. f.."-! .(1O 7.
... 41 Ch et
e4
2
Tr un
Lt1 W. g
4p
en Ch Ch CO en en § CD en CA rl.
4 .71 s■.iii:
4' (.4'
(..,
gp
4 83 Pi Z4 'Is W.
W.
88 I 8
rn CD
GO' 01 c
-. 6-6 eV w en en (■1 CV eV 6-6 6-,
t'1
00 Ch -. un
N
P g 4 4 g g 11 gg 4 e.' LSI S 2 * CO. $'; & G.) t; 7.1 '' F.: a
"1
r= N c,
r 7.7.
l. 77.mrr.....
17- (1. a° ",•. ?0
tl c't I 8
'''- *1
,...1 ..
4, er- '9.
e. T
. '=
..... e_re
NT re r4
N .-. .+
.. ., ^.
g
TI.
I
r4
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
m;
1
en t■ r■
1
1
1
1
1
1
-, -6
1
1
eV
0
z
el
0)
Ii
Z
■
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r,
ofi
Z
.-:
IA
41 41 N 40 et ;.8 r. 51 cp Tr K. -. - en Nt Ch en -6 N 40 co N
41 et cy r ■ 41
r- 0 ,r CA .0 Ch Vn my en rn 00 f ■ f■ cn 00 en
01 f■ 00 6.. 41 If en N -. 00 Tr Tr ul 00 0% CO r- ..
un -. Cl
en 1 e4
4
.. I ee el el e. re; eV 1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
vp
ei -
un un N
en
e. 00 - .gt
., Tr- N
N 00 co
N 0 t-.
Ch Ch 00 00 VD et
(-4 N 4 1
1 -. oo 0 en 00 en 40
...
I
1^
I
C4
1i
Z
1...
0
ei
>-.
CD en Ch CD
ton Cl 00 6..
Ch r- .. mi
1,e;
I eg
1
1
I - ei
i ei
%0 0%
1
I
00 vn eV § CO n f4 00 ..■
ee e. en
AT ... co rn V,
4D Ch e ■
t
Nl
1
kri. CO 0 cv N
4
1
el 4 en m:"
1
1
1
1
Tr
en en e. 0 N en f- .1
N - ch 0 CO 0 r. P. 0
1 et rl et ... N mi un
I
I
I e.
1
f■ 41
g un
Ch es1 If It §
00 -■ 00 r- 41
41 C) mp en - ■
.... v.; v.; 4 mi. ei ei
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
&
6; SI',
6.1 &
aR
I
00
00
0
el
• I-
N
eel
N
es 40 Vn
t-
.-. -. try
...
°
1
Cl en N
-.... 40 40
I
1
1
co e. eq en et yn vo t• 00 ch co ee N en ef un Vn r■ 00 Ch 0 -. N
I
f;
'1
C4
2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2g 8g EP
00
C0..
1g
0
F--.
s
0
4
..w
.4.
-
N
tss
Ni
i
?co,
og,t
r-
0
..tr
03
N
r-
P ;r"
el
._,
TA
4 r., pii A
...9
Li
gti
O,
01
0%
•-.4
el
N
N
-..
N
oo
0%
(..,
trt
Man.
Province ofDestination
Sask.
•-■
Que.
0
"
N. B.
rz
e-..
en
.I.
0
fsi
P. E. I.
ONO
I
0
—
n
et,
en.
•-■
N
eki
ul
4
N
n
en
esi
N
00
oo
ch
r-
0
e;
00
er;
.-.
se;
en
4
1
go
.-.
-
-..r
v..
.-.
R
r4
Zr.°
,.-;
o
g
rz
n
...
4
co
....
kr,
ON
%,0
^1
sci
N
...a.
se
Tei
T4
en
§.
0
a
—.,
-
N
.
•-•
er;.‘
1
g,,,
2
■•0
.-.
•et
en
o0
—.
o0
N
g
c:4'
; -0.
,2
0
g.
oc,,
-..
Os
r:
00
.--.
00
kris
N
00
g.. ,.
Os
,i...9
5.-..,,,,
00
(.....
4
00
VI.
.-.
e.c?,
t.02
g
g
oo
kr,
vs
00
■0
•-:
—,
i
N
—
4
—
r,z,
(7,
.
00
v;
—
r-...
—
n
0
N
e7.1
'-
a
08
m
.7,, ..,,.ti
Li
ON
e•i
1..■
e
Ti
re.7
en
Ti
N
...
T.)
Q
el.
r-
t-..
g‘
en
VS
—7
0S
v.
■A'
si 4
Vi
N
.-.. .-1 en
M
•-•
N
1.
I
cg
Vi
I
......
(Si
I
N
-.
r...4
00
sO
41
H1
Os
4
I
rn
een
I
i
00
N
N
lt
4 —
9■1
(Si
,ci.,,,
:41
•-•
co
kr,
00.
...
•-•
.tg
N
At.:
,,,/Et.
r rt
17
8
rSi
74
0
r-
ri
a
v.7
eel
.-.
iSi
43
•-,
OC
.1.
OS
.41
Os
-■
1.■
sO
(Si
,(25.,
00
0
Te
en
4
een
00
.
.-.
N
0
ei
^
r-
trz
$
kr,
en
4
*
I
Os
it.;
d
n
tz
00
N
0
a
oo
...■
•-,
NI
N
sp..
,o‘o,
1'
at
•-■
ei
03
0
.7
en
t.....1
.-.
0
00
m
.-.
st2
VI
oo
CI
eV
Sa•
Os
s
g
Os
•-■
•-•
st 2
I
N
Os
.-•
sO
e•-s
r.. ,
I
a
■
ei
g
er;
N
4
en
—.
eN1
en
10 1, g., „ri: I
N
13
co
.--. et
N ko
no,
z
'PUN
Province ofOrigin
—
ek4
en
e‘
8
.
CA
„
7.4
r:4
^
oo
en
ei
(Si
0
Ns-
eel
Os
1.-1
....
40
se.
00
.-.
Os
en
en
I
ger4,
•-•
T..1
N
N
N
A
er■
I
....
oo
rt.!.
,-;
.7.., .,cp,
-
0
>.
wl
O
0
en
S
a
O
•-■
el
,.
en
.g
I
N:
I
1
I
(Si
r<,
I
I
F .)
4
.or,o
ro ■a:
r-
rg
•-,
en
VI
CV
....
....
—
•-■
.8 A. Vii
es
se
...
O
..:
.4
la
0
...
"0
g
'
.0
Z
'-•
te"
.a
a.
el
0
0
i
en
f)
,
""
N
471
v■I
—
I
VI
(0
.1..
al
.
to
gt..
0
"0
0
.0
0
rtz:
•-•
0
Z
04
3
.0
Z
0
4)
.8
=
2
,
0
0
'‘..
...
11
t
5
V
'a
as
-N,
g
4
....z.
a
CY 0
2
tri
0
a)
[....
§
.5
0
4)
-0
°
15:
....I
I.
0
...
CA
1..
.00
a)
°
a
>.
3
4
o
Z
a)
.-5,
0
Z
Source: Statistics Canada, Demography Division, Estimate s Section.
N.W.T.
- 64 -
N. W. T.
— 65 —
OA
er
a 8.op
en
.—.
en
0
.1e
7
>.
S
(..3
a —
rz.
eins
S
N
O.
00
M
04
^
N
•-•
kn.
V-1
VI
en
N
00
•-■
en
'et
11,..-...,
..., cz,
;,..
.0•1
.,.
3
<
O
0
O
at
*a.
E
.—
1%1 ca
t
0
e
co
er
0
O
N
VZ
N
—
g rz coe.3
eg
.-.
.-.
.-5
0
5
e0s
.•
N
4
§
re;
en
Z.
Nri
e:
NS
00
en
0
ON
—.
•ei
—,
'0
VD
en
vl
(..;
ce,
;ero
a.
I
ON
en
N
N
cel
fel
r....)
f.,4
CO
.,,,;.
es
NS
r,,,,
t-.
00
-0-
■t0
is
4
3
00
53A.
N
a
G
N
.A.
I
N
'
1%
0.
...
I
zi.
'0
a
-.4
en
V
[-I
et
I
ro
t--.
en
ggi
t.-
.-■
.01
NO
.fi
00'
N
NO
N
0
co
I
8
az. 7.," 4
—.
—
.7,
en
tri,
en
c
e.-
%.
C.:
me
n
N
ON
p
e
.
•-•
z,
.-.
efi
00
0
el.
en
:12
Cl.
en
rt3'
N
r.,
NO
—
I
.....
e;
,,c::.
0
cm
,ce
Ni•
r...
r...
".
el.
■c)
3
7
.
N
0%
t--•
-.
N
0%
oc>
00
•—•
`.19
‘t:).
en
'
0-0'
.n
00
N
0
V,
1
en
eel
NS
•—•
N
gi.,,,7,00,....
seit
00
..54
V'
N
N
N
0%
N
eel
a
..... —
.....
...
77
"
cc.
.A.
cc.
I Que.
2
co. N
en 0%
00
■0
00
•et
en
Province o fDestination
A
N
N
40
eel
,-- a
•—•
0)
A
00
Tat-'4`G'4G°,1:9P.rn
•-•
N
en Ni
en
.-.
en
O
z
0
0
t.1
04
0
z
CO
E
0
z
V)
z
0
...1
;Li
27
0
0
0
O
a;
e•
0
a
.
14117
1
Province of Origin
F
0.
o
0
E0)
CO
0
ed
0
d
u
0
0
CA
- 66 -
MIGRATION TRENDS IN CENSUS METROPOLITAN
AREAS IN CANADA
Population concentration appears to be a universal model, and in Canada,
the trend is to concentration in the metropolitan areas of the country. Obviously
the concept of the census metropolitan area (CMA) does not correspond to that
of the city, since in a census metropolitan area the urban population is specifically distinguished from the rural population. However, this rural population
still represents only a small fraction of the total population. In the 1991 census,
of the 16,665,360 people counted in census metropolitan areas, 1,189,635 only,
or 7.1%, were classified as rural, and almost all were non-farming (93%), that
is, for all practical purposes, people living almost directly from and with the
large central city. This trend towards concentration translates into faster growth
of the population of census metropolitan areas than of the country as a whole.
From 1981 to 1986, the Canadian population increased by 4.3% while that of
the census metropolitan areas increased by 6%, and during the five-year period
1986-1991, total growth for the country was 6.2% and for census metropolitan
areas 10%. The result of these differences is that the population of census
metropolitan areas, which accounted for 58.8% of the total population in 1981,
represented 61.1% in 1991.
It seemed worthwhile to examine how these centres grew. There is no doubt
that on-site growth (which is not exactly a natural increase in the population
of a census metropolitan area), by the action of births and deaths, make up a
large proportion of the growth in each (Table 34) but since this non-differential
growth is proportional to the size of the census metropolitan area it arouses no
interest. Conversely, it is the migratory flows that are intriguing insofar as they
are an indication of interest in the region. We thus attempted to answer the
question: "Where did the people come from who were counted in the various
census metropolitan areas in 1991 and who were not there five years earlier",
and to identify a few flow patterns. Table 34 provides a sort of summary of the
components of this movement.
Of course, the only possible estimates using census data are based on figures
at the end of the period, the total number of flows remaining unknown. The
people from whom information is obtained are only people over five years old
who have avoided death and international migration, but their movements during
the five-year period lie outside the question. In the main, however, the general
profile of population change should not be affected by the limitations of these data.
Although it is expected that part of the growth should come from non-urban
areas, we would also expect that, since over 60% of the population lives in census
metropolitan areas, there should be many exchanges between them and these
should partially explain the differential growth. The pages that follow will therefore present the movements of the recent period. Changes in the geographical
breakdown were minimal.
Part o f the
Growth
on Site
(5)+( 1)
Growth
Due to Net
Internal
Migration
(
((2) +(3))+1)
—67—
al
i .-~
0 CI “2
•zt_,
ti
0%
,I)
2 = r,
0
Growth on Site
00
O
C
0.
V
cia
5.
,S.
a-
a
t, et r, N 40 un en 4, 1.- en r- 00 00 00 05 -.. N gs en 40 un 10 N 00 ^.
10 r- Ch A 4D r- 00 41 to et et et en et et '0 40 an 05 0 N 4n r■ N VD
-.
e4 -.
VD MI '0
■Cf
._,.
4-4 •-..
•-• 10 N e4
•-•
I
.,
- , - .- ,
N-. VI fol .1 05 en sr N Os 0 .. ,I •-■ -, N et DO OD Ch
.... ... ....
en ... N ,,c en tri r. tr, -,
. -. eV st e4
I
co
r- en en NI en nt co
•-, e•I N N ...
• - - . S A :."-.1 t•-•
1.
—
I
Zi AT; ;
—5.
(1)—((2)+(3) +(4))
os
gr
:4 CI
....
on
w ., -•°. F.,
to
•
g 4 1, fi
.0.—. R .,v,vcc,o, vRov .,o-pcn.,...,., R .c.,.. col con 0
1 :T.' ti cr, Vo LI Fo' F, 3 P .o g g ccg 4 a c...., ,T, 3 c., A's 18 Cso' 74 P
4.7 r ei
r 07
45 os eel 0;
,, tr
en ce;
...., 7:,
,..., a oe7 g 4 05 •ci .4 d y:t 4 rt: sea C'
00
00
17
41.
C
ii
12
CP
F..3
11-- ii ''.1
r... gi Zi i'i R i a ''''''
.Zi a F. a i' .8
—7 cen
- se‘v..
ce
-7 ,i cc v. cc; oc;
..... 11-
.....
N
Z''
4,
en
"3 g 2
-1 .ii "
et et
" CD
" r-"^VD.
5'
r-
-. ,.
el
—.4„..46 0 sc,
N
en r•I •-•
.-.
0
0.
E
0
U
s
O P
.2 0
•
■-•
°
i"
....
en
...,
g6
0000§.1 4ngo.n.n.,..,§
,7cD
,5 § .7±
r.2 rl .... yl r00 en cn oo on F... e... on
NT .9_ 4, r- 00
on 00 ..
en t■ et Ch
oi 4
•-• %cc eer N o ,.. a N 0 0
N N N N
—
c„,
1 .01 1
1 I
,n011.1§0
6 4;
4
s
,
-
I
I N
eei .-Z
4: t
1
mi
1
ee
G
-§ §
0A
A
Ch
O
F... ....
ee, v, 0., 4, 4, 4n un 41 41 un 0 41 wn un CD 41 CD 4n 41 41 .1 CD CD CD CD
7. 3 12 ;; t: 2, s'ii t'i:1 $1 •E 'A' 2 °
(2)
eu
Net Between
Census
Metropolitan
Areas
r
.., .4.-
...
—
....
:^, P. 'f,
Ch r —
1
1
cc; 3
N
1
1
4 7 g e-,
,a.... ....... Oh.7 esi e.i 46 vi csi en
1 1 i —
■-.. ". —
— 1
11
3 z. " 74 tr.. 1 G g ,7,. g g .,s
e4 Vt N 00 .01 ....
e4 a a 1,-- CA. .';' -7 vi
.ct
O.
' e•i a 0\
g r4: a g g;
1.; •-• r
1 — 1 —
1
1
A 9.
g ..,
°'
Os ft el ei CD ch e4 0 -. en
■
4
N
— -...r —
1
cl P..
"' g
4, 00 r. sp.
-7 ei .. o 4- a oc; e; N ...; a∎ cni co; —• e..1
eg
00 4D e4 en
(4
cD ,D en 4 et fq en st
e4 -..
1.3.. .
—.
s.
..,
- - .s
>..
es
, a
—
.. —
> cd
i2 o 43 . co 0 0 u 0
c
-o
cs 2
o5°
*2
ID
es
'°
E6
D
5
gc.,
A l' .0 t5 gVligY,,,
=eA0C, itc11001—, ='ai Z
- R. 3cAg304cXUM>5:
A '—g i IDo 13
g
- 68 -
Eastern Canada
It was observed that, in general, Ontario census metropolitan areas, particularly those in southern Ontario (Hamilton, St. Catharines, London, Kitchener
and Windsor) recruited a large percentage of their immigrants in the other census
metropolitan areas, particularly in the same region (Table 35, Column 3).
Calgary, Vancouver and Victoria were in the same situation. For those in eastern
Canada, northern Ontario and the Prairies, however, immigrants from other
census metropolitan areas represented a lower percentage of all the population
attracted. As an example, in St. Catharines, immigrants from another census
Table 35. Percentage Distribution of In- and Out-Migrants According to Some
Geographical Characteristics by Census Metropolitan Areas,
1986-1991
St-John's
Halifax
St-John
Chicoutimi
Quebec
Trois-Rivieres
Sherbrooke
Montreal
Ottawa-Hull
Oshawa
Toronto
Hamilton
St-Catherine
London
Kitchener
Windsor
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Winnipeg
Regina
Saskatoon
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Victoria
Population
Coming from
Outside the
Province
Coming from
a CMA
Outside the
Province
Population
Coming from
a CMA
(1)
(2)
(3)
67
73
46
19
14
4
8
29
52
14
44
18
18
17
16
25
16
37
66
45
44
64
56
59
48
24
36
34
5
7
3
5
20
35
8
34
15
10
13
10
13
13
21
33
23
19
39
28
51
44
24
36
34
39
36
33
36
41
56
76
65
74
71
53
61
52
42
43
33
36
30
52
38
56
61
Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census, Catalogue No. 93-222.
Population
opulation
Leaving a
CMA for
a Region
Other than
a CMA
(4)
49
54
59
34
44
47
47
60
48
55
48
45
37
48
55
46
51
51
47
42
44
48
49
64
50
- 69 metropolitan area represented 71% of the total but only 10% came from a census
metropolitan area in another province (Table 35, Column 2). In other words,
these census metropolitan areas exchanged population mainly with each other
and then with Toronto, Ottawa, Thunder Bay and Sudbury.
In Quebec, all census metropolitan areas received relatively small proportions
from other census metropolitan areas in the province (in the order of 35%:
Table 35, Column 3) but very small proportions from census metropolitan areas
in the rest of the country; in general, they received very little population that
was not from Quebec (Table 35, Column 1).
The Atlantic Provinces were in a special situation since there is at most only
one census metropolitan area per province. The proportion of immigrants from
a province other than where the census metropolitan area was located, was
accordingly fairly high.
From these observations, we conclude that in Quebec and the Atlantic
Provinces, census metropolitan areas recruit their immigrants in smaller towns
or rural areas. In the province of Quebec, the phenomenon of a local recruitment
was particularly clear since, with the exception of Montreal, no census metro(Table 35,
politan area recruited 20% of its immigrants outside the province
Column 2).
Western Canada
This situation is in contrast to that which prevailed in all of Western Canada
where from 44% in Saskatoon to 66% in Winnipeg, immigrants came from a
province other than that in which the census metropolitan area in question is
located. Each of the western census metropolitan areas, of which there are few,
recruited differently, both in the country's census metropolitan areas (30% in
Saskatoon and 61% in Victoria) and in smaller cities.
Another Approach
The residual number of movements 8 between 1986 and 1991 of people living
in Canada's census metropolitan areas in 1986 (and still living in 1991) was
considerable. There were 775,870 movements between census metropolitan
areas. As well, 718,160 people from regions other than census metropolitan areas
moved to one of the 25 census metropolitan areas during this period, and 780,535
left one census metropolitan area to live elsewhere in the country. All other things
being equal, there was thus a tendency for people living in census metropolitan
areas in 1986 to abandon these metropolitan regions to a certain extent for
smaller communities (62,375 people). This observation is not in contradiction
with the general trend mentioned at the outset, which includes on-site growth.
8
These are always balances.
- 70 In all census metropolitan areas combined, 804,945 people were counted at
the end of the period who were not in Canada in 1986. We should not be
surprised that this figure is higher than the number of immigrant entries over
the period, since among the people not living in Canada, some were Canadians
who were living abroad. Even then, the overwhelming majority were actually
immigrants (approximately 563,580). We must also assume that there were some
deaths and departures among these immigrants.
Major Trends
Of all census metropolitan areas, with the exception of Calgary, the nine
census metropolitan areas that gained population were in Ontario and British
Columbia (Table 36). All those east of Ottawa were on the list of losers.
For the five yearperiod 1986-91, Vancouver was the census metropolitan area
which recorded the highest gains (46,970). With the exception of some very
minimal losses to Oshawa and Victoria, it gained from all the others. From
Calgary and Edmonton it gained over 18,000 people, almost 7,000 from Toronto
and over 7,500 from Winnipeg.
Table 36. Net Migration Between Census Metropolitan Areas,
Canada, 19864991
Census Metropolitan Areas
Showing Losses
Census Metropolitan Areas
Showing Gains
Ottawa-Hull
Oshawa
Hamilton
London
St-Catherine
Kitchener
Calgary
Vancouver
Victoria
Total
17,625
21,595
12,755
3,105
6,885
12,870
1,470
46,970
12,890
136,165
St-John's
Halifax
St-John
Chicoutimi
Quebec
Trois-Rivieres
Sherbrooke
Montreal
Toronto
Windsor
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Winnipeg
Regina
Saskatoon
Edmonton
Total
Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census, Catalogue No. 93-222.
3,975
4,145
1,040
5,655
6,815
2,175
3,035
10,625
32,500
3,445
30
2,315
18,565
9,985
13,925
17,940
136,170
- 71 -
Since Toronto is the largest census metropolitan area, it was also the one
that recorded the largest number of moves (308,010), but it is also the one
that lost the most in its exchanges (32,500). The main losses were due to
exchanges with Oshawa (20,074), Hamilton (11,975) and Kitchener (9,975) and
the largest gains were due to exchanges with Montreal (10,280 losses compared
to 23,410 gains).
Montreal, a city almost three times the size of Vancouver, experienced hardly
any more moves (144,305). The Quebec metropolis gained in all its exchanges
with census metropolitan areas in the province of Quebec and the Atlantic
Provinces and lost with almost all census metropolitan areas located in the west;
the minimal gains, numbering only a few hundred, were with Windsor (845),
Edmonton (230) and Winnipeg (175). Overall, Montreal seemed to draw population from the eastern part of the country and lose it to the west, thus participating in the East-to-West shift of the Canadian population from one birth
cohort to another.
Ottawa, because of its role as the national capital, behaves in a special way.
Exchanges are numerous for a city of this size (105,895), and it gained in all
its exchanges with the other census metropolitan areas, except for Victoria and
Vancouver.
Relations Between Census Metropolitan Areas and
Non-Metropolitan Areas
Census metropolitan areas maintain exchanges with the rest of the country,
and the number of movements is in the same order of magnitude as between
census metropolitan areas. It would be difficult to analyse in detail all types
of movements (census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, census
metropolitan area and rural areas, etc.), and we will thus look mainly at the level
of relations between census metropolitan areas and the rest of the country as
a whole.
We see that in these exchanges (Table 37), there were more census metropolitan
areas that gained (16) than census metropolitan areas that lost (9). However,
the 16 winners gained less people (67,645) than the 9 losers lost (130,950). The
largest positive balance was in the Quebec City CMA and the big loser was
Toronto. In recruitment of migrants from census agglomerations (CA) we can
see that the majority are almost always from the province in which the census
metropolitan areas are located. In other words, this is mainly local recruitment
(Table 38).
It can be seen that Quebec is highly self-sufficient, but so are the Ontario
census metropolitan areas, as shown in their exchanges with the other census
metropolitan areas.
- 72 Table 37. Gains, Losses and Net Migration of the 25 Census Metropolitan Areas
in Their Exchanges Between Themselves and With
Non-Metropolitan Areas
Calgary
Chicoutimi
Edmonton
Halifax
London
Ottawa
Quebec
Regina
Saskatoon
Sherbrooke
St-Catherine
St-John's
St-John
Sudbury
Trois-Rivieres
Victoria
Total
Gains
Losses
Net
Gain
51,375
6,815
60,090
27,970
23,790
47,795
37,630
16,115
22,065
11,425
9,255
13,685
7,365
10,900
10,040
24,140
49,775
5,185
53,890
23,070
21,215
40,410
21,980
13,915
18,580
8,555
9,200
8,075
6,930
8,240
6,290
17,500
1,600
1,630
6,200
4,900
2,575
7,385
15,650
2,200
3,485
2,870
55
5,610
435
2,660
3,750
6,640
380,455
312,810
67,645
Hamilton
Kitchener
Montreal
Oshawa
Thunder Bay
Toronto
Vancouver
Windsor
Winnipeg
Total
Gains
Losses
Net
Losses
15,330
19,820
97,930
11,385
5,840
74,690
73,100
7,875
31,720
24,305
22,695
117,035
17,120
6,915
157,180
80,150
10,030
32,310
8,980
2,875
20,000
5,735
1,075
82,490
7,050
2,155
590
337,690
467,740
130,950
Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census, Mobili y and Migration, Catalogue No. 93 322.
-
Table 38. Proportion of In-Migrants Coming From Census Agglomerations
of the Province Among All In-Migrants Coming
From Census Agglomerations, 1991
Census Metropolitan
Areas
St-John's
Halifax
St-John
Chicoutimi
Quebec
Trois-Rivieres
Sherbrooke
Montreal
Ottawa-Hull
Oshawa
Toronto
Hamilton
St-Catherine
Proportion
43
42
57
77
90
98
95
85
60
75
72
89
74
Census Metropolitan
Areas
London
Kitchener
Windsor
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Winnipeg
Regina
Saskatoon
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Victoria
Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census, unpublished data.
Proportion
82
83
74
93
73
44
66
64
48
55
80
90
- 73 -
Census Metropolitan Areas and International Migration
The last category of people who influence the numerical development of
census metropolitan areas by their movements is international immigrants.
Obviously, and this is worth reiterating, given the intrinsic nature of censuses,
we can only determine the number of surviving immigrants. Since mortality in
this group is fairly low (approximately 3 per 1,000), we may make an approximate comparison of the numbers admitted and surviving with those counted
by the census. There were some 813,000 surviving immigrants in Canada of those
who arrived in the five years prior to the census; 9 however, the census counted
563,580 10 in census metropolitan areas, or 69%. Proportionately speaking,
these immigrants were thus slightly more heavily concentrated in census metropolitan areas than the Canadian population as a whole (61%) without assuming
what effect internal migration could have on them. Table 39 demonstrates that
in approximate terms, it was again the three largest census metropolitan areas,
those of southern Ontario and Alberta, which attracted immigrants, while those
in Quebec, the Maritimes and the Prairies aroused little interest.
Table 39. Population Aged Five Years and Over, Living Outside Canada Five Years
Ago and Received as Immigrants Between 1986 and 1991,
by Census Metropolitan Areas
Census Metropolitan
Areas
Number
Census Metropolitan
Areas
St-John's
Halifax
St-John
Chicoutimi
Quebec
Trois-Rivieres
Sherbrooke
Montreal
Ottawa-Hull
Oshawa
Toronto
Hamilton
St-Catherine
London
680
2,700
470
130
2,375
145
1,025
80,115
23,095
3,665
250,950
12,910
3,535
10,835
Kitchener
Windsor
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Winnipeg
Regina
Saskatoon
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Victoria
Total
Number
10,770
6,120
330
720
15,240
1,735
1,680
22,645
21,245
87,410
3,055
563,580
Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census, Catalogue No. 93-222 and unpublished data.
9
10
Not to be confused with external migrants shown in Table 1.
1990 Census Special tabulation.
- 74 Conclusion
This short analysis of the situation in the five-year period 1986-1991 allows
us to make only a few general remarks on the growth of census metropolitan
areas. The figures do not lend themselves to detailed analyses, since they come
from a 1/5 sample, they are not directly comparable with 100% population
enumerations and even less with those derived from changes in the population
(births and deaths).
(1) It would appear that balances were modest compared to the flows which
engendered them and of which we have an estimate in the annual accounts
of interprovincial migration (see section on internal migration).
(2) Apart from a degree of correlation between the size of the CMA and its
power of attraction, there does not appear to be a net model of the organization of movements. These appear to be linked to non-demographic factors,
probably mainly economic, and subject to rapid change.
Table 40. Net Migration by Census Metropolitan Areas, 1986-1991
St-John's
Halifax
St-John
Chicoutimi
Quebec
Trois-Rivieres
Sherbrooke
Montreal
Ottawa
Oshawa
Toronto
Hamilton
St-Catherine
London
Kitchener
Windsor
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Winnipeg
Regina
Saskatoon
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Victoria
Net
with NonCMA
Net
Between
CMA
Total
Internal
Migration
International
Migration
Total
5,610
4,900
435
1,630
15,650
3,750
2,870
- 20,000
7,385
-5,735
-82,490
-8,980
55
2,575
-2,875
- 2,155
2,660
-1,075
- 590
2,200
3,485
1,600
6,200
-7,050
6,640
-3,975
-4,145
- 1,040
-5,655
-6,915
- 2,175
-3,035
-10,625
17,625
21,595
-32,500
12,755
6,885
3,105
12,870
-3,445
-30
-2,315
- 18,565
-9,985
- 13,925
1,470
- 17,940
46,970
12,890
1,635
755
-605
-4,025
8,835
1,575
-165
-30,625
25,010
15,860
- 114,990
3,805
6,940
5,600
9,995
-5,600
2,630
-3,390
-19,155
-7,785
-10,440
3,070
- 11,740
39,920
19,530
680
2,700
470
130
2,375
145
1,025
80,115
23,095
3,665
250,950
12,910
3,535
10,835
10,770
6,120
330
720
15,240
1,735
1,680
22,645
21,245
87,410
3,055
2,315
3,455
-135
-3,895
11,210
1,720
860
49,490
48,105
19,525
135,960
16,715
10,475
16,515
20,765
520
2,960
-2,670
-3,915
-6,050
- 8,760
25,715
9,505
127,330
22,585
Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census, Catalogue No. 93-222.
- 75 (3) In very general terms, the population shift from east to west shows up in
residual migration from census metropolitan areas as well as concentration
in the five major centres of Montreal, Toronto, southern Ontario and
Vancouver, and to a lesser degree Calgary.
(4) Total migration had a negative effect on the growth of six census metropolitan areas, all of which were located in relatively unprosperous regions
(Table 40).
LABOUR FORCE
In most cases, labour economists analyse the activity of a population from
a cross-sectional perspective. Time series thus show upward or downward
movements in participation, employment, unemployment, etc. every year, in
certain segments of life or by category of individuals. The analysis thus takes
the form more of a examination of a segment of life or a category than of the
individuals that comprise it. This results in frequent comments on such questions
as youth unemployment, the participation rate of 20-40 year-olds or the income
of seniors.
Considering that the activity of individuals and their social and demographic
behaviour are interdependent, we can organize the information so as to envisage
the histories, or at least fragments of the histories, of the life of birth cohorts
so as to gain some measure of understanding of the attitudes or reactions of
their members. In this case, we will be looking at those who, in the past 20 years,
have experienced the disturbing economic events of the recessions. The base
"materials" were the various rates (participation, unemployment, etc.) drawn
from the Labour Force Survey. Unfortunately, the series is uniform only for
the 17 years from 1975 to 1992.
To clearly show the main characteristics of the activity of individuals, we
had to assign to each birth cohort, in a group of five, the average value for
the group to measure levels and make comparisons. We are thus in the area
of statistics, and far from the case study method. Once an average birth cohort
has been identified (for example, the 1958 birth cohort, which summarizes
those from 1956 to 1960), we simply had to follow it year after year at the
successive ages of its members to determine how they lived in terms of work
during the 17 years of life for which we have documentation and make a
summary.
These histories, considered from the standpoints of work, employment and
unemployment lend themselves to graphic representations which deliver messages
that are sometimes strikingly clear. Attention will be drawn to those which seem
to provide the most information.
- 76 -
Figure 9
Participation Rates for Males, According to the Average
Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Rate (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
17.5
22.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
42.5
47.5
52.5
57.5
62.5
Age
Note:
The first point of each line indicates the rate for 1975 and the last
the rate for 1992.
Source: Data from the Labour Force Survey.
Males
Participation Rates
Even at ages of maximum activity, the participation rate is never 100% since
there are always men who, for various reasons, among them physical disability,
are not part of the labour force. But it can be seen that the curves for birth
cohorts in Figure 9 dip at ever younger ages as we look at most recent birth
cohorts. For older workers, early retirement may account for the reduction in
activity , but for the younger ones, the explanation that comes to mind is that
some have become discouraged and withdrawn (temporarily no doubt) from
the labour force given the period of stagnation that coincided with the end of
the observation period (1991-1992).
Part-time Work (Figure 10)
This has never been a major factor. The younger birth cohorts are characterized by a sharp drop at ages when people normally work full time. For the other
birth cohorts at the same ages, the younger ones generally have slightly higher
— 77 —
Table 41. Age-Specific Participation Rates for Certain Male Cohorts,
Canada
Age
Participation Rate
Cohort
35.0
1941-45
1946-50
1951-55
45.0
1931-35
1936-40
1941-45
47.5
1931-35
1936-40
1941-45
96.4
95.5
94.9
9
95.0
94.2
94.4
94.1
93.0
92.7
Source: Data from the Labour Force Survey.
Figure 10
Part Time Employment Rates for Males, According to the
Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Rate (%)
18
22.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
42.5
47.5
52.5
57.5
Age
Note:
The first point of each line indicates the rate for 1975 and the last
the rate for 1992.
Source: Data from the Labour Force Survey.
62.5
- 78 -
Figure 11
Full Time Employment Rates for Males, According to the
Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Rate Co /
100
90
1983 11 1983
80
1983
1983
1983
C 1946-50
70
C 1951-55
1983
C 1941-45
C 1936-40
60
50
C 1931-35
C 1956-60
40
30
17 5
1
I
I
I
1
i
i
1
i
225
275
325
375
425
475
525
575
62 5
Age
The first point of each line indicates the rate for 1975 and the last
the rate for 1992.
Source: Data from the Labour Force Survey.
Note:
rates than those of previous birth cohorts. The 1948 birth cohort at age 42.5
had a rate of 1.16, while for the 1933 cohort it was 0.46. Although these differences were minimal, they could signal changes taking place in demand, notably
job-sharing, particularly in the service industry.
Full-time Work and Unemployment
Since part-time work and absence of activity were low, the impact of unemployment explains fluctuations in full-time work.
While unemployment may result from weaknesses in economic activity in
certain years, it may also be endemic for longer or shorter periods with peaks
during recessions. Figures 11 and 12 show how old members of various birth
cohorts were during the recessions of 1977, 1983 11 and 1991-92.
II Because of the use of cohort averages, there is no exact correspondence between the years during
which there was a recession and those when the "average" (of employment or unemployment
rates) shows this. The 1982 recession is thus recorded in average behaviours in 1983. hi is likely
that with technical progress there will be less and less correspondence between the observation
of a recession from production indicators and unemployment.
- 79 -
Figure 12
Unemployment Rates for Males, According to the Average
Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Rate (°o)
16
( ' F C 1956-60
14
I
1
12
C 1951-55
1983
■
C 1946-50
/
/
10
/ 1977
N.
/,
q
1983
8
■
C 1941 - 45
C 1936-40
/
/
1977
6
/ 1983 \
1983
/
4
C 1931-35
1977
1977
1977
2
0
175
225
275
325
1977
375
425
475
525
575
625
Age
Note:
The first point of each line indicates the rate for 1975 and the last
the rate for 1992.
Source: Data from the Labour Force Survey.
The first observation deals with the universal nature of the last two recessions.
To varying extents, all birth cohorts were significantly affected by the recessions
of 1983 and the early 1990s. The 1977 recession was less pronounced, to the point
where the oldest birth cohorts saw their unemployment increase only marginally.
Table 42. Age of Certain Male Cohort Members During the Recessions of 1983
and 1991 and Corresponding Unemployment Rates
1991
1983
Cohort
1956-60
1951-55
1946-50
1941-45
1936-40
1931-35
Source:
Age
Unemployment
Rate
Age
Unemployment
Rate
25
30
35
40
45
50
14.6
10.8
8.2
7.5
7.2
6.9
33
38
43
48
53
58
9.1
9.2
7.1
6.2
6.7
5.9
Data from the Labour Force Survey.
- 80 -
The second has to do with intensity. The more recent the birth cohorts, the more
they were affected; probably because, since their members were younger, they
were more vulnerable due to being less well protected or less experienced in their
jobs. Past age 35, whatever the age, unemployment rates differed little; however,
the younger cohorts experienced very high peaks in unemployment (Table 42).
The insidious consequences of this situation come less from the peaks in
unemployment than from the endemic nature of unemployment. For example,
the 1958 birth cohort lived from age 18 to 35 with an average unemployment
rate of nearly 10% (9.63), and those five years older with an average rate of
close to 8% (7.95). Concretely, one person out of 10 may have been constantly
unemployed between the ages of 18 and 35 and one person out of 12 between
22 and 40, that is, during the greater part of their adult life, when couples are
formed and children born. It is therefore not surprising that marriage and birth
rates have remained low and that the average age at child-bearing and marriage
has been high during years when men and women were going through these experiences. In comparison, the mean unemployment rate for the 1933 birth cohort
was 5.3% between the ages of 43 and 60. Although this rate is not low, it had
a lesser demographic effect since, at these ages, family formation and even extension tend to be complete.
Figure 13
Participation Rates for Females, According to the
Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Rate ( 0 0)
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
17 5
225
275
325
425
375
475
525
57 5
Age
Note:
Source:
The first point of each line indicates the rate for 1975 and the last
the rate for 1992.
Data from the Labour Force Survey.
62.5
- 81 -
Females
Participation Rates
It is agreed that female participation rates have increased considerably from
year to year since 1975, but the history of cohorts gives a more exact accounting
of the large-scale entry of women to the labour force at various ages (Figure 13).
Perhaps the most impressive feature of Figure 13 is the steepness of curves
for most birth cohorts. The increase in the overall participation rate recorded
using cross-sectional analysis from one year to another was due not only to large
The
number of young people coming onto the market, but also older women.
more recent the birth cohort, the sharper the curve, indicating that from year
to year more and more women from these birth cohorts came into the labour
force a year older. Thus in the 1943 birth cohort, almost half of the women were
in the job market at age 33, but with successive additions, 72.5% of them were
in the labour force 17 years later. The same is true for the 1948 birth cohort which
rose from 55% to 79% in 15 years. The rate for the 1958 birth cohort rose from
47.8% of members to 76% in 16 years, etc.
Figure 14
Employment Rates for Females, According to the Average
Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Rate ro)
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
17 5
22.5
275
325
425
375
475
525
575
Age
Note:
The first point of each line indicates the rate for /975 and the last
the rate for 1992.
Source Data from the Labour Force Survey.
62
- 82 -
Figure 15
Full Time Employment Rates for Females, According to
the Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Rate ( 0/0)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
17 5
22 5
27. 5
37.5
32.5
42 5
47 5
52 5
57.5
62 5
Age
The first point of each line indicates the rate for 1975 and the last
the rate for 1992.
Source: Data from the Labour Force Survey .
Note:
Figure 16
Part Time Employment Rates for Females, According to
the Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Rate (%)
16
A
r
C 1956-60
14
/
12
10
C 1931-35
C 1936-40
8
C 1951-55;
C 1941-45
6
C 1946-50
4
17.5
22.5
27.5
32 5
37 5
42 5
Age
Source: See Figure 15.
47 5
52 5
57 5
62 5
- 83 -
The second observation is that, the older the birth cohorts, the quicker they
reached a maximum, and the lower this maximum was. From another viewpoint,
we can see a slowdown in cohort participation at younger and younger ages in
the more recent birth cohorts. Thus the 1933 birth cohort reached its maximum
at age 49 with a rate of 58.4%; the 1938 cohort at 47 with 65.8%; the 1943 at
45 with 74.1% and the 1948 cohort at 43 with 79.2%.
The phenomenon is just as visible when we look at rates of employment
(employment population ratio) and full-time employment (Figures 14). It is as
if certain members of the various birth cohorts systematically retired after the
same duration of working life.
For the 1953 birth cohort, we can also see a clear saddlepoint centred on
age 27, which doubtless expresses temporary withdrawal from the labour force
to give birth to children; this behaviour is noticeably different from that of the
following 1958 birth cohort which, from age 23 to 30, maintained the same
employment rate, around 54% (figure 15).
Part time Work
-
This form of employment has always been more common than for males, but
in the more recent birth cohorts, it has become increasingly widespread.
Figure 16 shows an entirely logical phenomenon: the 1953 and 1958 birth cohorts
in their 20s who are finding less and less full-time work (see above), also show
significant increases from one age to another in part-time jobs.
Each of the older birth cohorts, which worked full-time for shorter periods
than subsequent birth cohorts, also had a lower rate of part-time work, indicating that the two forms of employment developed simultaneously.
Unemployment
The figure showing female unemployment (Figure 17) is almost identical to that
for males, with the difference that the extent of this phenomenon is considerably
lower. The comment would only be the same. The birth cohorts most affected
are also the most recent, but the figures are lower. The 1958 birth cohort lived
with an average rate of 8.2% and that of 1953 with 6.9%. However, no birth
cohort has had, either in 1983 or in 1990-91, peaks as high as the corresponding
male cohorts. For the 1958 birth cohort, the peak was 9.08% when these women
were 27. In 1990-91, the rate was 7.3% and they were 35. For the subsequent
average birth cohort (1953), we see a rate of 7.8% at age 33 and 7.2% at age 40.
Overview
Individual observation of one cohort or group of cohorts shows up (for
participation, employment or unemployment) a sort of cumulative aspect of
these situations for the groups of individuals making up the birth cohort. It is
- 84 -
Hum 17
Unemployment Rates for Females, According to the
Average Cohorts, Canada, 1975-1992
Rate (%)
16
14
C.
1956-60
C 1951 55
-
12
C. 19 4 6-50
19 83
10
C. 1941 45
-
1983
r L
\
8
1983
C. 1936-40
1983
\ 1
%.,
/
C. 1931-35
6
1977
--
/
1977
4
J 19 3
1977
1977
2
0
17 5
.
225
275
32 5
.
1977
375
1983
1977
425
475
525
57
5
625
Age
The first point of each line indicates the rate for 1975 and the last,
the rate for 1992.
Source: Data from the Labour Force Survey.
Note:
clear that an increase in female participation is not due to age and only distantly
related to birth cohort, but is a period effect such as the baby-boom - a period
when fertility rates were seen to increase at all ages and affected a whole series
of birth cohorts. It is also important to measure the effects that the two major
unemployment crises had on certain birth cohorts, particularly those taken at
ages when the life potential is at its maximum, bearing in mind that the measurements used are averages and even averages of averages, which considerably
tones down the extent of phenomena experienced by some sub-groups. The lost
generations?
CONCLUSION
Overall, the main indicators of Canada's demographic health had a rather
poor showing in 1991. Marriage, birth and fertility rates were down, abortions
were on the rise, divorces remained stationary and deaths were down only
slightly. Arrivals of immigrants were in line with forecasts, and internal movements were at a moderate level.
Appendices
- 86 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 1972-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Newfoundland
Year
Popu'titian
on
January Pi
1976
Returning
Canadians
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
Interprovincial
Migration
In
Residual2
Out
Net
11.4
-0.2
15.5
13.0
0.3
0.3
0.2
553.9
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
11.4
-2.5
-0.6
1.0
561.2
0.3
0.2
0.0
12.4
-2.7
1.6
1977
1978
565.2
567.9
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
12.2
11.7
-4.1
-3.5
1979
569.9
0.2
0.2
0.1
13.1
- 4.2
0.9
1.1
1.0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
572.3
0.3
0.1
0.9
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
12.4
14.8
-3.1
575.8
575.2
579.4
581.4
580.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
-6.3
10.3
8.7
0.3
-1.1
-3.6
1.6
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
-0.2
0.1
0.0
0.2
C.
1975
Net
International
Migration I
O
537.8
545.2
549.4
Natural
Increase
a
1972
1973
1974
Total
Growth
0.3
0.3
9.3
11.0
12.4
12.8
12.2
0.4
12.7
-0.1
11.4
-5.0
-4.7
-4.4
-2.2
-2.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1989
576.8
0.3
0.1
1990
1991
577.5
578.9
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.03
-0.4
12.0
-1.1
-1.5
1992 PR
1993 PR
579.9
579.8
0.5
-
-0.6
12.6
-3.7
-
-
Death
Rate
Rate of
Natural
Increase
Birth
Rate
1972
1973
1974
537.8
545.2
549.4
13.7
7.7
8.2
23.8
1975
1976
553.9
13.1
20.1
561.2
1977
1978
565.2
567.9
7.1
4.8
3.5
19.7
18.4
16.7
1979
1980
569.9
4.2
17.9
6.1
- 1.0
17.9
1981
572.3
575.8
1982
1983
575.2
579.4
7.3
3.4
17.5
15.9
15.3
1984
581.4
-0.9
14.8
1985
1986
1987
580.9
578.8
577.1
-3.6
14.7
- 2.9
- 2.1
14.0
13.5
1988
575.9
576.8
1.6
13.0
13.5
577.5
578.9
2.4
1.7
579.9
579.8
-0.2
-
1989
1990
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
1.2
See notes at the end of this table.
21.7
18.5
13.1
12.4
12.9
a
Total
Growth
Rate
■I .4
Population
on
January 1st
Fn
nn L. no. v. O.
O. nn
t.) IN0.. I.00000aA0
1987
1988
578.8
577.1
575.9
17.5
15.5
12.5
14.3
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.6
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
0.8
Rate of
Net
International
Immigration'
Growth
Rate by
Flow,'
0.6
0.9
0.9
-3.9
- 7.9
-4.4
1.1
-1.3
13.8
12.9
11.2
0.5
-6.7
0.4
0.0
- 8.1
- 7.7
12.4
0.4
-8.2
12.0
12.0
10.0
9.3
8.8
0.5
0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.2
8.5
-0.2
-12.1
8.0
7.3
6.8
-0.3
0.2
0.3
-10.9
- 9.4
7.1
6.4
0.5
-5.9
-4.0
5.9
6.2
0.7
0.5
0.9
-5.9
- 13.0
-2.8
-5.9
-9.6
-5.2
- 4.1 3
-6.4
-
- 87 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 19'72-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Prince Edward Island
Year
Population
on
January 1 5'
Total
Growth
Natural
Increase
Net
International
Migration'
Returning
Canadians
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
Interprovincial
Migration
In
Out
Residual2
Net
1972
113.2
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
3.4
0.9
1973
114.5
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.0
4.3
0.5
1974
115.4
1.8
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.0
3.8
1.4
1975
117.2
1.2
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.0
3.8
0.8
0.3
118.4
1.1
0.8
0.1
0.1
-0.0
4.0
1977
119.5
1.8
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.0
3.3
0.6
1978
121.3
1.2
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.5
0.0
1979
122.5
1.0
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.0
3.6
-0.2
1980
123.5
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
4.1
-1.1
1981
123.6
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
4.3
- 0.8
1982
123.8
1.0
0.9
0.1
0.1
- 0.0
3.4
-0.0
1983
124.8
1.6
0.9
-0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.8
1984
126.4
1.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
- 0.0
2.5
0.5
1985
127.8
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
- 0.0
1986
128.7
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.1
3.0
-0.5
1987
128.8
0.7
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.3
1988
129.6
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.4
1989
130.5
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
3.4
-0.1
1990
130.8
0.2
0.9
0.1
0.0
- 0.0
3.1
-0.3
1991
131.0
-1.1
0.7
0.0
0103
-0.0
4.7
-1.6
1992 PR
129.9
1.2
0.7
0.0
-
- 0.0
2.5
0.5
1993 PR
131.1
-
-
-
-
-
118.4
9.3
16.3
1977
119.5
14.6
16.4
1978
121.3
9.8
16.3
1979
122.5
8.3
15.7
1980
123.5
0.7
15.8
1981
123.6
2.0
15.3
1982
123.8
7.7
15.5
1983
124.8
13.1
15.2
1984
126.4
10.6
15.4
1985
127.8
6.9
15.7
1986
128.7
1.2
15.0
1987
128.8
5.8
15.1
1988
129.6
6.8
15.2
1989
130.5
2.6
14.8
1990
130.8
1.4
15.4
1991
131.0
- 8.3
14.5
1992 PR
129.9
9.2
14.5
1993 PR
131.1
-
See notes at the end of this table.
7.3
1.6
8.3
b
1976
NOCO OD
16.4
0.2
7.4
1.1
2.8
N
16.7
10.2
2.9
1.3
7.1
1.1
2.2
N..I
15.6
117.2
0.6
7.5
7.7
0.8
7.0
8.1
0.4
1.7
7.4
1.7
0.9
6 Pu
115.4
1975
■1CO 00 00 CO 00 OD
1974
8.4
Y ;C,
16.4
J J J
17.7
7.7
Growth
Rate by
Flow4
7.5
1.0
- 6.7
7.3
0.3
- 5.3
7.6
0.6
0.2
6.8
-0.0
6.2
6.6
0.1
3.9
7.0
0.2
-0.1
6.3
0.7
- 5.0
0.9
- 0.7
6.7
0.7
0.2
0.7
- 3.9
it,
11.3
114.5
Rate of
Net
IInternat i ona l
Immigration'
6.5
LP 6
113.2
1973
Rate of
Natural
Increase
6.5
J
1972
Death
Rate
6.7
1.1
- 5.2
LO•••••
Birth
Rate
OD OD OD CO OD 00 CO00 OD OD
Total
Growth
Rate
5.3
0.4
-13.65
5.1
0.4
1
Population
on
January 1 5'
O
1976
-
4.0
-
- 88 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 1972-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Nova Scotia
3.7
3.3
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
915.2
919.8
921.5
Population
on
January Is'
1.5
1.4
0.3
0.3
27.2
25.6
5.8
6.3
5.9
4.1
4.9
5.4
5.7
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
6.6
9.6
3.5
7.5
9.4
8.7
4.8
4.4
3.1
5.6
0.8
5.4
5.1
5.4
5.4
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
5.5
5.1
5.1
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
5.0
4.8
5.8
6.5
5.0
5.5
4.8
5.4
4.6
1.7
-
4.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.5
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1 3
-
Total
Growth
Rate
22.6
21.2
19.5
18.4
19.6
20.3
18.5
19.3
18.8
18.3
17.3
16.7
21.0
-1.8
- 2.5
21.7
17.3
14.5
- 2.5
1.6
3.9
14.4
16.9
17.8
- 0.2
-0.7
19.8
19.2
20.4
19.1
19.8
18.6
21.4
19.1
18.7
20.1
21.3
- 1.3
-0.1
3.0
- 2.2
0.1
0.6
-0.1
1.4
- 2.1
-
Birth
Rate
Death
Rate
Rate of
Natural
Increase
Rate of
Net
I nenaona
t r ti
l
Immigration'
1972
1973
802.4
810.4
16.8
16.3
8.6
8.5
8.2
7.8
1.6
2.2
1974
818.1
15.8
8.4
7.4
2.3
1975
824.7
8.2
7.6
1.8
1976
1977
1978
834.2
840.0
844.2
15.8
15.3
14.7
8.3
8.3
8.1
1.6
1.2
0.5
1979
849.1
14.8
14.6
7.0
6.4
6.7
8.0
6.5
1.0
1980
852.8
14.5
1981
856.1
14.1
8.2
8.1
6.3
6.0
1.4
1.0
1982
1983
859.6
867.1
14.3
14.2
8.0
8.1
6.2
6.1
0.9
0.4
1984
876.5
14.1
7.8
6.2
0.7
1985
1986
1987
1988
885.2
890.0
894.4
14.0
13.9
13.5
8.2
5.8
0.5
8.1
7.9
5.7
5.6
0.7
0.8
1989
1990
897.5
903.2
909.8
1.0
1.1
915.2
919.8
921.5
8.2
8.3
8.1
7.9
5.3
5.5
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
13.5
13.8
14.1
13.1
6.0
5.2
1.0
0.6
13.0
8.1
-
4.9
-
1.5
-
See notes at the end of this table.
1.6
4.5
0.4
23.0
19.9
17.1
17.6
0.3
0.2
21.1
2.8
2.1
O
903.2
909.8
0.3
24.1
25.6
Growth
Rate by
Flow4
1•.,O•-• o W o
849.1
1989
1990
19.9
26.3
:laIN
840.0
844.2
894.4
897.5
22.7
0.4
k,
834.2
1977
1978
1986
0.4
1.8
1.9
Residual2
Net
t4 ts,
824.7
1987
1988
1.3
6.4
6.0
Out
itt
1975
1976
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
6.6
In
•-•
7.6
Interprovincial
Migration
.-•:-I•40
8.0
810.4
818.1
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
o
802.4
1973
1974
852.8
856.1
859.6
867.1
876.5
885.2
890.0
Returning
Canadians
IIIIII111111
1972
1979
1980
Net
International
Migration'
Natural
Increase
wo
Total
Growth
O
Population
on
January 1 33
Year
- 89 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 1972-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
New Brunswick
Population
on
January l't
1972
Total
Growth
Natural
Increase
Net
International
Migrations
Returning
Canadians
Net
N onpermanent
Residents
Interprovincial
Migration
In
Out
18.2
Residual2
Net
6.8
6.3
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.1
1.8
22.7
17.9
19.9
0.2
0.7
2.8
663.0
6.2
0.9
0.6
- 0.0
22.9
18.7
1.8
1.8
1975
1976
1977
1978
673.1
687.2
695.3
700.4
0.9
0.7
0.1
-0.4
24.2
18.9
16.6
17.3
16.4
16.0
703.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
1979
6.6
6.6
6.3
5.6
5.7
4.2
7.6
1.6
0.1
14.3
1980
706.6
707.9
708.0
714.0
0.5
-0.1
-0.3
-0.2
0.5
1981
1982
1983
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.3
0.2
0.4
-0.2
-0.0
13.2
13.8
14.8
13.2
1984
720.3
724.9
5.1
-0.3
-0.4
-0.3
0.4
- 0.1
-0.0
12.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
0.4
1989
1990
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
726.9
728.1
4.2
731.2
735.2
740.1
746.1
747.8
749.0
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.0
4.0
-
Population
on
January 1st
Total
Growth
Rate
1972
1973
1974
648.3
654.4
663.0
9.5
13.0
15.2
1975
673.1
20.7
1976
1977
1978
687.2
695.3
700.4
1979
703.4
1980
1981
706.6
707.9
1982
1983
708.0
714.0
1984
720.3
724.9
1985
1986
1987
726.9
728.1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
-0.0
-0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1 3
-0.1
-
-
16.5
17.4
18.6
12.7
10.9
11.2
13.1
14.3
0.1
11.5
11.4
0.1
0.6
13.2
13.7
0.1
-0.1
-0.5
-0.8
15.0
14.2
14.1
13.2
15.9
14.0
-
15.9
-
15.0
14.9
15.0
Rate of
Net
Internat i ona l
Immigrations
Birth
Rate
Death
Rate
Rate of
Natural
Increase
18.1
17.3
17.1
7.6
7.7
7.8
10.5
9.6
9.3
0.4
0.6
1.3
17.3
17.1
16.5
15.4
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.4
9.8
1.3
11.8
7.2
4.3
1.0
0.2
-0.6
4.6
1.8
15.4
15.0
0.2
8.4
8.8
14.8
14.8
14.7
7.3
7.5
7.3
9.6
9.1
8.0
8.1
7.5
7.6
-0.1
-0.4
-0.3
6.3
14.3
13.9
2.8
1.8
4.2
0.3
0.7
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.0
-0.4
13.5
13.1
7.2
7.5
7.4
6.7
6.0
5.7
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
1988
731.2
5.5
13.1
7.4
5.7
-0.2
1989
1990
735.2
740.1
746.1
747.8
749.0
6.6
8.0
2.3
1.6
-
13.1
13.2
12.7
12.8
-
7.5
5.7
5.9
5.4
5.3
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
See notes at the end of this table.
7.3
7.3
7.5
-
-
-0.9
-1.6
-2.2
1.1
- 4.2
-4.8
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.8
-1.6
-2.9
1.4
1.4
0.4
-1.8
-1.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.0
1.0
-1.8
-1.9
-
-0.3
-0.3
-0.1
Growth
Rate by
Flow4
N;.0
1987
1988
4.9
4.3
0.2
15.5
14.3
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.1
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
■I••■O
—>a 0 —
—
— bNONb JP O>Co A■.1 oo
1985
1986
0
648.3
654.4
0.6
1973
1974
- 90 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 19'72-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Quebec
6,172.2
38.6
41.3
6.6
1973
1974
6,210.8
6,261.4
50.7
59.5
41.4
42.9
6.7
6.3
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
6,320.9
6,385.1
6,437.3
6,449.3
6,466.9
64.2
52.2
12.0
17.6
33.3
50.2
53.3
1980
6,500.2
1981
1982
1983
6,543.5
6,586.1
6,609.0
1984
1985
Net
International
Migration'
Returning
Canadians
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
Interprovincial
Migration
In
Out
Net
0.7
36.2
56.0
-19.9
1.7
-0.3
39.6
39.3
54.4
51.2
-14.7
- 11.9
6.3
6.2
1.7
-0.5
34.5
31.6
46.8
-12.3
53.7
51.8
55.3
5.5
5.4
5.1
-0.3
-0.5
1.8
- 20.8
-46.5
-33.4
-30.0
43.3
53.9
4.7
3.3
24.4
24.5
23.6
21.9
52.4
71.0
57.9
53.7
46.2
42.6
22.9
27.6
52.6
47.3
43.9
4.2
4.8
4.3
4.8
-2.8
1.6
23.6
19.9
22.3
46.1
-22.5
48.1
41.4
-28.2
- 19.1
6,636.6
33.0
43.4
4.3
0.6
25.2
36.2
- 10.9
6,669.6
6,710.1
40.5
60.0
40.6
37.7
4.1
4.0
4.6
25.4
6,770.1
6,829.1
6,906.0
59.0
77.0
73.0
- 6.0
-3.0
- 7.4
- 7.0
- 8.4
6,979.0
7,048.4
7,116.7
69.4
68.3
3.5
3.0
2.9
2.6
1.03
26.0
26.0
27.8
29.5
26.9
1991
1992 PR
36.2
38.8
44.1
49.6
48.2
13.9
7.1
22.9
7.2
- 7.4
31.4
29.0
33.4
34.8
37.8
46.9
36.4
38.6
43.3
1993 PR
7,182.2
-
26.9
27.8
- 9.6
-11.7
65.5
- 13.7
- 7.3
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
-
Death
Rate
Rate of
Natural
Increase
Rate of
Net
Internl
ationa
Immigration'
Growth
Rate by
Flow4
13.5
13.5
13.6
14.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.8
1.2
2.1
3.2
-0.4
1.5
2.6
6.8
7.9
2.5
15.0
15.1
14.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
8.3
8.3
8.0
8.5
2.9
1.4
0.6
1.6
2.2
-0.2
6.7
8.3
2.3
- 1.6
6.5
6.6
6.7
8.0
7.2
6.6
2.0
1.8
6.7
6.5
0.9
-1.5
- 3.7
-2.5
-1.6
12.9
6.8
6.1
1.1
-0.0
12.6
12.3
7.0
7.0
5.6
5.3
1.8
3.1
3.3
3.4
11.2
12.6
7.0
5.7
3.0
5.6
10.5
9.9
9.6
9.2
13.3
14.0
13.7
13.6
7.0
6.9
6.3
7.1
6.8
6.6
4.1
5.1
6.4
5.8
4.2
2.8
2.85
-
-
Total
Growth
Rate
1972
1973
1974
6,172.2
6,210.8
6,261.4
6.2
8.1
1975
6,320.9
1976
1977
1978
1979
6,385.1
6,437.3
6,449.3
6,466.9
1980
6,500.2
1981
1982
1983
6,543.5
6,586.1
6,609.0
3.5
4.2
1984
6,636.6
5.0
13.8
13.3
13.2
1985
6,669.6
6.0
1986
1987
6,710.1
6,770.1
8.9
8.7
1988
6,829.1
6,906.0
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
6,979.0
7,048.4
7,116.7
7,182.2
- 15.5
-
Birth
Rate
Population
on
January 1 5t
1989
1990
- 24.3
Residual2
No
1972
Natural
Increase
O 5 .o .12
Total
Growth
AA 0 0-
PopuUnion
on
January 1st
Year
9.5
10.1
8.1
1.9
2.7
5.1
6.6
6.5
See notes at the end of this table.
-
15.2
14.9
14.5
6.9
7.1
-
1.1
- 6.5
- 5.3
-3.4
2.6
- 91 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 1972-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Ontario
Out
Net
1.5
4.1
-1.2
4.1
-1.7
-1.2
-1.7
4.0
7.6
17.5
-0.1
1.7
- 1.6
3.4
24.7
22.2
70.0
47.6
- 6.0
-38.9
-55.0
-
97.0
104.2
89.5
80.9
88.7
98.6
86.6
83.5
74.2
80.6
89.1
88.2
89.1
88.4
100.1
104.7
91.4
87.3
75.2
78.8
82.8
-
88.8
109.4
111.7
106.0
99.2
90.0
86.2
98.9
109.1
100.2
69.5
55.4
52.4
54.9
57.1
64.4
76.5
88.5
90.3
84.4
85.7
-
8.2
- 5.3
-22.2
- 25.1
- 10.5
8.6
0.4
-15.3
- 34.9
-19.7
19.6
32.8
36.7
33.4
42.9
40.3
14.9
-1.2
-15.1
- 5.6
- 3.0
7,925.7
8,032.5
8,158.7
8,278.7
8,384.8
8,477.0
8,575.2
8,647.8
8,723.9
8,797.9
8,894.1
9,014.5
9,138.1
9,269.4
9,401.7
9,575.8
9,782.2
10,017.4
10,236.0
10,401.4
'10,537.1
10,673.8
13.4
15.6
14.6
12.7
10.9
11.5
8.4
8.8
8.4
10.9
13.4
13.6
14.3
14.2
18.4
21.3
23.8
21.6
16.0
13.0
12.9
-
15.7
15.3
15.1
15.1
14.6
14.4
14.0
14.0
14.1
13.8
13.9
14.0
14.3
14.2
14.1
13.9
13.9
14.4
14.6
14.5
14.4
-
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.9
-
8.3
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.4
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.2
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
7.3
7.8
7.5
7.5
-
See notes at the end of this table.
Rate of
Net
In ternational
Immigration'
Growth
Rate by
Flow4
.ach.
Rate of
Natural
Increase
000V:,
Death
Rate
IN Oa LA La
Birth
Rate
0,
Total
Growth
Rate
a,
Population
on
January 1st
Residual2
-1
In
Interprovincial
Migration
-.I
17.7
18.1
17.3
17.5
17.3
15.4
15.2
14.4
13.0
11.9
13.4
12.3
11.9
12.4
11.4
10.8
9.5
9.3
8.4
3.23
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
a,
66.2
63.9
63.7
65.2
62.1
61.3
59.8
60.2
60.6
59.3
61.2
62.3
66.6
65.5
66.0
66.5
67.4
74.4
80.1
78.6
79.2
-
Returning
Canadians
:4 :4
0
106.8
126.1
120.1
106.1
92.2
98.2
72.6
76.0
74.0
96.3
120.4
123.6
131.3
132.2
174.1
206.4
235.2
218.6
165.4
135.8
136.7
-
Net
International
Migration'
I a.
7,925.7
8,032.5
8,158.7
8,278.7
8,384.8
8,477.0
8,575.2
8,647.8
8,723.9
8,797.9
8,894.1
9,014.5
9,138.1
9,269.4
9,401.7
9,575.8
9,782.2
10,017.4
10,236.0
10,401.4
10,537.1
10,673.8
Natural
Increase
oo
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
Total
Growth
0
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
Population
on
January 15'
t•J
Year
- 92 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 1972-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Manitoba
Year
Population
on
January 1 31
Total
Growth
Natural
Increase
Net
International
Migration'
Returning
Canadians
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
Interprovincial
Migraton
i
In
Out
Residuag
Net
1972
1,000.9
3.7
9.2
1.4
0.1
26.1
33.8
2.1
1973
1974
1,004.5
1,014.3
9.8
7.2
8.8
8.9
1.4
1.4
2.1
1,021.5
8.6
8.8
1.4
33.8
30.2
28.4
36.0
1975
0.2
-0.1
0.2
1976
1977
1978
1,030.1
6.4
8.5
1.3
-0.1
25.1
35.6
32.5
28.7
2.1
2.1
2.9
1,036.5
1,041.8
5.3
- 2.5
8.5
8.1
1.2
1.2
1979
1,039.3
-4.9
8.0
1.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.2
21.6
18.7
18.8
25.3
28.2
32.6
3.4
3.4
1980
1,034.5
7.6
1.0
0.4
19.0
30.4
3.4
1981
1,034.8
0.3
7.8
8.1
8.4
20.9
18.5
19.4
17.5
1.2
- 0.4
-0.4
1985
1986
1987
1988
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.4
26.3
1,042.6
1,056.2
1,069.0
1,080.7
1,090.1
1,097.0
1,102.3
1.0
0.8
22.7
1982
1983
1984
7.4
7.6
-0.2
-0.1
17.2
17.2
0.2
0.1
0.7
17.4
18.1
16.1
-0.4
-0.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
17.2
19.0
20.5
22.9
24.7
1989
1990
1,104.1
1,105.6
2.0
1991
1,109.1
1,111.1
1,113.5
1.4
8.5
1.0
0.2
17.1
27.1
3.5
8.5
0.2
16.9
25.5
2.0
2.0
8.3
0.9
0.43
- 1.5
18.0
25.9
0.8
2.4
-
8.2
-2.1
18.6
-
25.1
-
15.5
15.4
15.6
15.5
1985
1,069.0
1,080.7
13.0
12.0
10.9
8.7
1986
1987
1,090.1
1,097.0
6.4
4.8
15.8
15.6
15.4
1988
1,102.3
1.7
15.4
1989
1990
1,104.1
1.3
3.2
1.8
2.1
15.7
15.7
1991
1992 PR
1,105.6
1,109.1
1,111.1
1993 PR
1,113.5
See notes at the end of this table.
15.6
15.7
8.1
8.0
7.7
8.1
8.1
7.9
8.2
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.3
-
b
0
8.2
8.3
1,034.8
1,042.6
1,056.2
w 1.4
15.5
1981
1982
1983
1984
1,039.3
1,034.5
0
0.3
7.5
1980
I1
III
7.9
8.0
7.9
b•-•
16.1
15.8
15.7
I
5.1
-2.4
-4.7
0 --II is.,
8.0
1,036.5
1,041.8
1977
1978
1979
lA
16.2
Go v,
8.2
6.1
0
17.0
16.7
•
7.0
8.4
lA N
1,014.3
1,021.5
1,030.1
Growth
Rate by
Flows
111I
1974
1975
Rate of
Net
Internat ional
ona
Immigration'
:P. OL
17.4
16.8
Rate of
Natural
Increase
LA
3.7
9.7
Death
Rate
1 1 1
1,000.9
1,004.5
Birth
Rate
L.+ J . au J0
Total
Growth
Rate
-
8.2
8.1
8.3
1976
2.0
2.0
LA
1972
1973
5.3
1.8
8.3
8.1
8.2
7.9
I
Population
on
January 1st
9.4
7.0
1.4
1992 PR
1993 PR
13.7
12.7
11.7
3.4
- 93 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 1972-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Saskatchewan
Year
Population
on
January la
Total
Growth
Natural
Increase
Net
International
Migration'
Returning
Canadians
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.8
1.6
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
-0.0
0.1
- 0.0
1.1
0.4
0.6
1972
1973
1974
925.5
915.9
909.8
- 9.6
- 6.1
2.7
7.9
7.2
7.3
1975
1976
1977
912.5
927.8
15.3
13.0
7.6
8.2
940.7
951.3
956.9
10.6
9.0
1978
1979
5.6
8.1
8.8
9.6
1.8
0.6
0.5
1980
965.0
8.1
9.4
2.8
1981
973.1
11.3
9.7
1982
1983
984.4
997.3
12.9
14.0
1984
1,011.3
1,024.2
1,030.8
1,033.6
1,033.2
1,025.1
1,014.5
12.9
- 0.0
-0.0
0.1
22.2
19.3
21.8
23.0
0.4
-3.7
21.1
24.6
-3.5
0.5
0.2
20.7
25.0
1.4
0.5
0.3
23.2
23.7
-4.4
-0.5
9.5
10.2
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
-0.0
0.1
19.3
17.0
1.7
2.5
10.3
10.1
9.5
9.2
8.7
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
21.0
19.5
17.3
16.6
20.8
22.9
24.7
30.0
0.7
-5.0
-7.0
-9.0
-16.3
33.9
-18.6
1.5
0.5
0.1 3
-
32.0
28.4
-15.9
Birth
Rate
1972
1973
925.5
915.9
16.8
16.2
1974
1975
909.8
16.6
16.6
1976
1977
912.5
927.8
940.7
1978
1979
1980
951.3
956.9
965.0
1981
1982
1983
973.1
984.4
997.3
1984
1985
1,011.3
1,024.2
17.7
1986
1987
1,030.8
1,033.6
17.0
1988
1,033.2
16.5
16.3
1989
1,025.1
16.3
1990
1991
1992 PR
1,014.5
1,006.1
1,003.0
15.9
15.2
15.4
1993 PR
1,002.0
17.1
17.5
17.3
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.9
17.8
17.7
0.1
-1.0
-1.2
-
15.8
15.9
15.7
13.6
15.3
16.1
18.4
19.7
28.2
-9.9
-8.5
Rate of
Natural
Increase
Rate of
Net
International
Immigration'
Growth
Rate by
Flow4
A14
1.6
1.6
-
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
-13.3
-4.8
8.6
7.8
0.3
0.5
-19.0
-14.5
003a., Cl
8.0
7.2
7.1
-
8.0
0.9
1.7
-5.1
8.3
1.2
5.2
1.7
- 3.3
- 1.6
Death
Rate
CO.4 J -4 GO00COOD COODCO
8.7
Total
Growth
Rate
See notes at the end of this table.
19.5
6.6
3.8
03ODCD 0.333-4 0 -4 3
Population
on
January la
-3.1
-1.0
Net
23.4
22.4
-4-1 4 :4 :4 :4
1992 PR
1993 PR
1,006.1
1,003.0
1,002.0
Out
-17.3
•0 O.
1991
-10.6
-8.4
Residual2
In
36.8
39.4
32.8
•••• 0 0o
1989
1990
6.6
2.8
-0.4
-8.1
Interprovincial
Migration
26.2
28.0
30.0
26.2
OD00GO-4
1985
1986
1987
1988
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
8.3
8.7
9.5
9.2
10.0
1.2
0.4
1.9
9.7
9.9
9.6
10.2
2.9
1.5
1.1
0.5
-1.3
1.6
3.4
3.8
10.1
1.1
2.6
9.9
0.5
-3.4
9.2
8.9
1.0
1.1
-6.4
-9.3
8.4
1.3
-16.3
8.6
1.1
8.0
7.2
7.1
1.5
1.6
-19.0
- 16.3
- 10.2 5
-
1.6
-8.1
-
- 94 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 1972-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Alberta
Population
on
January 1 55
Total
Growth
1972
1973
1974
1,686.0
30.6
18.6
1,716.6
1,745.5
28.8
42.4
18.5
18.6
1975
1,787.9
1,844.2
20.2
21.5
4.5
1976
56.4
74.0
0.7
-0.1
0.7
4.5
-0.2
1977
1978
1,918.2
1,994.4
76.2
22.8
73.1
23.5
4.1
4.1
-0.1
-0.2
1979
1980
1981
2,067.5
2,154.1
2,257.9
24.9
27.0
29.8
4.0
3.7
0.7
1.2
3.6
1982
1983
1984
2,347.9
2,391.4
2,398.6
2,400.8
86.5
103.9
90.0
43.4
2.5
-0.4
0.0
0.2
1980
1981
1.23
-
Total
Growth
January 1 5'
Rate
1,686.0
1,716.6
1,745.5
1,787.9
18.0
16.7
17.2
16.9
24.0
31.0
16.9
17.4
1,844.2
39.3
1,918.2
1,994.4
39.0
36.0
2,067.5
2,154.1
41.0
47.1
17.6
17.6
17.4
17.5
2,257.9
39.1
18.3
Birth
Rate
18.0
18.5
19.0
19.0
1982
1983
2,347.9
2,391.4
1984
2,398.6
3.0
0.9
1985
2,400.8
9.1
18.2
1986
1987
1988
2,422.9
2,437.4
2,448.6
6.0
4.6
14.3
1989
2,483.9
17.9
18.0
17.2
17.1
17.3
1990
2,528.7
2,580.7
2,617.2
20.3
14.0
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
2,646.9
11.3
-
See notes at the end of this table.
18.4
16.8
16.5
16.2
-
Death
Rate
t.) IA A 14lah
on
Ch CI,CTCIS
28.3
28.1
-
3.1
1.9
-0.4
- 6.0
- 5.7
Rate of
Natural
Out
54.0
67.8
60.6
53.2
49.3
50.5
50.6
56.9
Residual2
Net
6.5
2.7
14.8
23.5
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
34.2
- 7.4
32.3
32.0
- 12.5
- 12.5
39.2
- 12.5
59.8
67.3
46.9
40.2
-12.5
-2.3
68.8
72.1
4.0
-26.2
-30.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
-9.6
5.0
-20.3
-27.6
3.9
3.0
3.0
69.9
59.5
69.8
72.9
60.3
61.3
56.3
61.1
64.6
Rate of
Net
- 5.5
3.4
3.0
11.1
5.9
3.0
1.3
-1.3
-
Growth
Rate by
Increase
International
Immigration'
10.9
10.7
0.4
1.3
7.1
6.0
10.5
11.1
2.6
4.1
13.5
19.9
27.9
Flow4
11.4
3.5
11.7
11.5
11.8
2.3
0.6
2.5
27.3
12.3
12.9
34.8
26.1
13.5
13.8
5.6
5.0
3.7
0.6
4.8
- 10.8
13.1
1.0
- 12.1
12.7
0.2
12.4
11.8
- 3.5
- 6.4
- 7.2
11.4
11.8
1.0
1.9
3.0
3.9
11.3
4.8
9.0
10.9
10.7
-
3.2
3.3
3.1 5
0.6
CO
1977
1978
1979
36.5
29.7
-
3.6
3.3
Os
1975
1976
29.5
28.9
1.2
2.5
4.6
4.7
In
IAlab t■A N
1972
1973
1974
44.8
52.0
0.3
Interprovincial
Migration
IA CP,
Population
30.2
28.8
28.2
to /./. !AIA.....
2,528.7
2,580.7
2,617.2
2,646.9
4.3
3.7
3.8
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
Ifo ON
1990
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
31.4
30.6
22.1
14.5
11.2
35.3
O. LA
2,483.9
4.1
4.0
3.9
in
1989
4.5
4.6
4.4
32.1
33.0
7.2
2.2
Returning
Canadians
IA/AlA
2,422.9
2,437.4
2,448.6
Net
International
Migration'
I
1985
1986
1987
1988
Natural
Increase
op
Year
-
24.5
29.2
2.9
6.1
-
- 95 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 1972-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
British Columbia
Population
on
January 1st
Total
Growth
60.4
72.1
69.5
41.6
16.5
16.3
16.3
0.3
0.8
-0.2
1975
2,288.0
2,348.3
2,420.4
2,489.9
17.1
1976
1977
2,531.5
2,563.6
32.1
43.8
17.1
18.1
1978
2,607.5
45.6
18.2
1979
1980
2,653.1
2,718.5
65.5
83.4
19.2
20.7
1981
2,801.9
65.3
21.6
1982
1983
2,867.2
2,901.9
2,940.3
34.8
38.3
22.0
23.1
36.0
23.2
2,976.2
3,004.8
28.6
33.9
57.7
74.0
Net
47.4
56.6
61.5
24.9
30.5
22.7
0.8
- 0.3
72.3
87.1
84.2
61.1
59.3
64.0
60.8
-2.9
-1.5
-0.2
-0.3
0.8
62.8
65.4
76.6
47.3
44.7
15.5
20.7
80.0
43.4
39.8
33.2
1.5
3.3
70.4
48.8
40.2
21.6
-0.6
0.5
45.9
43.9
47.9
39.9
-2.0
4.0
0.4
1.8
4.5
42.0
42.6
49.5
38.5
3.5
21.8
20.8
45.8
48.6
20.0
20.4
20.8
5.8
8.5
9.0
60.9
67.5
79.4
43.3
41.6
42.0
-3.2
0.9
17.6
25.9
37.4
78.4
- 7.2
-9.4
-
76.5
39.7
44.2
38.7
32.3
85.2
-
43.9
-
41.2
-
1972
1973
2,288.0
26.0
14.9
2,348.3
14.4
1974
2,420.4
30.2
28.3
1975
2,489.9
16.6
14.4
14.5
1976
2,531.5
12.6
14.1
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
2,563.6
2,607.5
2,653.1
2,718.5
2,801.9
2,867.2
17.0
17.3
24.4
30.2
23.0
14.2
14.2
14.3
14.5
14.6
12.1
13.1
14.8
14.7
12.2
14.8
2,976.2
9.6
14.4
3,004.8
3,038.7
11.2
18.8
23.6
27.4
13.9
13.6
13.7
26.6
21.3
23.6
-
13.8
13.5
13.3
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 PR
1993 PR
3,096.4
3,170.4
3,258.6
3,346.3
3,418.4
3,499.9
See notes at the end of this table.
13.6
Death
Rate
Rate of
Natural
Increase
Rate of
Net
International
t
Immigration'
5.1
7.4
•—•
Birth
Rate
r-
Total
Growth
Rate
5. 74
2.8
21.6
21.2
-
Population
on
January 1st
2,901.9
2,940.3
;e,
22.0
-4 CO Os GO
72.1
81.5
Out
O. F. T
3,346.3
3,418.4
3,499.9
88.2
87.7
Interprovincial
Migration
on
In
F. O. 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 F. 4
L.. we, .0 0, a L. 1'4 .0 0
1992 PR
1993 PR
3,258.6
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
O. O.P‘
to.
1990
1991
3,038.7
3,096.4
3,170.4
Returning
Canadians
F"O.
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Net
International
Migration'
O
1972
1973
1974
Natural
Increase
9.8
7.9
4.6
2.8
1.4
3.4
6.6
5.5
3.8
2.2
1.5
1.2
1.4
3.9
5.6
6.0
6.8
7.4
8.2
Residual2
Growth
Rate by
Plows
18.9
23.4
21.7
9.8
5.9
10.0
10.4
17.2
22.7
15.4
4.4
5.2
4.3
2.3
4.3
12.3
17.1
21.0
19.9
14.95
17.4
-
- 96 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 1972-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Yukon
Year
Population
on
January 1st
Total
Growth
Natural
Increase
Net
International
Migrations
Returning
Canadians
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
Interprovincial
Migration
In
Out
Residual2
Net
1.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.6
-0.1
1973
0.2
0.3
-0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
-0.3
-0.1
1974
0.6
0.4
-0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.1
-0.1
1975
0.7
0.3
-0.0
0.1
0.0
2.5
0.2
-0.1
1976
0.3
0.3
-0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
-0.4
-0.3
1977
0.8
0.3
-0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.1
-0.4
1978
0.6
0.4
-0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
-0.2
-0.4
1979
0.4
0.4
-0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
-0.4
-0.4
1980
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
-0.4
-0.4
1981
-0.5
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
-1.4
-0.3
-0.5
0.4
-0.0
0.1
-0.0
2.8
-1.2
-0.3
1983
-0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.0
2.4
-0.8
-0.3
1984
0.6
0.4
-0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
-0.1
-0.3
1985
0.2
0.3
-0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
-0.4
-0.3
1986
0.8
0.4
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
2.0
0.2
-0.2
1987
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.1
-0.2
1988
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.0
2.1
0.3
-0.2
1989
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
2.3
-0.0
-0.2
1990
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
-0.0
-0.2
1991
1.1
0.5
0.0
0.03
-0.0
1.9
0.5
-0.1
1992 PR
1.7
0.5
0.0
-
-0.1
1.7
1.2
1993 PR
-
-
-
-
-
1982
a.
1972
Growth
Rate by
Flow's
Death
Rate
Rate of
Natural
Increase
53.5
22.1
5.0
17.1
1.6
36.5
7.7
20.0
5.3
14.7
-0.9
-7.0
28.4
23.1
5.3
17.8
-0.3
10.6
30.9
18.5
5.1
13.4
-0.0
17.5
12.7
19.9
5.5
14.4
-0.7
-1.7
1977
35.2
18.8
4.5
14.2
- 1.4
21.0
1978
25.5
18.8
3.7
15.0
-1.3
10.5
1979
15.8
20.6
5.2
15.4
-0.3
0.5
17.1
19.3
5.2
14.1
1.4
3.0
-21.8
21.8
5.7
16.0
1.0
-37.9
-21.9
21.8
4.9
16.9
-1.7
- 38.7
- 2.4
22.7
4.7
17.9
0.5
- 20.4
25.6
21.5
4.5
17.1
-0.4
8.6
9.7
18.9
5.0
13.9
-0.3
-4.2
16.5
1974
1975
••;Co
1973
■.1
1972
Total
Growth
Rate
Rate of
Net
I nernao
t
ti nal
Immigrations
Birth
Rate
Population
on
January lst
1980
1981
:0 La
1976
1984
1985
Ca. :a. aa.
1982
1983
31.3
19.3
4.5
14.8
-0.2
1987
28.1
18.5
4.2
14.3
0.8
13.8
1988
36.0
19.6
5.1
14.5
1.0
21.6
1989
23.6
17.5
3.5
14.0
2.1
9.5
1990
22.9
19.8
4.1
15.7
0.9
7.2
1991
36.9
19.6
3.9
15.7
0.3
21.25
1992 PR
55.3
18.8
4.0
14.9
1.6
40.5
1993 PR
-
-
-
1986
See notes at the end of this table.
-
- 97 -
Table Al. Demographic Accounts of the Provinces and Territories, 19'72-1993,
New Estimates (in thousands and rates per 1,000)
Northwest Territories
552
55.8
56.9
58.3
60.1
61.8
62.4
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-
In
Residual2
Out
Net
3.5
4.0
4.2
3.9
4.9
5.4
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.1
3.2
3.4
3.5
4.0
4.9
4.7
4.3
4.1
3.8
3.9
3.9
-
ko
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
-
Interprovincial
Mi grat i on
■
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
0.1
0.1
-
Net
Nonpermanent
Residents
- bb b o
Returning
Canadians
b bio
45.1
45.6
46.3
46.9
48.6
50.8
52.5
54.2
55.3
2.2
0.8
1.3
1.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
1.8
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.1
-0.1
0.6
1.1
1.3
1.9
1.6
0.7
-
Net
International
Migration'
1
'Mi
ll
1 1 1 1 1
1
0 0000 --00 0000 0
-0 0000
44.7
Natural
Increase
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.2
I
38.1
40.3
41.2
42.4
44.1
Total
Growth
co
Population
on
January 1 53
Population
on
January I°
Total
Growth
Rate
Birth
Rate
Death
Rate
Rate of
Natural
Increase
Rate of
Net
Internat i ona l
Immigration'
Growth
Rate by
Flow4
38.1
40.3
41.2
42.4
44.1
44.7
55.6
20.5
31.1
38.2
13.1
9.8
10.3
15.3
12.2
37.5
44.0
31.9
32.1
19.5
-1.8
11.5
19.6
23.4
31.8
26.8
10.6
31.6
29.6
24.9
27.2
26.6
26.5
26.5
27.9
28.0
27.3
27.4
28.9
27.1
26.3
27.3
27.4
27.6
25.7
26.8
26.8
25.4
6.9
6.1
4.9
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.1
4.1
4.7
4.7
4.4
3.9
4.3
3.6
3.9
4.3
3.8
3.9
4.0
-
24.7
23.4
20.0
22.2
21.9
22.1
22.0
23.5
22.8
23.2
22.7
24.2
22.6
22.3
23.0
23.9
23.7
21.4
22.9
22.9
21.4
-
4.1
3.4
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
-0.2
-0.2
0.1
0.4
-0.2
-0.4
1.1
0.9
30.9
- 2.9
11.1
16.0
-8.8
- 12.3
- 11.7
- 8.1
- 10.7
14.4
21.3
7.7
9.5
-2.9
-24.8
- 12.4
-4.1
2.0
8.9
3.95
- 10.8
-
45.1
45.6
46.3
46.9
48.6
50.8
52.5
54.2
55.3
55.2
55.8
56.9
58.3
60.1
61.8
62.4
1 Immigration: Based on Employment and Imm igration data. Emigration: Based on Family Allowances and Income Tax files. Net:
Difference between immigrants and emigrants. 2 The residual is made up of the distribution on five years of the closure error.
This error is equal to the difference between the number expected in the census by the components method and corrected enumeration
of net undercoverage. This "error" encompasses the errors on the components and on the net undercount of the censuses.
3 January to May 1991. 4 Takes into account Non-permanent Residents, Returning Canadians and residual.
5 Returning
Canadians for 1991 are only available from January to May and data are not available for 1992.
PR: Revised postcensal data, based on 1991 Census, dated October 13, 1993.
Note: All other data consist of final intercensal estimates. Births and deaths are provided by Vital Statistics publications.
Source: Statistics Canada, Demography Division.
- 98 -
Canada
n
N. W. T.
Yukon
N
4-;
Que.
0
0
N. B.
.0
'0
f..4
r...
go
00
4-4M
g,
§
7.
.-.
00
00
00
N
w;
t-Z
CO
ON
--;
g cz.
00
12
irez
saps
0e2
NI
NNNNNNq
a
,..0
..-.
..-..
al
a%
en
.--.
co.
N
a
R
P.
co
eei
0
en
$
:.4
n
N
N
&
•ef
vp
4
s
vc
,o,r,,
;., !. _,
‘f
a,
..;
4
,.,-, ;
I-44
ON
N
g
00
-•
00
.--.
04
N
_ ...
^
N
00
g;
....!.
N
0O
*
....
F4
N
as'
4
00
.-.
,.;
02
V
%
g
A
rei
en
0;
g
eei
oo.
g
en
7,
09.
00
1-..
,.,
cg
Fi
7
s
0
N
t:
ON
N.
00.
en
(-4
A
N
oc7
GO
92
Nwg
00
N
0
N
NO
7,.,
4
v
4.
n
4
cs.
O
,
.-.
00
el.
4r,
el
un
In.
wl
-'
4-;
ON
IN
NO
..,,
c-r
n
34
NO
00
g
N
NO
WO
0%
"1
gig
ei
\O
go,
so
q
40
ir
a,
1
G
NO
No
N
so
g;
Ill
oi.
8
a.
,e.,),
g
z
P.
.0
N
00
v5
,.43,
9
06
g,.
cl.
00
007
00
N
N
N
00
r-:
161,
E..;-,.
(-4
Fh.
t.0.;
s
ce,•.1
tz
s::
a,o,
i.,o..,. .
WI
00.
01
00.
00
en
o
ON
0
N
N
,N
e,
01
r••••
0
N
N
c.O
<6
0
NO
sL,
.i...,
—.
R
e
N
A.
4
g
A
gs.
so
..
s s G
,44
,r;.
,'":";
P.
,ri.
g"..,
:7.1
fn
Is
N
r es
7...
T
N
1;
a
el
kr;
mf
27;
..ei'
kr,
el
*el
eel
:2
en
6
,..
ei
44'
NI:
rn.
NJ'
ri."
,...,
g
—
N
IN
§.. 00
n. cm
en
0%
42,.-4
N
a,
r-.
NNNNNN
0%
a
00
kre
acs
ko
(4-7
00
0%
a,
iri
(,-■
re
g
n
-.
..-■
Ca
-.
NI
r9
N
co:
N
,
44?
s_o
ro
r2
N
k
-'
00
O
8
N
en
ee;
eg
(4
N
N
(.=
--:
n
R.
.-,
N
z
N
WI
ei
N
4
l'••••
N
N
N
00
: ,,- ,
—
n
t-:
N
g..°
n
g
A
00
.-.
Ne..
-4
el
to
t-N441
n
N
Z.
'el
00
en
m
N
NNNN
tz
I--
i
n
N
ei
00
n
NgIN
N
"
NNNNNNNNN
Number o fMarriages
Man.
0.
z
rn
•..•
ao
00
B. C.
..%i
a,
..
g.,
N
,
00
00
l".-
N
zi,
,..
00
11'
:
4
v-;
11%
g
N
8
A
a
ts%
n
00
...- ,
3
g
....,
so
ao
00
m
00
so
15
10
15
v5
15
,c)
NC
NO
.e;
.11.
ui
e
i
se
se
,o
go
4
se
1-1
Ons
V
CAN
„T
r
VI
r.-,
7
. ,
,NO,
0
Z
.43
0
g•
Nee
.5),
iLi
ON
co
ON
00
00
ON
0
.—.
Os
ON
214
ON
0
....
as
00
00
zi.
r.;
xn.,
N.
i_74
N
2.
00.
.r,
N
en
re;
en;
01
§,
g
A
O.;
1:1
C
Z
g
,..7.,
—
.4...
,..,
4
,..-■
go
en■
OR
en■
en
so
0N0
02
0
ch
°A
°A
01
01
`8,
t.
. .,p,
3
. ..
rz
e■
N.
N.
N
N.
*eh
N
r.,
,.....
et
......
...,
,...
,....
co
a,
g
•-•
eq
en
c
0
ca,
'
g
a,
SZ
01
A
■
- 99 -
„
X1...,
§.--.
G
m
cm
g
g
0
V
.L.L..
0
..:.m
--
PI
,,, .-. 4-41.-:Ovi4.4.4c4c4e4r4e4.-:
... .
.
...
...
omsgm.por-mmmrp-mmm m vm.ommosvmmow
a; a: M .; 4 pi ..; ei,iai,.i ..:
4. M
.4 I.: 4 0 rzvi.,-;g a A M .1:
...
1
R
m_....-,-„..0,..,...mmo.„-....
.."j 3PRArP
mmmmmvmmm,6m
MMMMM mm m N eg ■ ■ ■
■
-
__
........................
me,
wlesnwiamn...-,-.
■■■
CAOORVOMMNITVNfINUINVMW ,MM
§
,
*
o
”
Q
,,
---
--
oe.cimvIverr“mermvmoc4-Norow..e.
41.44.4g*vir444e4r.:M44
..
m
nm
plevri."...
o
m.r.
X
r. .,
mMOWINM—.0.4.0-0NmsOmmVW
■
Wo
■
...
..-
-...
,":-.
.
Y
R-
Year of 17th Birthday
Y
...:L.
4740gggdOd.$5:4
NNMMMUINNMNWV,ONN0V
40vN ,0....grANN.A04004.4.00
NerNmacm
0..F.VMNN
0
■
V
m
,
m.
m
m
,_-,
• ....
1
..:7-
Pm
-
71""6"
MNmOVNIVmoomNNV
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ■. m0Nmm
.
.
.
.
.
VMggmOmMMN0nMmm0
m— ■.—
MCON0NVmm
—V
Nm0M0VM.-.VNOW00Nm.-0
406.15dmir
..,...,..mmeo
r
mir4vSe.4
,alammemfm---
momtem:m,m.arima. mmmlomem
aimimm-dr.:04w4aimiMd
-..mm.--,m,m1,
, , -; ..3 m m a, VI CA f•I V .., eg ,C,
ei4a9944a.4.A.Aaviciwia
-.4y4e-rookelvm.nme4-
mo
...
"-P3GRT2gP44.r.1;;;A
0
■
g
.
■
00NNNVVOOMNNW0
NMINQ.ANNN0N0i0
NvN00.00.ANVMN
a
g
.2::■
■
g
M
,000VMMV,NNONVW
—.00NWN.AcyMNV ,0
m,msw.0...0.M.olvm
m
0
,mn.ty-nm ,
*
..=.
i
mq
g
"■
§
-
ra.;:.
,.Z
-
g
".:-..
Gm
rm
g
,'..,
T
a
g
...."m,.:-.
Q-
m
g
"1...
R
m
g
N
m:
g
'g
,...
V,
a
g
0.
-Z.:-
E
_
g
Pm
...
m
_
0
7
-.1.0...4
eiddaidmi
N
...'
N
P
.....,0,...,,,, -
M
■
N
,,,r,...n
..id..41.z
4.6w2dr,
-,mowwm,,amname444
..:mimiMr.iai-a;a-44-4
-4-mam
a
el-amormommml•
-miffiApddltr:0M
mlml.am:wa
chwim-.mroommem
6.":=JP:m
r:
r-mem-mo,cor-m
64.6
4 4 .A
oi
em .m
.a ra r.
w:mm:-,0mm,0
mi
6,4Mddai ml w.
-m a
...e.,.ampm
doidr.:1e.:
a
,ammfmma
de4drZrZ,a
-al
spoor.dr4r.: ml a
-em
.,,,...1.14
dr.ii
4
■
V0.03
de4mi
„
..
6.4
6
mmmo,-emma
camo-44mam,Normom0-emmam,
---ememememememememememmmmmm ..... vaaava
, calculations by the author from population estimates, and marriag
el
0
■
=
44.444e4
aam4,..)-44moaaromeloor
na
Zam4ir.:6,4e44eg..41.6.i..ar4.6
M 4;4.444
m ■-...,,-.4-o,mm,
---
1
....
■
2
WNNWIM
mo...nelvw.aoaamodmagmasprooavarma
.4 f-: vioi - ■-.; - a: a: - M
M v: - a: ez r.: M wi vi ■•-■
--ommy,...5.4.4--a
0
pp
■
.4"4.44.A.6,4.1,06.-..4avie4dOr
.,-ea-aovImm,4-,-.--
Xa
Y...
Year ofBirth
----
4virzeie4Oaad..;44-4
, N ■ .4 •-• CA N .1 V
1
X
ci■
R.?"-.1m.?-.1"--...amm--olam:
v"-"0
ar:A
2sgM6-.400
Mm:mimi4air4c4e4e4e4eim...,al--OMN00N0MiNtimmmMNNI-mmNOmmm0VNON
X
CA
IH
M
da,m.a
--
*
■
N
----
mmmm-..-m-mv--m,omm.m,,e,e-mmomv
mmmggpmq-gmv-.m,v3 MMMMM mmm.-.-m
.-.....,..
m
1,
0
p. .1
mo-mmovamomma
m...aln,,d0emmtm
d
4eimr.i.elda-dm:m:ml4r4.4...
mid
an-mG-m ,aame4
- 100 -
A.IfisgnaOLIP.m .g.1.7...
g
__,
.g
_
cnnnn,,:no.-“,-.,:eln•ta!nc,:nn..nnnnnnnn=tc.:
IA.-
.. . 41 el ,% . e9 et . . 1 . .q '% .1 n
-wass.°m8,-ismns,;:s=
g
ii :.; i;
" ;1
~
■
1...
4R g ES
A ii
...~...
'% q .1 .1 1 .! .9 41
,:i : 7. ; ;; :
el
"1 ri q
.q
- ,., ...n .. nnqqn . n .. e.conn ,...In'onn-
_
g
♦ c.Rc9n.gn . nqw....n.7......nn.q ,oS?: '° e: 44 '; . .4 .. el e4 .
" = ii az .........
es r. 0 a e.- a A Ei F4
._- , 7,..nia;;;;;;;;n::in..2;=
,-__.- ,; ",.....„.„______R"
.... ,,.....___ .....
g
=...
g
■
g
1.z'
,--
g
,,-....
,,._
-
...,
.-.
S._
-..,
&
.,.
&
---,
.
&
E
....:..
■
••
1
,..::.
g
.-=...
g
n
g
.-.
■
g
..
"
g
.-.
■
ra
....-.,,......
..;rIg.....m4.4cig.g.646.6,-:
-,--.
. ,.! .. ....,..-.....,,...,,
r.
N4 "spa'asg*t14n ,"-:-;^=°"6
•
Females
g
.-:-.
0
.---.
g
-
■
Year of 15thBirthday
Year ofBirth
-
..„.„,...„,„,...,6,,,..„..„4 . ..,
.naglono.4!..1.,..n,..v ..
qQag.
-.. PtV.';4R1: 4"
.... 'rel.. .. 0,,..-am..,
-,.,
,. ER 4 ; 4 "4 g °' 4 ''' '" c" '3
a
V
',
"
:;;trjgCO3^Ag":4 ""'
.......0.......,-..,,......
..4 7..gUg0.74nA.8n
,.... ... ... .. .. .. ,...,.......,
-....."...--n...........
ar;fts:A4.0.1'^n
mavomee
'" r,f4.1.1giiOggggri c4
4.".....9.
c"" AtgSrs4 tSgrelV
....s..,m.r. ... .!mmm
6.^ .174M451POgt
'g*.lsignOlnil;:
n....^-t.t.tnq
-:-.
g
-"L.
a
-...
a
--
.'wA°4 5k2S ..-.0
..,......1...:AgaGG4i
.
&
6
---_,
...4
m
-:_
f
g
.."-."
,1.:..,:.-....
*
en
&
.Z.L.
g
■
1
.-...
en
g
.-.
■
.41
g
1....
m
g
{)
Z
g
■.Z,
'
g
-.
O
4 ;7 :1 :: 2 2 2 2 '°'
...9^.1 .R.'Rc9 . e: .. nnol..t.Inngnn.:n.!-!ne.
"mwliqv=m*rAnse:t:=
--..... ....Rnn
-1.--q
g . g.4.R.9-1-q.-0-,
44.4.4
...
vcl gro
A s p-*Aga 4.4...--- . ...
gg
-=.
a
-
Nn ii
"
0 ,.,
.6.4.. .A A
-,..
6~4.4
gn.1
el"
..-:
el
.
'''''''''RMOMAPAgaga.7;gPAP0MAIRVVq3Q
Source : Statistics Canada, calculations by author from population estimates, and marriage data published by the
i
■■
•"
EZ
qq 4t.1 .-:el .
"et...et.1.. 00'elelq.1'9ele
m
:2
A
.-,
•
g
4.,
,•-I
- 101 -
tly 74i.i i
■
,...m.0
.. so — ._..0 ,-. ch
Li - c An 9h I mw"- 2%A
4441v37444rq41e,v,
2"
'R l `D l r r q
k;
eno
ON en 40 .1 en t... Co
041 .OWel
.........
ASOgR
-....
0.,
el ...
co a t: ✓
r- Nekei.e..,.;
w40,—......-§ro-,....4.0
VOOlt..NO.
Nenneent....M
e4C/0-.WW).
Cesgmmeirl
sei.e.A ,e ,e4,,,,w ,e,, ,zrrse
.,0-0,0
,0,0,4N r.,,,,
.e1. ,
00.1No,cpW.--,
megma,
som-.0000fvevoo,o
mcim..n
- - - - - - - - - - - - - •
FitIPMAAW4P,MAA.42:7,R
§iFieq§n5;6
- . . . . . . .-''relEgAl
- - .
.
acam.c9Rs0.7,ausavr*
r
VD V 0
.......,&en
......
140 q °lc cl el
N.4.e4RZm
-.
...,,--.
.....
3,6
eq.::: oo co ...-. el esi en
.i. r.0.; a; e..; 6 seS ...; 4,1 t■ CD ni CD 00 ei ce; 46 .. 4 6
mo,e400e4
mchegoom
mer,e400m
....,
.-.
.-,
V.;
.1" _-
__
-
M Ch en el ..N
m5esi
ei
NC
1..:01.... Cn e..7 ,40 0 000000.-, 0
CS'
y0. .1 00 Q0
447,N0ON
C: '1 ''''
.! t. en !0; oo en 6 en v. r-a r r 4 o
,..,100N
nrcemcoN
Q
ri
.n .r
ci ,-.4,.....,
wie-ire; 4 e4 o 4.-, 22A,...io
OC:
rOyDulp.r..ntNCAule14,1-.cDNWnWw‘N
CO 00 10 V10 46 -. 06 co 04 -.46 C4 sr; 4,1 CD c4 46
4•4 ,4, .-. oo el
eg ,0 •-■ 00 en
f4 SO •-■ poN en
-.
-.
c!..^ ,i el C.D P: -'
■
46 g as O C46
.-.r
_ 4,
...
_
■
—,,..,...„,
_
_
-.,_
''' ...‘ q r.: 't. a: '-'
el C"C. q q q '''
o600 v-. eu ev 6 r cr cei oo m en 6
.-.megre..1
lic453,1anr....pz
YD
..nen.-.rwl ,c,
oo4m
-:
.1 c. - q -,. a: —. es. cei
9.,.., az oo en (46 R-.‘O-. ,;-.40
N.....m e.,.,,,..,—...moco
§ $EPcqPRP.sms,.7.1
,.:
deeeedee.:mvm.m.c:c:
e4e4e4e4"e44ese4Wege4aria.-.
.1A00t--
g o,
0000nrr43
g o, crs El co- ooe.......-....N.-..-.
:ER:IR cr,
.8
tc2gRPAS§8$W
-.en........Ch.1
-.1...
,g_.
enoo
o.-.
6.6',6doraceceatzt-tzrz,z,e
e.,mm.,_
m-..-
EERa7grognIMOgg§g
chmmo,chmoNmcncn
6 .7, ,e, N 0
..0...ypr.: el ... ,C) r.,e,, WI CAN-. C;) nt el el e.Ch en
AI'19-Fim° ,c:-.'&1-3 ,.-. C; ',1`' 6 e7■ g' '-.- ' $ P f46
:; ■
-.
CC' as ‘t. " v? `4? q ‘04:? q ^' N el q n N 'n N. ''''' q
O .2: ..n e4-. v-, o 4 a r., .-; r en o en v-; ‘6 , 26 e•-; o
moomooe4 m vooe, moom m
...
...
-.
a
co f4 r- t`.1 0 Os e4
,..;.;,""
mw..,
—
en ,nnt -.Worn .. co N Ch
r- 4...4 V. re
.-, o 4 en oo co ,c) 4-4 o 02 Q r• ,t) e4 o
Ch 7t Cent Ch nt 0_,
>.
t. N
Nq a el q
oo NO
w, ce; N400044 oh -. e-4-. 4 o
e,
Fertility Rate by Age Group (p. 1,000) I
Number o fLive Births
Man.
...... re; 0 N 40
--,.-,-.
. a, on oo o - N
00-■ 0110 V 00N .1 N
er,i a oci 46 A o:, 4 / 646
e‘i a 646
er..
e4 r.-. m r.-.
m
_
_.
-.
■
,,,,,,mv.v.aw.:1-4-4-4..s.avv.
.:.,.....-,-,:w
.........
e4oi.
mor.co.n-loor.-.6m
ro
4-7rcr e...-oe4teme.eve4e4e.la
Ri7plal.seamg731A
sr,
0
N
CA CA
OS ON IAN Os el
Ch VD N Tr re 0
en e... te, t••• ev 00 0 0 el 40 . -, el 4O 0
Ost....vcrsen
rmo4
c
a . v so
- e
o sO•-, v VI
(-44-.4rchos-,:moo.mrN441-. 1
1-Zatil...e4WeeTe4-:-.4e4o-74-741.
en en
444444 4.4444 ..cr
en Os 00 SO VI VIM 4 0 se .... §
0, et eel el VI 0 .-.
.-. 41 sel
-
e,—.......
NI....tvW04
I. 4
. rn, is.,... a rn..
et Oi en .." V .e VD VI
- . . . . .
-.neqn It.cr
1.- as --. r. I..
uNt•-•-•g
a)
■
041....-.1.... N
re C4C4e1 .51 ,1..;
,.
MARRA 4.4
-
v. V1 ei VS: q 4.1 00 v. NV .} NM cr, est
Nc! r esi -. oo
•_et oi cr o4kr; en6 vi cr ey en r ri6 4-; r
ee; oe. e46
aie..,4.,4..ase.4.A. ,..Ta
.-,
,....,,,,,,,,,
m
menentneemmenmenceMO,M
e
r
-
fi
,n 3s41-48t 7n.r..1 e .4
Oa a t.. en o 40 o r Eg r I-- Z
,w0,—
—
Ch 77 cr, nt CA 'at CA
w,—
-..
CA I: cr■ nt ch "at
,iii,
.7. -. (1 -.-. -.-. 7 7 -7. r.4 (7 -,-. ".'77 "7 e;' r? m ^.' 7
v
'''g ng r:4 :ir4; 4n A n 54 ::? :9 ''' A n 5;,';4ii vi
,.
'5;
00
ch
g
&
...
-..
A
0
.°4
a
0
0
- 102 -
sg
-1 ap 4R n al
NO
GI v? ee '0 N
t...
A g CZ CI .-‘
NN *c;
.... et It
rn Os
10 00
00
4c,crN co
a,
-,
-•O w17 41
oC 4t1
N
N
'
en
" ..'
c! co co
6
os cg cg
en ..+
N 00..
.4 .4
... el
... C4.4g...ci 4
t.:
Cg r%
n
a° eq
-"
co co t.... 44-.
It .1 cA cD 41
4
CD. 4r! 04 00
en cl.
N ..
N
'12 .1." a' 4P Yg '1° N 52
Op
CA C
4
e CA D co
a)
Fertility Rate by Parity (for 1,000 women) 1
I
Man.
e
r4
c4 ....
4; as 05 en le,
un e4 ei v4 e4
el a: e1 el .2
CO ... .-. Nt
el
co
Cg "1 el a
'
r N
....!
ci 0., n a!
23 -. 6 ei en
C4 ...
V- .1 C■ .n
vi CD oci ci -
VD CA VD .m. ..1
A g 06 ci -4
01 01 10 .1 N
44 co cc; ei -.
N c; ch yi. e...
A a,6 -6
..
..
N
CD
4
e4 eq
w4 .4
C4 ci .4.
01 un
CA ts:
el 4.4 •-•
e.
l s, C 00
Ag
co
D
N N r-.
C:4
6
1°
op CO
c!
N C
n e
101010
v1
.1 CA 0.1
al aq
...! o el 1l0
m ""
A El 5R "' c4
et CA nt t∎
1 1 1
e. N
Cg
00
0,
en
I
I
+
vt 41
I
I
.•• N
I
I
I
+
rn at VS
el ,n fen 0::1
C4 CD
-. N
.q.
..
i
cr!
;1 r: ViJ
44
,
N .1 V0
Cr! 01 0!
I., Se0
4 VD
4p
uR 41 41 41 ..c! wo 4R 41
A 53 Sil "t "" A El ::
en
Cis
C4 .-,
IRO&
en .-. e. r- OS 0, C4 CD CD 00 Os en
41 0
■ A
.1
C■
N N
C4 CO rn e4 ..., en rn V%
oo co
dq al co 01 00 co oo
et 00 CD en CD
A oi
cd e4 -.
...
C4 ..•-.
eg
SS CR 22
oo VD 44
N 10 -.
44 cr; oci ei -4
r.
r:
q q q co co q 9 CD
16 OA oil ei -4
.1 00 et rn 0
A cr
cD
C4
fn .-. nf CD 00 00 N 0001 un
N
C4 C4 C4 Ci C4 C4 N N N ... ... eg r.4 e4
N00
VD .1 CA r10 1D
e4 c)
N
0140 100 zaar
al MR -' al e%
p oo r: -4 co
el rl '-' e-:
A CA t■
m2 ...
'9 t:
q? 4R 'a..1 414,! PoMR 4n'9 rt,49. CDMR ItMil 4n'9 02'9 el-'9
05N 41 el ee
W.
›..
e
el .1 co 41 et
.0 en en 4, es
N N
4R 4?
-v .
44 r., ci en .,
eg
0.
r n .0. un
C4 c4 ....
p2
en en en en
Total Fertility Rate (women aged 1 5 to 49)1 .0
4
4i, 00
- .-. .-. N ,.., N N
r: n .:1
'11. r: 19 q M'l W 411 4:1 el a! op cc
A g w r4 1." r..1 Fi °° C4 ''' A i
A3^ 4 AA e- '" AA
4.4
M:1 41: 41 41 ..!
g an t... .09
ao
en ci
Cr:
N<.1 a!
C4 en
ON El 52 52 ER 5R 23 5.5 g ER g g
N 11 en N N ei N N N N N N N N
-. co -. cg
m en .-. .-.
ei
le
,-: ". 4R '9 '9 .1
r% r%
1
n
■ ■
W W W W
w
1
en .1 00 et
so? VD VD 41 vi 41 41 vl vl et
Ng ., -. c. tn .-.
ve. C4 nt en pp op ao 41 C N 00 00
A 40 .c! 4.1! ,o vl .1 ul vD VD .1
r.. O
r-: .0:
■
aS at at E; g
I i 1
I
I
52 55 A PR g 22 11 ER. 22
I
I
I
I en 1... en e4
et
41 et vl vl et
+
v.%
g g
R 22 Os
22 0,
52 a52 s
22 A 52 28 52
CA Os Cn 01 0/
Cn Cn
01
§
0/
- 103 -
mmmo,,vv,=.im%
r
N ee
-4.-..7
r--"
cls
bln
,....1.-v,
1
w,..,..go
:
Yukon
3
i
opm)-.,-
RAP?'4743;17,1P.T.F4AWA
WAAA,-:,nAricA'A"
cAr.co..comcommm,
ot4-40mm
vlooMW-40e..ete4wImeict4D
,.,.
..
me4e4st
oi
d-:-.-aa..4.-+
-..-...-.e4-.ele4e7e4e4eiNe4
4.%.7,4m-T;74.i.4.Hce
t..mwD.,,
7"0,,,....
g
Man.
,
rt-pir,wa,-06,:ac.6
i". *
WRcIER
,4F4.4..z
-'°8c"G'n
-c73.og
aawaaaaceawazaaa
wo004cog,14 .,mcce,-.
.-441-2,cg'gr..&=437
Mc7D c-g
745,7VaIISRRRg
&
,71.74"pi6ggr3Ril
o% en ;v.. N
N 00.71) N el v9 0;
e4.4ma,.14,
oi
Voi
i
* S' N
.-:
—
,ra.r.t.t,,,,vasr,....v
Ach
Nt'4,.
__,4_-Nvq.,,,,,w
...;.„..4.-7..
4
,15
C 1 CS O. ,...
,61-7
ne4;,-"3 c
- g4P41.2gng"
3002 a ,cri
A
r.-.-.....
, AL:63Gg**00cAcAgo,
--.
A
6
-
. m
--
IwAgaRs _,..„......0
az
v.,,y..elow1W.Ce.10
_m„,...„ ...
C-.42e4Mmco
__ck . q . . .
O
0 -:
__,..—„,,, ..,,,..."
-- ,..vm3nag2.§.
„4,4,4.4,4,4,4-4,4,
0,a,mchchchmcemN
°°
§§rli,MRln 3
av)mt0,4-.-No,,,,.0
P.,,.-.--,,.,
'..q?4823RPPc7D%
e4 :: ;; ;; ^, e4
4-7
,..
,4
‘4
›.
"...a___
AIgZ"'012$rAn4APA
------
mn
....,
L; 1 a5
mt 4 Iliq en enA en en A
........m...N,.......
. a.p§„....Nvw
.
..,
.,,,-..mm-m,-,N
Number o fIn fant Deaths
A
Number ofDeaths
a
.
sempaR,-;sse
_,....
,...,........g.,
.:(4,4aa,4,4.-4.,4,4,4....,
4
*
4
c,:c,:cg
.6
C
0
g4tslImpooStwImpAM
OEE'Rqc:44M
Li
CA
Fivr,4,4,4,,4,,aarc4e4e4ei
ik 3 ,i1 § g § 8 F F'
iiizizgl'iPc7;d4RiV
4X
4.
-N....N._
......
.el-, e4.e.WZWmm4te4e7m
___
PI 0%
0
00 EP 2;,' g Eg Z;
2R
gIg
A§
11O.
dg
11
uM
Q
N
oz
oomg2.-.Nm7cr
e-WO,
.-.
t-...wwwwwwwwwgm
NONMMMMMMMCAM
M
A
- 104 -
Table A6. Estimated Life Expectancy at Different Ages, Canada,
1990 and 1991
1990 Table (Triennial) 1
Age
1991 Table (Preliminary)2
Males
Females
Males
Females
0
73.90
80.49
74.19
80.72
1
73.46
79.98
73.73
80.21
5
69.58
76.08
69.84
76.30
10
64.65
71.14
64.91
71.36
15
59.74
66.20
59.99
66.42
20
55.02
61.32
55.27
61.54
25
50.35
56.44
50.60
56.65
30
45.65
51.56
45.90
51.78
35
40.96
46.71
41.20
46.92
40
36.28
41.89
36.53
42.10
45
31.66
37.14
31.90
37.35
50
27.18
32.51
27.42
32.70
55
22.92
28.02
23.14
28.20
60
18.95
23.72
19.16
23.90
65
15.38
19.63
15.56
19.81
70
12.18
15.82
12.35
16.01
75
9.40
12.34
9.52
12.49
80
7.04
9.26
7.16
9.42
85
5.20
6.74
5.27
6.85
90
3.69
4.76
3.77
4.85
1 Calculated with the average of deaths in 1989, 1990 and 1991.
Calculated with the average of deaths in 1990 and 1991.
Note: In the two cases, the denominators of the rates are the 'old' mid-year population estimates.
Source: Author's calculations.
2
— 105 —
N :2 §
gN 2.
g N g 5g al
- v0 -. un
vn
_
,.,
en . A. a 04
g
.1.
...
7" ei ■'to
st/
.l ; Zel" ee
z 0"‘n
P
ER
...
4
vi
te
...
•-,
en
N
0
,.
e.
I
I-.
V'
.
Ei i5 EP 5
. 4 e4 4 e. tr.:
M
-. -. a
.4 el .44 el eV
cc7
... 4.;
.4
-.
g sc
i"co co
ee; vi
I
'A §
is_ r-
..
N
;1
.4
O N
a
..
'
,c,
-:
4
A
V i gl
sr..,
v.,
E;
f ss,3qi§ 1. 7ts.! -7ee4
F. El 4 04g ,oinoestac6g
F. & ian ci G§ 0,
as'
VD
Ce G ER .. ZR
4-1
"'
. ,0. ..- ... " "r- 2S
u - 7 -:
-.
UggiVq
'
a 43* 00
'0
gIN
gR
ow
41 un
00; ,.
1
i; t; a
rq
CO
ch
Z.;
00
Av
r,
A 4M
"
n
..
■
sr
'i ;2M ;•;
t:
N •o
.j" 4 ... ,_,
N
en N
sr; as
7R ell k^
'''. WI MCC. a".. et .....'
ES ;4 A
,4—
I
tg Egeu ;.;
r„.. zg
■*.
4 a eri •
a
c' i i
Fi
■
— 0, ..i
cn
te■
...
Vi
I
..
ci
-.
-:
00
8—
I
:7
..
Si
,.
I
& r.,
Lt
en
,c7
ri
sr
el
VD
I
g7 4 7R gR 0
1 ER 2
N. rs. .D. -*
.•-•
4,
§ '44
Fq
°
c; a
.4
tr,
N
a
..,
en nt
co
sn
N
Os
O..
c> e
en
e0
N
CC tl. °I v. e't ."",
ta 4.1 co sr ,a v; ee;
c•—•
00
^..
r%
ec'
^:,
*
m
On
.4
-. .., co N en
N
a 4 t sr w; a ev
sk
00
A
El
.
./1
.2
T
N
f'•4 CO
WI
a■ oci
r
4 8 ,7n.
..,
VI
i4
.-,
5R
"..
SE
I
4
a:
00
a
se —
ses
.-•
nr
A a
v-■
rs•
V
••..
il
2 ',IP g 53 't A v:,
rn
.-0.
.....
R. ...„
– R
..... t--.
00 — ... —
.A. 0, v 0, ..-; se
r.
g
5R
9 ..,
2 g 9 gR ;1
.
g
C
5i g"Ei- il4
F i'i g Ei. Zi a i' ii ii
- .. v-■ eet a a■ eel' a 4 a:
q a 4
R ,-,
4:6 v i
Er;
ii 'X;
g ER
6 22
5R A a gi
o
co
t.-.
'rot.-.
N 00 ei
N
r; a -:
-.
..
00 VD
1,' rA L;
7R 43 gP A N gR ;4
v.;
A
.-:.
..
.0
ch
;4 :3 A :2
,, 4:2
O. M0
. 41 .., .4 O4 e4
0.; ez 0; ei.
0;
.0...-; .4. ..,; ..0;
...,
,.,
EgA m
.
p:
I
.
N. co e. 0 N. al e.
4,-7 e°
(4 (4 a mo kr ,,n sr. I-.
sr
..
ch
-.
sr
ei 00N 4 4 ,c; kr
ce g! g i 6 :: N.
:4
N
..' c°
5
4 .,
2°
e.
vi
00
of
-, c-7
-.
ik E A a
as
n. '0.
(1(1 (11
ei a .. a t- c,i e.;
co
-. -.
e. N
-
v,
W
...
,.,
ER
..
g Aen Ako3co_gle r,I N N
en so
R
ev
cl
co VD ,e, li CP ..!. .A
4
as st
e. a,
t. _ 0,
4.1
vn .17
as
-ccr■ 4
ra
e, I-- 0; -.
..
sr
aZ
Fi
g
e4
sPi
-7 a ch
00
r-
.,,
N
ER
5?. g Is.
A a :2
::
co eV
re.
k
d' es4 ,i' ke wp; g
1 g
-: a co
-. -.
...
Os
,.
Q
ch
..
A
.., ..*
st)
vs
—
c.o
ca
-.
O.
r
;-..
r "..i 0,
* h
c ° .1 ...1 ,,,
x1 6. ,rz
•-,
-..
en
00 sel
:*.PM (11
'cc; a
ec... — gi
'0
4,1
—
— .,-; 51
00 —:
a
4a
..-7.
g 4
00 N
sen to
.0. co.
-,
AO ms.
A g..;A.4.3F 31 g i; iiei 3ii
ik F! g § ii .4
v-70.-,cgr-g
05
.*
•
vi
_ r-.
R
ch
PH
..; es,
.0
wi'452 .0E^ viV § § g
g
g
e4
— 2`;
f2 t: A ii. ;;; ii 0
..
.0
..
4"..
CO
e4
r-
,,i
.cr
4m
lc
U
—,,
3
O
ts
5
el
e A
I
iE 1 E
1
s g 1
..
pileAs i 1 4r
i f. 1
1
60...(0., R. 8 / a. .S g 8 2 '3 8g<J88 e2
b
A
i
O
0
1)
4
cra
tR
- 106 -
Table AS. Canadian Population as of January 1st, 1991 and 1992, by Age and Sex
(former estimates) (in thousands)
1992
1991
Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Males
Females
Males
Females
205.6
201.9
194.1
191.5
191.8
191.1
190.9
190.3
190.4
190.8
192.0
190.4
186.9
186.6
188.1
188.4
186.3
184.7
189.7
197.7
204.6
202.5
199.6
200.9
208.9
222.5
235.3
240.9
241.9
242.5
244.6
241.5
239.1
238.4
234.4
230.6
227.4
220.2
213.4
208.7
206.1
203.1
202.3
204.1
193.1
171.6
164.8
195.6
192.3
185.1
182.9
183.1
181.4
181.0
181.3
181.2
181.8
182.5
180.6
177.4
177.2
178.7
178.7
177.3
175.9
179.7
187.7
194.8
192.4
191.3
195.2
204.5
219.4
233.2
240.0
242.7
243.9
246.0
243.8
242.2
241.7
238.0
234.1
232.1
225.2
217.3
211.2
207.8
205.0
204.3
205.0
193.3
170.9
163.6
210.1
206.9
203.0
195.3
192.8
193.2
192.6
192.3
191.8
191.9
192.2
193.4
191.8
188.2
187.9
189.3
189.6
187.3
185.7
190.8
198.9
206.0
204.2
201.5
203.1
211.4
225.4
238.5
244.0
244.8
245.2
247.1
243.8
241.4
240.6
236.4
232.3
228.9
221.5
214.5
209.7
206.9
203.7
202.9
204.5
193.4
171.8
199.6
196.7
193.3
186.2
184.2
184.5
182.7
182.3
182.7
182.6
183.1
183.8
181.9
178.6
178.4
179.8
179.9
178.4
177.0
181.0
189.1
196.5
194.3
193.4
197.5
207.0
222.0
236.0
242.8
245.3
246.5
248.4
246.1
244.4
243.9
240.0
235.9
233.7
226.6
218.5
212.3
208.8
205.8
205.0
205.5
193.7
171.2
- 107 -
Table A8. Canadian Population as of January 1st, 1991 and 1992, by Age and Sex
(former estimates) (in thousands) - Concluded
1991
1992
Age
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90 +
Total
Males
Females
Males
Females
161.2
153.7
144.6
138.2
132.4
128.5
124.1
122.5
121.3
118.3
118.8
120.9
120.0
118.6
114.9
111.1
109.2
106.0
103.1
99.4
95.3
92.4
89.6
84.1
75.6
66.0
62.7
60.0
58.2
55.4
50.3
45.0
39.7
35.5
31.3
27.1
23.4
19.9
16.8
14.3
12.0
9.8
7.8
22.4
13,233.5
160.6
153.3
144.4
138.8
133.0
128.8
125.0
124.0
123.3
120.4
120.7
123.0
123.0
123.3
120.9
118.8
118.6
118.0
117.9
116.0
113.5
111.9
110.4
105.6
96.6
86.5
83.4
81.6
80.1
77.9
72.6
66.7
61.3
56.5
51.2
46.6
41.9
37.4
33.4
29.2
25.2
21.3
18.1
66.3
13,607.4
164.8
161.2
153.6
144.4
138.0'
132.2
128.2
123.7
122.0
120.7
117.6
118.0
119.9
118.9
117.4
113.6
109.6
107.5
104.2
101.1
97.1
92.9
89.9
87.1
81.7
73.0
63.2
59.7
56.9
55.1
52.3
47.3
42.0
36.7
32.6
28.5
24.4
20.8
17.5
14.7
12.3
10.2
8.3
23.6
13,433.0
163.8
160.8
153.5
144.6
139.0
133.2
128.9
125.1
124.0
123.3
120.4
120.6
122.9
122.9
123.0
120.5
118.3
118.0
117.2
117.0
114.9
112.3
110.6
109.0
104.0
95.0
84.8
81.4
79.4
77.8
75.5
70.2
64.1
58.6
53.8
48.4
43.7
39.0
34.5
30.6
26.6
22.7
18.9
69.9
13,810.0
Source: Statistics Canada, Demography Division, Estima es Section.
1991: Updated postcensal estimates.
1992: Preliminary postcensal estimates.
Part II
The Demographic Situation of Mexico at the Signing
of NAFTA
The author wishes to express his appreciation to all those who contributed to
this presentation of the population of Mexico, whether by indicating sources
of information, comments on various drafts, correcting errors, indicating
omissions or suggesting improvements:
Jose Luis Hernandez, Director of National Institute of Statistics,
Geography and Informatics (INEGI), in Mexico City, as well as his
collaborators;
Maria Isabel Monterrubio, Director General of Population Studies at
the National Population Council;
Julieta Quilodran, Professor, College of Mexico;
Marta Mier Y Teran, of the Institute of Social Research, Autonomous
National University of Mexico;
Jose Gomez De Leon and Olga Lopez Rios, of the Mexican Centre for
Studies on Population and Health;
Manuel Garcia y Griego, professor, University of California
Alonzo De Gortari, Minister for Economic Affairs; and
Alejandro Negrin, Second Secretary, Embassy of Mexico in Canada.
PRESENTATION
Introduction
Any time two countries are preparing to join forces, it is normal that each
of them should attempt to obtain a better understanding of the other, and
normally this is done by means of comparisons. Only the comparable can be
compared, however. Thus, if we were to confine ourselves to a systematic listing
of the differences between Mexico's population and that of Canada, we would
arrive at misleading conclusions both from a historical and a social point of view,
since those differences are huge at any given moment. The population of Mexico
is that of a developing country in the midst of a demographic transition, while
the population of Canada Iiis— Fullt-dne of the world's most highly industrialized
countries, already entering the as yet uncharted "post-transition" phase. Moreover, Canada and Mexico have very little in common: neither geography,
climate, culture, nor language, nor any aspect of their history to date. They now
find themselves, through a rapid broadening of international relations, advances
in communications, and thus a restructuring of the economies of the great
regions of the world, in a position of acting as neighbours and forging relations
that would formerly have been judged almost inconceivable and certainly
unnecessary. It is a sign of new times and a major challenge that simple economic
interests can suddenly attain such importance that they serve as the basis for
lasting relations and strong ties between countries, despite major differences
in areas that were once felt to be fundamental.
In keeping with the style of the "Current Demographic Analysis" series, the
text that follows is intended to give a brief but comprehensive presentation,
supported by relevant statistics, of the Mexican demography and the principal
mechanisms at work in its development, to provide some measurement of the
speed of transformation, describe structural changes, and present the policies
implemented by the Mexican government to adapt the economy of the country
to its rapidly changing population. This description is designed simply to show
the current status of the Mexican population based on available data and, if
it does not amount to only a collection of statistics, this is because these must,
in many cases, be critically eTified and explained before the reader can draw
any valid conclusions from them.
There may well be some criticism of the fact that certain areas are either not
dealt with or are handled very superficially. We deemed it desirable to confine
ourselves fairly strictly to the field of demography, fully aware that, apart from
the interest of a few experts in the field, demographic description is not an end
in itself, but in fact only one component of a portrait of a society.
Drawing up an analytical description of demographic change in a country
basically amounts to showing and explaining changes in the volume, structure
and distribution of its population. Volume and structure, however, both depend
- 112 Figure 1
Distribution of the Canadian (1991) and Mexican (1990)
Populations by Region
North
West
17.2%
South-East
2.9%
North-East
6.6%
North-West
8.4%
Gulf
9.5%
Cen tral
33.3%
/
South
outh Pacific
10.9%
Mexico 1990
Population: 81,250,000
Territories
0.3%
West
21.4%
Atlantic
8.5%
Quebec
25.3%
Prairies
7.6%
Ontario
36.9%
Canada 1991
Population: 27,297,000
Sources: Census of Mexico (1990) and Census of Canada (1991).
GUL FOF MEXICO
- 113 -
cc
cc
C
a)
PACIFICOCEAN
C
0
C
O
0)
o
z
Cc
C
ca
a)
2
c,
2' c.
(11
LL
2
- 114 -
Key Dates Marking Mexico's Recent History and
Demographic Development
September
1821:
Declaration of independence
1824:
Adoption of Mexican constitution
1836:
Texas, New Mexico and California declare their
independence
February 2
1848:
Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo
January 27
1857:
Act creating the Vital Statistics Registry
1858:
Loss of the Messilla Valley - Mexico's present
boundaries established
1864:
Second Empire begins
1867:
Restoration of the republic
1882:
Statistics Branch set up
May 26
1884-1911: Porfiriato period (Porfirio Diaz)
1910-1917: Armed conflict period of the Mexican revolution
August 24
August 4
1928:
Act regarding family relations and the new Civil
Code
1929:
Formation of the National Revolutionary Party
1936:
First law regarding population
1938:
Nationalization of oil companies and railroads
1942:
Implementation of BRACERO program
1946:
New legislation on colonization
December 23 1947:
Second umbrella legislation on population
1959:
Creation of Family Welfare Association
1966:
Opening of first (IPPF) 1 clinic
March 13
1973:
New health code (authorizing sale of contraceptives)
January 7
1974:
General Population Act
May 27
1974:
Creation of National Population Council
(CONAPO)
October 28
1977:
Presentation of National Family Planning Plan
1982:
Nationalization of banks
I International Planned Parenthood Federation.
Note: In bold: key dates of demographic events.
- 115 i
qichanges
in births, deaths and migrations as well as on the interactions between
them. Although these phenomena are closely linked, a clearer picture may be
obtained if we describe them separately.
We will discusurowth fertility, mortality and migrations in that order, and
then will describe some characteristics of the population which may contribute
to an understanding of its behaviour.
Geographical organization of the population
Mexico is a country with a population of some 84 million' (about three times
more populated than Canada). It is made up of 32 federated entities (31 states
and one federal district), hence the name, United States of Mexico; 25 of these
states have a population of over a million. Half the population (50.8%),
however, is concentrated in only seven states, but there are seven other states
with a population of under a million which together account
__—for only 5% of
the total population of the country..
This description does not fairly portray the exact distribution of the population. Although no official rule exists, Mexicans often divide their country into
eight regions of unequal size (Figure 1), each made up of varying numbers of
'states (Table 1A in Appendix). The largest is the central region, where a third
of
is concentrated, and the smallest in terms of population is
the southeast, which with three states has 2.9% of the total population of the
country.
Looking at Table lA (in the Appendix), we see that in the past 30 years, the
population of Mexico has increased close to two and a half times, but the
distribution by region has not chingediiiiiffiThe most noteworthy
increase took place in the cenirilTegion, which grew from 31% of the total in
1960 to 33% in 1990. The region which has lost the most ground is the North,
which accounted for 14% of the national total and now has only 11%. This
overall growth does, however, mask quite significant differences between states
which cannot be described in this brief general presentation.
MEXICAN SOURCES OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Introduction
Before we embark on a description of changes in demographic phenomena
in Mexico, we must identify and weigh the validity of the sources of data used,
as well as the role played by the organizations which publish information. The
most important are:
I
The 1980 Census count was 81,249,645.
- 116 -
1) the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI),
which is the organization mandated by the government to collect information and prepare statistics both at the national level and for regional and local
administrative units (states and municipalities 2);
2) the Demographic Studies Centre of the College of Mexico, which since 1964
has trained almost all Mexican demographers and employs many researchers
of international repute;
3) the Social Research Institute of the Autonomous National University of
Mexico, which has carried out a number of major projects since the early
1970s;
4) the National Population Registry, which began publishing vital statistics
figures in 1982;
5) the Family Planning Coordination Services of the Secretariat of Health and
the Mexican Institute of Social Security. These two bodies have played a
major role in conducting and analyzing surveys;
6) the National Population Council (CONAPO) which since 1973 has been
responsible for the country's demographic planning, and
7) the recently founded Centre for Studies on Population and Health (CEPS)
of the_Sectetariat of Health, which publishes studies and analyses mainly in
the fields of mortality and morbidity, not to mention other institutions such
as the Mexican Demography Society,
Censuses
Mexico has a long history of keeping population statistics. For earlier periods,
there are, as in Quebec, various types of parish records that were kept
throughout the colonial period and even afterwards by the Catholic clergy.
In modern times, the first large-scale undertaking to gain more information
on the Mexican population 3 was inaSihe year of the first Census. A second
Census was held five years later (1900) and another every 10 years since then,
with the most recent taking place in 1990, giving the situation as of March 12
(see tables 1A and 1B).
Given the problems caused by Mexico's particularly difficult geography, along
with poor facilities and services early in this century, lack of education, a traditionally haphazard administrative system and the revolution that wracked the
country from 1910 to 1920, it is not surprising that the quality of census data
has been erratic over time.
2 Translation of "municipio."
3 Mexico has traditionally considered
it highly important to know as much as possible about its
population. After several attempts to collect statistical information on the population, the National
Bureau of Statistics was founded in 1882 and the National Institute for Geography and Statistics
(in 1850), which has since become the Mexican Society for Geography and Statistics.
•
00
g
NI
N
ON
§
0
.
d•
00
let
.,..,,
,
O\
In
NO
CA
r4
1"-ON
S',
'a,-
g
O.
•
•
•.
•.
:
8
0
00
...,
NI•
0
on
.4.-.
.4.
∎-.
Origin o f
Information
O
.2
4-.
cd
a)
e0
-..
v
V)
4)
0
,..
‘.-.
0
co
0
0
0
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
0
41
C4
0
0
Survey Unit
Surveyed
Population
a)
a.
0
0
C
0
0
C
0
4.
>1
cd
4...
>1
0
4.
>1
0
4.
>-.
>,
›..
0
2
.Y.
.....,
u
..1-.
u
.o
:Eso
.2.
.•u■
a)
a)
a)
0
c..)
..74
9
..,
(..)
.9
0
c.)
.9
0=
z
0=
z
=
0
=
0
>
021
.
o
.1
td
5
6 4
at u
0 7
u
•0,.4 0
0 .. .
"8
,•• 2
-. 5
.5.,
42
40' a -0 •-•15-
0,..
'-' "0
0
dg0v. d.
0
. 0
8 g. s
7•
01-0
0
. 0.
O. 0. „, 0.
0
?..,
0
?..,
?.. ,
0
0
o
0 en
u 0. •0
0 E. c1.;
00
..5 r;
.5
,' ..c .4
711
"0 •-, a) . -9,
V,
N en 0
0,
g &-,)%
ms
4 '-'
gC
c .....
0.
2
.- 4-'
,-,
= e....
0 7- 0
....
7
a),..
0
.-,
0
"CI
".■
a'
el) 0
a
O
0
. A , ....4
... 0. 00
0 _
2
g 0.
e
al 0
4 .a. il
0
u
0 • .--.
..,
*".•
0
O
..
=
0 6,1
d
.-■ •-•
•.
O
.•■)
S
. Si
..4zCI
.4
•••4
a)
•S
"5
I...
0
eo-.
People per
Questionnaire
Year of I
Publication
- 117 -
re
9S
....
0
at
4-.
u
in
CI
en
0
)
al
-.
4
0
CI
2
0
ti
u-,
0
0
2
0
•-,
0
0
2
0
•-,
0
0
2
4)
L'
it-)
0
•---,
0
•-,
0
--.
0
•-•-•
2
0
---,
CI
CI
CI
CI
0
0
0
0
0
4.)
2
ro 5
co 4-. ....
,,' 3)
0 0
eee
o
A) 0
.5 "
•-2 a
0
3
' 5
2. -a
. til. =
0
1..: ,
4 0 = t .0
1--. ' .o
N1...
I,Csi
lz)
1
o
0
ts
0
0
a)
Vt
CI
1.
tri
esl
6,
2
t
0
.....
0
X)
it
Co
e4
s
r.
0>)
,>"
z
e‘i
NO
4
g
%.0
.e,
to
,
:t
4
g
8
g
g
45,
,.. en 6. t p g
O
3 gc.. 3) a 1 g
.0....
0
.
›.
a,
a,
0.
ON
ON
53
ON
P
ON
ci
ON
. a.,
0
as g
0
0
0
r.' ..&,. t
2 7
0 5. .
p0 0
9, 0.
cy
00
.r. Ti
3 .o
-6 ,9 4:f
0
,-,
0
..
0
= 2 {2
0 ..1 cs g'
•1) = 0 0.
,..:
....
0 ct
= o ..0 ..2 .. 0 0
(-. OA-. * 1-* t0
ei
en
•
▪
- 118 -
.0
Year of
Publication
Nu
.;
C
0'40'MM
WWW.el
MMMNM(44,4‘7.,COMWMC4, 4"2"2".' 0'
.2
0
A*0
u•-•
nr000Mggagggs"6,"6%"g**7747 "7
4)
...
0 =
e....WW
MCA°,
.....-..-........
to;
›.%
V
ho
■-•.E,
0,,_
=....
4,0
r
E U
>
Origin o f
Information
CCCOO
2222a
.0"O'CC6
.0000
3§§§§§
2 .2 ,..
0 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 2 .2 .2 .2 .2 0 0 0 0 0
Z4)
t
't Ittttttittr.ttYYYYY
Co 0 as 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 a, 0 0 u-. e.... 4- ,.... 4..
OCCOCC C
CO C
WWWW V1
0000wwwou
Z
-0 =
g .
d 2
0
Survey Unit
-0
N.,"'NNNNNNUNNUNNUNN
az=========a===a===
0000000000000000000
NU
=======ZZ=11=======
oa
,.. cTi =
2 """
0 o.;811:0
muo 40, 0 7:0
.174
") .9, c1
L 4"5
2ss
.cu
. .,,4.4..
=E-s
00 =
.s , .,
Z .,:;..;
Surveyed
Population
.5o0
... Z 03
w
m...0
_.- o
V ....3. •*g
0 0 0 .., 0 0 0 . 0 0 0
000'0'0000000000=0000
0000000000000000
4400
OAAMCIAACIOAAOOMM .CIAAM
g .13) a8 ,
.ue=
(..) -go'5
0 trd. z 0.
•-.0,..,
0-0
z ..) 2
,,, = .0
-0vs
O
.... -,
A 15 . .5 c4 .0v5
u=..se
,..:
‘41
.-" co M O.
33
XX
Z 44.
CYCJ °
7.3.0 '-'
CO ," et
.0.-Ne
-02
440:1
58
....,
WW>"-
stit14
r.l u crs
:',
U cl _.
,.... C '-'
0-5 112.2,'..O.
1.... 0 ..,.. d....
N
4.1
00
0
'4
ICI
a
...
t• 5 (.,4 , p
ti) I g in. • - . V, 1 'A ti V I g V
mm.0
g 'I. 1 a
- rg :--,I Ma. ll 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0.) a) ta 0 0
ei .." " 6.. 'a. ag g g g g g gg
gg g g
....d‹<.‹.-,.-1.1.--...a
.....g.1.--,.,
3 .1.g m1 2 ce, as
'0 d 8 ..8..: 5 5
C....
-o
.0 0 •..
- ,..
O
O al , ,..... 0 >
cd ,..„,„
.2.P2
2
2.
coI-. ...
c ,, 6 .i: -gl
-A o. •
EV
a 1::o=cd
•0 -c% 9-•
0
= ord
oc.."'
0 ..-'
CA cd
cd os....
-a3o
0
=g
■
O
•
,...
g
›.
472
an..
cow
.......
. . asa
rASN
00
w
a'os 2 8
,, ts
- '12'
=-.9.
.24
G 2 e. 0 e e e e
2
Ntn
.s...) .S5
===:4===:C= .. 0='=======
"8
.0
0
.
X
...,AKI
1-.,L2
-0.
•0.00
se C.)
000000000000000000.0
Is
,
4.1
.._,
8...
.5
e
ct)
„,,,
0..,
...
10"0"01111'0'01110'0'01:111'0"0"0"0"0
0
C.)
C
.;
2
2
8 0.
.?-....E.Z.
O ,.,..,„,g.
2.
,, u
-0.
,-. rd
it
i
4
4.).....
0
co
0
uE
•tug
.12
.
• 41
,-.3t u
.1::::
.4
.0
:41[-.0z
•,7:, .4) ." >
- N'.,4.._co.....f..,.-d a2 'A,A
_ wm.-,7:000,,,L1
g• C ce g
en <3.
N
C...Nen.* 411 WI NOSN g 07001 Fs
00000000mON0h0,0h$2,0,0h04.0n0. MOA0h
IA g .0 " d C C . U
.. .2.,
. . .2. 10,,,,. ,p
- gto 41
„,,
5d
a .0'2a a a . !d
u
2g
8 ..6
2 22g g
.. 0,
- 119 In a doctoral thesis on demographic change in Mexico, Marta Mier y Teran 4
provided an assessment of various censuses. She estimates thatcensus coverage
for 1950 1960 and 1970 was comparable. 5 According to her research, the 1940
population was probably under estimated by 2.0%, that of 1930 by 0.8% and
that of 1920 by 4.0%. It seems likely that the 1910 Census overestimated the
population by 1.8%, while the underestimate was 1.3 % in 1900 and 5.9% in
1895. These are, of course, only estimates arrived afbirseries of complex
-EaTailations and hypotheses on the 1970 Census coverage. Her analysis
demonstrates that, at least at the national level, the quality of census data is
_
_
acceptable.
Most Mexican demographers have, however, expressed doubts regarding the
quality of the 1980 Census, in which they feel there was over-enumeration..
Conversely, they feel that the 1990 figures are too low. There has as yet been
no official document issued by INEGI. Accoru
crfir
)CONAPO, work is underway to produce annual estimates from 1970 on. For all these reasons, Mexico
does not appear in most of the tables in the U.N. Demographic Yearbook, and
in those where it is included, the figures are described as being "of lesser
reliability. "Mexican demographers consulted are of the opinion that the population of Mexico in 1990 was probably 84.5 million.
Vital statistics
The "Vital Statistics Registry Regulation" has existed in principle since
July 10, 1871. This data-collection system has been implemented gradually
across the country since the initial law set up the Civil Registry in 1857. The
registry began operations in Veracruz in 1861 but application throughout the
country proceeded slowly, and it was some time before relatively complete
figures on demographic events (births, deaths and marriages) were produced.
The many political upheavals that marked the country's history also had an
impact on the smooth operation of such a registry. Vital statistics certificates
were introduced in 1935 6 but the standardization of such documents
throughout the country was only achieved in 1983. 7 The rapid growth of the
population in recent decades has made it difficult to maintain an efficient
network of registry offices, so that registration of a birth or death may require
a special trip, resulting in many omissions. (In 1976, there were vital statistics
4 Marta Mier y Teran - "Evolution de la population mexicaine a partir des donnees des
rencensements de 1895' 1970." Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Montreal,
August 1982.
5 According to the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI), the 1950
and 1960 censuses underestimated the population by 5.94% and the 1970 census by 4.63 %.
6 Prior to this, the only documents in existence were handwritten "notes" certifying that the event
had taken place.
7 Canada has not yet achieved standardization in this area. Since collection of vital statistics data
is under provincial jurisdiction, birth, death and marriage certificates may bear different information depending on the province in which the event was registered.
- 120 -
registry offices in only 8% of communities with less than 2,500 inhabitants;
yet, at the same time, 34% of Mexicans lived in communities with less than
2,500 inhabitants.) From a procedural point of view, Mexico differs little from
Canada. Once an event is registered locally, the information is transcribed and
forwarded to the Statistics Branch which compiles the documents, draws up
statistics, prepares tables and makes these available to the public. The antiquated
methods of information processing used to date, along with variations in the
quality of services from one state to another and in the training of staff, have
resulted in often significant levels of errors, gaps and omissions (occasionally
in the order of 20% to 25%). 8 Added to this, at the practical level, are quite
surprising disagreements on the definition of terms (such as live births), despite
the fact that these terms are precisely defined by international organizations,
along with significant late registration. Notwithstanding these problems,
demographic phenomena in the recent period have been reasonably well
documented through indirect methods and the competence of Mexican statisticians and international experts. INEGI has made remarkable strides in data
collection and processing. Organizations such as the National Population
Council (CONAPO), the College of Mexico, the Centre for Population and
Health Studies, Mexican universities and joint projects with international bodies
such as the Latin-American Centre for Demography (CELADE) have produced
studies of good quality.
Some essential precautions must be taken when using vital statistics data,
because of the two major weaknesses mentioned: under-registration and late
registration.
Under - registration
There are indications that events (births, marriages, deaths) are not uniformly
registered and the extent of under-registration varies from year to year and from
one administrative unit to another. It is difficult to justify the fact, for example,
that two states may have proportions of infant deaths to total deaths varying
from 6.8% to 27.5%. In such a situation, the necessary data adjustments give
rise to concern since the hypotheses on which they are made are often hard to
defend. 9
Late registration
Vital statistics offices are not easily accessible to the entire population. A
major proportion of births do not take place in hospital, as in Canada, and
therefore must be reported by the mother or father. Moreover, there is no
Sergio Camposortega Cruz. Analysis demografico de la mortalitad en Mexico, 19401980. College
of Mexico, 1992, p. 29 ff.
9 INEGI, Cuaderno de poblacion, No. 3, 1992.
8
- 121 -
Figure 3
Distribution of Registered Births by Cohort and Age at
Registration in 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974
a
CO 0
2
0)
a
Age at
registration
0
41
On MO 0,
RI
eeee
11%
15%
13%
1971
1974
Cu
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Number
of births
ci
N
1972
1973
gi
N
0
0
I,CO
N
E
cc;
a
Cs
N
n
C3
..?_,
N
0
01
0
tO
V
N:
o
0
ci
Source: Mier y Teran, Marta (1989). La Fecundidad en Mexico: 1940-1980,
La Fecundidad en Mexico: Cambios y Perspectives,
Beatriz Figueroa (Ed.), El Colegio de Mexico, p. 57.
powerful incentive such as family allowance to encourage registration. The result
is late registration, which, in addition to providing questionable information,
makes the annual accounting for each place of residence at the time of the event
much more complicated, given the extent of internal migration.
To take just one example, two tables (Tables 2 and 3) and a figure (Figure 3)
illustrate the difficulties demographers have in calculating the basic birth and
fertility rates. The result is that it is hard to get an idea of current trends, both
in terms of variations in intensity and with respect to changes in tempo.
Weaknesses in information collection and the uncertainty of population
estimates based on flawed census data mean that our knowledge of Mexican
population trends:
- 122 -
Table 2. Registered Live Births by Age at Registration, Mexico,
1986-1989
Age at Registration
Year
Total
Less than
1 year old
1
2
3
4
5
6 and
over
Unknown
1986
2,579,301
2,040,909
251,618
36,377
28,181
26,478
25,764
168,584
1,390
1987
2,794,390
2,087,752
174,142
79,459
63,489
56,240
53,079
279,008
1,221
1988
2,622,031
2,078,323
124,235
56,970
42,788
37,931
37,911
241,680
2,193
2,620,262
2,063,386
132,907
63,575
45,021
39,612
38,033
236,746
982
1989
Source: I.N.E.G.I. ( 992). Estaclirdeas Demografkas: Cuaderno de Poblacldn No. 3,
Mexico, p. 13-16.
1) is often based on simple indices calculated on a multi-year basis (generally
three-year averages);
2) requires readers to assess estimates proposed by several researchers;
3) obliges researchers to compare results obtained from different sources and
by different methods;
4) is obtained using indirect methods or models;
5) often depends on survey results because, despite the smaller size of the sample
and its inherent drawbacks, the interview process yields more accurate data
than the information coming from Vital Statistics Registry.
Demographic surveys
The less satisfactory the measurement of demographic phenomena provided
by censuses and vital statistics, the more common it is to use ad hoc surveys.
Listed below are the four best-known surveys carried out in recent years:
1) 1976 Mexican Fertility Survey (EMF);
2) 1979 National Survey on Birth Control Methods and Prevalence of Use
(ENPUM A);
3) 1982 National Demographic Survey (END);
4) 1987 National Fertility and Health Survey (ENFES).
These studies were mainly intended to track trends in fertility, mortality,
nuptiality and contraception, all top priority phenomena for the country's
development since the promulgation of the new Population Act in January 1974.
—
0
Previous
Years
CI
tes
Os
....
Fi
en
co
sO
IN
.-.
00
(4
vs
Os
rez.
.-.
on
N
N
sti
SO
N
..
..
00
Os
.-.
..
es
1;84.
1- 7 -
&
....
Year o fBirth
—
N
g
N
...,
Os
-,
123
N
7.
1...
co
on
oo
N
.-.
et
g
ri
,c,
ir0
I.:
N
N
N
"..k
g
N
g
.-.
sO
en
N.
es.
4
y.
—
r-
krt
en.
•
'I.'
•et
^
en
r■
co
-.
rst
co
g
on
s0
wi
en
co
on
vs
al
Os
on
on
en
C'..
N
N
Os
en
V1
IN
Os
Os
,.0
vs
r:
ve
—
.41
0
....
N
Os
Ce
Os
Os
■•
cn
00
-.
fn.
g
4n
fi.
Os
00
.....
0
2
on
s0
oo
Os
Os
g
Ci
sO
g
•ef
00
sO
c°..
3
4.1
0
en
°.'..
.-.
•
G:
.0
oo
oo
h
Os
ao
N
en
M
.oz
co
-.
un
.
.
Fe:
a,
.
•
e
%.B.,
0
.-.
co
oo
Os
.-.
Os
00
Os
-,
-.
ese
..,
./)
*el
8
[-.
.
en
VD.
.
.
oo
..
..
en
R
C).
'n.
g
t.-..
s
on
0.■•
.
N
Vi.
.-.
vo
iv
ei
O
N
Registration
Year
.
.
.
cr,
sfi
N
'a
,.0
,0
.-.
N
VD
N
00
V
...
N
N
N
r-
.0
V
...
00
ON
.-■
—
I-4.1
wi
ses
%0
N
..,-.
z
00
0,
.-.
0
- 124 -
DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH
The Mexico described here is the country with its current boundaries and its
republican constitution as proclaimed in 1857 and restored in 1867 (the year of
Canadian Confederation).
At the time of the first Census in 1895, Mexico had 12,632,427 inhabitants
and at the turn of the century 13,607,259, while the 1901 Census in Canada
counted 5,371,300 people. In 1990, the population of Mexico was estimated at
84 millionl° while that of Canada was 27.3 million. In a little under a century,
Mexico's population has increased 6.2 times and that of Canada 5.1. Seen from
this angle, the difference does not seem that great; however, the initial populations were not the same, hence the significant numerical difference today." But
the real differences show up mainly in the stages and mechanisms of growth.
Growth in Canada over this century has been marked by gradually declining
natural increase, interrupted by two relatively brief episodes: a severe drop
during the depression of the 1930s and a remarkable surge during the 20 years
of the baby-boom, approximately 1945 to 1965. But this growth was also the
result of a great wave of international immigration. This immigration was very
strong in the early part of the century (between 1900 and 1914) and weaker
during the two world wars and the depression era. Since the end of the Second
World War, despite its many ups and downs, immigration has nevertheless been
responsible for close to a third of the average annual growth.
Growth in Mexico during this period followed a quite different pattern. It
was never augmented by any significant immigration, even though, until the
Second World War, encouragement was given to European immigration and
"return" migration by Mexicans who had moved to the United States at the
end of the 19th century and during the civil war. Growth was thus due almost
exclusively to natural increase. Although growth was slightly weaker up to the
Second World War, this was due partly to emigration and military losses and
partly to the lower birth rate during the decade of armed combat. It should also
be borne in mind that mortality was still quite high during that period. Since
1940, as may be seen in Figure 4, growth has been considerably more rapid than
that of either Canada or the United States.
During the decade preceding the last World War, Mexico was at about the
midway point of its demographic transition. Even though the death rate had
been declining for some time, it was not yet sufficiently differentiated from a
birth rate which remained very high. It is only towards the end of the war that
we see a clear drop in mortality (see chapter on mortality) shown by unprecedented gains in life expectancy. Fertility remained at very high levels until around
I° The 1990 Census counted 81,249,645.
II If Canada's population had increased by 6.2, it would now stand at 33.3 million.
- 125 Figure 4
Population of Mexico, Canada and the United States,
1891 to 2030
In thousands
500,000
United States
200,000
100,000
50,000
Mexico
20,000
Canada
10,000
5,000
2,000
II
1891
I
I
1911
1901
II
1931
1921
I
I
1951
1941
II
1971
1961
I
1991
1981
I
I
2011
2001
I
2031
2021
Note:
The straight lines are adjusted, allowing a comparison between mean slopes.
Sources: Mexico:
From 1895 to 1970: Censuses; 1980: Mier y Teran (1982);
1990: Census; from 2000 to 2030: CELADE estimates.
Canada:
From 1891 to 1991: Censuses: from 2000 to 2030:
Statistics Canada (December 1991). Population
Projections 1990 - 2011, Demography Division, Projection
Section, p. 11.
United States: From 1900 to 1990: U.S. Census Bureau; from 2000 to 2030:
U.S Census Bureau Projections.
- 126 -
the 1970s, resulting in a significant increase in the number of births over the
30-year period. Maintenance of high birth rates combined with a decrease in
the death rate yielded a considerable increase in annual population growth. The
annual rate, which had declined slowly to 1.7% a year between 1930 and 1940,
rose to 2.7% between 1940 and 1950, then 3.1% between 1950 and 1960 and
3.4% between 1960 and 1970; it then dropped to only 2.8% between 1970 and
1980 and to 2.5 % between 1980 and 1990. These high growth rates were achieved
despite a certain level of emigration to the United States, with immigration being
negligible. The result of this trend was a country of 84 million inhabitants in
1990 which had been trying for 20 years to slow its growth but which had such
strong momentum in the form of a large female population of childbearing age,
any
that any decrease in the birth rate could only be accomplished slowly, as
abrupt halt, assuming this is possible, would necessarily result in the short and
medium term in severe imbalances in the population age structure (Figure 5).
In other words, to avoid the detrimental effects of very strong growth, the
country faces a dilemma. It could either opt for a relatively slow reduction in
fertility which would, in the long run, make Mexico a country that, although
heavily populated, might reasonably hope that its economy would have time
to grow to the point where it could deal with the increase in population, or it
could attempt to reduce growth rapidly, with the result that the age structure
would be severely destabilized with no guarantee that, in the same time frame,
the economy would improve to the point where it could provide jobs for a
population already too large for it.
The adaptation of Mexico to the rest of the continent is the North American
version of the North-South antagonism; a current worldwide problem caused
by imbalances in the rate of demographic and economic development between
developing countries and western countries, loosely termed. These relations have
major implications for the economic life and policies not only of the countries
involved, but also of the other industrialized countries. If a given standard of
living is to be maintained, and technical advances incorporated, population
growth will bring with it the need for either an increase in economic activity or
an increase in emigration. An increase in economic activity inevitably leads, for
example, to an increase in capital investment which, if not generated internally,
must be imported. For certain segments of the populations involved, these
imports may be cause for concern. 12 As well, population growth causes
demographic pressure which is quickly felt on the southern border of the U.S.
This pressure has been so strong for the past two decades that it has become
increasingly difficult to control, particularly since not all economic stakeholders
in the U.S. have the same view of the advantages and disadvantages of legal
or illegal Mexican immigration, or of injections of capital into the neighbouring
12
David Rinfeldt and Monica Ortiz de Oppermann: Mexican Immigration, U.S. Investment, and
U.S.-Mexican Relations. The Rand Corporation, November 1990, JR1-08, The Urban Institute UI Report 91-4.
- 127 Figure 5
Birth and Death Rates, Mexico and Canada,
1895-2025
Mexico
Rate per 1,000
50
40
30
20
10
0
1887
1902
1917
1932
1947
1962
1977
1992
2007
2022
1977
1992
2007
2022
Canada
Rate per 1,000
50
40
30
20
10
0
1887
1902
Source: Table A2.
1917
1932
1947
1962
- 128 -
8
• ■1
—
■0
....
0N
0
rs
N
....,
,-,
.-,
en
Tr
F,
N
8
8
8
•■1
I.
—
1..
1■1
IsN
en
•--.
kO
el
'.7
N
kr-1
"
N
,,
).-:
•—.
...,
,-;
,,,
—
—
—
,_,
8
8
0
0 N
0
0
,-..
0
N
1..1
1...
1..1
1..1
I..
8
&
8
b
r-.—.
ad
er-)
.—.
o■
eql
..-..
8
N
8
—
8
—
8
—
0
S
..
vl
0
ken
0., el el
et
.-,
en
....
8
Annual
Growth
Rate
(in %)
°
Annual
Growth
Rate
(in %)
Population
20 10
Annual
Growth
Rate
(in %)
o..O (4
ck . 0°
0 ...,
p. co
N
0
E..°
0
a .E., —
N
8
N
.4-,
ei
00
N
—
N
rn
't
o■
e-
rn
en
•"..
en
a■
a%
r-—
a,
N
,
a,
0
a
).6
•ri
cr:
er6
N
8
N
0
r.".
—
ON
Os
0
.r1
—
"
esi
0
0
.-..
—
—
00
,6
N
8
,,-,
es]
N
VI
0
Ca4
1.
8
.0
co
-0cl
=cd
U
V)
-a..)
.
E.
Source: Author's calculations.
a
d
in
.....
Annual
Growth
Rate
(in %)
2020-2030Period
20 10-2020Period
8
N
,
2000-2010Period
S
eo
0;
II ct es)
1990-2000 Period
00
N
4
4
00
0..0 en
,0
0
- 129 country. It is thus evident that the study of demographic phenomena has a much
broader scope than the simple intellectual satisfaction derived from understanding
them, and that thinking in this area is naturally directed towards the future.
Without going into population projections as such, since these will be analyzed
later, we may, using some simple calculations, arrive at an approximation of
the possible dimensions of the Mexican population according to different
horizons. Population growth follows the law of compound interest and thus,
based on a census population of 81.5 million in 1990 (which we will not discuss),
we may estimate future population size at various dates using a variety of growth
rates maintained constant over a decade (Table 4).
These figures, however approximate they may be, demonstrate the desirability
of acting rapidly on the growth rate if expansion of the population is the goal.
The difference between maintaining 2% growth for 40 years and gradually
reducing it to 1 olvis 50 million people. Given the current economic situation,
it is easy to understand why the Mexican government has adopted the population
policies it has, to slow growth, the measures implemented since the 1970s and
the support received for them from the rest of the North American continent.
Population policies
Since the 19th century, Mexican thinking has always associated economic
development with strong population growth. In this, Mexico differs little from
other countries in both North and South America. This has led to attempts to
attract settlers, as in the United States and Canada, assistance in repatriating
Mexicans who emigrated to the U.S., emphasis on the family, land settlement
assistance and encouragement for cross-breeding with the Indian populations;
these measures have persisted until quite recently. All measures did not meet
with the same success, particularly as political instability and the revolutionary
period of the 1910 decade failed to create the same favourable climate, for
immigration in particular, as prevailed in the rest of North America. The growth
rate of 1.2% to 1.5% between 1900 and 1910, was well below that of Canada
(2.9%), the United States (1.9%) and even Brazil (2.9%). The few immigrants,
even those from Europe, did not receive a particularly warm welcome overall;
this period was followed by strong nationalist pressure promoting the concept
of Mexico for Mexicans, which resulted in a veritable wave of xenophobia.
From the 1917 constitution forming the United States of Mexico to the Second
World War, the various laws on population, including the Family Relations Act
and the New Civil Code of 1928, all had basically the same inspiration: integration of indigenous populations, implementation of measures to keep Mexicans
in Mexico through land reform and improvement, and benefits for emigres
returning to Mexico, especially after the severe laws enacted in the United States
at the time of the Great Depression. During this period of strong nationalism,
priority went to the family and the rights of women and children, and mixed
- 130 marriages were encouraged, while certain eugenic aspects continued to be
present. Mexico acted then, like Canada, as a stepping-off place for foreigners
seeking to emigrate to the United States, and it proved to be as intolerant to
Asians as were its northern neighbours.
The Second World War had some effect on Mexican population policy. The
government continued to be motivated by the populationist notions of previous
periods and encouraged marriage and fertility, while the Bracero Program,
introduced on August 4, 1942, allowed Mexicans to work temporarily in the
United States during a period when industrialization was accelerating in their
country. The government was gratified at the decline in mortality, which brought
a population increase that was still felt to favour economic development. In
1946, planning still included a policy on colonization. The second law on population, passed in December 1947, was clearly populationist in tone. And yet it was
at this time that the effect of urban growth, and its driving force, rural migration, began to cause concern. By 1950, it began to be clear that population
growth was not synchronized with economic growth: there were discrepancies
between population increase and the growth of resources. The rate of increase
in average income dropped from 6.1% to 1.4% between 1951 to 1952, which
was not compatible with the sustained annual population growth of 3.0% since
1940. Government thinking then turned towards measures to speed up economic
development in order to adapt it to demographic growth, the advantages of
which had not yet been openly questioned. During the years that followed, the
government refrained from taking a position, and this laissez-faire attitude was
accepted in silence by both those in favour of population control, who however
remained active, and the proponents of economic development strategies.
Around the 1970s, the question of demographic change began to be raised
pointedly on the basis of scientific population projections." "To what extent
has the demographic growth of the country stimulated or hindered economic
growth?" The government's response came with the passing of the Population
Act in December 1973. This law was characterized by a change in government
attitude from that of previous years, which was marked by cautious indifference,
and denoted a radical change in the till-then natalist philosophy. It took the form
of a population policy that sought to harmonize population size and structure
with the level of economic development in the country. Figures that were hard
to contest supported the decision to take energetic action. Between 1950 and
1970, the population doubled, the urban population increased from 28% to
45%, the population of Mexico City rose from 11 % to 17% of the national total
and the number of people between 15 and 64 increased by a factor of 2.2. It
had been proved that demographic growth would not slow down of its own
momentum while progress continued and the arrival of young people on the
job market was outstripping job creation.
13
Benitez Zenteno, Raul and Cabrera Acevedo, Gustavo, "Projections de la population de Mexico,
1960-1980", Banco de Mexico S.A. 1966.
- 131 -
Supported by many groups in favour of controlling population growth, the
President's Office dared to confront traditionalists, who in any case aroused
little sympathy among the general public, by proposing the new law which set
the government firmly on the road to lower fertility.
Following the usual statements of universal principles and general goals, the
law provided more specific low numerical growth objectives to be attained
gradually, based on various horizons and practical measures for achieving them.
This will be analyzed in the next chapter, on fertility.
To conclude briefly, in a century of demographic growth, we can recognize
ideas and behaviours related as much to the major current of thought of a period
as to particular Mexican views (importance of settlement, role of immigration,
desire for assimilation, belief in the virtues of fertility, self-regulation of the
economy and of demographic growth, etc.) found also in the history of population development in the United States and Canada. In the absence of adequate
economic development, the results in Mexico were obviously quite different,
as demonstrated by the current situation, and the recent consensus on the need
to lower fertility will only yield results in the long term.
BIRTH RATE AND FERTILITY
The natural growth rate of a population is the difference between its crude
birth and death rates. The crude birth rate is obviously determined by the
proportion of women and their average propensity to give birth (fertility) and
the population size. Not only is this growth rate indispensable to calculate
projections, but it is also a primary indicator of the reproductive power of a
population. We will thus begin with a description of this rate, as we will be
referring to it repeatedly in the discussion that follows.
Since the turn of the century we observe that, with very minor fluctuations,
the crude birth rate, based on the best available estimates, remained between
40 and 45 per thousand until the mid-1970s (Table 5). The year 1975 clearly
seems to mark the beginning of a permanent decline. Despite figures that vary
from one author to another due to adjustments to data, there is a clear downward trend.
Fertility
The decrease in the birth rate of a growing population is clearly the result of
a decrease in fertility." The onset of this decrease more or less coincided with
the change in government policy described in the previous chapter. In addition
to calculations using adjusted vital statistics registrations and population
14
Unless growth is due to heavy immigration by males or the elderly!
- 132 -
Table 5. Estimated Birth Rates from Calculations by Some Authors or Organisms
Mexico, 1895-1990 (per 1,000)
Period
Rate
Year
1895-1899
1900-1904
1905-1909
1910-1914
1915-1919
1920-1924
1925-1929
1930-1934
1935-1939
1940-1944
1945-1949
1950-1954
1955-1959
1960-1964
1965-1969
1970-1974
47.3
46.5
46.0 ,
43.2
40.6
45.3
44.3
44.6
43.5
44.6
45.0
45.1
44.9
44.4
44.3
43.7a
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1990
Rate
45.3h
24.0
45.8d
45.0h
40.4a
39.3e
37.6"
35.75
36.1 5
34.45
40.3c
43.2d
44.7d
40.3h
40.4c
37.9f
26.6h
Secretaria de Programacion y Presupuesto. Agenda Estadisticas 1978.
Lailson: Estimated births and corrected for the age at the year of registration, corrected
denominator for undercoverage.
a Lailson: Same method with a correction factor for late registrations.
d D.G.E.: Registered births and population corrected for undercoverage.
CONAPO: No indication on the numbers used.
f ORDORICA: No indication on the corrections made to the data by the C.D.S.
8 INEGI: Registered births and G.D.S. population projections.
h Estimations by Gomez and Partida.
Sources: From 1895 to 1929: Coliver, Andrew (1965). Birth Rates in Latin America: New Estimates
of Historical Trends and Fluctuations. From 1930 to 1970, Dindmica de la poblacion de
Mexico, CEED, El Colegio de Mexico, 1970 y Direccien General de Estadistica. SIC:
Anuarios Estadisdcos, various years. Figueroa, Beatriz (1989). La Fecundidad en Mexico,
El Colegio de Mexico.
a
b
estimates from 1964 to 1982, other estimates were deduced on the basis of at
least six surveys, of which we have already mentioned the four most commonly
quoted. In each of the surveys, between 3,000 and 20,482 women aged 15 to 49
were questioned about their fertility.
The data collected provided information by various methods, on birth cohort
fertility (longitudinal aspect) and by indirect methods on current fertility trends
(age-specific fertility rate and total fertility rate) (Table 6). There is thus a great
profusion of data, which mainly allow us to measure the changes that had
already occurred, since the speed with which fertility has declined in recent years
reduced the interest in figures projected on the basis of trends.
— 133 —
NO
CA
.-■
Mexicain Fertility Surveys2
N
O
O
41)
O
y
L.
al+
*
VI
...
4
N
8
ON
er
t•-•
,_,
.-.
VI
,_,
CP,
00
.IN
0
CO
._,
•-•
00
.-.
•-•
41
.-.
VI
VI
R
g
...,
n
..., 1-4
as
en
...
...,
el
4'4
VI
...
g
g
....
N
en
N
tN1
g
•...
6
en
0,
N
m
N
N
e4
oo
A
vi
....
'"
I-4
.0
.0
0%
NO
eV
.11
t.."
e4
Os
...
0
2 ta
be a.
'•■••
4
11
dr
00
• i*
O
`el)
11:
it
6' a
X et
.7
Mexicain Fertility Surveysa, 1
Q
Os
*
.4%
s,0
O.
17
.A
Census o fMexico, 1 970 a, 1
O
O
.11
h
14
O.
.4.
'a
c0
...
V
.....
%.0
0
Nel
en
O
m
r•-•
,...::
N
oo
oo
(-4
...
en
a
N
--4
oo
8
-.■
N
N
.-,
en
..ri
Ch
o.
00
si
..)
...,
N
t■
a,
e
O
,.N
*
.--,
on 0
11
rr
a
•-•
hi
W
en
7
0
N
vl
N
N
v
.- •
NeN
v't
to
fn
en
N
N
t4
0
krs
....
0
en
0
en
N
a,
0
-..
oo
N
00
00
Nri
N.
N
No
N
•t;
ON
.rt
Os
.-.
un
44n
N
N
.-.
N
oo
k0
N
Vi
Os
.OD 0
< ,...,
.-•
,..,
a,...
.4%
g
e?
..„
N
en
en
ON
a
r
n
er
n
Os
ui
ON
I
en
?
kn
et
caL
- 134 -
Table 7. Total Fertility Rates for Mexico According to Different Sources and
Different Methods of Calculations, 1962-1981
Surveys
Year
1970
Census
Own
Children
Method
Vital
Statistics
EMF - 1976
Own
Children
Method
1962
6.77
6.56
7.12
1963
1964
1965
6.79
6.85
6.74
6.54
6.70
6.67
1966
1967
6.40
6.15
5.14
5.54
6.73
6.61
6.60
6.52
6.48
6.51
6.60
6.76
6.99
7.52
6.67
7.50
6.50
7.17
6.64
6.82
6.90
6.62
6.42
5.93
5.37
5.40
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
6.59
5.96
5.56
5.43
5.13
EMF - 1976
Pregnancy
H
History
ENP - 1979
Own
Children
Method
END - 1982
Live
Births
History
6.74
7.00
6.54
6.65
6.45
6.00
6.03
5.49
6.18
6.34
6.09
6.78
6.47
6.72
6.67
6.40
6.13
5.94
5.42
5.37
4.82
4.63
6.79
6.82
6.55
6.42
6.13
5.83
5.50
4.92
4.54
4.32
4.30
4.38
Source: Nurlez, Leopoldo (1989). Mexico: Las Encues as Nacionales en la Estimacion de Los Niveles de
Fecundidad, La Fecundidad en Mexico, Cambios y Perspectivas, Beatriz Figueroa (Ed.), El Colegio de
Mexico, p. 104.
Table 7, drawn up by Leopoldo NuEez Fernandez" is one of the best summaries of the trend in the total fertility rate (T.F.R.) for various years between
1962 and 1981. Whatever the survey and data-processing method, it seems clear
that 1975 marks the rupture between fertility that was stationary and "natural"
for the country and controlled fertility. If we accept the approximate figure of
6.0 for the 1975 T.F.R. and 4.4 for that of 1981, we can see a drop of close to
30% in 7 years. The term "natural" is used because, until 1975, the T.F.R.
varied only slightly from the overall completed fertility rate of birth cohorts,
the last of which ended their fertile life around 1970.
15 In La Fecundidad en Mexico, cambios y perspectivas,
de Mexico, 1989.
Beatriz Figueroa Campos (ed.), El Colegio
- 135 With this kind of data, it is difficult not to link the decline in the birth rate
and the drop in fertility to population policy introduced during the same period.
Although the national family planning program was only implemented on
October 28, 1977, its objectives had already been set and measures to limit the
number of births had already been introduced.I 6
The goal of the national family planning plan was 25 per thousand growth
in 1982 and 10 per thousand by the year 2000. Since the growth rate at the time
was 32 per thousand and the death rate 8.5 per thousand, the birth rate was
actually 40 per thousand. As a preliminary estimate, achieving growth of 10 per
thousand would mean, given a probable death rate of 6 per thousand by the
year 2000, that the birth rate would have to fall to about 16 per thousand in
24 years, a decline of approximately 0.7 per thousand per year. The link between
the birth rate and fertility is not a simple one, since we must consider the size
of the total population, the number of women and the tempo of births; various
calculations have thus led to approximate estimates of age-specific total fertility
rates and the crude birth rate until the year 2000. It is interesting to look at what
the results of the plan have been to date.
In the past and the early phase of the transition, we mentioned previously
that different analyses yielded comparable results: birth rates in the order of
40 to 44 per thousand are compatible with a T.F.R. of about 6.5. According
to CONAPO, the birth rate in 1978 was 38 per thousand, congruent with a
T.F.R. of 4.94.
1977 to 1982
The first stage in the national population planning program (1977 to 1982)
set a target growth rate of 25 per thousand for the end of the period. Given the
death rate of 8.1 per thousand, the projected birth rate was 34.4 per thousand.
This objective appears to have been attained, since according to figures from
the National Population Council, the rate apparently fell to 37.6 per thousand
in 1977 and 34.0 per thousand in 1981, 17 resulting in a growth rate of 25 per
thousand.
The reduction in fertility in the first phase was to be obtained by setting up
effective family planning services and by intensive promotion of contraceptive
methods. At the outset, it would appear that, based on data from the 1982
National Demographic Survey, campaigns to limit births achieved positive
results. The anticipated number of users of contraceptive methods was 3,450,000
Starting in 1972, public-health institutes launched contraception programs, and the new health
code passed in February 1973 authorized the promotion and sale of contraceptives, which until
then had been prohibited.
17 Segundo Informe de Gobierno de Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado, Sector Salud y Seguridad Social,
Informacion Estadistica, p. 291. Quoted by M. Cosio in Politiques de Population au Mexique,
Politiques de population, etudes and documents, Vol. IV, No. 1, June 1989.
16
- 136 -
in 1982, and the survey determined that there were 4,784,000 - a 139% success
rate. 18 But this success was the result of a determined, systematic campaign,
particularly in rural areas which even set the number of new users, doctors were
to recruit each month.° Participants included the Mexican Institute of Social
Insurance (IMSS), the Institute of Social Services and Security of the Workers
of the State (ISSSTE), and the Secretariat of Health and Aid (SSA). Under the
program, 71 rural hospitals and 3,024 clinics were built and between 1974 and
1983, close to 15,000 midwives were trained.
1983 to 1988
The second phase of the planning process (from 1983 to 1988) was obviously
the logical continuation of the first, and we may judge from the results whether
the measures which led to the success of the first phase were still appropriate
for attaining longer-term objectives.
The results of the second phase, in fact, appear to have been less striking than
those of the previous one. Whereas the total fertility rate was brought down
from 5.9 children per woman (in 1974) to 4.4 (in 1982), a reduction of 25% in
five years, the reduction from 1980 to 1986 would have been much smaller if
at this date the rate had been 3.8 children per woman," or a drop of 14% in
7 years21 , notwithstanding an increase in the proportion of users of contraceptive methods. The number of users apparently went from 30% of married
women of child-bearing age in 1976, according to the EMF, to 53% in 1987
(ENFES). To summarize, according to the surveys, the number of users grew
as follows: from 2.4 million in 1977 to 4.8 million in 1982, and 7.5 million in
1988 (of whom 2.4 million were sterilized).
The limits of contraception
An initial sharp drop in the cross-sectional index followed by a more gradual
decline raises questions regarding the reproductive behaviour of the women
involved in the change, which can only appear in analyses of cohort completed
fertility, for the moment difficult to obtain. It can be seen that, from the 1976
E.M.F. to the 198 7 EMFES, female sterilization had become the most common
contraceptive method, rising from 9% of women aged 15 to 49 in couples who
practised contraception in 1976 to 36% in 1987 22. There are many women who
use modern contraceptive methods, but if the target objectives are to be achieved,
there must be many more of them, and they must begin using contraception
CONAPO. Programa Nacional de planification familiar 1983-1988.
Maria Cosio. Politiques de population au Mexique. Op. cit. p. 47.
20 ENFES. Figures quoted by Yolanda Palma Cabrera and Javier Suarez Morales, Family Planning
Branch: El Descenso de la Fecundidad en Mexico, op. cit.
21 Crude birth rates, according to CONAPO estimates, went from 30.8 per thousand to 25.1 per
thousand.
22 Pill, sterilization, hormone injections, IUD, etc. The percentages are official figures from the
ENFES.
18
18
- 137 -
Table 8. Percentage Reduction in Fertility Rates by Age, for Two Recent Periods
and Distribution of Sterilized Women in 1984, Mexico
Age Group
1975-1986'
1980-19902
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
24
28
29
36
44
50
20
19
18
19
41
49
58
Distribution of
100 Sterilized
Women3
3.6
18.1
28.8
49.5
}
Sources:' According to the Mexican Fertility Surveys.
2 From Vital Statistics.
3 Bronfman, Mario, Elsa Lopez and Rodolfo Tuiran (1989). Pratica Anticonceptiva y
Clases Sociales en Mexico: La Experiencia Recente, Politiques de Population, Etudes
et Documents, El Colegio de Mexico, Volume IV, No. 1.
before they have many children. But during the 1982 to 1987 period, the increase
in the number of users of contraceptive methods varied with age: 39% for
women 15 to 19, 41% for those 40 to 44, 59% for those 45 to 49, but only 4% to
7% for those in the five-year age groups from 25 to 39, 23 who, it must be noted,
were the largest group, percentage-wise, to practice contraception. Moreover,
recommendations from the national family planning program suggest sterilization mainly for women who already have at least three children. It is thus easy
to see why the downward trend in indices does not correspond exactly to the
overall increase in the number of contraception users, since in the population
there are a significant number of fertile women who begin using contraception
only after high-parity births. In fact, birth rates at all ages declined until 1990
but in varying proportions (Table 8).
We might accordingly summarize the recent reduction in Mexican fertility
as an "accelerated march" version of the reduction which occurred more slowly
in industrialized countries in the past by the planned use of modern contraceptive methods. The national plan mainly took the form of a powerful campaign
in favour of contraception. This is somewhat of a simplification, and contains
a degree of exaggeration, since Mier y Teran and Cecilia Rabel discovered that
fertility had begun to decline in the State of Mexico and the northern states
among women born in the first quarter of the 20th century. 24 Experience
elsewhere has in fact shown that in general, the initial approach is definitive
contraception (ad vitam) by women who have achieved high parities, leading
23
24
Secretariat of Health, Family Planning Branch (ENFS, 1987).
Personal communication, forthcoming publication.
- 138 to a decrease in fertility at older ages and consequently a rejuvenation of birth
tempo and a reduction in cross-sectional indices. Following this, however, the
reduction in fertility normally slows significantly during the period when
people's standards on optimum family size are being revised downward.
Clearly stated, prolonging the effects of the programmed, organized contraception of the last 20 years will call for changes in thinking in the direction of a
lower standard for family size. This would involve far-reaching changes in family
living conditions and the status of women. Obviously, progress in communications is speeding up changes which formerly took decades to occur in countries
that are now highly developed. In this connection, we note such factors as continuing urbanization, greater access to information and increases in the level of
education. Other changes, such as the current later age at marriage, also contribute to the process and will no doubt also assist somewhat in reducing fertility.
If in Mexico definitive contraception was so successful and so quickly resulted
in a drop in current indices, this was because the female population was ready
to adopt it. Proof of this is the fact that, at the time of the 1976 Mexican Fertility
Survey, 52% of women exposed to the risk of pregnancy replied that they did not
want another child and only 29.3% said they used some form of contraception. 25
If the future trend in fertility is to continue, the T.F.R. will likely remain below
the cumulative fertility of the cohorts involved for a number of years to come.
Given the number of women of child-bearing age, the decrease in fertility will
no doubt not be clearly apparent in the decrease in the birth rate, which might
not decrease as much as hoped. There seems to be some evidence of this. The
target birth rate in 1986 was 27 per thousand, while the estimated rate for that
year was 30 or 32 per thousand. 26 It is thus possible that the growth objective
forecast for the year 2000 will be hard to attain. And yet, the official 1990
population count, which was lower than anticipated, came as a surprise,
opposing surveyors and census-takers. It is unlikely that either of them made
a significant error. The cause of the surprise is more likely a considerable upward
adjustment in previous censuses (particularly that of 1980), which were
recognized to have under-enumerated. Using a base that was over-estimated by
the adjustment would thus have resulted in over-estimates for the years prior
to the 1990 Census, the quality of which has not yet been officially critiqued
by INEGI. 27 A consensus nevertheless seems to be forming which estimates the
population of Mexico at 84.5 million at the time of the census (interim figures
proposed by CELADE). 28
According to Yolanda Palma Cabrera and Javier Suarez Morales, Family Planning Branch EMF 1976. in Demographic and Health Surveys World Conference, 1991, Washington, D.C.
(tables 10 and 11).
26 See projections of births and fertility further on.
27 It should be noted that the birth rates that use estimated populations as a denominator are probably
too low, which would further augment the lack of correspondence between indicators.
28 The World Bank proposed 86.3 millions for 1990. This value is considered too large by mexican
demographers.
25
- 139 -
The current situation
The recent monitoring of fertility trends was undertaken only to evaluate the
progress in the decline of growth of Mexico's population. If we go back to the
time when these analyses were made, i.e. in 1980, the immediate natality future
was the 20 years from 1980 to the year 2000. These estimates are facilitated to
a certain extent by the fact that the women in child-bearing age during this period
are now already born. Obviously, some of them will enter their fertile period
while others will leave it.
Carmen Arretz provides a good discussion, based on a thorough study of
the behaviour of birth cohorts in the recent past (1950-1983). She notes that the
rate of growth in the number of births increased slightly from 1950 to 1965,
declined at the rate of 2.5% a year during the next five years, and then, beginning
in 1970, dropped to almost nil in the years prior to 1980 (from 1980 to 1990 the
number of births remained more or less stationary). Since the majority of births
(64% to 70%) are to women between 15 and 30, the more their share of the group
of women of child-bearing age increases, the more the number of births should
increase. However, the proportion of young women increased considerably,
from 56% in 1950 to over 60% in 1983, while the number of births declined
considerably. Cumulative fertility at age 30, which remained constant at about
3.7 children per 1,000 women until around the 1970s, has dropped steadily and
was only about 2.7 around 1983. The relative share of fertility rates of women
under 30, which was constant until around 1970 ( + 54%), increased to 58.5%
in 1983. The combination of these three phenomena led first to a rapid increase
in the number of births to women under 30 until around 1970 and then to a
slower rate of increase until 1983.
The stabilization seen in the number of births will have a medium-term effect
of reducing the proportion of women aged 15 to 30 in the 15 to 49 age group
and, assuming a decrease in their fertility, a reduction in the number of births
in the future. This decrease in births combined with the increase in population
should bring a substantial reduction in the birth rate. This, generally speaking,
is the logic which seems to have guided the formulation of the government's
future growth objectives.
Since the first projections by Benitez, 3° many others have been made by
various authors, and we will discuss only a few of these.
Frejka in 197531 proposed five scenarios based on the year, a net reproduction
rate would reach unity and then remain constant. His Hypothesis HI forecast
a T.F.R. of 6.00 for the 1970 to 1975 period and a replacement level between
2000 and 2005 which would lead, based on other hypotheses, to a Mexican
29
Carmen Arretz. "La fecondite au Mexique", in La fecundidad en Mexico, op. cit.
3° Benitez Benteno, Cabrera Aceredo, G., op. cit.
31
Mexico (perspectivas por paises). The Population Council 1975, pp. 11-15.
- 140 -
C
O
E
C
0
is
C
w
U
8
4
.... ... ; )
:. i,ii,::::: ::::: ::::
::::. :;:::
: :: .::
47)
0 * ChTtO)V0C)01VOICTO)0)
SI,V)001411.11VVOICONN.-.-0),1
0 NOthOL6‘666661.6066 60
CO 1, 1, (.0(0141LOVOCIVICNICS1.-•-
i0 01
13 4
al
C
Cf
0
rs•
CI
C
•)C4c
4
,
,
rnQrn •1 C71 Qrn ‘1.
0). 01 01
nr-cootnulavencicvN-- 0,)
Li36 66 6
in 0 66 uiati)0
CO
(0 (0 cnQ V 0) 01 NN
2
O
is
C
O
cC
a.
O
0-
C
2
0
C
C
O
3
O.
O
C
ta
*.c5
E
(.0 a.
ca)
a)
<
0,
..
0)
13 4
C/3
C
0
CO
CO
co
0
01 01 01V CA .1
47)474747 0) NT V
(73.
07 ()CV
1,-,`,1? CO 1.0
601418/LIIOLh011iOl11666 60
) CS1
f•-• (.0 CO lc) ■Al C1,7
r,
oQ
•
X
2
a). co a ova a). ova- cm
4711
COCO LOtf3 ,1•S MC`,
o 666O6O6O666666 6 0
1, 1, (0,1:1“Ill)NI"SMOICSICS1 ,-
••
C
- 141 -
g
V < 0
W
mmmrmncoc0v0vmv
Nr;.c9c99.nnyo?mo.lcm--my
MVMVMVWQ0 ,70 ,10V
0
I~
tp
X
Nr.cocoulonvc;,mcvNi.-..cp/
.I3() co066606660oOul06600
NNwWWWQVWWWW.-,.
cs
0 co
co 0
coco
co 0
0
0)
cosimvoymm.mocnymn
o.i.,ocou?u,no-TmoJcs,--colr
0)
60
VQ 0 ,i5OuiOu1666,116Loo66
no.cocoulocra.mmc.pcsi-C
0
0
0
o
0
0 .4
CO
2
0vmvommymnmemy
n,WWWWVV(?MNN,..-0,0
0 ,i)666,ciO606,66,66660
tO
NQ Nt C., en N
N
01 01
•
o
(0(.0
MM
0 0
C
O 0
0
• C
U 0
U
6
,
z
Si
- 142 Figure 6B
Age Pyramids of the Canadian Population for the Year 2001
and the Mexican Population for the Year 2000 (in millions)
Males
Females
Age
80 +
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10 - 14
5-9
0-4
7
6
5
4
3
2
IM Canada
Sources:
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mexico
Canada:
Statistics Canada (December 1991).
Mexico:
Demography Division, Projection Section.
CELADE (1993). America Latina, Proyecciones de Poblacion 1950-2025,
Boletin Demografico, No. 51, Chile, p. 105.
Demographic Projections 1990-2011,
population of 108.7 million by the year 2000. This gradual decline in fertility
would give a T.F.R. of 4.08 for the period 1985 to 1990. As we saw, however,
the measured T.F.R. was 4.38 in 1981. Although we know very little about the
other hypotheses, this model appears interesting for the moment, although a
linear trend in either the net or crude reproduction rate has never been observed
over long periods.
The United Nations, in the 1973 World Population Prospect, proposed
hypotheses that used a logistic function to project crude reproduction rates. The
results using the lowest hypothesis yielded a crude reproduction rate of 2.2 for
the period 1990 to 1995 and a population of 94 million in 1990. These two figures
are much higher than those observed.
But the projections which arouse the most interest are those of CONAPO
(the body responsible for planning in the country), since they attempt to mark
out the progress towards the growth objective set for the year 2000. Thus they
do not formulate a hypothesis on the possible fertility trend, since they deduce
it based on a reduction in the rate of growth (tables 9 and 10). However, along
- 143 -
Table 9. Variations in the Annual Growth Rates (in %) of the Mexican
Population According to Three Hypotheses of the
National Population Council (1970-2000)
Hypothesis
Year
1970
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1985
1990
1995
2000
I
II
HI
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.2
1.7
1.3
1.0
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.6
1.5
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
Source: Consejo Nacional de Poblacion, 1978, Yearbook of Mexico.
Table 10. Gross Reproduction Rates and Projected Population According
to Three Hypothetical Annual Population
Growth Rates, Mexico'
Hypothesis
Year
I
G.R.R.
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
3.21
3.03
2.53
1.94
1.45
1.12
0.87
II
Population
G.R.R.
69,902
79,242
87,489
94,464
100,249
3.21
3.03
2.53
2.00
1.63
1.33
1.18
III
Population
G.R.R.
Population
69,902
79,265
88,203
96,527
104,397
3.21
3.03
2.53
2.05
1.80
1.61
1.53
69,902
79,358
88,853
98,737
109,184
1 Population in thousands.
Source: Consejo Nacional de Poblacion, Resultados de Las Proyecciones de la Poblacidn de Mexico,
(no date).
- 144 -
with the 10 per thousand figure set, they also propose 15 and 20 per thousand
based on the 1970 figure of 35 per thousand. Taking into account hypotheses
on the change in the tempo of fertility, these constraints lead to a crude reproduction rate of either 0.87, 1.18 or 1.53 in 2000 and consequently to a population
ranging from 100.25 million to 109.18 million. We can only speculate on the
probability of any of these three hypotheses being realized, focusing mainly on
the first, since this is the objective of the government. A crude rate of 0.87 means
a T.F.R. of about 1.78, or practically the level of fertility in Canada in 1990. The
probabilities of observing changes at such a pace are doubtful, since this would
be one of the fastest drops in fertility ever seen. Although it is not impossible, 32
a number of indicators lead us to believe that the probabilities are slight.
It is well known that:
1) The population, despite significant migration, is still mainly rural.
Historically, such populations have maintained high fertility rates longer than
urban populations (due to tradition, reduced access to contraceptives, social
constraints, etc.);
2) As a corollary, the populations most inclined to reduce their fertility are populations with a high level of education. However, despite remarkable progress,
Mexico remains a country where the level of education is still low; 33
3) Observations of annual growth by the difference between birth and death
rates lead us to believe that the Mexican population is not changing at a rate
which will lead it to the 10 per thousand level forecast for the year 2000, even
taking into account the uncertainty regarding the data used.
Consequences of decreased growth
Much has been said to date about short-term projected fertility and overall
population figures. Population projections serve another, equally important
purpose, which is to predict changes in population structure, often simply
described as aging. Without adopting an economic point of view, the fact
remains that the simple dependency ratios calculated by demographers have
always corresponded to a certain extent to the comfort status of societies and
provided an indication of the difficulties or improvements which could be
expected based on projections. It is particularly important not to consider the
demographic dependency ratio independently of anticipated levels of well-being
and the potential for economic growth which is less and less dependent on them,
insofar as the economies of foreign countries interfere with the economy of the
country itself. Canada thus had an impressive total dependency ratio of 72%
during the 1960s and 70s, but that was at a time when the country's economy
Guadeloupe reduced its fertility between 1965 and 1980 at a rate that almost all specialists judged
impossible when it was proposed as a hypothesis.
33 Large disparities exist between the different segments of population. An important part of the
population only has rudimentary education.
32
- 145 Figure 7
Dependancy Ratio for Canada, the United States and
Mexico, 1931 to 2030
100
.1
,
/
100
100
A
/%
/ %
90
Elderly
Youth
Total
L
A
90
■ Mexico
I
90
'
Mexico
80
80
80
70
70
70
60
60
60
50
50
40
50
h.
40
40
United States
30
30
30
United States
20
20
10
10
i
0
1931 :
I
1951
Source:
I
1971
i
0
1931
2011
1991
2031
20
Canada —
I
I
1
I
:
1971
1
2011
1951
1991
10
0
1931
2031
:
1951
1971
:
1991
2011
2031
Table A3.
was extremely prosperous because of Canada's world trade advantages. The
Mexican rate is in more or less the same order of magnitude, but the Mexican
economy is in a much more precarious situation than that of Canada in the
1960s. The total dependency ratio in Canada by the year 2000 will be little higher
than the current figure (48%), and yet the state of the economy leads many to
fear a decline in the standard of living in the coming years (Figure 7). For Mexico,
it seems certain that by the year 2000 the total dependency ratio will have
decreased significantly (from 71.6% to 62.1%) (Tables A3 in the Appendix);
however, to simplify the situation as much as possible, this implies that, all other
things being equal, the number of adults (which is expected to increase by 29%)
would have a productivity level equal to that of today. There will be 13 million
more of them, which will call for a considerable job creation effort given the
current situation of the North American or even world economy. The demand
created by young people will not grow due to the increase in their numbers (there
will be barely 2 million more of them), any more than that created by older
workers (not quite 1 million more). The Mexican economy is thus facing a very
challenging demographic situation.
- 146 -
This situation is not confined to the future. It already exists and even has a
history which partly explains the phenomenon of Mexican emigration which
will be discussed later.
Conclusion
Mexico has been experiencing an irrevocable decline in fertility since the early
1970s. In line with the universal model of demographic transition, this does not
mean that growth has started to decline. The momentum created by women of
child-bearing age is such that, even with lower fertility, the population will
increase. It remains to be determined when the growth of the country will level
out. This depends (apart from migratory phenomena) on the speed with which
fertility continues to decline. This is an extremely difficult question, since the
answer brings into play, strictly within the limits of the field of demography,
the decrease in age-specific fertility rates and the relative weight of each in the
intensity of total fertility. We may be mislead for many years by changes in
tempo, which in the medium and long term result in a smaller reduction in the
number of births than predicted by current indices. We may also be concerned
about the consequences of a rapid decline in fertility and mortality, which results
in a chain of imbalances in the age structure. It will be recalled that it is not so
much the changes in structure that have detrimental effects, but how quickly
they occur, since the adaptation time is too short.
Canada is beginning to experience some of the consequences of rapid aging,
predictions of which went unnoticed by many when after the 1960s, fertility
which had risen between 1945 and 1965, again returned to the levels to which
it had been heading throughout the century. However, the recent drop in fertility
in Canada after the baby boom is vastly smaller than that which will eventually
be seen in Mexico, even if the plan objectives were only partially attained, that
is, if fertility in the year 2000 were to be at basically the same level as that in
Canada in the 1990s. It would appear that, at least as it has been stated, government policy has not been influenced by the calculations made by J.B. Pichat 34
who in 1970 studied, following the goal expressed by Colonel Draper, the effects
of zero growth by the year 2000. These calculations showed the tremendous
economic and social difficulties faced by a population in which the numerical
relations between age groups tend to fluctuate at a very rapid rate to maintain
zero growth.
34
J. Bourgeois Pichat and Taleb Sid Ahmed, "Un taux d'accroissement nul pour les pays en voie
de developpement en l'an 2000. Rave ou realite", Population 1970, No. 5.
- 147 -
MORTALITY
No matter how sophisticated the index developed to measure the mortality
level of a country, we nevertheless always end up calculating rates. These rates
are the ratio between a numerator representing the number of deaths and a
denominator representing the population. Given our comments on sources of
data, these two figures are often questionable and require adjustments before
they can be used to obtain a reliable measurement. For population estimates,
smoothing procedures allow us to use imperfect census data to obtain age
distributions that are closer to reality than the census results. These distributions
are often distorted by those who are unaware of their true age and tend to
overstate or understate it by rounding it to the nearest round figure. For deaths,
a number of methods may also be used to adjust statistics, for example by using
regularity indices, comparison of survey data with vital statistics, checking the
existence of epidemics before accepting surprising changes in figures, not to
mention methods that are heavily dependent on statistics and thus run the risk
of substituting them completely for data actually collected. Once the life table
has been calculated using the most plausible rates, it can be compared with a
standard table to determine the likelihood of results and assess the validity of
variances.
The question of emigration will be dealt with further on, but the reader should
bear in mind its effect on the measurement of mortality. Since emigration has
been extensive and selective, particularly in recent times, anomalies may appear
in measurements and misleadingly indicate intrinsic changes in the intensity of
phenomena.
Trends in mortality
Many authors have proposed tracing trends in mortality by calculating life
expectancies for certain years or periods using available material, adjusted by
various methods. It will be seen from Table 11 that there is a relatively satisfactory correlation of values obtained by various authors for the recent period,
which should inspire confidence in their true levels. Since we do not have all
tables, and all series are not available up until 1991, we will mainly use the work
of Gomez de Leon, which is the most recent, that of Camposortega which
provides detailed tables up to 1980, and figures from CELADE, to make a few
approximate comparisons.
The rapid drop in mortality in Mexico (Figure 8) is one of the characteristics
of the demographic transition of developing countries, particularly those which
embarked upon the process early in this century, and even more so of those where
it began after the Second World War. Considerable progress was made at that
time in combatting infectious diseases and the effects of poor sanitary conditions
and malnutrition. In the 60 years from 1930 to 1990, male life expectancy in
Mexico increased by 31.4 years and female life expectancy by 36.1 years, according
- 148 -
Table 11. Life Expectancy at Birth Evaluated by Different Authors and
from Different Sources, Mexico, 1930-1990
Year
1
1
2
1
3
5
6
7
38.79
46.15
39.12
46.74
37.67
46.16
39.46
49.12
54.92
55.99
56.38
57.08
57.73
59.01
58.39
59.51
61.53
63.16
64.5211
41.22
49.83
41.65
50.68
39.84
49.00
41.46
52.07
58.34
59.73
56.38
57.08
61.29
63.06
62.32
63.63
66.77
69.39
70.99a
4
Males
1930
1940
1950
1950-1955
1955-1960
1960
1960-1965
1965-1970
1970
1970-1975
1975-1980
1975
1980
1980-1985
1990
36.08
40.39
48.09
34.93
40.27
48.40
49.20
53.85
57.61
55.14
57.01
58.51
60.05
57.87
60.41
62.62
62.75
60.27
61.91
64.24
66.35
Females
1930
1940
1950
1950-1955
1955-1960
1960
1960-1965
1965-1970
1970
1970-1975
1975-1980
1975
1980
1980-1985
1990
37.49
42.50
51.04
37.45
43.24
52.49
52.37
57.07
60.32
59.45
60.30
62.21
63.95
63.21
64.94
68.24
66.57
66.60
69.72
70.64
73.51
a Observed data (INEGI).
Sources: 1 Benitez, Raul, Gustavo Cabrera (1973). Tablas Abreviadas de Mortalidad de la Poblachin
de Mexico, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, El Colegio de Mexico.
2 Gomez, Jose, Virgilio Partida (1993). Sesenta Mos de Mortalidad en Mexico, Una
Reconstruct& Demogrdfica, 1930-1990, CEPS.
3 CELADE (1989). Latin America Life Tables, Volume XXII, No. 44, Santiago de Chile.
4 goeo according to Camposortega.
5 Camposortega, Sergio (1992). Analisis Demografico de la Mortalidad en Mexico, 1940-1980,
El Colegio de Mexico.
6 Arriaga, E. (1968). New Life Tables for Latin American Population in the XIX and XX
Century, Berkeley, University of California Press. Rowe (1979). Country Demographic
Profiles, Mexico, U.S. Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C.
7 Corona, R. (1981). La Mortalidad en Mexico, Institute de Investigaciones Sociales de
la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
- 149 Figure 8
Life Expectancy at Birth by Sex, Canada and Mexico, 1921 to 1991
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
1921
1931
1926
:
1936
1941
1951
1946
1971
1961
1966
1956
:
1981
1976
1991
1986
Sources: Mexico: From 1930 to 1990: GOrnez, Jose and Virgilio Partida (1993).
Sesenta Atios de Mortalidad en Mexico: Una Reconstruccion
Demografica 1930-1990, C.E.P.S., p. 43.
Canada: From 1921 to 1981: Nagnur, Dhruva (1986). Longevity and Historical
Life Tables (Abridged) 1921 1981, Catalogue No. 89 506;
from 1986 to 1991: Author's calculations.
-
-
to time series calculated by Jose Luis Gomez (Column 2 of Table 11). 35 Canadian
statistics have not seen such a significant gain since they began in 1921. Gains
in the 70-year period were only 15.1 years for men and a little under 20 years
for women. This is because Canada was already in the final phase of its demographic
transition, which in any case was of a different type, and mortality had already
declined significantly since the 18th century.
35
This is also one of the most striking increases recorded anywhere in the world.
▪
▪
▪
•
— 150 —
8
00
Os
o
8
en NI \O
4
— esi
00
N
Os
1f)
0
r.-1
00
..
8
Os
v)
Its
4
eei
•■■11
en
17_1
C:
C:
8
N
•
•-•
r-
vi
e
SC.)
—
O
8
N
r-
rtr)
un
et Os
esi
.et
oo
6 06 co
en
4
oo
N
6 6 .4
(.7
en
•ce
o
00
8
Os
e•-•
Os
os "*.
WI
6 6
O
a■
V
8
ie
rr
8
0 „,
Os
ed
tel
rVI)
01
ten
r-
N
(NI
k;
VI
01
esi
O
8
kr)
VO
oo 00
8
0
en
%,c)
(c1 4
C).
rr
N
8
N
O.
ON
cn
■I:)
csi
8 N
ON
Os
en
ez)
vi N ren in
e4
en Os el
e‘i
N
1f1
t•-•
es1
Oi
•-•
Csi
O
8
N en vi
Os
Os
0
•O
1/1
en .
6
er;
■1.
00
N en N 6
-
en
.-4
en
ld
O ° 2
1-9
0
•-■
0
Source: G6mez, Jose, Virg ilio Partida ( 1 993). Sesenta Arios de Mor talidad en Mexico: Una Reconstruc ion Dentografica, 1930-1990, CEPS, Mexico.
0 0 0 0.
- 151 -
Based on Table 12, for both men and women, the decade in which the largest
gains were made in Mexico was the 1940s (8.1 years for men and 9.3 years for
women in 10 years), while the least gains were made during the 1960s (2.7 years
for men and 3.8 years for women).
The method used by analysts is that described by Pollard, 36 which provides
a measurement of gains in life expectancy over a certain period of time in a given
age interval; this shows the extent of gains attributable to efforts to combat
infant and child mortality (Table 12).
Infant mortality
The infant mortality rate is the ratio between the number of deaths among
children under a year old and the number of births in their birth cohort. In
practice, it must be borne in mind that both categories of events may be affected
by under-registration. The fertility surveys mentioned in the previous chapter
also give us estimates of infant mortality, since the women interviewed gave
information on live births and on the deaths of children before their first
birthday. The results obtained from the two sources differ rather significantly,
as shown in Table A4 (in Appendix), and it is not easy to determine which is
the true case, since each method of calculation has its advantages and disadvantages. With vital statistics, taking omissions into account, we have a total
count of the various events. With survey data, although the calculations involve
a smaller sample, we may nevertheless assume that the quality of information
is better. However, the constant lower rates observed from vital statistics data
are certainly due to poor registration of births and deaths. If we rely on estimates
made from survey data, we must conclude that deaths among children under
a year old are subject to significantly more under-registration than births.
Whatever option we choose, the time series confirm the considerable progress
mentioned above, which follows the classic trend for mortality in underdeveloped
countries. Comparison with the trend in infant mortality in Canada since 1921
nevertheless shows, by the distance between the curves, how much farther
Mexico has to go, although the country may well cover this ground more quickly
than Canada has, given the slowly acquired but now available knowledge
(Figure 9).
Child mortality
Child mortality is certainly an area which, historically following post-neonatal
infant mortality, has improved the most with progress in hygiene and health
conditions, control of infectious diseases and advances in nutrition. In 60 years,
Mexico has made quite remarkable progress in this area as well. For both sexes
36
Pollard, J.H. The expectation of life and its relationship to mortality, Journal of the Institute
of Actuaries, 1982, No. 109, p. 225-240.
- 152 Figure 9
Probability of Dying Before Age One, Canada and Mexico,
1921-1990
Males
Females
Rate
200
100
50
20
Mexico
(Vital Statistics)
Mexico
(Surveys)
10
— • — Canada
5
1921
1941
1931
1951
1921
1981
1961
1971
1991
1941
1961
1931
1951
:
1981
1971
1991
Sources: Mexico: Table A4.
Canada: From 1921 to 1981: Nagnur, Dhruva (1986). Longevity and
Historical Life Tables (Abridged) 1921 1981, Catalogue
No. 89-506; 1990: Author's calculations.
-
combined, the probability of dying between ages 1 and 5 dropped from 244 per
1,000 to 7.75 per 1,000 (Table 13). If we consider that around 1930 underregistration of births was no doubt more widespread than nowadays, progress
becomes even more impressive. The advance has been so swift that Mexico in
the early 1970s had the same rate Canada had had during the 1930s, while in
the 1930s Mexico had a level equal to that of Canada in the 18th century. Today,
Mexico's level of child mortality compares to that of Canada in much the same
way as does mortality in general, that is, the 1990 level is more or less equal to
that recorded in Canada in the mid-1950s.
- 153 -
Table 13. Probabilities of Dying for Juveniles (Aged 1-4), Mexico and Canada,
1930-1990 (per 1,000)
Mexico
Canada
Year
26.80
23.60
17.80
15.20
8.30
6.80
4.90
4.00
3.80
3.00
2.40
1.80
1.70
1.30
oo
.0. loo 0, CO IV 00 W
. ult
4. U.. OA
OD
-.A
GO
co a. Os oo
NI 000, •-•
•-•
t.OQS4100% 0 ,000N
b
e
o
oo op
AI .40%
[
CO-4 0 VILW COLoa41.
14. oa
"
8
4..ft th
Females
■
OD 1
252.51
220.25
191.01
175.16
163.76
157.84
158.80
159.90
157.31
153.77
150.36
152.15
150.22
146.42
133.29
127.01
112.07
104.48
99.54
101.63
108.12
97.57
98.47
82.65
81.08
66.71
67.33
61.52
60.63
54.69
49.76
48.04
46.51
45.57
42.35
40.01
36.74
36.85
35.56
36.85
34.51
33.95
29.26
24.67
18.88
17.14
16.96
16.03
14.32
12.73
11.91
10.55
9.50
8.86
8.77
8.22
7.90
7.14
7.06
7.07
7.34
Males
•-•
to%
236.23
207.28
181.03
166.54
156.32
151.60
152.92
152.80
148.91
145.87
142.47
144.04
141.94
138.08
125.39
118.07
104.10
97.27
92.63
94.77
100.83
91.06
92.04
77.22
76.10
62.56
63.04
57.40
56.44
50.98
46.64
45.28
43.97
43.20
40.07
37.81
34.93
35.23
34.22
35.51
33.47
32.88
28.43
24.14
19.00
17.60
17.78
16.98
15.50
13.70
12.86
11.30
10.19
9.49
9.45
8.90
8.55
7.88
7.92
7.96
8.16
Both Sexes
00
CO ao La.
.00
. NO
. .VD
.0
. .to.. ON -4
Females
.
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Males
Sources: Mexico: Gomez, Jose, Virgiho Partida (1992). Allveles y Tendenclar de la Mom:Wad en Lar Prbnerar Aflos de Vida
en Mirka, 1930.1990, CEPS, Mexique.
Canada: Nagnur, Dhruva (1986). Longevity and Abreged Life Tables, 1921-1981, Statistics Canada. For 1990, author's
calculations.
- 154 -
During each of the decades between 1930 and 1990, reductions in infant and
child mortality together have almost always represented half of the total gains
in life expectancy at birth. While the overall level of these gains is not surprising,
the irregularities observed from decade to decade and between the two sexes
question the quality of data.
Mortality before age five, which weighs heavily in the calculation of life expectancy at birth, was still sufficiently high in the early 1990s that it may be expected
that reductions in this area will, for many years to come, be responsible for a
good part of any improvement in that index.
Comparison of mortality in Canada and Mexico
The life tables for the most recent period available are those drawn up by
CELADE and are thus no doubt slightly different from those calculated by other
authors, but not to the point of hindering comparison with Canadian tables.
The form of the death probability curve shows that the status of mortality in
Mexico in 1990 is quite similar to that of Canada in 1950. There is, however,
one difference: adult male excess mortality is much higher in Mexico in 1990
than it was in Canada in 1950. This may be due to the fact that, in the two
countries, it was not the same birth cohorts that experienced the great increase
in automobile use in recent decades, which is responsible for a great number
of fatal accidents.
Whether we look at figures from Gomez and Partida or those calculated by
Composortega, we can see that, as in Canada, there is a widening gap between
the trend in male and female life expectancies (Table 14).
Table 14. Life Expectancy at Birth at Different Dates According
to Two Different Sources, Mexico
G6mez et Partida
Camposortega
Year
Males
Females
Difference
Males
Females
Difference
Around 1930
Around 1940
Around 1950
35.10
40.54
47.62
37.63
43.44
51.67
2.53
2.90
4.05
39.12
46.74
41.65
50.68
Around 1960
Around 1970
Around 1980
Around 1990
55.20
58.32
61.99
66.14
59.50
63.57
69.72
73.37
4.30
5.25
7.73
7.23
55.99
59.01
59.73
63.06
69.39
2.53
3.94
3.74
4.05
6.23
63.16
Sources: Gomez, J., V. Partida and S. Camposortega, op. cit.
- 155 Figure 10
Age-specific Probability of Dying, Mexico (1985-1990)
and Canada (1950-1952)
Females
Males
Probability
1.0
0.3
Canada
01
Mexico
0.03
Mexico
"Canada
0.01
I
0.003
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Age
0.001
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Age
Sources. Canada.. Nagnur. Dhruva (1986). Longevity and Historical Life
Tables (Abridged) 1921-1981, Catalogue No 89 - 506.
Mexico: CELADE (1989). America Latina Tablas de Mortalidad,
Boletin Demografico, No. 44, Chile, p. 230.
Mortality has not only declined among children. At the other end of life, there
have been significant gains. Accordingly to Composortega's tables, between
1930 and 1980, the probability of reaching age 80 for men aged 60 rose from
23% to 43%, and for women from 26% to 53%. It is certain that these probabilities have further increased in the past ten years. In Canada, the probability
for males is 47% and for females 68%.
- 156 Level of mortality in Mexico
In the opinion of CELADE demographers, although considerable progress
has been made, mortality in Mexico is still quite high in comparison with countries of the same level of development (Cuba, Costa Rica, etc.). It would appear
that this is due to infant and child mortality, as well as male excess mortality
by accident well above that of the countries under comparison. As well, the
national level masks considerable differences between rich and poor regions."
Cause - specific mortality
Despite the WHO classification rules, cause-specific mortality is rather poorly
measured in Mexico. The quality of information often forces researchers to
confine themselves to the major headings of the International Classifications
of Diseases (ICD 8 and 9), making it possible to give only an outline description
which yields no surprises. 38
Some 70% of infant mortality is due to perinatal diseases, parasitic and
infectious diseases and diseases of the respiratory system. For child mortality,
the causes involved are the same, but infectious diseases rank first. For those
15 to 49, first place goes to accidents, with diseases of the digestive and the
circulatory system trailing far behind. Breast and cervical cancers are responsible
for excess female mortality due to tumours. Recent changes mainly involve a
reduction in maternal mortality.
From age 50 to 65, causes of death are fairly different from those of the
previous age group. We see an increase in excess male mortality caused by
diseases of the circulatory and digestive systems. For women, cancers and
diseases of the circulatory system are the major groups of causes.
In short, the trend in cause-specific mortality in Mexico is only known in broad
terms, although there is nothing to indicate that it deviates from the classical
lifetime growth pattern of mortality in under developed countries.
MARRIAGE IN MEXICO
Analysis of the marital status of people counted in a census is certainly not
the best way to study the nuptiality of a population. In the first place, with the
exception of single status, to which there is no return, all other statuses may
occur several times. In the second place, migration may cause the numbers of
people in each status to vary over time, as do marriage, divorce and widowhood.
Unfortunately, given the severe defects in data, it is not possible to use vital statistics figures
in support of this argument (see chapter on sources of data).
38 J. Gomez de Leon and Jaime Sepuvelda Amor - Tendencias recientes de la mortalitad por causas
en Mexico - CEPS 1993.
37
- 157 Seen from a social point of view, the conjugal life of individuals is, as a general
rule, always complicated. Standards change: an institution like marriage may
go out of style, divorce may become more common, and as adult mortality rates
diminish the result is changes in marital status that formerly would have been
considered less likely. As time progresses, then, the marital status of individuals
at the time of a census is less and less indicative of their history. But demography
must often estimate behaviours based on available data, and it is possible, with
certain hypotheses, to get an idea of how populations will behave through
similarities or differences at a given age. A comparison of the male and female
populations of Mexico and Canada in the 1990 Census (1991 for Canada) yields
several enlightening observations (tables 15A and 15B).
Women and marriage
1) Marriages seem to take place earlier in Mexico. At the same age, recent birth
cohorts have fewer single people in Mexico than in Canada. Thus in the
25 to 29 age group, only 21% of Mexican women are single, while in Canada
this figure is almost 30% for the same cohorts. Conversely, there were more
single persons at age 50 among the Mexican birth cohorts prior to 1942 than
among their Canadian counterparts. This situation seems strange to the point
where it leads us to suspect statistical reporting problems.
2) Common-law marriages seem to have been prevalent earlier in Mexico than
in Canada. To support this, we have the fact that, in birth cohorts prior to
1952, the proportion of women in common-law relationships is higher than
in Canada (see following pages regarding the origin of this form of conjugal
life). In more recent cohorts, however, it is in Canada that we find a larger
proportion of women in common-law relationships.
3) With respect to the divorced state, there are many more divorced women in
Canada than in Mexico in all birth cohorts. We may thus conclude either that
divorce is less frequent in Mexico or that divorcees more often remarry. The
first hypothesis is in fact more realistic. Couples separate but tend not to
divorce.
4) Mexico has a larger proportion of widows. This may be the result of higher
male mortality or the fact that widows are less likely to remarry.
Men and marriage
1) Men also seem to leave the single state more quickly than their Canadian
counterparts, but Julieta Quilodran 39 suspects that many divorced men
describe themselves as single in censuses.
39
Julieta Quilodran, Niveles de fecundidad y patrones de nupcialitad en Mexico, El Colegio de
Mexico, Centro de estudios demograficos y de desarrollo urbano, 1991.
en Ch 41 4n VD N 00 Ch
6 TT cS 6 cS 6 cS 6 6 c5 ..
6 6 6 6 6 6 cS 6 -. .. ..
Widow(er)
CD N oo
et el 00 VD 4D 4, 4D C... 00 Ch et
.. cv rg vi Ch 41 vl r6 6 6 6 6 6 .. N r4
Ch 00
.. et 00 VD
r■ VD C4 41
4
6 6 cS -4
N
Divorced
Unspecified
- 158 -
CD e4 ‘f V) r- oo oo oo 00 00 00
66666666666
OT
cn
O
vi
4
N
CD 00 r-4 vS ;i esi
't
Cd
a.
Cd
Cd
Cd
O
01
CO
it
.. 4 10 r■ 00 Ch
CD
N el et
•1
N
CD
cS 6 <5 6 ci <5
VD 0,
w.
6 cS -. .. -.
N
v..
Females
Cd
Separated
Marital Status
eo
41
CD
Ch CP! 00N 41
'
CT en N c! -. el en -. TT
6 -. -, (.4 (-4 en eri en re; (.4 r4
41 41
...8
CCd
0
(s)
O
l
3
N CD
el v5 en 41 41
N 41
N cA -. 6 6 cA cA cA 00 od. N
"0
et 00
vA
N
0 -.
en 00 N e4
....
el VD ..
6 cA 06 GO N vi uA 4
Married
0
U
CO
.0
4or
0
Ch Ch 41
ei
N
1-4 r-:
N
VI
N Ul 00 ■■ en CD 41 un
ee; oci <5 4 6 cA r: cA
N N 00 00 010 N N V)
00 %0
• • • •
en .....
T er
er VD N
mi. •—■ ts4n0 oel .-1
• • • • • • •
en en
oo un r- 00
N f■ N V) V) v-. 'a'
f■
...
0
0
el
4
Age Group
Ch
....
Ch et Ch et
.
I
CD Ch
vO vi uA 4 vA 4
en CD 4D et VD en 00
• cA 4 oS
7,5 cq —
I
C.'
CT 3 0% et 0% a.
-tr •
+
CD
I
41 CO 41 CS 41 0.0 41
41 40 41
N N en en .4. 4 ul 41 47 VD
<2, et e4 •—, 0 Os --. —• N e4 t ■
v.; 4l w4 ei cA
N N N %O
r-: r-:
.r ch .1-
Ch
TT
7t. ch et ch
7t
0
0
oo 4. r4 -.
0%
-7
N N
:2 a ;1
.e1:1'
Tif Tf " " 10? +
:; Z,k ei S tl;
Widow(er)
U
000 — N Vel '0 ..1
0 0 000
0
0
Divorced
0
CD C4
Separated
- 159 -
-. et 41 et Ch -.000
CD oo 41 et 0
CS CS .-. c4 ri e4 en ri ri r4 e4
em
r■ Ch
eel
. r4
...
— N et N vt 00N —N N
0 0 ci 0 ci ...
ei vi
c5 t-: 4
0
cn
el .. 00
C O—
Ch
e4 ei ug
CD 4n ut N N
et -. 41 r■ 00
16
46 vi
4 N
0 V000 %O N
CD
6 6 N vr N 0% <A 00
N
16 ei
... cl r-
vs 00 CA r■ m
.. ei e4 eel tel tel eg
Ch
41 CA
ci
(.4 (.4 6
Ch
N N et C) en N N et
VD
4 <6
-. ... e6 v6 vi
-
0
.0
0
0
o
TA 0
0 V
0. 411
0
04
r.;
Common
Law
eo
MaritalStatus
CD
Females
0.
N— Ch el Ch et 41 .-*
0 cg e4 -. 06 r.:
u4
v6
-. -..
CD Ch 41
4 r4 .4
ci vi
el
e.4
et
4 -4
Married
03
10
1:
un 'et 41 Ch ... en el 00
cg 00 eel 44 m0 cg cg e4
en 4, VD N N N r■ N N
41 N VD
<6 06
N
uR 41 41 en N 41 N
.. cg c6 3 04 -. N eel -. v6
... 41
VD N N r■ N VD
el et Ch
el
ed
C.O
GO
Single
8
0
O
r...
VD
%0 ..,
N N 00 et VD N VD CD Ch
44 el: ei c4 N 10 10 r■ 46
cm 00 sr eq .--. ..-.
VD
44
Ch
VD N en N Ch et 4D 41 00 N
1 CP; VS c6 r: 1 6 44 44 44 r..:
c4 --. -.
2
0
etl
tti
aa
Age Group
0%
O
Ch
Ch
CA 71
- Ch
Tr mt
4n
.+
n A n g?, n 4 5k .T4 SR 12
et
ee ce
et
Ch et
en en 7
:;
Ch
7 re ce
Ch et
-
et
Ch
en en
et Ch et
vr
I
Ch
4n v?
4+
:=2 2 .I1 g r.--1 ? 4' .51 y,y, 53 y,
4D
0
0
- 160 -
Table 16. Population Distribution by Marital Status and Five-year Age Groups,
Mexico, 1960-1990 (in %)
Females
Ace
-
Population
12+
Single
Married
Married
Common
Law
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
Unknown
Marital
Status
1960
Total
< 20
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50+
Age
Unknown
..t
11,189,934
3,053,873
1,542,203
1,308,904
1,042,530
961,540
687,017
623,126
1,921,862
34.30
83.81
34.56
17.85
12.16
9.64
8.86
8.30
9.04
44.42
10.07
49.48
63.44
67.83
68.05
65.22
63.43
43.94
8.68
2.95
10.93
12.93
12.60
12.84
12.02
10.59
6.99
8.96
0.22
1.17
2.17
3.84
6.01
10.34
14.21
35.66
0.72
0.09
0.50
0.72
0.93
1.07
1.18
1.19
1.21
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
2.91
2.86
3.36
2.89
2.64
2.39
2.38
2.27
3.15
48,879
13.64
42.64
12.28
13.53
4.46
..
13.46
0.60
0.06
0.36
0.57
0.82
0.89
1.02
1.07
1.22
2.02
0.49
1.88
2.24
2.56
2.88
3.16
3.29
3.07
0.65
0.06
0.46
0.84
1.08
1.11
1.17
1.18
0.94
1.96
0.47
1.74
2.12
2.50
2.83
3.23
3.51
3.08
0.14
0.20
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.18
1.03
0.05
0.47
1.04
1.61
1.89
2.08
1.93
1.68
1.79
0.33
1.49
1.94
2.32
2.67
2.96
3.15
2.80
0.66
0.30
0.85
0.54
0.50
0.57
0.70
0.75
1.29
1970
Total
< 20
20-24
25.29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50+
15,071,713
4,404,752
2,102,041
1,685,004
1,310,802
1,276,364
973,863
807,299
2,511,588
36.81
87.02
38.46
17.37
10.40
7.82
7.28
7.07
9.95
45.71
9.08
48.18
66.15
71.70
71.82
70.33
68.32
50.52
8.39
3.20
10.43
12.30
12.08
12.61
11.52
10.45
7.24
6.46
0.15
0.69
1.35
2.44
3.97
6.69
9.80
28.00
..
..
..
..
..
..
1980
Total
< 20
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50+
22,128,830
6,591,714
3,182,353
2,479,332
1,952,431
1,742,361
1,385,492
1,180,940
3,614,207
37.35
86.47
40.01
18.43
11.21
8.46
7.36
6.97
7.90
46.30
8.73
47.33
67.10
73.27
73.68
72.66
70.46
53.85
7.49
3.71
9.71
10.25
9.81
10.34
9.67
9.08
6.55
6.10
0.35
0.65
1.16
2.04
3.48
5.81
8.69
27.50
1990
Total
< 20
20-24
25-29
30-34
35.39
40-44
45-49
50+
28,829,665
8,048,266
4,091,035
3,353,917
2,808,883
2,368,551
1,792,757
1,519,287
4,846,969
37.94
89.64
45.37
21.19
12.10
9.02
7.93
7.11
7.26
See notes at the end of this table.
45.45
6.11
40.62
63.21
71.65
73.38
73.05
71.69
55.30
7.51
3.45
10.76
11.23
10.26
9.77
8.65
8.17
5.58
5.62
0.11
0.43
0.85
1.56
2.70
4.63
7.20
26.09
- 161 -
Table 16. Population Distribution by Marital Status and Five-year Age Groups,
Mexico, 1960-1990 (in %) - Concluded
Males
Age
Population
12+
Single
Married
Married
Common
Law
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
Unknown
Marital
Status
1960
Total
< 20
20-24
25-29
30.34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50+
Age
Unknown
..1
10,852,867
3,053,171
1,404,869
1,195,988
1,009,105
959,140
674,307
610,482
1,881,141
40.87
93.42
57.03
27.26
15.00
10.19
7.82
6.58
5.43
44.84
2.72
30.75
56.92
68.34
72.03
73.83
74.50
69.28
8.11
0.76
7.31
11.56
12.38
13.02
12.56
12.18
10.68
2.95
0.21
0.46
0.86
1.34
2.03
3.12
4.22
11.40
0.35
0.07
0.23
0.33
0.40
0.46
0.53
0.59
0.66
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
2.87
2.82
4.22
3.06
2.55
2.27
2.15
1.93
2.54
64,664
18.22
53.37
9.91
4.93
1.39
..
12.18
1.78
0.07
0.27
0.46
0.80
1.16
1.73
2.34
7.70
0.30
002
0.15
0.25
0.40
0.42
0.49
0.51
0.73
0.71
0.19
0.57
0.65
0.79
0.88
0.96
1.08
1.45
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
1.76
0.25
0.27
0.33
0.48
0.79
1.32
1.96
8.26
0.26
002
0.15
0.34
0.43
0.41
0.43
0.44
0.49
0.66
0.19
0.52
0.66
0.71
0.79
0.88
1.04
1.41
0.11
0.22
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.09
1.53
0.07
0.13
0.19
0.30
0.51
0.91
1.46
7.73
0.41
0.02
0.15
0.40
0.60
0.72
0.80
0.78
0.80
0.60
0.06
0.38
036
0.68
0.80
0.92
1.03
1.38
0.74
0.39
130
0.84
0.64
0.60
0.65
0.62
IMI
1970
Total
< 20
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50+
14,625,590
4,408,384
1,930,300
1,575,414
1,285,461
1,235,283
959,477
829,719
2,401,552
44.20
96.72
61.24
27.16
13.79
9.20
7.40
642
7.29
45.06
2.04
30.19
60.02
72.23
75.48
77.16
77.60
71.91
7.94
0.96
7.58
11.46
11.98
12.88
12.26
12.04
10.92
1980
Total
< 20
20-24
25-29
30-34
35.39
40-44
45-49
50+
21,218,163
6,484,408
2,972,174
2,325,060
1,885,628
1,664,573
1,359,706
1,134,889
3,391,725
43.32
94.70
59.24
25A0
12.10
8.35
6.62
5.80
5.21
46.73
2.73
31.85
63.25
76.32
79.12
80.46
8048
75.38
7.15
1.89
7.90
9.97
9.91
10.49
10.24
10.21
9.17
1990
Total
< 20
20.24
25.29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50+
27,084,182
7,919,108
3,738,128
3,050,595
2,578,736
2,210,565
1,705,013
1,452,573
4,429,464
43.40
96.15
61.10
29.27
13.96
8.64
6.45
5.59
5.01
46.09
1.85
27.91
57.47
73.19
78.46
80.78
81.05
75.91
7.24
1.46
9.03
11.27
10.65
10.28
9.50
9.47
8.16
1 Probably enumerated in another marital status.
2 This category was redistributed.
Sources: Censuses of Mexico 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990.
- 162 -
Table 17. Cumulated Proportion of Mexican Females Married Before Age
for Different Cohorts
x,
Age Group at Survey
Exact
Age x
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
20.24
(1952-1956)
25-29
(1947-1951)
30-34
(1942-1946)
35-39
(1937-1941)
40-44
(1932-1936)
45.49
(1927-1931)
7.8
50.9
11.0
53.1
80.1
11.1
56.4
81.3
89.6
11.9
58.2
82.5
90.6
94.0
11.7
59.8
81.6
90.1
92.6
93.8
12.8
54.4
82.3
90.9
93.7
94.7
95.2
Note: The years in parenthesis are the border-years of the cohorts.
Source: Quilodran, Julieta (1991). Modes de Fecundidad y Patrons de Nupcialidad en Mexico, El Colegio de
Mexico, p. 24.
2) In practically all Mexican birth cohorts, there are more men in common-law
relationships than in Canadian cohorts. Since this phenomenon has already
been observed in the female population, one can conclude that this form of
cohabitation is not of the same origin as the non-legalized unions which have
only become common in Canada since 1970. The 1930 Mexican Census
determined that 23% of men and women over 15 were in common-law
relationships, whereas in Canada this proportion was certainly minute.
3) The proportion of widowers tends to be slightly higher in Mexico than in
Canada. Female mortality is higher, marriage more frequent and widowers
no doubt less likely to remarry.
But the recent period has seen changes in the marriage habits of individuals
throughout the world. In "Marriage and Conjugal Life in Canada" 40, there is a
detailed description of changes in behaviour. In Mexico, we note a recent change
in customs by comparing the marital status of members of different birth cohorts
at the same ages in successive ten-year censuses (tables 16A and 16B). It can be
seen that in younger cohorts, women and men remain single a little longer than
their elders did, with the phenomenon being more pronounced for females than
for males. For example, in the 20 to 24 age group in 1970, only 38.5% of women
were single, while in the same age group in 1990, there were still 45.4%. In the
25 to 29 age group, the proportion rose from 17.4% to 21.2%.
Based on vital statistics records, J. Quilodran observed a concentration of
formation of unions in the 20 to 34 age segment, with 46.5% of marriages in
1975 and 52.5% in 198941 . The 1976 survey confirms the conclusions shown in
Table 17.
4° Statistics Canada. Current Economic Analysis, Catalogue No. 91-534E.
41
J. Quilodran. La nuptialitad, Les cambios mas relevantes - Demos 1992, p. 13.
- 163 -
Between 1970 and 1990, divorce 42 apparently rose slightly in Mexico since,
among women in the 40 to 44 age group, the proportion of those who were in
the status of divorce rose from 1.0% to 2.1%, and for those in the 45 to 49 age
group from 1.1% to 1.9%. For men, the differences are negligible (rising from
0.5% to 0.8% for those 40 to 44 and 45 to 49 years). The possibility of false
declarations by divorced men must, however, be borne in mind (see above).
Marriage tables
The marriage table is certainly the most appropriate instrument for a study
of the intensity and tempo of first marriage at a given point in time.
The most recent first-marriage tables (1970, 1980, 1990) established by
J. Quilodran for CONAPO (Tables A5 in the Appendix) show trends in how
Mexicans leave the single state which may be compared to the those in Canada
for the same years.
We see that in Mexico the intensity of first marriage for both sexes has
remained close to unity. Over the past 30 years, of the fictitious cohort of the
1,000 men or women who were single at age 12, there were only 50 to 70 nevermarried persons at age 50. Over the past 20 years, on the other hand, there has
been a major change in tempo in the form of an increasingly later age at first
marriage, which may be seen in the proportions of single people shown in
successive tables. The most significant change has occurred recently (between
1980 and 1990), and it has mainly affected female nuptiality. In the table, the
number of women married at age 20 has decreased since 1970 from 418 to 401
to 345 and those of men married at age 25 from 579 to 597 to 561. There has
thus mainly been a reduction in early marriages, which is illustrated by a slight
variation in the median age which rose from 21.8 to 22.0 over a 30-year period.
Compared with 30 years before, the additional 73 single 20-year-old women in
the table have certainly had an effect on the decline in fertility (see further on).
Male nuptiality, on the other hand, has changed less. Over the same period, the
number of men married at age 20 in the table remained the same at 192, and
there was even a very slight increase in 1980.
Common -law marriages
Mexican censuses classify individuals in the following categories: civil marriage, religious marriage, civil and religious marriage, common-law, divorced
and separated. Common-law marriage in Mexico is an old form of marriage,
dating well back in the country's history and still persisting today. In the distant
past, many couples formed stable although unsanctioned relationships. There
are still couples in the older generations who, despite the opportunity to do so,
42
We are speaking here of divorce as a legal procedure terminating a marriage and not simply
separation, which, although it does not allow remarriage, is much more common.
— 164 —
Table 18. Age at First Union by Type of Union
(Females Aged 35 to 49), Mexico
Type of
First Union
Civilian
Civilian and religious
Common Law
Total
Age at
First Union
Percentage
19.9
20.0
18.8
19.7
14.2
60.6
25.2
100.0
Source: Quilodran, Julieta (1991). Aliveles de Fecund!dad y Patrones de Nupcialidad en Mexico,
El Colegio de Mexico, p. 151.
have never married legally. Another result of this tradition is what is actually
a form of trial marriage (common-law marriage). In half of all cases, these
arrangements are now subsequently converted to legal marriages. Surveys
(EMF and EMFES) confirm the large number of Mexicans who live in commonlaw before making their marriage legal, particularly those who begin living
together very young (Table 18). In this area, through a mixture of tradition and
modernism, Mexico appears to have been ahead of the northern European
countries which set the example for western Europe and North America. It
should be remembered that married life in Mexico is a field requiring more
detailed study, since it differs from that of both the West Indies and the other
Latin American countries.
For a long period, the clergy celebrated marriages, and these religious marriages had legal value at the time. At the present time, only civil marriage is
recognized in law, and priests in principle celebrate religious marriages only on
presentation of a civil marriage certificate.
Marriage breakdown
Apart from the death of a spouse, marriages end through separation and
divorce. Divorce exists in Mexico, but it is costly and so Jar accessible to only
a small proportion of the population. When marriage breaks down, quite often
spouses only separate or opt for "arrangements" outside legal sanctions. Unable
to remarry, they live in common-law relationships. These relationships are thus
of quite different origin than the common-law relationships discussed above.
For women, we may have a partial estimate of the intensity of marriage
breakdown by the number of marriages declared by women surveyed. Of the
women in the 1927 to 1931 generation, who thus fell into the 45 to 49 age group
at the time of the survey, 8.9% had had two of these relationships (of one type
or another) and 2.8% three or more. 43
43
J. Quilodran. Niveles de fecondidad y patrones de nupcialitad en Mexico, El Colegio de Mexico,
1991, p. 31.
- 165 -
Table 19. Females for Whom the First Union was Dissolved, by Cause of
Rupture and Cohort, Mexico, (in %)
Age Group at Survey
Cause of Rupture
15-19
(19571961)
20-24
(19521956)
25-29
(19471951)
30-34
(19421946)
35-39
(19371941)
40.44
(19321936)
45-49
(19271931)
8.3
9.1
13.8
5.2
Total
Widowed
0.6
1.3
1.5
4.5
Separation and Divorce
7.4
9.7
9.6
10.4
12.6
12.7
14.6
11.0
Total
8.0
11.0
11.1
14.9
20.9
21.8
28.4
16.2
Note: The years in parenthesis are the border-years of the cohorts.
Source: Quilodran, Julieta (1991). Niveles de Fecundidad y Patrones de Nupdandad en Mixko,
Mexico, p. 28.
El Colegio de
Although the survey indicates that 28.4% of women 45 to 49 had their first
marriage end in either widowhood or divorce (Table 19), it has been observed
that, the more recent the birth cohort, the more likely marriage is to end in
divorce rather than widowhood: 12.6% instead of 8.3% in the 35 to 39 age
group, and 9.7% instead of 1.3% in the 20 to 24 age group. These figures are
not in themselves a sign of the effect of divorce, since when a marriage ends,
the younger the partners are, the more likely it is that the cause will be divorce
rather than the death of a spouse. However, the increase in divorce over time
can be seen in Table 20, in which the figures only take into account marriage
breakdowns before age 25. The role of mortality has clearly declined, but in
lower proportions than the increase in divorce.
Table 20. Females for Whom the First Union was Dissolved Before the Age
of 25 by Cause of Rupture and Cohort, Mexico (in %)
Age Group at Survey
Cause of Rupture
20-24
(19521956)
25-29
(19471951)
30.34
(19421946)
35-39
(19371941)
40-44
(19321936)
45-49
(19271931)
Total
Widowed
1.3
1.1
2.4
2.8
2.5
2.1
1.8
Separation and Divorce
9.6
7.2
5.1
6.5
4.8
4.8
6.1
10.9
8.3
7.5
9.3
7.3
6.9
7.9
Total
Note: The years in parenthesis are the border-years of the coho ts.
Source: Quilodran, Julieta (1991). Niveles de Fecundldad y Patrones de Nupclalidad en Mexico,
Mexico, p. 29.
El Colegio de
- 166 -
MIGRANTS AT THE NORTHERN BORDER
We are reminded here of the words of the Roman poet Terence, almost
universal in scope, "Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto"" which, in
the context of this study, might be adapted as "I am Canadian, and nothing
that is North American is foreign to me." The demographic relations between
Mexico and the United States are an integral part of the development of two
countries with which Canada has recently decided to form closer ties and create
partnerships. An understanding of migratory movements, their origins and
history, and an interest in their future trends is thus not mere idle curiosity. On
the contrary, comprehending the mechanisms that govern these forces is essential
to the establishment of all kinds of future relationships, even though to date
Canadians and Mexicans have not been engaged in significant population
exchanges.
Movements of population between the United States and Mexico are as old
as the countries themselves. If some of the names found in the southwestern
U.S. are not evocative enough of this past, (Los Angeles, San Diego, New
Mexico, Santa Fe, etc.), we merely have to recall that several of the larger U.S.
states (California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Colorado),
were first Spanish-speaking and even Mexican states which, after their separation, became part of the United States in the first part of the 19th Century (Treaty
of Guadelupe-Hidalgo in 1848, Texas 1845). Because of its history and
geography, there is thus a large area that lends itself to population movements
between the two now-separate countries. The Mexicans who settled in the United
States after all the wars and treaties inevitably kept close contacts with their
former fellow citizens, sharing such elements as culture, language, religion and
traditions. Moreover, the different industrial paths followed by each country
have resulted in the development of a degree of economic complementarily that
has been fostered by similarities of geography and climate.
The early 20th Century saw periods of intense migratory activity. At the end
of the Porfiriato period, Mexico experienced a high rate of emigration precisely
to those former northern states, which after all had only recently become part
of the United States and had only begun developing their infrastructure. This
migration flow increased slightly during the revolutionary period. Then, starting
in the 1930s, the expansionist policies of successive governments resulted in the
"return" of Mexicans who had formerly chosen exile. This return movement
was encouraged by strong government incentives in Washington encouraging
Mexicans to leave a country suffering from the Depression. The Second World
War re-opened the frontier of the Rio Grande to Mexicans, heralding the modern
era of migratory relations between the United States and Mexico. Agriculture
in the United States was at the time suffering from a shortage of workers in the
44
I am human, and nothing that is human is foreign to me.
- 167 -
large fruit and vegetable growing sectors, as well as for the cotton harvest, where
there was a need for cheap labour." The "bracero" (labourer) program was
approved in August 1942 and while the American government withdrew as a
contracting party on December 31, 1947, the embryo form of the program,
whereby employers were authorized to recruit Mexican workers, remained in
force until 1964. These workers could legalize their situation" once in the
United States, although under less advantageous conditions than under the
original "bracero" program, and increasingly tended to hold jobs quite different
from those stipulated in the original program. Threatened on a number of occasions by expressions of doubt as to the need for it, the "bracero" program was
nevertheless extended several times 47 through the efforts of lobbies representing major U.S. farm producers." Although the Mexican government did not
formally oppose termination of the program in 1964 49, it nevertheless made a
considerable effort to find alternative solutions so that Mexican workers might
continue to be admitted into the American economy. The combination of efforts
by the two protagonists gave rise to a proliferation of "green cards" that allowed
the migration of Mexican workers to continue. The U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service indicates that, from 1942 to 1964, 4.65 million Mexicans
were admitted to the United States. Experience has shown that termination of
the "bracero" program resulted in an increase in illegal immigration. This was
made all the easier since those migrations had become a routine, employers were
well-known and many more Mexican host communities had grown up in the
United States during the two decades in which the program was in effect.
Although population movements at Mexico's northern border are not a recent
phenomenon, it is the current intensity of these movements that is surprising
to many. Rather than being a new phenomenon, however, this Mexican emigration is but one episode in a continuing story. If these migrations have been considerably larger over the past twenty years, it is now because they have been
exacerbated by more pronounced differences in growth between the Mexican
population and its economy, the former growing considerably more rapidly than
the latter. In fact, while the considerable increase in the number of births caused
by the second phase of the demographic transition took place in a period of
economic prosperity, the arrival of these children as adults on the job market
has coincided with a decline in the rate of growth of the Mexican economy. From
the early 1980s in particular, oil prices dropped sharply and petroleum reserves
P.L. Martin, Trade and Migration: NAFTA and Agriculture. Institute for International
Economics, Washington, D.C., 1993, p. 59.
46 These illegal immigrants were legalized by a process known, even in official U.S. government
publications, as "drying out the wetbacks," an allusion to the fact that they swam across the
Rio Grande. Source: Presidential Committee on Migrant Workers, 1951.
47 "Legalization of illegal workers in the United States should be discontinued and prohibited"
states the report of the Presidential Committee, 1951. These recommendations were not followed.
48 In 1960, President Kennedy was convinced that the "bracero" program had a detrimental effect
on the wages and working conditions of American workers. He nevertheless reluctantly approved
a two-year extension to the program (Craig 1971, quoted by P. Martin 1993).
49 Termination of the program was passed by only one vote in the Senate, that of the Speaker.
48
- 168 -
no longer sufficed to support high levels of investment and foreign debt. A
reduction in economic growth implies a slowdown in job creation, all the more
serious at a time when young people will be entering the labour force by the
millions (see chapter on growth). In addition to demographic pressures, the fact
that Mexican migrants have been exposed to the American way of life for the
past half century has been a major contributing factor in creating a degree of
dependence on emigration. Employers in the United States are well aware of
this attraction, and this has contributed to making Mexico a major source of
emigrants". "Given the low wages or lack of jobs, migration to the United
States becomes almost inevitable." 51
The logical Mexican reaction to the increase in available labour can be seen
in the number of emigrants to the United States, which has fuelled a vast number
of articles on the "problem" posed by immigration. However, as we will see
further on, a major change in the Mexican philosophy of development since
1988 might have significant, though no doubt long-term, consequences on
Mexico's ability to create jobs and thus slow the tendency to emigrate.
Mexicans in the United States
We should first clarify what we mean by certain concepts. When a country
takes a census of its population, it classifies individuals in various ways.
In the United States, among those defined as Hispanic in origin, we find, in
addition to Cubans and Porto Ricans, Mexicans. These are people who, whether
born in the United States or not, resided there on census day and had a Mexican
ancestor. In this category of persons of Mexican origin, the 1990 Census counted
13,495,938, of whom 45.3% lived in California, 28.8% in Texas, 4.6% in Illinois
and 2.4% in New Mexico.
A second classification takes into consideration the place of birth of those
counted. In 1990, there were 4,296,014 persons born in Mexico (basically
meaning immigrants, both recent and long-standing), and of these only 969,704,
or 22.6%, had American citizenship. Of those born in Mexico, 24% or 1,032,426
were counted in one of the southern states, including 907,432 in Texas; 66%
or 2,843,154 in one of the western states, including 2,474,148 in California, and
7.5% or 320,892, in the northeastern states, 281,651 of them in Illinois. The
1991 Census of Canada counted only 19,400 people born in Mexico. This
situation is a census day balance of past geographical movements (immigration
and return migration) and demographic movements (immigrant mortality).
" See P.L. Martin: "Trade and Migration: NAFTA and Agriculture." Institute for International
Economics, Washington, D.C. 1993, p. 109 ff.
51 Proceedings of the closing session of the seminar on international migration and the economic
development of Mexico, Zacatecas, 1991, CONAPO 1991.
- 169 Table 21. Number of Mexican Immigrants to the United States by Decade,
1901 to 1990
Year
Number
1901-1910
1911-1920
1921-1930
1931-1940
1941-1950
1951-1960
1961-1970
1971-1980
1981-1990
49,642
219,004
459,287
22,319
60,589
299,811
453,937
640,294
1,655,843
Year
Number
Including:
In 1985
In 1986
In 1987
In 1988
In 1989
In 1990
61,290
66,753
72,511
110,949
87,597
112,635
Source: US Department of Justice (1990). Statistical Yearbook of the Imndgration and Naturalization
Service, p. 50.
Recent trends
Between the 1980 and 1990 U.S. censuses, immigrants from Mexico increased
from 2,199,000 to 4,447,000, 52 an increase of 102.2% in 10 years.
Table 21 provides information on the flow of immigrants admitted under the
successive immigration acts. The two phenomena mentioned previously can be
observed, i.e. heavy immigration at the beginning of the century, a very low
immigration in the Depression years, and a strong growth since 1961, especially
during the most recent decade.
With the passage of the Immigration Reform Control Act (IRCA) in 1986,
Mexicans living illegally in the United States were able to legalize their status;
these were people who had been residents since January 1, 1982 and Special
Agricultural Workers (SAW) employed for at least 90 days in the year preceding
May 1986. In all, more than 2.2 million applications were received by Immigration
and Naturalization Service (I.N.S) 53. These figures lead us to conclude that the
great majority of applications were accepted. The Immigration Reform Control
Act had two objectives: first, amnesty for the majority of illegals, and second,
a desire to put an end to illegal immigration by imposing sanctions on employers
who recruit illegal immigrants and also by strengthening border controls.
‘
52
33
Being born in Mexico should not be confused with being an immigrant from Mexico.
Statistical Yearbook, 1990. p. 91.
- 170 -
As we have already seen, the discussions that preceded IRCA took place in
a historical context in which migratory movements were tacitly considered by
both Mexicans and Americans as being part of the overall economic relations
between the two countries. The prospect of actually closing the border thus
raised concerns among many Mexicans regarding their future.
Current situation
The brief historical outline presented above has enabled us to step back and
view the phenomenon of Mexican immigration to the United States as the
ongoing search for a balance between the main interests of each country,
experienced on a daily basis by those involved, that is, migrants and the host
population. The arrangement brings into play the status of individuals (legal
and illegal migrants), and the type of migrants (permanent and temporary)
as defined by legal agreements. It can also accommodate existing situations
and changes in policy with the short- and long-term social consequences
they cause.
At the present time, the most highly regarded studies of current migration
issues and trends are signed by such authors as Hinojosa, Robinson, Garcia y
Griego, Espenshade, Acevedo, Bustamente, McCleery, Lery, Van Wynbergen,
Woolf, Cornelius, Bean, Hayes-Bautista, Keely and Calva. Whatever the
sources and models used, the results, despite their variances, tend to show
that the emigration to the United States observed during the 1980s is still going
on and will probably continue into the 1990s and even beyond." All are in
agreement that their model shows that migratory flows will then decline. But
it would be wise to accept with some reservations the long-term projections
and models of economists, since the elements of the problem tend to change
rapidly.
Of the many studies on this topic, we have chosen that of Manuel Garcia y
Griego55 to both provide a summary of the situation and indicate the direction
development is likely to take. Mr. Garcia y Griego is of Mexican origin, an
American citizen, demographer, historian, teaching at the Colegio of Mexico
as well as at the University of California at Irvine, and specializes in Mexican
international and regional migration studies.
Lic. Miguel Limon Rojas, Under-Secretary for Population and Migration with the Secretary of
State, in his remarks at the closing session of the seminar on international migration and economic
development in Zacatecas in 1990, stated, "According to reports by specialists, illegal migration
of Mexican's into the U.S.A. has increased in recent years, and all indications are that this trend
will not diminish. If we take into account projections of the demand for workers in that country
and the sustained increase in the labour force in Mexico, we may expect an increase in these
migratory flows." (our translation).
55 Garcia y Griego (1990). Emigration as a safety valve for Mexico's Labor Market: A Post-IRCA
Approximation.
54
- 171 -
Results of analysis by Garcia y Griego
One of the immediate consequences of IRCA was to reduce the number of
illegal immigrants, by legalizing on the spot those who applied. Comparison
of the figures, however, shows that: 1) all "illegals" were not converted into
legal immigrants (since not all applied), and that 2) the entry of illegal immigrants
persisted after 1986.
Applying recent immigration rates to the projected population, and similarly
calculating immigrant returns and deaths, Garcia y Griego predicted that
Mexican-born people living in the United States will increase by about 1,000,000
between 1990 and 1995 and more or less by the same amount during the next
five years (Table 22). According to this author the great majority (80%) of these
Table 22. Projection of Mexico's Population and Migration to and From
the United States (in Thousands)
Mid year Population
Category
Total Mexico
Mexican-born in the United States
- Legal Residents
- Undocumented Residents
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
69,655
77,429
84,973
92,775
101,050
2,618
1,411
1,208
3,517
1,590
1,927
4,474
3,038
1,437
5,470
3,147
2,322
6,461
3,253
3,208
Components of Change of Mexican-born
Residents in the United States
1980-1985
1985-1990
1990-1995
1995-2000
Total Mexican-born
- Deaths
- Return Migration (survivors)
- Immigration (survivors)
94.3
171.2
1,164.5
107.1
231.6
1,295.4
121.1
289.7
1,405.9
142.4
343.8
1,477.8
Legal Residents
- Deaths
- Return Migration (survivors)
- Immigration (survivors)
75.8
77.3
332.4
80.2
85.0
1,612.8
109.4
170.8
390.0
123.4
160.8
390.0
Undocumented Residents
- Deaths
- Return Migration (survivors)
- Immigration (survivors)
19.0
93.9
832.1
26.9
146.6
-317.4
11.7
118.9
1,015.9
19.0
183.0
1,087.8
Note: Numbers were rounded independently. Revised upward by Warren and Passel (1987) by
adding 40,000 males aged 30-64 missed in the United States census and 47,000 net increase
estimated during April, May and June 1980.
Source: Garcia y Griego (1990). Emigration as a Safety Valve for Mexico's Labor Market: A
Post-IRCA Approximation, Immigration and International Relations, G. Vernez (Pub.),
Rand Corporation/Urban Institute.
- 172 increases will no doubt be made up of illegals. He explains that the smaller
increase in legal immigrants after 1990 would be due, if immigration rates are
constant, to a higher Mexican resident population which would yield more
deaths and more returns. He emphasizes, however, that naturalizing Mexican
immigrants would likely increase the number of visas granted under the family
reunification program. As well, he thinks that legalization of temporary Special
Agricultural Workers would have the same effect after 1990 as IRCA had after
1986; from an accounting standpoint, this results in a transfer from the illegal
to the legal column. He notes, however, that we must keep an open mind, since
economic conditions in the United States may in the future influence positively
the demand for labour and consequently perhaps increase the number of legal
immigrants. In this connection, some studies point to the increase in exports
of capital goods to Mexico, suggesting that this will create additional demands
for labour in both the United States and Canada.
Labour force
As we saw above, the adult population of Mexico (the 15 to 64 age group)
is expected to increase considerably over the next two decades. At the same
time, the labour force will quite probably increase from 22 million in 1980 to
40 million by the year 2000 (Table 23). According to Garcia, if immigration rates
remain at current levels, Mexicans working in the United States might rise from
2.6 million in 1990 to 4 million by the year 2000. His calculations show that the
annual growth of the Mexican work force in the United States might be in the
order of 114,000 to 138,000 workers.
The author has tried to give an approximate measure of the "safety-valve
effect" of emigration by the difference in growth in the Mexican labour force
with or without net migration, that is, taking into account returns and mortality.
All other things being equal, he estimated it at 108,000 workers per year for the
period 1985 to 2000. For the recent past (between 1980 and 1985), without this
emigration, the Mexican labour force would have risen by an additional 11%.
This U.S.-based work force does not correspond to an equivalent reduction in
the "pressure" in Mexico due to the higher participation rate of Mexicans in
the United States than in Mexico. This avoided growth, he believes, is essentially due to former illegal migrants. Garcia y Griego concludes that the effects
of IRCA to date have thus been the opposite of those feared by Mexicans: illegals
were not chased out but simply made legal. If conditions in the future remain
the same as they were in the past, Mexicans between ages 30 and 50, working
in the United States, who represented according to Garcia's estimates approximately 7% of the total Mexican labour force of this age group in 1985, will
represent approximately 11% by the year 2000. The high proportion of this large
age group is mainly due to the fact that the illegal immigrants in the overall group
of immigrants working in the United States are on the average much younger
and come only temporarily for the purpose of earning money.
- 173 -
Table 23. Projection of Mexico's Labor Force and Mexican-born Work Force
in the United States (in Thousands)
Labour Force in Mid-year
Category
Total Mexico
Mexican-born in the Unted States
- Legal Residents
- Undocumented Residents
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
22,092
1,426
760
666
26,246
1,994
910
1,084
31,027
2,640
1,903
737
35,719
3,329
1,986
1,343
40,072
3,990
2,019
1,971
Average Annual Growth of Mexican-born Labor
Force Residents in Mexico and in the United States
(Age 15 and Over)
Total Mexico
Total Mexican-born
- Legal Residents
- Undocumented Residents
1980-1985
1985-1990
1990-1995
1995-2000
830.8
113.5
29.2
83.6
956.2
129.2
198.8
— 69.6
938.4
137.9
16.5
121.4
870.7
132.2
6.6
125.5
Note: Numbers are rounded independently. Labour force participaron rates were estimated from
unpublished tables of the 1980 United States Census of the Mexican-born immigrant
population.
Source: Garcia y Griego (1990). Emigration as a Safety Valve for Mexico's Labor Market: A
Post-IRCA Approximation, Immigration and International Relations, G. Vernez (Pub.),
Rand Corporation/Urban Institute.
What does the future hold?
If the significant growth in the Mexican labour force in Mexico in the recent
past was not greater, this is, at least in part, because of emigration. According
to Garcia y Griego, this observation implies that, in future, provided conditions
remain the same, this emigration will persist. Mexican emigrants to the United
States originate in the northern and western states of Mexico which, in the event
of an actual closing of the border, would see their labour force grow not by 2.3%
a year as is now the case, but by 3.2%, which would intensify migration towards
the centre of the country, which is already facing problems of demographic
saturation. Numerous studies which suggest that current economic reform will
result in a mobilization of the labour force in Mexico and a reduction of emigration should reassure those concerned about the continuation of migratory
movements. But we must bear in mind that emigration to the United States is
only one aspect of a much more basic phenomenon, which is rural migration,
whereby many millions of Mexicans will be leaving rural areas in the relatively
near future. The farming sector in Mexico is powerless to prevent this largescale migration from continuing. Modernization brings about a surplus of
- 174 -
workers who must find jobs," while failure to modernize results in increasing
poverty which, as is the present case, pushes people to leave the farms (note the
new law, passed on January 6, 1992, on price support and the sale of "common
lands" (ejidos)).
The purpose of stressing the main points of this study by Garcia y Griego was
to show how already existing migratory movements may gain ground in the
absence of very strong national economic growth. In the present state of international relations, these migrations depend on the economic health of the United
States to maintain its capacity to absorb migrants, 57 since the impact of aging
of the American population alone on the demand for workers will not be clearly
seen for some time. History has shown that, over the long term, increasing
productivity results in greater economic activity and an overall increase in the
number of jobs. However, some analysts have noted that, from a shorter term
perspective, the immediate effect of modern production techniques has been
to reduce the demand for labour in certain specific sectors. From this standpoint, the enhanced productivity of modern plants, if not accompanied by an
increased market, is unlikely to develop a favourable climate for the creation
of large numbers of jobs during the remaining years of the second phase of
Mexico's demographic transition. As well, current low female participation rates
may well increase with the reduction in fertility, urbanization and women's
increased desire for financial independence. The reader will note that the effects
of NAFTA have not been specifically mentioned. Although this agreement will
certainly have some socio-economic consequences, they will be only one way
of managing the potential for transformation inherent in the population through
its growing numbers and evolving structure.
Remittances
It is a well-known fact that emigrants throughout the world, particularly
temporary emigrants, put aside part of their earnings to cover the needs of
those they have left behind in their home country or to build up capital which
one day will be injected into the economy of their country. This is the case
of Mexicans in the United States. Determining the amounts of remittances
is not easy, and requires laborious calculations that can obviously yield only
estimates.
Luis Tellez, under-secretary, Planning Branch, Department of Agricultural and Hydraulic
Resources, estimated that exports of farm products could reach $1.3 billion in 1998, an increase
of $400 million over 1993 exports, which could result in the creation of some 150,000 jobs.
According to Cornelius (1992), he estimates that the agricultural labour force will drop from
25% of total labour force in 1992 to 16% in 2002.
57 Mexicans are not the only ones wishing to work in the U.S. Other strong challengers are West
Indians and South Americans.
56
-
175
-
Table 24. Total Remittances from the United States to Mexico by Sending
Mechanism (Intermediate Estimates), 19901
Millions of Dollars
Sending Mechanism
- Money Order
- Telegraphed Transfer
- Personal Check
- Pocket Transfer 2
Total
1,554
523
159
915
3,151
Migrant Type
- Temporary Migrants 3
- Permanent Migrants
Total
1,843
1,308
3,151
1 Calendar year. Without counting the 200 million dollars received by Mexican families as
benificiaries of social security.
2 Cash flow brought back at their return.
3 United States workers legally residing in
Mexico.
Source: Lozano, Fernando (1993). Bringing it Back Home, University of California, San Diego,
p. 60 and 62.
The Bank of Mexico estimates remittances at a minimum of $2 billion for the
year 1990. Fernando Lozano" calculated 59 the total amounts of money transferred from the United States to Mexico by the various types of transactions.
The amounts shown in Table 24 are certainly not a major loss for the U.S. economy
($3.2 billion). 6° But these amounts have more significance for the Mexican
economy. By comparison, agricultural exports that year brought in $2.2 billion,
tourism $3.4 billion, and assembly plants (maquiladoras) $3.6 billion. This
says little about those who receive these remittances. According to Lozano,
Taylor, Watts and many others, for a large number of rural families, remittances
are considered part of their normal income. Martin 6I estimates that sending
$300 a month may quadruple the annual income of a rural family. It should
also be noted, in support of these estimates, that the states that provide the
largest number of emigrants to the United States are very rural (Michoacan,
Jalisco, Guanajuato, Guerrero and Zacatecas). These sources of funds are
often major incentives for temporary and repeat emigration, to the point where
a culture has developed of which such migration is an essential part.
58 Fernando Lozano Ascencio, "Bringing it back home," published by the Center of U.S.-Mexican
Studies, USCD. University of California, San Diego, 1993.
He considers his estimate a minimum since he takes into account only transfers of funds and
not of property, and only by known legal and illegal emigrants. He leaves out of the calculation
transfers by businesses, Mexican residents and emigrants returning to the country. Funds sent
by groups are also excluded.
6° According to Lozano (1993), remittances in 1990 were also $3.2 billion, or 1.5 % of the G.N.P.
61 •-•-kip cit., p. 13.
59
- 176 -
In conclusion, movements of population from Mexico to the United States
are an old tradition. Current migratory trends originate in a complementarity
that has grown up between the U.S.A., which has become accustomed to having
access to a pool of Mexican workers and Mexico, which takes advantage of
American requirements to provide jobs for a population that Ls currently too
large for its economy. This migration is very well organized, and the network
of communications and host communities are an integral part of the economic
life of a large Americano-Mexican complex taking in a number of states ranging
from California to Zacatecas. The very rapid expansion of the present Mexican
population, if not coupled with similar growth in the economy, inevitably will
increase the pressure on migration. Although there have already been organized
migrations of Mexican workers to Canada, 62 it is most likely that it will be as
an economic spinoff that Canada is affected by the growth of the Mexican
population. This does not, however, mean that flows of immigrants will not
increase somewhat in the future. In the 1991 Census, only 19,400 people born
in Mexico were counted in Canada. Although this figure was low, it nevertheless
represented an increase over 1986 (13,845). While the numbers are small relative
to the flows to the U.S., concerns have been expressed that migration to Canada
may contribute to a "brain drain" if this migration should increase significantly.
INTERNAL MIGRATION
As in all countries, people in Mexico move for many reasons. But unlike industrialized countries, Mexico is still at an important stage in its development; the
operating framework of its economy is not yet stabilized, the mechanization of
agriculture is not yet highly advanced and consequently rural migration is still
going on. This is certainly a major factor determining the great mobility of the
population (Table A6 in the Appendix). We see that states in which a major fraction
of the population was not born in the state are also those in which recent migration
is heaviest. This leads us to think that these states have been highly attractive
for some time. For a given state, a significant difference between a large number
of people born outside the state and a smaller number of recent immigrants may
be cautiously interpreted as an older trend that has recently been winding down.
Present-day migration
Place of residence five years before the census gives only an approximate idea
of flows, since the only people counted are those over age five who survived
and did not leave the country. They may also have made several moves which
were not recorded. These statistics do, however, enable us to draw up a shortterm balance sheet indicating the states which gained population and those which
lost in the bargain.
62
Augustin E. Ibarra. "Programa de trabajadores agricolas temporales mexicanos in Canada"
in Migracion internacional en las fronteras norte y sur de Mexico, CONAPO, 1992.
- 177 -
0.1
O
co
CV
CO
(0
CV
CV
CV
■cl
•
X— — -
-
X— —
CV
0
CV
a
CO
•
X— ♦
Cr)
■
X
X--•
O
rn
OD
x-sa
X
E. c
C w
O .e
Z C
O. RS
O .0
13- .....
tC
co
2 L',
x •
(0
in
a—
•ct
X
c
0
C
c)
a
X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
—
I
I
1
I
a 2 o u) 0 ii, 0 in 0 in 0
U)
o_ co
in
a
a
co
0-)
N
N
LO
0
LC)
a
0
CO
N
0
a
m
<r)
.
N .52 1
• EE
a) 55 w
76 fe
t
o
=,, -5 . 0
6
Td
N
'Cli
mla
i LL
0 0
2
2 0
0(iwoo mmo6,7.5 0 00
,c). .z E g- .7.7 2 c
-F, ,,-,,, . ‘2
ki 2 tc-'). ...' :".= t7; 5g%'i3=Z
<c0c0000(..)060(..1(.1±1M
N MQ LO
co
C)
6 W N oi
0
c
c
,0 CC a.
1
ai
gm.
, a
w ..,
2
5= — ea m z.25(0,,,; --Lazi
5 2 co
2 To tts ;) 2 T, .92 —,
0 5 >""ni cu nc 2 C -0 E x 2 2 ‘,3
f 2 2ociao(2 -(7)(?)151f-'1-°>''>1.:71
4 6 cO 66.-1. N
al 6 ob 6 6 t■J
C; 'c7*
NNNNNNNNNNMOICO
Sou rce - Table A6
...e. ..-.
co "0
=
—
a
X
Net Losses I
- 178 -
0
en
N
0
'
.
kr)
N
...,
N
.-■
1
I
e-:
en
r"-
N
..,
..
k-k
as
vi
N
N
.0
0.
v.
.-.
-et
I
en
e....
I
0;
.-,
1
....
•••••
..cr
en
wi
.-.
I
§
00
oo
i
09
ei
1
,-.
Os
,..)
.-.
.,-,
e..i
N
I
...%
mr
re;
en
1
I
I
10.9
...
•-•
r0
kr)
0
.0
.0,
.
kei
N
e-
On'
1
..,-,
1
ON
0
en
CV
Ni.
el
I
I
kr)
en
el
10
.--.
1
*C
Out
O
O
N
O
r-
p
0,
, , sta
, p. A 1/4°8 2 N- F- ,
N en N
%--.
r•-•
N.
- ■0
04"
cl,
.r;
00
Losers
cu
0.
aa
k1:1
00
0
00
en
S
csi
00
c5
N
•-.
.r;
CO
"
N
•-■
08.
en
ckei
en
.-.
0;
en
.....
e-:
e...
r9,
en
kr;
eo
., -_. ; 0" A A
"
NT N en e...
Nr
kr%
•-•
.O.
en
N
e-r
kte
GO
4,
N
.1
In
en
N
.-.
N
N
o
aa
.-6
‘t
Os
O.
%.0
0
en
co
•er
.-.
.d —
ON
es)
N
0
In
e.i.
aa
Ira
..kt.
et
1--.7-1
—
10
.0 0.
V
Ne
■Q•
ko
N
q
.0
,r,
eo
.-.
In
10
co
kr%
en
N
01
oo
en
e..
yo
00
'.0
v.,
N
k-.
g
en
..kt
%o
•-•
.-,
oo
kel
. ■)
oo
r...
'.0
00
in
•ct
)0
et
et
kr.
o)
00
VD
0'.
en
en
kon
VI
et
en
VD
•-
cd
2
0
N
0
co
k0
..-.
...
in
of
cla
0
0
0
E-•
>
>.
N
I-.
en
•-■
1.--
0
sO
N
00
en
en
en
,...
0
in
o0
"It
0
al
ci)
...
State
0
0
OO.
tl
a3
*,.,
CZ
Id
a$
ri"
o
o....
.12)
0
a • 5 .2
0
00
.
0
b
h.
49
°
.• ,
0
-.,
IN
et
co
.-.
„,
(..)
(..)
0
0
0
ts-
)r)
u-)
N
en
kr)
N
e-
e-
01.
o
-=,
g . -.
.=
g
ci
.
:
0
at
tr)
• .-,
0
b
.....
.=
1
..,
".
A Z 0
0
os
a., Cl)
en
Wp
'V
01
et
)."
kg
01
kfl
01
VI
r.-
0
rt,
V)
0
8
2.
11A
Out
Winners
Net Gains
oo
Os
1-1
N
cn
%Z.
0>
N
Z
'Ct.
en
?
N
in
r-
•-■
00
•-.
...
..
N
r-:
•••■
Irl
en
e....
•--.
s0
en
...t
un
:kkt
)0
r■
NT
r-
N
en
cr;*
v.
.....
in
10
Tr
•-•:.
V,
VI
■I)
■O
....
en
en
so
N
•-.
kg,
4 4
es.
0'.
,t-
cr■
1`..ON
k0
l'...
N
•■■
en
e.
N
0.
rt'lt.
in
04.
.ct.
N
..
en
r-
et
1.--
.-.
'0'
00
00
ei
0
)0
00
en
oti
•er
Os
en
ct
vo
N
r
t •
■ID
0;
‘,0
cl:
N
oti
N
en
N
.6
Nr
r-
o
00
el
Tr..
c7:
ci
..
en
a
a,
00
N
00
,...
e;
kr)
N
kr;
Ir;
.e
■-,
01
.-.
en
in
el
Os
0
N
VD
.--.
.....
0
VD
01
O
Giw
Os
et
Os
Os
en
Os
•-■
its.
it--
01
in
'tt.,
0
....
Nt
0
en
N
1
or;
.-.
....
00
a%
00
r.-.
1--
0
■-■
en
et
%.ao
CS
N
N
)el
cr■
N
en
r-
to
en
.--,
.--,
■4;:,
■6
00
IN.
N
et'
00
kr)
oo
-.
vi ra% •-. )0
....
.--.
--.
oo
el
.-..
Os
N
%.0
co
vi
00
et
4.1
et.,
N
N
kr
kr;
01
o■
r-
.-.
,-.
en
esi
N
8
0
cr)
co
—
,...
,...
z,
:...•
tt-o
• •-•
tor
••-.
i
11
State
a)
E
.z:1
0
o
1"
Fo'
CO
Cei
2
L)
.4
..=
0
0
2
al
o
Cil
0
w
.=
15
o
1
0
0
0
.."
'8
..-
0
A
O
0
0
0
.
r:4
C0
=
.e.
.
o
0
U
mj
A Z CY 0' cA [-■
E-.
o
[-.
- 179 -
THE MEXICO CITY METROPOLITAN AREA (ZMCM)1
Despite the recent decline in the annual growth rate, which went from 5% between 1940 and
1970 to 2% between 1980 and 1990, despite the doubts expressed about the quality of 1980 Census
data, the population of the ZMCM will rise to over 20 million by the turn of the century from
its current 17 million, which is equal to the total population of the 25 CMAs in Canada.
It covered 500 km 2 in 1940; in 1990, its area was 4,450. It corresponds more or less to an
almost continuous stretch of built-up area forming a square with sides 70 km long, or a circle
240 km in circumference, an area that would take 4 hours to cross at an average speed of 70 km/h.
After using up almost all the area of the Federal District by 1950, the city spread out to include
27 "municipios" in the state of Mexico. Although it has always been a large city (60,000
inhabitants at the time of the Spanish conquest, 350,000 at the turn of the century), its most
spectacular development has taken place during the 20th century. In light of the growth of the
country's population as a whole, that of Mexico City is extraordinary since, as in all developing
countries, the main city (usually the capital) and a few other cities not only have natural growth
rates identical to that of the country itself, but also benefit from significant positive internal
migration in addition to annexing surrounding areas. The result in the case of Mexico is that
it accounted for 8.4% of the country's population in 1940, 14.7% in 1960 and 18.6% in 1990.
As in the case of all large cities, the central area, through a complex but nevertheless well
recognized process, tends to lose population to the peripheral areas.
The future
The 1980 overestimate of the population (by about 1 million) has sparked considerable
controversy regarding population projections. However, with weak hypotheses on fertility and
migration, Mexico City will have a population of 19 million in 2000 and 25 million in 2020.
Stronger hypotheses on fertility and migration would give it 21 million in the year 2000.
Mexico City has always been the centre of economic activity, not only of the region but of
the entire country. Half of the products manufactured in Mexico are produced in Mexico City.
With a work force of 5.1 million, it is one of the largest labour markets in the world. The work
force of Canada as a whole is barely over 12 million.
The inevitable aging of the population, which has already begun, will initially bring a major
increase in the potential labour force of the ZMCM. Persons aged 15 to 64 should represent
70% of the 25 million population expected by the year 2020, a total of 17.5 million people.
The manufacturing sector is declining in the city (accounting for only 1.1% of the labour
force in 1990), as is the marketing sector (33.3%), while the service sector is growing (65.6%).
A current census of jobs ranked the various categories, in descending order of importance, as
follows: industrial (29.4%), public service and clerical (19.7%), sales and itinerant vendors
(15.3%), and professional and technical (14.2%). Despite reassuring official statistics, which
show unemployment at 3%, underemployment is on the rise and jobs in the "informal" sector
increased (from 34% in 1981 to 40% in 1987).
According to the 1989 National Survey on Urban Employment, 20% of the working population
failed to earn the minimum wage, 54% earned somewhere between the minimum wage and twice
that figure, and only 6% earned over five times the minimum wage.
The fact that many elements give the population of Mexico City a favoured status compared
to that of the rest of the country does not mean that its standard of living is high. By international standards, it is one of the lowest of all major cities worldwide.
I Based on Camposortega-Cruz, in "La zona metropolitana de la ciudad de Mexico", CONAPO, December
1992.
- 180 -
For a population of 70.5 million aged five and over at the end of the period,
this figure (3.5 million people), which considerably under-estimates the number
of movements, results in a ratio of 5%. This figure is impressive since in Canada,
a country known for the high mobility of its population, similar calculations
for the same period yield a ratio of 4%.
It is not within the scope of demography to describe the reasons why some
states gain and others lose, and these reasons vary too widely to be easily
summarized. We will thus confine ourselves to noting the gains made by the
State of Mexico and losses by the Federal District which, as we will see, are
closely linked, and the significant gains by the State of Baja California, which
appears to be expanding.
It is more interesting to look at the origin/destination matrix of places of
residence at the time of the 1990 Census and that of five years earlier. This matrix
enables us to identify migratory flows and determine their size. Thirty-two states
produced 992 flows (32 x 32 - 32), 77 of them involving more 10,000 people
(Tables 25 and A, B and C in the Appendix).
Among those states in which remarkable changes in population were noted,
we should mention the Federal District, which lost 31 cases out of 32 in the
exchange, but experienced the greatest losses with the state of Mexico (see Insert
No. 2). This is in fact a consequence of growth in Mexico City. Not only does
the city grow beyond the limits of the state in which it is located, it also moves
population from the centre (in the Federal District) to the periphery (an example
would be the State of Mexico). The State of Mexico does, however, gain in half
of its exchanges (17/32). The state of Baja California gained in the main
movements of population, most of which affected the Pacific Coast. The states
where the two other metropolises are located (Jalisco for Guadalajara and Nuevo
Leon for Monterrey) gained in major exchanges with neighbouring states.
Urban population, rural population
Movements of population are, for the most part, due to rural migration and
thus do not show up as part of movements between states. A more detailed
analysis is thus needed.
In 1960, Mexico had 256 communities of over 10,000 inhabitants which were
home to over 12 million people out of a total population of nearly 35 million
(Table 26). The Mexico of 1990 had 613 cities with a population of over 10,000,
containing 49 million people, and the total population of the country was
81 million. It is thus clear that cities and the urban population increased more
rapidly than the total population. Looking at the other side, in 1990, 23 million
Mexicans were considered rural, that is, living in communities of less than
2,500 inhabitants (an average of 151 per community), whereas in 1960 half of
the total of 35 million lived in 88,000 villages of under 2,500 residents (average
population of 198).
— 181 —
aO
0
8
...
0.0 VDVDrs1
et yp CA en It N
VD C4
...... x. r-. Ir.. co . or',. ut. .-.. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0. 0.
5? El A vo
en CD CD CD
CD CD C) CD
CD
::
8 8
8 IA
;12
A
8 g :1
" — " N mm
.
8
r- sr -s 6 ci; ci 6 c) CD CD
=
as
Percen tage (by category)
...
8. :1! EP .4 -.SO
.00. 0
. c,. 054CD:2CD2R
C) C) 0 CD
8 os co un en
op
2
a,
1 970
Locality (in percent)
F
F.: w.,
w' ei"
N
cr■ r:
.:2
", $3
8 21 g 4 8
O . vn vi N N vD et ev ...
'f.
C4 r4
gp
0
rn ch ... .. N 00 ... ch 00 cD 00 ...
00 N 00 00 .-.. N ..4 ch en le, O. O\
• • •
• •
• • • •
rel .4 00 CD SO vn en., vn rn• VD• :1•
ER•
...
8 . 8 51
.42 A. 2R. 5g SO 4.
. .42 . 51 g 00. C4
en et CD rn
'4 C- ,C ... .4
52
CO 1....
:el
O
9
0
r...
oo oo 00 co en
r,. Ch. en. CD. CD
. C). CD.
0 e... 0 se, en 0 .0 CD CD CD CD
CD
..., VI en
01 et
cD
. V,. r4. 00.
em
gp
8 4.g ". 5R
. .4 25
. . :4. 23. 3. 8. P . Eg
C)
. 6.
0 CD
52,
st co r4 et 00 sC) VI en .O et VD -.
=
0
O
Cle
E
O
,c
tel
00
8en A ..2 R en
3§
a
VI 01
4 o; ..d. ...
-,
* tii.-..::"; I::
Fi
71
,0
O
2
a,
_.
0
'0 et
in
vp r■
in --, 1--
...
5g
v.
Gs
5R 8 4 O3 '' . c4 '' r. '-'
,r —,
ig
0; 00 .. 00
N IN ,..,
on N O.
m ''' "'
w, en vl -. Ch rn un et et 0.0 et
0 en
vl VI t■ en
CD et .-. rn en
ve VI ... ... .4
. V)
. CD. et. C4
en
et
CO IN
0/ r4
....
el
51
'ne
Sg.7488g:
v. r•
r...... en N. et. en ... CO en et.
CA
.-
•
in N ... ch N 00 et CD CD .. gl, VD N.
.4 00
.-. IN on (
OS
N en VD
CA
up 00 ut se V ri v: v.; .-. v5 v: N v.;
oo t, gp et vD
• CP r.
CC/ 00 00 0 NN ... .... t■
rn
Population (in numbers)
%.911
Locality (in numbers)
0
O
en
r4 V) r 4Z CP .A. u-i 71:. to VD
`A. gN. S
r- Eg zi! OS f:1 47 1; ES 43 gl 03
-:
ri
r
.; r .4 Nir ti ... Vi. WI' ...o
OS r:
CO
..
0 RI
. ...
OE SS 00 N 9 :A E3 in 5'4 :1 44 2R
,,s'
wi
mo -: r .-; r .0 ri. ri ..: r; ei .....
-n -a
00
et v.. up up
74 '4.2
vC
e4 co 0 up 00 0. CD en
E; E. g. ES 53 8 OE a' g :2. .
cp up cr. It et vn vn vD V2S 52 •44 .e.; g PI 8 4 44 g cl
.-7 o■
;I e;
4—
VN
,c; 0.; m5
NI
in .. N
in
N s; vi
A
Zed
C.4
R
mn co vo e4 un tp ry et
re e.
Ch ee et W,
NN 0 ...
CO In
a; V. ,..7 .a. inowi
VD
nr
et rn
,..,
PI
-
5S NA. n OE
eV
et
00 VD
§;;.;
el en
Ch n
.0
ri. 06. C) ri vi 0: v21 ... VD 0:i Ci sp v;
00 VI N
C4
Qs
en
.1 .4 V, ON en No CO et C) el et VD
VI
N Ch Ch en 00 .-. ... N r, -.
-: e
se et mF 4 4
:
wr
i -. ei ,ir
O.
8
2
Eb
§
cr■ 8
E E 4c4- :=
.-.
-.1- ...It `1.1 g
VS ""t 05
mr
ONIII
''§ §§§§§-F 2, § § -: e; 9: '4": 51' 5' ?
z E. E E E
ft Evi.
VO. gn
CM
1:::1 g"1 8
I
I
§
2
I- -,-, X -:
E
b
8
: a: a: ... 'a
NI'
4 0.;
sull"' I
10
I
§§§§§
ei
.; 5: tfi
§
51 ? §
- 182 -
Table 27. Changes in Urban and Non-urban Population,
Mexico, 1960-1990
Percentage
Population
Growth (per 1 000)
Town
larger
than
15,000
Town
smaller
than
15,000
Total
Town
larger
than
15,000
Town
smaller
than
15,000
Town
larger
than
15,000
Town
smaller
than
15,000
1960
34,923,129
11,568,227
23,354,902
33.12
66.88
...
...
...
1970
48,225,238
19,090,476
29,134,762
39.59
60.41
38.09
65.03
24.75
1980
66,846,833
34,604,687
32,242,146
51.77
48.23
38.61
81.27
10.67
1990
81,249,645
46,675,410
34,574,235
57.45
42.55
21.55
34.88
7.23
Year
Total
Sources: Censuses of Mexico 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990.
During this time, the number of cities with population over 1 million rose from
1 to 4 and cities of over 100,000 inhabitants, from 17 to 98, while the population
of cities of over 100,000 habitants rose from 18.7% to 44.4% of the total.
If the urban population is restricted to that living in communities of over
15,000 inhabitants, the increase in the urban population, which was 65%
between 1960 and 1970, speeded up from 1970 to 1980 (81%) but slowed down
considerably during the 1980s (35%) (Table 27).
The rural population not only remained large, it was also unequally distributed
(see Table 28). The Gulf and South Pacific regions have remained quite rural
(45% and 56%), while the centre and northeast have been highly urbanized.
However, these very rural regions form a rather small proportion of the national
total (9.5% and 10.9% respectively).
Table 28. Percentage of Rural Population (Living in Agglomerations Smaller
than 2,500 inhabitants), by Region, Mexico, 1990
% of Rural
Population
Weight of the Region
in the Country
Mexico
28.7
100.0
North-East
Center
North-West
South-East
Occidental Region
North
Golf Region
South Pacific
14.5
19.9
24.3
25.0
28.8
33.1
45.1
56.4
6.6
33.3
2.9
8.4
17.2
11.1
9.5
10.9
Region
Source: Author's calculations, based on Census of Mexico 1990.
- 183 -
Table 29. Urban Population (in Thousands) by Size of City, Percentage of the
Urban Population and Growth, Mexico, 1960-1990 1
Year
Urban
Total
15,000
to
19,999
20,000
to
49,999
50,000
to
99,999
100,000
to
499,999
500,000
to
999,999
1,000000
14,382
100.0
559
3.9
1,271
8.8
1,956
13.6
3,591
25.0
1,596
11.1
5,409
37.6
119
41.2
32
41
26
17
2
1
23,828
100.0
707
3.0
1,950
8.2
1,510
6.3
7,284
30.5
732
3.1
11,645
48.9
166
49.4
41
65
21
35
1
3
37,584
100.0
1,010
2.7
2,876
7.7
1,633
4.3
10,230
27.2
2,553
6.8
19,282
51.3
229
56.2
59
94
24
44
4
4
49,391
100.0
1,378
2.8
4,073
8.3
2,769
5.6
11,765
23.8
7,521
15.2
21,885
44.3
315
60.8
79
134
39
48
11
4
and over
1960:
Population
Percentage
Cities
Urban Population (%)
1970:
Population
Percentage
Cities
Urban Population ( 5/o)
1980:
Population
Percentage
Cities
Urban Population (h)
1990:
Population
Percentage
Cities
Urban Population (%)
I Localities of 15,000 and over.
Source: Garza, Gustavo (1992). Crisis Econ6mica y Desarrollo Urbano, Demos, Mexico, p. 15.
The most striking fact is the coexistence of a still fairly large rural Mexico
and an urban Mexico concentrated in a few very large cities. Fifteen cities of
over 500,000 account for 29.41 million people, or 35% of the country's
population, with Mexico City alone accounting for approximately 15 million.
This macrocephalic configuration of the urban network is considered
detrimental to the development of a country which needs more cities of
intermediate size, which are now fortunately beginning to develop. It was as
if Mexico, like many developing countries, had skipped some stages in the
urbanization process. Briefly but simply, we might say that settlement of population in industrialized countries has become contracted over time by the slow,
concomitant effect of technical development, into cities that are ranked by their
size and their commercial, administrative and industrial capabilities. They are
organized in networks and linked to one another by dependent relations. These
networks have only slowly become simplified and with this trend, as is becoming
increasingly clear, they form urban zones which concentrate the great majority
- 184 -
of the country's population and marginal areas that are inevitably deserted.
In Mexico the population changed abruptly from basically rural to high concentration in a few huge cities with an under-representation of large- and
medium-sized cities.
Table 29 from Gustavo Garza 63 gives an excellent summary of the recent
trend towards urbanization, and shows how, following strong concentration,
there is now a return to a more balanced urban network for the level of development of the country. In 1990 the population in the various categories of cities
was more regular than in previous years. In 1980, four cities of over 1 million
inhabitants shared 51% of the urban population, while in 1990 they had only
44%. At this time as well, four cities with populations of 500,000 to 1 million
had a combined population of 2.55 million while in 1990, 11 cities of this size
contained 7.52 million people.
National Population Council geographers and demographers have developed
highly elaborate models" to assess the potential for regional development to
allocate resources in an attempt to harmonize demographic and economic
development at the local level and distribute rural emigration more rationally.
But it is probable that these models will be implemented slowly and that the
problems of huge cities like Mexico City will take some time to subside.
POPULATION AND WORKFORCE
The workforce is directly related to demographic changes. It is normally
studied by economists. Since their analyses and projections are most often
considered from the standpoint of job supply and less often from that of
demand, the connection with demography is even closer. In this brief overview,
we shall look only at recent changes in participation rates.
It might be useful to reiterate here the caution expressed earlier concerning
the quality of data sources. For the purposes of the Mexican census, the labour
force is held to be made up of people 12 years old and over who are in the job
market, both working and non-working. Working individuals were those who,
during the qualifying week, performed some economic activity in exchange for
wages or another type of remuneration, whether in money or in kind, and
non-working people were those who did not have work but were actively seeking
work. In all countries, surveys on employment and the labour force yield figures
that often differ from those obtained by census. Due to the specific nature of
each of these sources, there may be differences between the two series of data;
63
64
Gustavo Garza. Crisis economica y desarrollo urban, DEMOS. 1992. ISSN 0187-7550.
Augustin E. Ibarra. "Programa de trabajadores agricolas temporales mexicanos al Canada,"
in Migracion internacional en las fronteras norte y sur de Mexico, CONAPO 1992.
- 185 -
however, in Canada, these differences are not as significant as in Mexico. We
must therefore be cautious in drawing conclusions, and in particular avoid
making overly detailed comparisons between Canada and Mexico.
Male labour force
Mexicans start working early in life, and the minimum age for entering the
labour force has been set at 12. In the 1990 Census, 11.1% of boys 12 to 14 were
in the labour force (in the essentially rural states of Chiapas and Michoacan,
the figures were 22% and 17.4%, respectively) (Figure 12). At the other end of
the life cycle, men remain in the labour force until relatively advanced ages. In
the same 1990 Census, the participation rate in the 65 and over age group was
45.9% (61.6% in Chiapas and Quintana Roo). In the 1970 Census, the figures
were higher in both cases. It is worth noting that, in 1960, children of 8 were
part of the labour force. This change over time in the ages at which people enter
and leave the labour force is classic, and exists or has existed in all countries.
It corresponds in part to the rising level of education, which keeps young people
out of the labour force until increasingly later ages, and to social progress which
brings an improvement in the standard of living and allows people to retire
increasingly early.
A comparison with Canada confirms the validity of this pattern. Since Canada
is much more developed, people begin working later and leave the work force
earlier (Table E in Appendix). Participation rates for adults are slightly higher
in Canada than in Mexico.
Variations between the different regions of Mexico are not significant,
although they are much greater than in Canada (Table A7 in the Appendix).
At most, the farming regions (Southeast and Gulf regions) stand out with slightly
higher participation rates, due to the fact that people tend to work longer in
agriculture, where wage-earners represent only a minute fraction of the work
force. Between 1970 and 1990, however, the trend described above was already
observable.
Female labour force
Female participation rates are low in Mexico compared with those in Canada
(Figure 12), but they too are changing with time. Rates for adults have increased,
while those for young people and the elderly are clearly lower. The probable
causes are no doubt the same as those advanced for the male rates; however,
the fact remains that the increases in adult participation rates have been much
greater than the decreases for younger and older workers, resulting in a high
female participation rate for all ages combined.
- 186 -
o
co
oco
7:7)
C)
C
in
U,
6
co
rn
N
tr,
rn
O
co
co
C
co
0
-o
V
0
C
rn
co
111
0
rn
N
L)
C
6
O
0)
C)
cs)
•ct
V
C
as
O
N
0)
o_
. 0
O
O
co 'cc
0
0
0
03
0
r--
0
co
0
in
0
a
0
cr)
0
c.,
0
,-
0
tr)
co
CD
0
V
Tt
C
2
O
a)
2
.0
in
o)
0
o)
.-a)
-ts
I c
as ,
al
co ..:-CO...Tr d.
In
0
0.
a)
(n
o
ti)
"t
o
•I• 0,
cl
a-)
'A el
6
2
co
CO
0,
C\I
ID
.1
C
(;.'
O
N
cc
O
co
O-
''1a3. ) RI
O.
N
0,
.Li)
.a.
c‘ -.1
■
.-
0) "S
'... 43
cn ca
(ll --
to) 76
.u) 0
z a)
a) Q.
0 CO
6
O .
a,
Z 0
i6
a)
0
.
0
(,)
- 187 -
Table 30. Main Characteristics of the Active Population of Mexico,
1970-1990
Female Activity Rate
Year
1970
1979
1982
1987
1988
1989
1990
Aged 12
and Over
15-19
20-24
17.6
21.5
25.2
31.1
32.3
27.0
19.6
23.1
..
..
24.4
29.7
..
18.0
25.0
33.4
..
42.3
42.8
..
29.1
25-34
Male Activity
Rate (Aged
12 and Over)
Percentage of
Workers Not
Remunerated t
17.8
27.3
..
41.5
42.8
..
27.7
70.1
71.3
71.9
73.5
75.3
72.8
68.0
31.6
33.7
30.6
33.2
36.8
30.0
25.9
I Under the heading of unpaid workers are independant workers and families without income. In the case of
the 1982 National Demographic Survey, this heading also includes the employers.
Source: Garcia, Brigida (1992). La feminizacion en Ia Actividad Econ6mica, Demos, Mexico, p. 24.
Regional distributions reveal an interesting phenomenon. Whereas in 1970
only the central region showed an increase due to the highly developed service
industry in Mexico City, in 1990 comparable rates were observed in the northwest
and northeast regions. It is difficult not to link these high rates to the recent
proliferation, at the United States border, of assembly plants, or "maquiladoras."
It is highly likely that, in the near future, female participation in the work
force will increase for at least two types of reasons. The first is strictly
demographic: later marriage and reduced fertility due to contraception. The
second is linked to the economy: development of services and reduction of time
worked by individuals through fragmentation of jobs (into a broader range of
low-paid part-time work), not to mention the increase in education levels.
To what extent do employment or unemployment rates based on census data
reflect the true situation? Obviously, no country can guarantee that the image
thus obtained is completely accurate, but there are several good reasons for
caution with respect to Mexico. Since social programs are relatively undeveloped
and unemployment insurance is a rare phenomenon, a considerable segment
of economic activity goes unaccounted for. These many temporary and
precarious activities form what is known as the "informal" economy, which
is not fully reflected in census data. Such activity is especially prevalent among
women: not only do they often work only part time or occasionally, but they
are more easily hired to work on a temporary basis. 65 In Mexico, the results of
surveys do not correspond to data obtained by census and in fact show much
larger upward trends" (Table 30). It is thus possible that information obtained
in survey interviews is more accurate than that obtained by census.
65 Brigida Garcia. Fuerza de trabajo: Aumenta el trabajo de actividades economicas de pequena
escala, Demos, 1988, and Jose Luis Lezama. La economia subterranea y el trabajo: Novedades
del desarrollo actual del capitalismo, Demos, 1990.
" Brigida Garcia. La feminization en Ia actividad economica. Demos 1992.
- 188 -
INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
No data exist to enable the indigenous populations of Canada and those of
Mexico to be compared. While indigenous populations per se have a legal
existence in Canada, those of Mexico do not. And in Mexico, ethnicity apparently has been deemed too complex a criterion to yield a census definition that
would result in an accurate count and language is the only basis for an analysis.
In neither country (Canada or Mexico) are native languages an indication of
common cultural background. In the case of Mexico, certain languages are the
remnants of civilizations that had attained high levels of demographic, administrative and social development and have left impressive architectural vestiges.
Others, both in Mexico and in Canada, failed to achieve greatness for various
reasons such as, problems linked to geography, climate, internal forces, marginalization. Whatever the case, the indigenous peoples of Mexico, which were at
one point in history quite numerous, were subjected to both internal strife and
the Spanish conquest, and thus were weakened, dispersed, culturally depleted
and mingled with the conquerors throughout the area of present day Mexico.
For the moment, it seems that the only way to evaluate the number of Mexicans
of Amerindian origin is to count those who know a native language.
In Canada, settlement of the land by the French and English led to a large
number of treaties and agreements in which were stipulated the land concessions
granted to the first peoples, who negotiated the rights and privileges retained.
This is not the case in Mexico, where intermarriage has always been encouraged
and there is only one kind of citizen: Mexican.
The short description of the indigenous population which follows will thus
be based on the knowledge of an indigenous language.
The 1990 Census of Mexico counted 5.28 million people over age five who
spoke an indigenous language, to which might be added 1.13 million children
under five living in households where the head of the household spoke an
indigenous language. Together they represent 7.9% of the Mexican population
(Table 31).67 In Canada, the number of people who are identified as aboriginal
has varied over time, depending both on statistical and legislative considerations.
According to the 1991 postcensal survey, the number of persons who consider
themselves to be aboriginal is approximately half a million (625,710) or 2.2%
of the Canadian population. Over one million Canadians (3.6% of the total
population) report at least some aboriginal ancestry. Neither of these figures
can be compared directly with the Mexican figures since they do not cover the
same situation.
67
Table 39 gives some figures for Canada which allow us to make superficial comparisons.
- 189 -
Table 31. Main Native Languages Spoken in Mexico, 1990
(more than 200,000 people) [
%
Cumulated
%
Nahuatl
Maya
Mixteco
Zapoteco
Otomi
Tzeltal
Tzotzil
Totonaca
1,197,328
713,520
383,544
380,690
280,238
261,084
229,203
207,876
22.67
13.51
7.26
7.21
5.31
4.94
4.34
3.94
22.67
36.17
43.44
50.64
55.95
60.89
65.23
69.16
967,910
647,453
286,009
331,578
251,522
157,552
137,175
159,001
80.84
90.74
74.57
87.10
89.75
60.35
59.85
76.49
Partial Total
3,653,483
69.16
69.16
2,938,200
80.42
Others
1,403,004
26.56
95.72
1,105,400
78.79
225,860
4.28
100.00
194,352
86.05
5,282,347
100.00
100.00
4,237,952
80.22
Not Specified
Total
Speaking
Spanish
% of the
Language
Number
Language
I Aged 5 and Over.
Source: Census of Mexico 1990.
Table 32. Population Aged 5 and Over, Speaking a Native Language by Type
of Language and Knowledge of an Official Language,
Canada, 1990
Language
Total Canada
Algonquian Languages n.i.e.
Amerindian Languages n.i.e.
Athapaskan Languages n.i.e.
Blackfoot
Carrier
Chilcotin
Chipewyan
Cree
Dakota
Dogrib
Inuktitut
Micmac
Montagnais-Naskapi
Ojibway
Salish Languages
South Slave
Wakashan Languages
Other Native Languages
Speaking
a Native
Language
Knowledge of
an Official
Language
Percentage
100,560
85,200
84.73
3,915
570
4,505
1,650
720
515
860
43,545
2,145
1,415
16,815
3,840
5,985
10,885
495
1,860
595
245
3,250
515
3,930
1,610
680
495
765
39,325
2,050
1,150
12,405
1,395
5,240
9,515
485
1,585
580
225
83.01
90.35
87.24
97.58
94.44
96.12
88.95
90.31
95.57
81.27
73.77
36.33
87.55
87.41
97.98
85.22
97.48
91.84
Source: Census of Canada 1991, unpublished data.
- 190 -
Table 33. Percentage of Population Speaking a Native Language and
Percentage of the Native Population Who
Do Not Speak Spanish, Population
Aged 5 and Over, Selected Mexican States, 1990
Population
Speaking
a Native
Language
Native
Population
Who Do
Not Speak
Spanish
44.2
39.1
3.5
7.4
Maya
512,518
Zapoteco
319,000
Quitana Roo
Chiapas
32.2
2.7
Maya
120,846
26.4
Hidalgo
19.5
8.0
3.3
Tzeltal
Nahuatl
258,153
188,530
Campeche
19.0
1.2
Maya
Puebla
Guerrero
14.1
2.1
Nahuatl
362,966
13.4
San Luis Potosi
Veracruz
11.9
10.7
3.9
1.2
1.4
Nahuatl
Nahuatl
Nahuatl
State
Yucatan
Oaxaca
Prevailing Native Languages
(in number)
First
Second
Mixteco
237,474
Tzotzil
Otomi
226,681
117,393
116,131
Mixteco
80,691
122,664
294,711
Totonaca
111,305
70,247
Source: Census of Mexico 1990.
Mexican populations "speaking an indigenous language" are mainly located
in the southern and central areas of the country. It is in this part of Mexico that
the great civilizations of the past flourished, and where the highest density of
pre-colonial Central American populations have always been concentrated.
If we use the definition of the term "language" given by linguists, there are
68 aboriginal languages spoken in Mexico in addition to dialects (compared to
a little over 25 aboriginal linguistic groups or languages in Canada).
Nevertheless, 70% of the population aged five and over speaking an
indigenous language speak one of the eight major languages (50% for the first
four). The majority of those who speak an indigenous language also speak
Spanish (80.2%).
The states where more than one indigenous language is spoken, as a percentage of the population, are listed in Table 33.
Nahuatl is spoken mainly on the Atlantic coast and in the central region of
Mexico, Maya in the south, and Mixteco in the two Baja Californias, Guerrero
and the southwest.
- 191 -
Table 34. Distribution of
Population Speaking a
Native Language (in %),
by Age Group, Mexico, 1990
Age Group
Percentage
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50+
14.0
13.3
11.2
9.5
8.7
7.4
7.4
5.7
5.4
17.5
Source: Census of Mexico 1990.
Based on published census data,
knowledge of an indigenous language
decreases with age at least up to age 50
(Table 34). (A detailed table by language,
not published here, shows that there is
little difference between the various
languages.) But this statistic alone is not
enough for us to draw a conclusion regarding the viability of these languages,
since the answers to census and survey
questions on language knowledge may
be unreliable. People who speak an
indigenous language are often discredited
and will thus not give this information to
an interviewer.
If we admit that a language already
spoken may be lost, we may then conclude that progress in education, urbanization and the increase in participation rates are responsible for the declining
knowledge of indigenous languages as age increases. If not, since we are looking
at the percentage of an age class, this might also mean that knowledge of an
indigenous language increases with time: as the fraction of a group speaking
an indigenous language is higher in the more recent cohort groups. Table 35
indicates a regression of indigenous languages. There is no mortality and/or
differential migration which might justify such differences in reductions in total
population and that speaking an indigenous language. One must thus conclude
that the ability to speak an indigenous language is lost with age - a conclusion
somewhat surprising.
Geography of indigenous languages
A recent study by the Center of Studies in Population and Health (CEPS)
based on census data focuses on "ethnic group" based on knowledge of an
indigenous language."
After reviewing all the "municipios" of the country, the study observes that,
in 542 out of 2,402, over 40% of the population speaks one of the indigenous
languages. These 542 "municipios" form a universe of 5.34 million people of
whom 4 million, or 75.5%, speak an indigenous language. In this universe, the
languages most commonly spoken are not the same as those in the census universe. In descending order of importance, they are Natuatl, Maya, Tzeltal,
Mixteco, Zapoteco, Totzil, Mazateco, Totonaca and Otomi.
" Diversidad ethnica y languas indigenas predominante hablada en Mexico. Working Paper. Centro
de estudios en Poblacion y salud. Mexico 1992.
Loss in
0/o
- 192 -
oC!
en .-.
N
•.-.
ON
.6 vi
1 -.
. -••
4
I
I
0
I
et o0
.6 .-:
. -•• N
I
I
in 0
N .6
.. N
I
I
1.-- r-
ON on
00
II,
4 cr;
00
re;
N
.6
I
I
I
I
..."
1 N
I
•-• N
ON
ON
O
Population
02
0
oo
ON
en ...
en
'
GeV'
cs■
ea
in
en oo
so oo
,- . N
■ re;
N o
O
N
O
in
N
0
.-. er
Cts Tt
In ,-.
.-■ (NI
SO CO
■0 N
.. tr,
•--. •--.
0 00
■AD
N in
it--
e--:
r--7 g
cr■ o■
r-'
en
en en
sri
4
*
in
NI.
0:
N
ce,
.-•
A
4,1
6
N
N
trl .1
in so
.-. oo
a% •--.
en NO
N
NO
N •-•
un ON
N oo
in en
01
NI: en
en
0 et
co.
In
oo N
N oo
col N
N
U
00
ens
O
Age
Group
O
CO
O
C
OS
N
OS
V'
en
1
in
6
en
as
en
in
en
1
N sO
Os 00
kr) en
0 00
en 00
01 01
a 1
eei es,"
§ -.
v-■
4
z
CO
Of
O cy
Population
0.■
cn
I: go
02 T.
0
Ch
oA
cd
0
in ON
en ■-1
oo cr%
g
...) oo
sol in
.4-1 N
,•••■ 4"
0
a;
N
se
4
en
en
O'`
in
i'
.-,
6
ON
el'
cr.
'fa
en
os
en
in
N
■0
rl
kel
ON Isen 1,1
.7 N
01 kil
00
Nt
en Os
oo en
0
en
0
00
ON
.--,
O
O
CO
CO0.
Age
Group
O
•-.
N
4,1
6
.-.
(II
tel
N
6
N
en
en
O
ro,
00
O
CO
.0
U
en
0
oo
co
o
00
0
cl
.- 1
0
>
...„
-•
,02
Z
CO
00
.,_,
....NC
sg
0 p,
E-, cn
0
U
0
0
oo
co
0
ea
oo
co
0
00
00
0
00
0
a)
00
co
o
oo
co
=
03
cl
cd
00
0
00
0
1
.1
0
o
>
>■ •,_,
••,..,
...
.1
,-)
to
•-■
z'Fs'
z-
o
•>
•-,
V
z
CO
OA
sg
.5
-se
CO g
E-. cn
E-. cn
p,
0 p,
zFs
CO
00
o
1e'
COg
0 0,
E-, v)
o
oo
co
o
.1
0
•>
CO
00
z
....
-NC
0
U
oo
CO
0
CO
00
.5
-se
COg
0 p,
E-, cn
00
0
-
to
CO
00
0
....
CI
z
CO
00
0
Id'
CO g
0 p,
E-- cn
.se
COg
0 p,
E-. cn
Vil
z
Sources: Census of Mexico 1980 and 1990.
O
- 193 -
Table 36. Distribution by State of Municipalities Where at Least 40 % of the
Population Speaks a Native Language, Mexico
Number of
Municipalities
Total
Population of
Municipalities
Campeche
Chiapas
Chihuahua
Durango
Guerrero
Hidalgo
Jalisco
Mexico
Michoacan
Nayarit
Oaxaca
Puebla
Quintana Roo
San Luis Potosi
Veracruz
Yucatan
3
37
3
1
17
19
1
1
4
1
262
52
3
13
38
87
93,286
913,812
58,839
23,663
304,586
463,659
14,037
49,288
85,743
20,909
1,179,275
494,449
88,173
338,847
554,044
661,030
63,049
747,799
31,964
15,989
238,530
312,340
8,031
25,283
39,902
16,619
965,174
375,594
69,829
215,788
428,173
480,962
Total
542
5,343,640
4,035,026
State
Population
Speaking a
Native Language
Source: De La Vega, Sergio (1992). Diversidad Etnka y Lenguas lndigenas Predominantemente
Habladas en Mexico, CEPS, Mexico, P. 5.
Ethnic pockets are concentrated in Oaxaca (262 municipios), Yucatan (87),
Puebla (52), Veracruz (38), Chiapas (37) (Table 36). It was not possible, however, to establish a correlation between socioeconomic indicators and ethnic
criteria of the geographical entities chosen. Another analysis in the same
study69 concludes, on the other hand, that there is a parallel with illiteracy, lack
of schooling, poor housing and basic sanitary conditions, high fertility and high
infant mortality.
In conclusion
Clearly we are only beginning to understand the socioeconomic development
of ethnic minorities in Mexico (to the extent that these may be determined by
knowledge of an indigenous language). Migratory movements, differential
natality and mortality, assimilation, etc., must all be investigated before
subscribing to simplistic and possibly erroneous conclusions on the social
demography of ethnic minorities.
69
Elementos pars una caracterization socioeconomica de la poblacion indigena en Mexico. Working
Paper. CEPS 1992.
- 194 -
CONCLUSION
Mexico's roots reach far back into the past. It has seen many civilizations rise
and fall. Over the centuries, its population has experienced the gradual and
sometimes erratic growth common to countries into which the advances of
sciences have penetrated only slowly. It then made a rapid demographic transition and found itself propelled overnight into the modern world, with a population of 85 million and a potential for growth, it is only beginning to learn how
to master. Even though the French economist Montchretien's statement that
"the only real power is people" is no longer accepted without reservations, the
fact remains that history abounds in examples of peoples which have experienced
periods of great prosperity due to rapid demographic expansion. The most
reliable projections indicate that the Mexican population will continue to rise
for some years to come, and that there will be corresponding growth in its labour
force, which will become increasingly better qualified as development progresses.
This growth will no doubt not be confined to that country alone, but will take
place at the very least within a North American context. The whole history of
the human race - and North America is a striking example of this - has been
marked by innumerable movements and exchanges of population, and the recent
period has seen an acceleration of these age-old trends throughout the world.
It is thus realistic to assume that the already significant exchanges of population
between Mexico and the remainder of the continent will continue, at least in
the short term. The Mexican population will generate a considerable demand
for employment during the next decade or so, and many analysts question
whether this demand can be satisfied. If the jobs currently being created are highproductivity jobs and if markets do open for their production, then Mexico
could become a leading economic power with a high standard of living. If, on
the other hand, jobs are not created, Mexican workers will be forced to attempt
to negotiate their existence with the rest of North America to an even greater
extent than one of the present. The current situation, with its changing relationships, can be viewed simply as one of the most constructive forms of NorthSouth dialogue, forced into existence under the increasing pressure of demographic phenomena. The challenge will be to raise the standard of living of a
growing population without reducing that of neighbouring populations so as
to maintain harmony in that part of the world.
This situation is characteristic of both the short and medium terms, since very
large birth cohorts will continue to be produced in Mexico for some time. But
the demographic process is ineluctable, and even before growth in Mexico has
culminated, the aging of its population is beginning to be a source of concern
for demographers and sociologists alike. When the last large female birth cohorts
have given birth to all their children, the birth cohorts that follow, smaller and
with lower fertility rates, will quickly reduce the number of births from one year
to another. The country will then enter an aging process characterized by an
- 195 -
amplitude and speed commensurate with the success of its actual birth control
policy, raising problems that may be even more difficult to resolve than those
posed by its current rapid growth. Although far from being an area of concern
today, this process has nevertheless begun with the drastic decline in fertility.
Aging, in all probability, will in any case be greater, from a strictly mathematical
standpoint, than a first glance would indicate. While the very large birth cohorts
are alive, scientific progress will advance and ensure a greater number of years
of life, thus increasing the weight of an aging population in a social fabric which
will contain increasingly fewer young people.
Mexico is thus destined to be an increasingly present element in the lives of
Americans and Canadians. Although further along the development path,
Canada and the U.S. will nevertheless share in Mexico's progress and benefit
from its achievements. Communications of all types will inevitably increase,
bringing greater opportunities for population exchanges and enriching all the
cultures involved.
Appendices
- 198 -
00
srs
.6
r
00 ren ri
2
.-.
8
8
8
8
Q
8
1970
uu
en
...
8 S0.
r.,-, 00 se-1 00
el •:1* 01 el C4 O. 00
rei Ni c4 r: ... vi .-. c5
VI
VI'
00 N
— '.0
— .,-,
.0 0'.,
42
o;
vi ei re;
o■
-
srs
srs .-. co
0
cr, .....
rs•
CV en
VI
0
er;
•-.
oc;
VI CT
ei 4
0.; ... r:
<
` g'02v
oo
ts CD vn
01
or or a,
en
N et
N —
ce
c.; csi tr; .•. ic; ... 6
•-.
...
ri e•-; Ni
er; •-• r:
un
r-
r(-Irs
eei
01
10
WO r- •Op,
01 en ,
.0
er sO se-s
en
00
Os
A SA
6
vs
00
•-•
c N --,
o■
N
er
.
.0. en
r-... N
A
...
00
SQ vs 0% •-■ vn rvl 0 en
r- en r- 0 •-+ N. N
ori 0 0. sei sr; 1 6 •-. •-,
en 00 .-. Os N srs 1/40
N cc oo .-. .-. 0 e
en
Oi*
10 ...
en 00
r- ses
cog 0■'
•es.
en
oe
r
00 ....
00
eei N en
r
--, sti
gR
00
3 1
Ch en vn Ch 141 un
Ch en 00 00 cp
et en. 0 10
r-
y>1.
N en YD
••.
v-1
en
IN
'0
.... C>
40 00
VI
0 .4:
en
00
00.
rel
7t 4 en vn
vn
CO VI VI cm en
ee
00 ... e-I
vn
c> -. en
,■••
V-1 VI VI 01 10
„..,
—
ke; re
CZ
en
N
rei .1.
- • ev
111 01
vs:
s ,t N _.
ob..
en
N
sri
N
fl.
00
,
er
let
—7
in
--.
eei
N
0
en
re;
le
1■1
Eg
4
ln
0
01 00
en .. ori
N
.--: r-:
0
.-;
en
ON
eV
en
kin
kg Vt
ON
r-.--.
en
•--• •--.
Iri
00 N
sr 00
0
r-
■ o■ --■
..
4 •-■
1.
en 4
r-
en 00
sOlor CO •-• . N N en
•-■ uo •-■ •-∎ N vn 10
ei re; e•• 45 oci ie.; c
r-- as en .--. o 00 el
co •-. oo sO v. et' et
16 •-• en
N
■
s0 00 •- ■ 71 r- un Q's
r- Os vs so en V• Q1
00 vs 00 N CO 0 VD.,
r-: vi re; v; v9
a 4
ez.
-. E5 8
v; ei 4
N
ci
•- •-■
r-
.7 10 CT,
re; —. r- 1 r: r-- o ■ 46
0
00 •-•
0
00 co
00 Vs
1/40 00
et %e
os 4.1
-10
N t..; EP Et gg E g-4 A
V.
•-■
.4.
6 0 ci o■
,....
o
„,
Z
.
00
4.)
1
t.
a.4
0.
..
IN
en
Os r- N
et N N
I-- en et
I
Cij
z zi-
en 0 et'
V1 %C) N
00 0 en er
-■
cr■ r-■ ,e,
00 up a .--.
•-.
u;
sri v'. s
•-• .-• N
— ,r;
eel' oci 14-■
00
In
..i
10 •-■
r-. 00
en.
N 0 YD V
ON Q. &
el
N en 00
et c5 15 R
NI: v3s R
VI
CO
1"••• ,--.
00 r•-•
10
.".2. ;',1 22 g
.-. .-
■■•■
en
or
N
'4 g
V.
N
N
t—
0
CA
ea
8
a .0 8 E
. 0 6.=
. 0 0 „,-0x
0
co
Eh-80
0
p., 00 0
o ...., E
6be
'—'
Lt.,
......
..../ CL,
0 b
2 00
a
01 10
pi r:
e
vl vo oo
4 ool en
r...
6
tl a
c4 ...., F.,
a
.5. •.....
—
co
-
un
—. 00
,4,1 N
,...,
,... 0
1/46
g
to
.-.
01
10 N N N
4
•-,
,1 4: cD.
eei Ntr qt 0 1..
VD 00 00 VD
...,
States (Capitals)
Population
un ,,,..
se; e•-;
40
N •c-5 — 00
— en
CV en en
en N •- — v-; •-4 ez;
1■1
•-■
un
sr;
en
—.
o■
(.44 N
00
QQ
— ...
....
•-• hr
_
vs 00 so.
Os vs en N
00 Os N rC:i ee; re; efi
%16
8
00
cfs
...
...
en
N
.-.
3
CD
et esi 00 N. 00 Os .V•
.--, en 0 et 0 N cm
C; esli esi •-: sr; •; 0
to
3 r- 88
.4 ee; N
...
1970
Distribution in %
.--.
ee;
N
2
0
2 ...
- 7.1 ..9 a I 0
t .8
ur5'm
a, o' IL:
0 0 C
...
,,,
!.)
—
...., ,.
...,
x .0
nt
0
,•EI
414
E
.
.c
. cl
ia•
0 i
t0
...-,
0
4
h
"...'
1 :0
4‘ 1 1
cn U00
o .5;.x
s._,, ......
'a
tu
CO
0
N
0
"-a. '4 e
(7 E->
See notes at the end of this table.
8
8
- 199 -
C; r.; :2 Z5 q S 4' !;; 1 S ;5 ,1S
ZS gl Z5 ;: A ;1 g ZA
Distribution in %
14
I
0
0
i
O
p
ti
O
CD
SR
0
g
Vl
O
06
c4 c5 -. c4 c4
r: 0 c5 Ti 46 Ni
••
M
N - c4 .-.
c4
00 ••
CD
VD el Cb c- 4p,
cl
Qp el Ps CD C)
0.0 rn r-. un r-.
ei c4 -. c4 -.
%AD
en et ch
VD rn i
vi
el
r- rn ay r- C4
6 .--. ei ei
06 -.
C) C› N
rn en 00
CON •• ■ON
06 .4 c5 .4 (.4 f4
oo
et
CZ
Cm en el CD. g
et. e4 ... NI.
•--. ci. •Z
c4 c4
CO fl CD et CN
C)
O
M
VS C5 6 et: VS ei
.....
VD CD CD •• g el
rn
VD
r- 41 41 41 c4
un
c4 OC R
In
r- In r-
.. 41 Vt.
en O■ wpay.,
00
(4
NI
r:
c5 6 4 45 4
e4 ri c4 -. c4 -•
c4
ci cS -.
et
C) ts 11-- gp c)
r- et Ch cy en
en
..., ;2 co gp et
ci cS Ni r: vi
ei
of
•-•
en CD 00 t- en
r- ,Ir r- oo csil
00. en en ... fel
1
...-. c.i. 4:4' e:, .6
....
ON
el
en ON ■C)
04' e.i •• •• ei" -.
esi
••
r- 41 op en 0
00 N '0 c4 Os en
,
e
tel
en ten rn
un 00 rn
un Ch.
VI
c
c5 vl 1,I
eV e4 42
r..... -er rq at
et
06
00
N
VD
un MO0 .. V en
c4 c4 r•i c4
Op
r-
In •-. on
oo oo et VD
en et ..... r-.
c4
6 c5 .. •
rig
N 41 7t en et §
N 41 so 71 41
cD ch
en
00
05
r•-;
CM 00. e... vc) 0
O § rz g 8 (.4.
0
•-
■
el
en 00 eV 00
00
VS
••
f•i.
.
441
kC)
c) en ch cLA
III .. CA 00 cm
VD Ifs un VD ..•
cgs
oS ei g
00
•".. CV 00
vt
N Nt 01 en VI
en tr; tei
CD
—
fl
V
r.r•-•
,or al e5 V ft
41 NC)
oo r. — ei ch.
V; en (s/
VI Nt el
O
Population
a's
•-■
1 05 en CD 00 It
rn CA .-. Os It
et Cst •-• 01 oo
ei r: 4-; .6 cr eei
00 IN- •-• C4
Nt., ,I el r- 00 ..i
Io■I I■1
kri -.
csi as qp § -, oi
O
O.
•--.
O
In
(.4
7 (.4
N
t4 v.. ... v.. v.-.
v..
...
•• Ch .•. oo CD
r-
et
•-.
41 VD co VD el
el vn CD CA
un CA el es nr
,.
VD CD un
et
el en CD VD VD
!t un t- oo el
..... .... en un el
r-
CD 0 yl cs
<6 065 ..-. d 45 Nt.
r. 0, el
r- en ...zr
.
§
... -.
<4 ,:r.'
-. .-. en oo v-i
00 .-. ori ad'
0 4n oo 4.1
.--. en el eq
0 cc; 4
45 oO
,,,, gb
Oro - tel et 40
.
, •- .
-. ...,
•-
...
e.
Ils. VD
'7
en o0
en
.1.
en CV eV CV VI
WI w. 1.-4
00
CT
C> un et CA 4 00
r- YD cm f4
I"et.. ... VI ch
en
i en CD QO .-e VD
%AD 41 cm VD ren NI* .7. el W.
C: •-• ON oti f,"
.--. eqi oo oo en oo
WI on
en co r-
cei eei 7t te, re; -,
eq
50
en
en
.1
en C4
75t ,Z19 el ,,t In
(-4 .--. ts: Nr 00.
s.i. ..
w. e
rie.:
a■
VD. .... 0\ et ON
te-i .-. .-.
-.
45 r:
Q
VD el
f--
at
2
States (Capitals)
.
0
0.2
0 . "d ..../
.
.2
e
:0
'a
4
a)
--A
8
'-e3
g
Ts' es S
.t
i ,.
0.voss. 1 8
ts FA .a.
t.,00...
as ,-. ....,
,- t, o z
0 `-' 1,1' 0 ......,
-- 6"
c„„
.a
el
u
.
—
-0.
'''
.).-7-00-- 4
ce ,i) 0 ..a. ra ..0
. s uog 8 V
w --,
co
. 4 = ca R 0
"--'
•
.0
-,
,
Z
5 -r--• = z..1., E3
•-.
..
......
,-,
..,
id
as, 04
oO r-
et qr. it-- eo. 00
1.
o
r-
en
ct
Ch Ch Ch
et
eq .. qp
esi' of; c6 Tr"
en
co
■C) In .-.
4:)
,-,
CZ
!A
ri
Q.,
0
B
t)
s
..-. •cl
s
4
U
...I
.Z
N
V C4
.'A
c
un Ifs un
kg •••••■ m
•.•
•--∎
.. en et VD r- --.
CA CA en en Ch en
et N N 00. el 00
O
0.,
r-,,,
• ■1
el et
r-
g
41
NJ: (4 en oo oo
te, r- e4 eei \lf
VI 00 IN.
o tn .-.. vp -..
■
Ch
1970
0
tin v) Ch CD Ch —
un 00 en cv t- rn
N 00 .-e .-. 00 r-
= ,03
0
0
Cd
. 12 li
...
i 0. --6 a g -E613.2
o c-z
o
'
.._,.4 A .— 8 1:4 E — .
Cd
es.-.).,
V)
2g
cg
° ......
u .....,
A Q.,
ca Ts
b
0 ..-* 00 =
.
= A o .,4, g
= ..c
0
2
P.(18'41
---• g
2
. a)
m .c
0 0es
.4
ft .5
0
See notes at the end of this table.
111
▪
Density
km2
1 990
- 200 -
O
O
0
oo
Os
....
I 1 970
U
Average AnnualGrowthin e/o
O
§
v-,
al
•-.
N
N
en
7,3
r4
O
2
C.7
O
es
O
0
oONo
.-.
4
•• N N
s-. ses sO
y?.
Q.
'0:
•-.
6 •-■
ei r4 r4
IN
OC!
.--,
a
alb ■0
co .41
esil •-•
rsi Nr
co
d CT N
en en rsi
8 fr.! V
rn
N
0:
kel NI' 00 SO SO eq N
•er trl dt Sp
vs N so co
csi r.; csi ••
Vs
0 as •-. ees as N en
N on sO en Q.1. ken
IN e:1 e4 re; en
ON
N N en
en .. NI-
•-■
op
st, sn
et Nr.
4 e.i esi
.-.
e•-; .-.
as
eei
.. 0 \ 0 0 0 \ •-. Cl
srl If oo en oo el oo
esi (4 seti 4 esi 4 (.4
∎/;) •ct CO eV
en 00 N sO
N
v's v's
esi d
re; en
r4
r4
en
rrsi
IN .--. vr r- •a• VD sO
r4 .4 e4 vi r4 r4 v.; rsi
14o
o
I
en
en r- Q. en en
oo 0 sO d •-• as
as
eV
r-
(-4 c4 (.4 .-;
00
eV
as r_-- d•
srs as 'el
dr
rt.;
es1
srs
IN- sO
en en
en
e4 e4 (-4 ••
r4 Ni
18
O .
8 4. .1 ;.., (44. '4. A. . .
8.
,o, V 0 g g mt in en N
8. A. gi. g.
8. 5,1. 2.
8 G ,1%,
8. ,, oi 1.,
8 .74 ct; 1 `' ' 8 .
Pi v " ',:- ,
8 1-,7) VD pll Nt en t's1
8 're ". 2
8 4 it:,
2
.—0
..-4
NI: en
..4 t 4 c4 e4
-1'
.72 erVe. 9.i
""
8 rz Pi .
8 n 4'
8 cr 0-. A' 8 1 8 °A 2 c't
8 .4,. r •. g ,... , , , - , en esi .
8 g 54 go,
8. v9). r9-.
8 4, ., 4
O
F'
0 reqi ei c4
-4
Ni
8 ,.:.-.,., 4
I 1 970
O
Distribution by Region
"a"
cia
.0
a
N
en
-.
CO
csi
.5
8
8. 8. . . . . . .
o
. n CT 1.-•
en 00 In (41
01.1 Nr
.-.
.-■
.
121
..
0
. . .
as oo
..
IN es1 V'
*C
Q.
-i
■•0 2
8
N
gi
2 ■,2. re,
".,
.
. .
Q VI It
009
00
...,
0
A
States (Capitals)
0.
0
ow
0)
......
al
.."
al
•8
P
=
0"
u 5:
....
N
......
=
V
g
C/)
••••'
14 ma O.
...4 =O.
o0
W
6"
Z Z I-,
2
a.) g.)
et
u
c4
LT., ....,
- bi) •r.i
-E
0
.o •-•
al ..5.
•-• g ri,.1
Z 2 OZ rY cu
0 :, eu ;-• ...
...., 0., o t
a". t (."
Iii 2 go' 8 6 CO '5 .71
x
6 .°)
N 0 co
(.. ) 4 Z
0. a r-",
..••••
■
0) o
0 •01 5
.2 ° *u
4-,
g
L.
ir ..0
= 0 1
c
42
= N.,
8
t,'-'0
0 .....,
.z.s
°
...,
,c'
N
2
c0
..4
^ 0 b 8
..... vs b 5
g .c = @
c.) u a o
0
•0
04 o
0 , IS
0 I-.
"S
U
b3
0
4)
C/)
Density
km2
1990
- 201 -
IR
-a
O
Ol
eA
O
O
O
8
00
g
kl3
oci
t--
ee;
u6
N rn CD el el
0
C4 00 U'l un el oo
0.0 e. Ch N 00 ...
N
un VD r. r, un
(.4 ri r4 e4 (.4 e4
Nt
C. •
e. %O 00
-. Os
el un cs ! w. Nt
(.4 (.4 e4 ... e4 ..
eg
un
ei Ni (.4 ri e4
M
0
00
Ch
a 4 0 rs
(-4
41 mD
Ch el r- oo
ri e4 ... ..-, w.
2
G.7
la
VD
el
CD rn en oo
.4
0% en ch gp 1.-r- el 00 VD co eq
.4-
..
r,
r-
co
Ni Meth
(.4 ei r4 esi e4 e4
e4 e4 e4 e4 e4 .-4
e4
Ni Vies/
8. .07. *1. 8. N. 0
8 A '' " PI A
.1. Ch
8..
" 8 00
en
" °°
8 44 e^ 2.1 01 .:, ;.i
oo en
8 8 -oo"a."-1-,.
8. el go g
8 ri:i ...,
01 Ti Pi Ti 8 ..1 g ',P,
2ch
...,
un rn .... en
gp 00 el et et e-.
C7.
et. Ch
. el.
r-. VD.
1.0s ..-.
en en en rvai
csi
.-4 1,1 Csi
"."
....
gp r- 00 (-4 ... (-4
CO
fq el Ch et ....
g...
e4 r4 ri
N M
... en ri
e.
r-
Ch el
...
el VD oo oo -.
r- oo Nt CD r- 00
et e-. en en UD r%
e4 er; e4 e4 ...
e4 4 e4 e4 ri (-4
(.4
gp.
uu.
r- cl un et el
VD. .... CD. en 00.
.....!
v.,
... r-
gp -4- ... ml
C7
. ■C)
it
ml WI
CD.
,,0. ....
.
gp VD CD un el yl
ov. rt rt ... el ...
92 a% un CD el et
cp
g
g
...
co 0 oo 00 CA Nt
...
ri.e4 43 06 e-:
el en el
...
co
...
,-,
...
el rn el
• • • • • °°•
up
47 .-.
gp Ch .e CD
0.7
.
vl. el. f4.
gp .5t rn eq
C7
.-.
C4 ....
VD
en mp
g (-4 od 04
el
VD
..-.
...,
en el
if; ci ri
co. O CD
gp un CA ten el r-
r..
4
r: od vi ... v3
rt ... ... el -.
g• rn. el• VD• r-• oo•
cp ....
en et
et --. et en
rn CD el en en
en CA Ch r% e.
8• g• • • • •
go Ch en et el CA
r4
e. e.,
el -.
•
,,
• • •
gp 0 VD rn
177
.
es)
r-
...
C"
.
V)
5
......
States (Capitals)
0
Ew
un
0.7 .... C7
2 .4. en is Ch un
e4 en ri
,...,
0
Ew
... .... 00
et 00 et
101
A Os Ch CD
O
aa
un
en
et
O
0.
CD VD
co
..,,
qp .-.
O
O
N
ctl en el oo ...
el
1970
.0
Distribution by Region
0
00
1.3
0
a,
.0
CD
en CD r.. oo r- (..1
M r4 u4 e4 eei e4
a,
I
cD 40 en .... en el
en eq .. 00 CP! w.
MN
VD e4 mp
00 vD map
(..; ri r: e4
1970
a
Average AnnualGrowthin %
73
4
.2a
ez is.
t
.-. .....,
......
0
. . 0,...,13 0
5 "F",
, s s .... .5, g
.6" 1 0-
... ". 1 '
5 .1)
UX
g 0 ,_,
4 A
.... d ... ;;
-,..., -a g
0 as-a, 035 0
Z al co Z En En
g
v c.., .... 8 .
.
o
2
ti
.:F..
ti
:=
U
.a
0
2
E
C.
.....
a
....... En
CP13'
:
44 ...--. he 2
,-.:a
be
c4 -----• V)
ti
0
bo
,••••■
c'"c.1)°I:i c's
En 5
a ...a vs
e9
".E.
o
g
'"A`
-
s
a al o
g "ci •-• al.
g
E c.-...1 8 .40
rAa
,..,.
-
E
L.,.
,.. -03 .5 °CO*ea ci,
f.1
Z U U C) En N
En
03 - CI
E g 6.0
-,3. *pool=
= 03.--8
< U (..7 .-, z
8a
r-- I) c.) gt...)_,.t,-z,c
co c..) 8
4 7,8 'a 7; o c's --"
,g
c4 2 .......,
u rd A
zt, 0
,..
.0
4)
.g
•- cd
.5 0 ., 0_1 -o.aoa
3s ,0 8 •,
8
cow
a, c4 ?.,
4 e0
u C C
a
..c 0.51
s.
8.5aa
8
0
ci
ao.
- 202 Table A2. Birth and Mortality Rates, Canada and Mexico,
1886-2024 (per 1,000)
Mexico
Period
1886-1896
1895-1899
1900-1904
1905-1909
1910-1914
1915-1919
1920-1924
1925-1929
1930-1934
1935-1939
1940-1944
1945-1949
1950-1954
1955-1959
1960-1964
1965-1969
1970-1974
1975-1979
1980-1984
1985-1989
1990-1994
1995-1999
2000-2004
2005-2009
2010-2014
2015-2019
2020-2024
Canada
Birth
Rate
Mortality
Rate
47.3
46.5
46.0
43.2
40.6
45.3
44.3
44.6
43.5
44.6
45.0
45.1
44.9
44.4
44.3
43.7
36.1
32.6
30.3
27.9
25.2
22.4
20.6
18.7
17.4
16.1
34.4
33.4
32.9
46.6
48.3
28.4
26.7
25.6
23.3
22.0
17.0
15.1
12.2
10.4
9.8
8.6
7.8
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.3
5.1
5.3
5.4
5.8
6.2
Birth
Rate
Mortality
Rate
35.7
36.0
34.4
30.5
28.3
24.3
22.5
20.1
23.5
28.9
27.9
28.2
25.3
18.2
15.9
15.7
15.1
14.4
15.0
13.7
12.1
11.8
11.7
11.7
11.4
1L6
11.0
10.0
10.4
9.8
9.4
8.7
8.2
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.7
8.1
8.7
9.3
Sources: Mexico: From 1895 to 1929: Collver, Andrew (1965). Birth Rates in Latin America: New
Estimates of Historical Trends and Fluctuations. From 1930 to 1970: CEED (1970).
Dinamica de Ia Poblacidn de Mexico, Direction General de Estadistica, El Colegio
de Mexico. SIC: Anuarios Estadisticos, different years. For 1970-1974: Secretaria
de Programacion y Presupuesto, Agenda estadistica 1978. From 1975 to 1979, birth
rates: Segundo Informe de Gobierno de Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado, Sector Salud
y Seguridad Social, ktformadon Estadistica, p. 291; mortality rates: United Nations,
Demographic Yearbook, annual publication. From 1980-2025: Miguel, Jose (1992).
Indicadorres Demograficos para 75 anos, Demos, p. 5.
Canada: Birth rates from 1895 to 1920: Henripin, J. (1968). Tendendes and Fertility Factors
in Canada, p. 370; for birth and mortality rates from 1921 to 1991: Canadian
Centre for Health Information, Births and Deaths, annual. From 1992 to 2025:
Statistics Canada, Demography Division, Demographic Projections 1990-2011
based on recent changes in levels of fertility and revised quotas of immigration,
December 1991.
— 203 —
<
3a
EE-4.
.
+
......
•
8
p Z.. ,—,
ks 44•C
:SS
3
s, li, 1- 10 1. To 1.1, .- 7..i
Ni
N
ea
00
tr;
00
Qin
0
.O
esll
in
■C>
OS
46
Os •-■
Ws
o;
&
rti
ei
..:1:
en
NI*
4,
r-:
06
r-
N
•--.
sti
: .
:
0
ei
00 00
tr; si: r•-;
VD v's V-
:
0
7.-i
,.;
crt
: -40 1. 'a, .L. 7.'4 ;t 2:1.
- en
•-: ad vi etc ei .4e0
4.41 oo I-- 1/40 sO SO so
"44
en
:
•
00
N
etc
:
: ..4.. 01 .0 .., 00 00. 1.--. .0
. 04
• .47 3 S 4 ;-t' .4 °A c.-,
:
∎C;
•0
r-.:
•
4
NO gr,
A
Young
(Y/A)
O
Os
ro
.t
1
30 W"
171
I-. +
.....,
.0
4
United States
(.0
3
0
>s .--.
b
... .0. ,1
t•LI
06
t
'
›,.. .._,
4
I
0 •...,
0 >4
as
o
as
oc;
sO
ir-:
r-
r■
un
eti
•-•
N
tr;
co
00
1/4ci
•-•
0
ta
an
kon
N
•-•
N r4
•-•
r-
∎0
cx;
•-•
cl:
10
en
apt
el
6
el
•-;
ec
•
M
en
: "44:
00
sO
r-
•-•
1/46
en
en
ei
.4-
.<
3w
o
o.
7:1 74:, --,;-,
74 `scio To "I
v,
ot
4.1
c4
1/40
N N
:Q.
IN-
Elderly
(E/A)
.
a
1
00
oci•
(N1
6
vs
.-.
SO
P :cc"'
a w.
0 >4
>0 .....4
en
d
4.1
•er
f- +
In
en
1/40
v-c
CO
4rt
%.0
i
vi
cn
.•-,
en
es1
d
N
r-.
eti o;
etc
:
ei ei WI vi «5
fs7
-0
oe;
en
en
0J
en
: o
vi
en
we
trc
:
VD
r-etc
t-
›.
....,
ee;
4.!
co
Canada
co
•It
40
Os
ea
vi
•O
tct:
at
en
Os 1 rt * & 09
N
•-•
at
eV o; oc; r
tct
•44
v.,
VI
oo
40;
en
o o trt
et/
F.e0,t
ei
el
ts.
e:
en
o
m
at
rs.
- 204 -
Table A4. Infant Mortality Rates (Observed and Estimated), Mexico,
1930-1990 (per 1,000)
Estimated Rates
Observed Rates
Year
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Males
Females
Both Sexes
Males
Females
Both Sexes
157.56
146.59
144.91
145.04
142.36
140.32
139.57
137.91
134.96
133.10
131.82
130.45
127.23
123.12
119.12
116.27
111.93
109.69
109.60
108.99
107.85
102.09
101.61
95.50
92.85
84.20
83.71
82.23
83.75
81.94
79.04
77.02
75.08
73.14
70.00
68.22
67.59
69.02
70.32
72.41
72.26
70.47
64.81
58.49
54.20
54.04
55.23
52.39
48.18
44.74
43.16
40.84
37.68
35.45
32.42
29.56
26.92
26.03
26.88
27.41
28.01
143.23
130.43
128.99
130.23
128.39
125.83
124.76
124.04
121.81
119.44
117.42
116.51
114.33
111.82
108.04
105.78
100.64
97.85
96.43
95.77
94.79
89.07
88.84
83.35
81.72
73.92
73.84
72.59
73.97
71.40
68.45
66.64
64.98
63.17
59.83
57.97
57.34
58.40
59.51
61.08
60.58
58.77
53.61
48.26
44.40
43.99
44.78
42.44
38.76
35.96
34.35
32.63
29.93
28.47
26.17
24.10
21.82
20.81
21.22
21.55
22.09
150.62
138.74
137.16
137.83
135.57
133.29
132.38
131.17
128.56
126.46
124.83
123.69
121.00
117.69
113.81
111.24
106.50
103.98
103.23
102.58
101.52
95.78
95.43
89.61
87.46
79.22
78.93
77.56
79.00
76.81
73.88
71.97
70.18
68.31
65.06
63.23
62.59
63.84
65.05
66.88
66.56
64.75
59.33
53.46
49.37
49.09
50.09
47.50
43.55
40.42
38.82
36.80
33.86
32.00
29.33
26.86
24.40
23.45
24.09
24.52
25.09
171.64
170.05
168.50
166.97
165.42
163.82
162.16
160.40
158.52
156.48
154.25
151.80
149.09
146.08
142.83
139.48
136.19
133.12
130.45
128.14
126.02
123.89
121.55
118.81
115.67
112.33
108.98
105.82
102.49
99.86
97.98
96.65
95.65
94.74
93.71
92.39
90.75
88.80
86.57
84.13
81.76
79.81
78.61
78.12
77.91
77.52
76.56
74.91
72.54
69.43
65.61
61.36
57.00
52.85
49.23
46.21
43.42
41.26
39.56
39.17
38.78
154.24
152.74
151.25
149.76
148.27
146.78
145.29
143.80
142.31
140.76
139.03
137.03
134.64
131.77
128.48
124.97
121.47
118.19
115.32
112.88
110.71
108.63
106.49
104.12
101.49
98.70
95.88
93.14
90.13
87.60
85.65
84.13
82.88
81.72
80.48
79.01
77.28
75.31
73.10
70.71
68.39
66.44
65.11
64.37
63.86
63.22
62.15
60.58
58.49
55.86
52.71
49.23
45.68
42.31
39.35
36.88
34.59
32.80
31.39
31.03
30.67
163.15
161.61
160.09
158.57
157.05
155.51
153.93
152.30
150.61
148.81
146.83
144.60
142.04
139.10
135.83
132.40
129.01
125.84
123.07
120.70
118.55
116.45
114.20
111.64
108.75
105.68
102.59
99.64
96.46
93.88
91.96
90.54
89.42
88.39
87.26
85.86
84.18
82.22
80.00
77.58
75.24
73.28
72.02
71.41
71.06
70.55
69.53
67.92
65.69
62.81
59.32
55.44
51.48
47.71
44.41
41.66
39.11
37.13
35.58
35.20
34.82
Source: Gomez, Jose, Virgi io Partida (1992). Niveles y Tendenclas de la Mortalidad en Los Primeros Anos de Vida
en Mirka, 1930-1990, CEPS, P. 26.
- 205 -
g
A
XV.
vmmcp,o,,..
.m00,.N,O.V,0W
2V
e4M..:
NevnaoN
P-wVwvIN.t.
.envenNW
scad.
L.°:.
..,
0
°'0
.b i
VelmehcA.c
mffn4baOQW,N,VNCIs
—mr,,onn,,
,,
me4c4---
meimr.4—.441...1
Proportions
Remaining
Single
Z X
0
First Marriage
Probabilit ies
(p. 1,000)
2
Gib
WilggPAEIHMMP'7"""" ggri,V=Ann
genV 42
.41
4,1■ 00 &VAQINmmozvvv
en,17, 009t
.....nr ,N0,,WVIVNOW,O,MWOV
Amwidi
X
Number of
First
Marriages
X
0
—
O
a.
1.r
.
q4
RmvyDetArArzpr,zpgsamcAggrmcnv, VVVVVV mmm—,—i--i
,
.** --0-3.
..rEn i..„a
7
p
44 grm.mngAgr.t27„1 vP1NNNN
-
rtg
First Marriage
Probabilities
(P. 1,000)
=
z0
R
_
O.
t
v
lug'
z"
X
Pr oportions
Remaining
Single
E•
m.
Z
"--.0,—,..—..,.......,
------..--0...,..-----,-, _
v. , .. . - 0-
0 .. ,
m,.,. . .
,.,.,..
ra.g.
-7,
AS
.......,,v,
. r..CMX,7
...-
.,.,,,,,---,
-
3V47,A28Y.g32.1PPPgTMSGr.
O
....,.....0—,,,,...0—,.+,,,...,0,...0,4,,,,,...0
,,,,,-......m.,,,,,,m,,,,.......".......r.,
A
First Marriage
Probabilities
(P. 1.000)
- 206 -
6
1 .0
.o..,Am,lpggpr7v..A4gno,o,..,00,...s.v.4m-,,,,-........----1
Proportions
Remaining
Single
6
v'mngugggan44,7A.74.18agg.s.v.44:4A-ArvAA-g-w-i
§gL1PNi9PWRAPAnAPit:S8MUi3.3TZRPPAPggg
..'
g"
Z 2
00
O
rl
8
First Marriage
Probabilities
(p. 1,000)
0
0
AAAVE28Mg:ANglitggR=80P$SIR4$APIRMWEr2.2'^"'
Number of
First
Marriages
0
.,,..n...44;,,sp2Ig
2
U
0
6
X
0m
-
gAg..,.,...000......vv,4m,..-.....-........otol
in
F
7
A
EX
ag
4:w
,
§M:1PP.TINg2ArORI
...moo., ....,..emm.......
FirstMarriage
Probabilities
(P• LOOM
Lio
'RAZAgg8,13.7,2*.A.==^82207,1g?ArAV"" °° '°''''
O
a
8
HI
g '6 1
*e' CY' i.:7 Z;;
Proportions
Remaining
Single
..:
o
o
~
,1 0,00 ASN0000PgRRRRP
SI, ... ~,M ■ Y2.,,m...
Wg2AZA:RMV,W2.11, 3W°38.7.:2PPrggiVr2gPggiV,2,1
5akb‘m..,...e.,ww,.....4.,
Zii glt N gi. g !! tii ZR V ::; g gl a' ''' ^ ':' a. t.- '''' Q" " '4
''''' '
...
IIII
i
Z
k
Z
NmVul,C1r■ maNO ■ egelVviv]nme
m
oocrscp—eqmq ,nug,ega0
e4,4r4.
444mmmmmmmmmm,mrampwvwavv.,
— 207 —
Living in Another State in 1985
u
g
g
'"1
vs r:O
N
4'! CI 42. 4):
et co -4
IL
ei u4 u4 c?
e., en e4
4) '4 41 Ce '-' "4 ch ti 4' el CI '4 MI 41 4:: 41 e: el 4' e: C.) 41.
en e4 ei si 04 0, r4 ce un 4! N en ,to
si en
.e;
23
00
00
e4 3 ER
.,
6
Le 1 a
:. EReig -, es Os ..... ...... 8... ...
i; 41
A...4
5; 4.
;2'. etg g E.- . A
"
R. gas5;...,
r
g
i
r,
:It:
`fArig 3 en P.1 rt '''
r
4 gi eI 5§ e7; 1 r:
g
:
Cl
4
si
i
g7
-. '4; m: 2.4. A
.-. f4
or Ir-• or
I.
a■
-..
“
Population Born in Another State
Population
Aged5
andOver
L
Number
06
a
C
.... or un
es, Co VD on r- cr f4 en r■ el 00 OD CD 41 .r vr as ve ,In 01 4, .1 cel e4 4, 42 e4 e, CO
•g 00 0011_ 000l g 21 4R N el 23 E3 a g m 100 53 e3 e; G! F.1 2g 5R m 2g ;3 P El t- ;7 Eg
4,-;
.6
e, a; *oc;
1,4 I: 0
g ev .e.7 oc■ esi e4 e4. yi oo st esi
06 8
0.
45 el ;4 ;;., p e..; . m. e.; s,E m ;3 g ., A ;3 3 g ,- 53 A Eg :i g s; m 2E
. . . . 43 4 - .
—
g g 1-: -7 g g -. .3 oci g -7
NN e.;
';' - . -
4
'R 4
NO
CI 4' 4I 41. al el el el ',1 4:: a! 4° .4.
? '4: 40 4° 4:: NON el '' el 41 el e' 41. 4100
0, 48., ,A; ;1 .0. A m ,s. A ea r. .4. c4 ,4 A r- 21 4 2i ae, cO r- t;I: cr e.4
VD ON p es'
as u4 r-
43
1:6
CO CD r... on e4 un 00 40 et 01 .-. as en f4 as el r, c4 el as sa 41. or
1
Population
in 1 990
;
Z
fq Nt
r- 00 Os un 41 r- r-
APro4Vigg$. ■2g:/ nGRAgigi 7 48R- izIGAt!:284`,.51SG=
gc,ri*rianS44g
. g8A re. ecP,n-. ditcVtLirilgti
■-sigstagg
VI
r-, eV .-. -. en . N en -. -. N
N
e..1 ..... e.e N -. ..1
•
••••
4
I■1
en
4 .7„
s m & as
en sa 53 .. m t. r.. zk g
7,
;1
un rr
. en
CD en
00
- 0 w r-.. '''' -. cl. N
" -. 0 Z N '''' et N d' ^.1
ap■ ei ca 0 0 N vi. 04 sei. lair CO CI■' 4. .-. eci I sg. en. .. ce■ ... eo e.. .4:7
ON VI 1 Qn 4. CD g en
00 en r■
Ch
vs 41
00
or
IN
rs Os en
00 Cr
4) *) C.:. '-' "‘ '''' ' 1 49. PI t^ 41 41 ''' 40 N
a■ o N 4,-;...4.;0—..,
iz! 4g ;; cR
—
ONO
4 gl A 2R g 28 ER ;; a 5e
..; N oe■ e-■ ni ei en. en. O. en. en
g E5 E5. .., 23. Eil .ER El g 5R
A ;e
. .A g ;3
menet-.
e.eN........N4
46.
-7 n:
O
4
LI
19
Cf1
En
E 1 -I
e
.
A
1!.
o8
0
.0.
8
a0 n
s
831i.ais .5ba 8 81 6..•=1,01,g'zgr.381-1';1 11
stgA.-1,1Z Ig140-5T, .>°0, gt 1 ;-',
g g
t
c2 C3 d (3 C3 C3 8 8 d o 5E ., :E 2 2 2 C) 4! eiao, iii (53 - 1.- F: > ! A
- 208 -
Table A7. Labour Force by Region and Sex, Mexico, 1970 and 1990
Population
Region
Aged 12
and Over
(I)
In Labour
Force
(2)
Occupied
(3)
Participation
Rate (o)
Employment
Rate (h)
(4) =
(2)/(1)
(5) =
(3)/(1)
1970
Males
North-Eastern Region
Central Region
South Pacific Region
Golf Region
North-Western Region
Occidental Region
Northern Region
South-Eastern Region
Females
North-Eastern Region
Central Region
South Pacific Region
Golf Region
North-Western Region
Occidental Region
Northern Region
South-Eastern Region
14,625,590
10,255,248
9,968,315
70.12
68.16
972,573
4,840,081
1,560,049
1,399,186
1,202,777
2,518,611
1,780,243
352,070
687,855
3,409,774
1,083,082
1,018,457
828,916
1,745,789
1,222,666
258,709
668,155
3,290,564
1,069,457
1,000,988
799,115
1,701,774
1,182,825
255,437
70.73
70.45
69.43
72.79
68.92
69.32
68.68
73.48
68.70
67.99
68.55
71.54
66.44
67.57
66.44
72.55
15,071,713
2,654,292
2,456,038
17.61
16.30
178,794
1,127,874
230,824
186,584
205,815
418,685
259,944
45,772
167,070
1,042,905
213,351
171,668
188,410
391,527
239,589
41,518
18.04
21.88
14.46
13.23
17.39
16.05
14.62
13.10
16.86
20.23
13.37
12.17
15.92
15.01
13.48
11.88
991,018
5,154,669
1,596,155
1,410,394
1,183,286
2,609,113
1,777,595
349,483
1990
Males
North-Eastern Region
Central Region
South Pacific Region
Golf Region
North-Western Region
Occidental Region
Northern Region
South-Eastern Region
Females
North-Eastern Region
Central Region
South Pacific Region
Golf Region
North-Western Region
Occidental Region
Northern Region
South-Eastern Region
27,084,182
18,418,695
17,882,142
68.01
66.02
1,901,913
9,138,005
2,778,014
2,584,976
2,378,386
4,451,174
3,040,156
811,558
1,293,543
6,141,354
1,910,286
1,814,335
1,640,274
3,011,395
2,027,503
580,005
1,251,903
5,960,043
1,853,045
1,761,610
1,602,114
2,922,934
1,959,636
570,857
68.01
67.21
68.76
70.19
68.97
67.65
66.69
71.47
65.82
65.22
66.70
68.15
67.36
65.67
64.46
70.34
28,829,665
5,644,588
5,521,271
19.58
19.15
1,964,978
9,919,742
2,930,673
2,689,601
2,393,474
4,930,593
3,183,501
817,103
453,274
2,249,058
376,763
384,033
532,816
913,295
583,435
151,914
442,231
2,197,331
367,174
373,953
522,411
898,140
570,378
149,653
23.07
22.67
12.86
14.28
22.26
18.52
18.33
18.59
22.51
22.15
12.53
13.90
21.83
18.22
17.92
18.32
Sources: Census of Mexico 1970 and 1990.
Chihuahua
- 209 -
en
1
e/3 eis
.
N
V en -“-.......
7.1f
•-•
4
e; !".
t
el. fel fel
Colima
,
.,- .
“
•el...3''
•-■-
-
-
1.: : eil
C7:: en1 '0 Ili g Fre. ta A A ■9 r
eie'n a Si S ST. ..
00 . , .-. 04 .. 01.
•- ,1 0 N Os
We en
en
... e .-a •ee
N
e.,
4 •-•
N
1...
.,1
en
0
't`n"-
a
e
rn
eme,-
eo•
•
PAU
en
00.
4 $
eel
-. •-• ..4.
8
rs.-
-.. en pe.
,..74 cri er
I .41 ‘42 CT ,ncrsgel&g ,cAcne,erro.....r NO 00 (4 as 0 ne en oo et
,
4
0 eae
en_
re.
en 40
oo -, as .. •eit 0 en Os
e.21". al w' s° . .
".
0.'^^`^^9. 0s^'^—..—°°.^.r. ^.. "..
•et lee es1 -.
•-• rel -.
en
en
ct
•-■
a
,. ," -,..,
d
Campeche
0-
an,..4,7.
cir.,‘Fligr...„RAar.,tz-,,sevA,
2._-...r.A
so-, .$
- iz,^):::aAA
en --. el •-• 00 en .....-.1.
•-■
e ..
en -■
i ■C
Ch
en
g
m
State ofResidence in 1990
1
6
6
IA
-
...
...,
li,'
'&6
) :-. 8v- 2",S2'6,',-.^,-.
°1 1:`"",
,SIA!.. wf-tenP.zi
2- V. e4 <I. -. I-. c'
4 P.,
vl. e -. en -e ........., en en en . ,
.,... en
... a a.
...;,.; -e4
.-.
•-•
N '-' ....•-• ...'t pON
- en
:ESg; "C,:ratagnAV-1Afs2AArAcroAREM8Sga:2P'
1., v-1 .-. ,v-, -, cv t- ,,,,, - - co 10 v-, - -, 1-- WI N. 5`,',,r. T
,.0 10
1-..
..r
cr■
t: N
A -v.
,-.., .3.
N
rn
al.'''
•2
—
R7
Ser.
I SSC-I'APL',
2 7,3 ,:,11,ggt_s:::,
...PR:):3i.74?-1.
'À
^gr ..f-18%.3 0 ,12g
en
Tt e•I •-•* ,..., •-, en •• ■
.--.., •-,0 •-•
ct -.
e-...., e- •-• •-• " rr•I
N
mr. —7 .- : a
—7 .-7 ...
mr. -.
V1
M
reV
t_
V1
e-4
= !--.
Baja Cali fornia
8
-.- 4*.---ipvplag
n isrgAt...-, N
....7 ,. . --.(-c..
N . - . . 4- a .. ad' .e; a — .
...
' el" 4:'
a a ... eel on 1-•
-.
1
eNI
•••■
•-•
a R ....
" $3
;1
cc V r..
=
°° ` Si & 91 r-"",. ,e•-,
'a ,T., en,
3, 2.est2 & «;
0,
..i. 19- P, tf.:
,c, 'A-.1-■.0 ...I-. en ..,.. ..... ee:1 ne
"f
•-•
.0 ee;
cc. '-'
.
§
g .E .E
K
.6
1
'1 'I ri.
A q a
...
WI
r-
.6
sr
.
ne
=
=
0
0 1
1 lib ,
g .;si
17
=
ssn
4'
ch V-,
Fei
,0
1
CA
RI al
e4
eel
•-•
•-.
State of Residence
in 1985
.i",.Pgrqgpa ,
.^ .
■ 47 —. " "..°
—, en
cr■ ..
-.
ni
e. . cc
8g
.0re
§1 A 8 4
. 58 11 g al A 2-5t 'a 81g-= ga135.1 = .°3 1 - `°°"01..g:5 8 p,greag.s g -a=litg t 84 1 3 480136085ddv,2 • ZZOc2c06u10)- P >
12 (2 'Z'
6,2,1;
I
W
;.
a A..
E.
O
N
i3
0
8
Michoacan
I
- 210 -
10,1
O0,-000O
? 'A' ili -644:iIgle"7-1 4..... g..., ....'11 - 7" n g ,:i E WEI 'al g
WI
• VI VI et AO.
0%
• t•-•
..1 .-I
VP.
1.-- •-.
•••• WI
en
ch •,,t ,....-.
v8
0
O
OY
0
State ofResidencein 1 990
UU
HIS
-IEA.111,y§Fs..7,
N
N
1
.e.-41...eitcgr:
N
.
. lAt
I.,
•
•
'
N
•
tAi
....
•-"-"-'
en
en •n. ,en NO
g We
Vi
•
V;
t■
„4
-.
...
-
,
a
..., "A -.
co t•-• NO un «,e.• e-
17,10::AM""?ME,*. v. S.
...
. _ _ .:2PT.gal' ag•i ■n
.v. -.-“-, ry v., (-4
-. e+ g
t
AP
■•■
p•
.7,
§
9
"
,f, i
At.nonc,, §H15Ratmraz...,, tigilFlatMn-1?-3.Pz"•sk
.
`" Q
... "'n 4 ° 0 4' ^"°'^
_.Q.71.
r,,
,-0-0, ..,c-11..,
,9.2 0.4 g,
,.,
—
a
*7
-
4.414.4-4
4-0,G44.44 ■ 1'4444-44v4r44c-4.
4.40,04-44.44
4-4W44.4-4Nesie.44-44
gIpS m
1_ ° .:71p_4§" i",
72
6
M
cV cVo
P,§. asin_
t-
44
. _ ser_ § § i
V
V. 0
V
D 00 •-0
M
0
C
Chene■IMNWI-.W.AWl-.. „
.,-,enu,••• ■ ••••
mm-vAr,,, - ,,,, -2
r.
A
,79-fil2.‘ se.
- ried3Rg.stnIVG"-'-‘
7.,M.s."41A1--i IS:144h
ir......c.00--,
ocnen.AN,C,
0. nt
ov)..,
•-.W1 Al •-• Vi. V. VP 00 I"....
e• e
....
•-■ .-. DS gi a
V1
,.,
-
CA
«,..tAmM.-ht2@:^.ti .0 (..0
e.i
ee■ •-•
4 R"
- '^,
:2,14..8,7,
. . .
-"env*
*".9A"^r;',g°sZes°
.4-
d
Guanajuato
O
•
,4...
...., I.;
N
N
- ga
.
en
-a rR Og R ', e NO i A I
■
_
e
N v , .-.
eq
CA ...
p,a
.s b
.-. ..
A. mt
r.. cr, co 41 co v) 1 R c)
--t szl
v
w s°
r-. N
"ill
,:h
"- w
r-
.-.
CA
r. a
VI UD CV Ch Ch
__"
“)
. S .SISR 01 S
claq
IN 4■1
•• • ,r,w.
V
R
" N e s •-■
7:
0 0 g ger
N
se 0 00
en
A
= 00 5 gvi
12 r
A OQ . .. A0
...
N
00
en r...
vp
CD VD Up vt
0 4t1 Al.
g .s.a
..,,,
.s -74.• 14
co ;I.-•
.-
41
en N
00
rep
" e- ",
2
en
tAr
.tRAcq„"4_,I;ir.-,.,,°A Pt P...7,1
-_ - g.1
s°,41
4":"
r e• n g,..., et .•. en N N N en .en K.-“-* zg 0l ,,z,
a
State o f Residence
in 1985
00
8 74
v
0
0
V
13
8,07)2
thE 0'
l'Toi
-1,0§1 A 8 .q,
331irsalabogo0818.•401,1110281
A
6,g,15.0
1../.1.1t5(3 -6668M m°4
o
n
.2e '" g '&2e gs 3i' a
See notes at the end o f this table.
Durango
O
1
— 211 —
.g—
§
,,7,...7:2Pg,i...gRwsp53
-Au,3,-;,13
iii2I9.8R
.7,
0,—.
...
nt en. cei -.
cc
en -.
s.mes,-..- R
......
0,,,—,
—
-
e
Quintana Roo
R
'13
0
se
(4e.f.ei-7
,fr
-
A flIhrir-Pi78AVrix441
0428/.,171.'
. v.
en
Se
—7
I:
en
en,o. re
..n rn nn
enl
m
•cr
tS
en 1.... t-- e-e
.1.-.
,•-■ -, asei
0
i
'',2p-,§52chet-- cst2
2
DI
en.
..
eei
. et
.0
„,.:-.'S;74.11Rpt,^4,"-,Z3YR.7,1•AiirIMiR
,.._ ,,, r
0
i
eni
oi
s0 •-,0
O.
.
'-'
eVI
1 g.FAVV-trzfiaS8;
•- .el en N NI ON
•- e4
■
-.
■
-.
_
1
eer
O.
p
p
.
g
g °°
P.
co
.
A ..rt-
zi A .1:
O
X
0
0
State ofResidence in 1990
01
O. 1-p
s.
e°
F
a
f
sAo r..P,
i- i g P;'r
i.1
2I r,,
-T .gEr,4
e` iIs°s
00
-7a4-4-a
..:
..
00
§79, .$, MS .., R ,F, 4 :+, ig 102 6 E E R
..; g
o
..
eie:,eA
i E0 ir ;
-
i
•
& ' E•.a, P- ,. MO..,. 4 a aP, 's2 E R 1
_
-
O.
Ps -s2' 11
0
a
1
0
0
t0
00000,
ws.s.42-s-s-.9.Avs.,r-000,4-0,v,sv.-0,9,-
,...,.,.:r.•-• en en YD
VD w"'A-g8"--8—^R40 e4
0 eV
.vl 00 0.
en ..
CV
,4
..e40me4 eereer...
...
an -: en el ren .
.-. .-.. Ces •-••- ■
se VD
fV
I
'A
vl
e; i lizi
-.
Z
re
E
Nayarit
A°
_ ,.....
— ,,
r..i,-. —,0,1,
—,
VegsC.ArnvgrAgsr,ro-Fv4s1
•-•
r.
NI
.........
ei
.........ei
N
41;;$ ,13 $ 3
'ng'ARF4,
I m3.74.w...
en en en
eq
en
esi
-.
01
,...
r1 •-•■
..
00
N
.-.
N
M
CO
1.1
6n
a1
0
4
en .I.
.I.
RRSA2A.Ag0i6°&M
.P.41 irAprzsgAggstgsig§,—
.......
en .--. 1 ■ e4
•• w, 0000.........
en en en ■0 .114 en ee eV en
.-...-. ei .0. s..,
N
i
l-, -.44
aw
...;
..,
a: fs", .7,
-er
.4.
State of Residence
in 1 985
A
1
,08
A
8
1)
c0 ii0
I 5, 0
tb .g
a
ts
P .ET 21
812
0
a
c
,
8 °
6001
'@ . . . al
g.
1331i cd als`1114P. 8 1 8.=1.31g<dolligs§1 A 8 •-•ts
4
,,,
g
i
0,
All:
8m 3 3
a
tindlata doql.-4111014 e7de20,01 B1-.-4P).,'
g g Z1
O
-0
6
TotalOutmigration
- 212 -
,e,4,,iwaaa:,,,§F.,A-p,riagAgiRRa6neggaa
cA cgi I
.ct. -vo IN
V t-- r en .:. r• en ...1 et
r. —,
vvn
, .01
— I, t.:
.-.:17...Agr:tg,':Itiagril
g
.
rpx.1,:agg
;--.„T:,*.fac,Csigic._ip
z
.-,_-.
et
c
-
.-‘
-* -.
•
to
,g A. eel
gre-. enPI A ,A- g-. s g V et -, V A i A I
w;. 12.15
- ,,`4"-1.,..15
.- -VI VI °Ir.en
Ce %
en
(''
.
A
113
0
"3
`7.
1
C
N
N
Vi
-.
State of Residence in 1 990
az
aa
N
N
OZ
14
t-
VI NI R
"..
V; 00 e4
en .a. el
00V 05
001
en V
I (.4 en
et. et
,.,e0 aVI07,
et V
..i
..zaw;aaa...7 a,,-;s
el
eg
en
(4
-
...:
en -.
el
vi
-. .1 •-• ...
cr■
•-•
.. •-• •-•
r; ,c
II
el
-, eq
P.
0,:icror L': 2 '4en* 24 cs• ff-I (71' 5 P. 2 go' V.9 N I '.N.--
4 47:lngler1
....
W
N
W
F
sedirnsuial
wy
A
i
.
..
VI en
51:9eVAIttla"leggl§ggairr,ggsh ;-.
, gAraa.,,,
et. en
en en 00 vl VZ•
r,
00 st V
-• Ces
st en
I-. N V en
..
...:04
N
... , el
.. I.
N.
8
el
ViSgrtZir-I r1APC:a4irtgrAgg:qgrnag
I V. A A §
en co V •-• mt. -• -■ •-•
/01 ei -•
Cn (4
el
•-•
•-• ,c) -• 0e. -.
•
Z
I
...VD
e4
el
00 00
CIO
00
•
v%
el
—
•
vl
el
A•et;3.01. gR-. st
E; V01 el00Ct,-..
r,2 a A .5;
A eeER. OA. g .,.1V. ER
E; gl n ik ;1
E3 A g2 ;3 :2, It. ' -■A 4 li ee
;, ERet EP.n.
V.
10.. et re V.
‘t. en el 00. V .........
-.46.-..4%.(4..m..
V1
.......
N
il
.-,
N
1
en
00
•
0
•-•
so.
^ 01. r gi
t
0
0
Oq
4 211 Pe
00 el un 0
-. CA
wl
on 1 00 ..., NI. et
,,,-...„-I 00—
ir-,amvs,7109..,:tri
"
-0., et ev kr. 0,RN-40-tAC,§.,,
.4.
.4 . 1--trtr-- r+
-,
st- .1...(1.
Nt
VI
..,
F.
•-•
Sonora
O
i : z A '' Zg gO,',D NA ' .1', I 'i 1 2
.,
gl ,r•-;
E 'CO
,.. —VA'
— ....
.„,, g . § Eg r.; 7.1 P. 1 ,'',a- ,..
8
R g; ci ti ';'
, RIZ 0 / 'ntoA
A-Z; A 7-,' ry',
"ga4arog,c4,
w,-......, .,,,,-...._
en en oo V.
en e• en -e e4
N
0n.
A
1.1
.
O
•
gen en V. V1 en -I en. N
OS
.,9, 74
00 .et .-. -. 0°, 1.- -,
se V. --, e4 •-• .-■ -• N
V
N
e•
2 c.-0.
N
Ceii
•-•
e4 e4
01
00
ww; a ei a;
e4 •••■
r4 -.
.4
-.
Ez
State ofResidence
in 1985
CIS
-4.%-, e.,1
0
.
0a
O.O.
VI
I ii-001
1" • 4' 'i - •9, °'
Za en rei
4 -. 00. -.
t:
''
z
i
L
c
..E .ei g
-. V
44.6.51Y.. ts ib.g
c2101(3dddOdadd.,
R.
,,s 81i
-
0 ...
s.lim,.
'IZ''2orf.e, 6 cl ig ,..
i
1 kb ,
kb . q a
'8
‘0,
1
,
‘I g lE
d :ET
-.
0
0a
0
0 i 0°.
gll 0 g
S
. 3311 m 11 a ..,1E a 8.8 1 s.v. °gm
a.g.....
4
811 2
g >.' 4 g g 'Z'
Bibliography
ALBA, Francisco. La poblaci6n de Mexico: evoluci6n y dilemas. College of
Mexico, Centre for Economic and Demographic Studies, Mexico, D.F.,
2nd ed., 1977, 192 p.
BENfTEZ ZENTENO, Raul and Gustavo CABRERA ACEVEDO. Proyecciones
de la poblacidn de Mexico, 1960-1980. Bank of Mexico S.A., 1966.
BOURGEOIS PICHAT, J. and Taleb SID AHMED. Un taux d'accroissement
nul pour les pays en voie de developpement en l'an 2000. Rive ou realite,
in Population 1970, No. 5.
BRONFMAN, Mario, LOPEZ, Elso and Rodolfo TUIRAN. "Practica anticonceptiva y clases sociales en Mexico: la experiencia reciente", Seminar
on La fecundidad en Mexico, cambios y perspectivas, College of Mexico,
Mexico, D.F., 7-9 March 1984, 78 p., mimeo.
CAMPOSORTEGA CRUZ, Sergio. Andlisis Demografico de la Mortalidad en
Mexico, 1940-1980. College of Mexico, Mexico, D.F., 1st ed., 1992, 444 p.
CENTRE FOR STUDIES ON POPULATION AND HEALTH (CEPS).
Working Papers (in Spanish). Various articles and authors, Mexico, D.F.,
Nos. 1-1992 to 6-1993.
COLLEGE OF MEXICO. Estudios demogrdficos y urbanos.
January-April 1991, Vol. 6, No. 1, 220 p.
Mexico, D.F.,
Dindmica de la poblaci6n de Mexico. Mexico, D.F., Centre for
Economic and Demographic Studies, 1970, 1st ed., 291 p.
COLLVER, Andrew. Birth Rates in Latin America: New Estimates of Historical
Trends and Fluctuations, Research Series, No. 7, Institute of International
Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1965, 187 p.
COSIO, Maria E., "Politiques de population au Mexique", in Politiques de
population, Etudes et documents, Vol. IV, No. 1, June 1989, pp. 5-134.
DEMOS: CARTA DEMOGRAFICA SOBRE MEXICO. Annual review edited
by Ratil Benitez Zenteno, Mexico, D.F., 1988-1992, Nos. 1-5.
DUMAS, Jean. Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada 1992, Current
Demographic Analysis, Ottawa, Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 91-209E,
November 1992, 157 p.
- 214 -
DUMAS, Jean and Yves PERON. Marriage and Conjugal Life in Canada,
Current Demographic Analysis, Ottawa, Statistics Canada, March 1992,
Catalogue No. 91-534E, special issue, 160 p.
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE (Poder ejecutivo federal). Segundo Informe
de Goblerno de Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado, Health and Social Security
Sector, Statistical Information.
FIGUEROA CAMPOS, Beatriz (comp.). La fecundidad en Mexico: cambios
y perspectival. College of Mexico, Mexico, D.F., 1st ed., 1989, 456 p.
FREJKA, T. Mexico (Perspectivas por pafses). The Population Council, New
York, 1975, 32p.
GARCfA Y GRIEGO, Manuel. "Emigration as a Safety Valve for Mexico's
Labor Market: A Post-IRCA Approximation", in Immigration and International Relations, Proceedings of a Conference on the International Effects
of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act CIRCA). Edited by Georges
Vernez, Rand Corporation/Urban Institute, Santa Monica, California and
Washington, DC, May 1990, pp. 115-134.
GLEASON GALICIA, Ruben. Las estadisticas vitales en Mexico, in Revista
de Estadistica, Mexico City, D.F., 1968, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 1629-1641.
HENRIPIN, Jacques. Trends and Factors of Fertility In Canada, Ottawa,
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 99-541E, 1968, 425 p.
IBARRA, Agustin E. Programa de trabajadores agrIcolas temporales mexicanos
al Canadd, in Migracidn internacional en las fronteras norte y sur de Mexico.
CONAPO (Ed.), 1992.
LAILSON, L., Jose HOMERO et al. Estimacidn de los nacimientos ocurridos
durante el period() 1950-1975, Mexico, Secretariat of Programming and
budget, 1979, 96 p. mimeo.
LATIN-AMERICAN CENTRE FOR DEMOGRAPHY (CELADE). Demographic bulletin: Latin America: Population Projections, 1950-2025, Year
XXVI, No. 51, 1st ed., Santiago, Chile, January 1993, 256 p.
Demographic bulletin: Latin America: Censal Information
About Indigenous People, Year XXV, No. 50, 1st ed. Santiago, Chile,
July 1992, 128 p.
Demographic bulletin: Latin America: Economically Active
Population, 1970-2000, Year XXV, No. 49, 1st ed. Santiago, Chile,
January 1992, 194 p.
- 215 -
Demographic bulletin: Latin America: Population Projections,
Calendar Years, 1950-2000, Year XXIV, No. 48, 1st ed. Santiago, Chile,
July 1991, 288 p.
Demographic bulletin: Latin America: Life Tables,
No. 44, 1st ed. Santiago, Chile, July 1989, 356 p.
Year XXII,
LOZANO ASCENCIO, Fernando. Bringing It Back Home, Remittances to
Mexico from Migrant Workers in the United States. Translated by Anibal
Yafiez. Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, United States, University of
California, San Diego, 1993, Monograph Series, 37, 80 p.
MARTIN, Philip L. Trade and Migration: NAFTA and Agriculture. Institute
for International Economics, Washington, DC, October 1993, No. 38.
MYER Y THERAN, Marta. "Evolution de la population mexicaine a partir des
donnies des recensements: 1895 1970". Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Graduate
Studies Faculty, University of Montreal, August 1982, Vol. 1 and 2, 589 p.
NAGNUR, Dhruva. Longevity and historical life tables 1921-1981, Canada and
provinces, Ottawa, Statistics Canada, July 1986, Catalogue No. 89-506,
216 p.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS, GEOGRAPHY AND INFORMATION (INEGI). Anuario Estadistico de los Estados Unidos Mexicans, edici6n
1992. Aguascalientes, Mexico, July 1993, Catalogue No. 147959, 610 p.
Estadisticas Demogrdficas: Cuaderno de Poblaci6n No.
Aguascalientes, Mexico, April 1992, Catalogue No. 416974, 482 p.
3.
Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Resumen General, XI Censo
General de Poblaci6n y Vivienda, 1990. Aguascalientes, Mexico, 1992,
Catalogue No. 416891.
X Censo General de Poblaci6n y Vivienda, 1980, Resumen
General Abreviado, Mexico, 1984. Mexico, D.F., June 1984.
X Censo General de Poblaci6n y Vivienda, 1980, Resumen
General, Volumen II, Mexico, 1986. Mexico, D.F., 1986, Catalogue
No. 41581-0.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS, GEOGRAPHY AND INFORMATION (INEGI) - SOCIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE
AUTONOMOUS NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO (IISUNAM).
La Transickin Demogrdfica en America Latina y el Caribe. Proceedings of
the IVth Latin-American Conference on Population, Mexico, 23-26 March
1993. Printed at INEGI, Aguascalientes, Mexico, March 1993, 946 p.
- 216 -
NATIONAL POPULATION COUNCIL (CONAPO). El poblamiento de
Mexico, Una visi6n historico-demogrdfica, Mexico en el siglo XX, Hacia el
nuevo milenio: el poblamiento en perspectiva. Mexico, D.F., March 1993,
tome IV, 216 p.
Indicadores Socioecon6micos e Indice de Marginaci6n Municipal,
1990. Mexico, D.F., 1st ed., January 1993, 308 p.
La Zona Metropolitan de la Ciudad de Mexico: Problemdtica
actual y perspectivas demogrdficas y urbanas. Mexico, D.F., 1st ed.,
December 1992, 294 p.
Migracidn international en las fronteras norte y sur de Mexico.
Mexico, D.F., 1st ed., December 1992, 408 p.
Memoria del seminario sobre la migraci6n internacional y el
desarrollo econ6mico de Mexico, Zacatecas, Zac., 1991. Mexico, D.F.,
1st ed., March 1992, 260 p.
Sistema de ciudades y distribuci6n espacial de la poblaci6n en
Mexico. Mexico, D.F., 1st ed., August 1991, 2 Vols. 424 p.
Informe sobre la situaciOn demogrdfica de Mexico, 1990.
Mexico, D.F., 2nd ed., April 1991, 104 p.
Programa nacional de planificaci6n familiar 1983-1988,
Mexico, D.F.
Mexico demogrdfico: Breviario 1978.
Mexico, D.F., 70 p.
Resultados de las proyecciones de la poblaci6n de Mexico.
Mexico, D.F.
PALMA CABRERA, Yolanda and Javier SUAREZ MORALES. El Descenso
de la Fecundidad en Mexico, in Demographic and Health Surveys World
Conference, Washington, DC, 5-7 August 1991, pp. 1833-1864.
POLLARD, J.H., "The expectation of life and its relationship to mortality",
in Journal of the Institute of Actuaries, 1982, No. 109, pp. 225-240.
QUILODRAN, Julieta. Niveles de fecundidad y patrones de nupcialidad en
Mexico. College of Mexico, Mexico, D.F., 1st ed., 1991, 244 p.
ROWE, Patricia M. Detailed Statistics on the Urban and Rural Population of
Mexico: 1950 to 2010, International Demographic Data Center, U.S. Bureau
of the Census, Washington, DC, 20233, August 1982, 242 p.
- 217 -
SECRETARIAT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE, STATISTICS BRANCH.
IX Censo general de poblacion - 1970: 28 de enero de 1970, Resumen general.
Mexico, D.F., 1972.
SECRETARIAT OF HEALTH, FAMILY PLANNING BRANCH. Andlisis
de la informaci6n del Programa de Planifkacion Familiar del Sector Salud.
August 1987, 64 p. mimeo.
VIII Censo general de poblaci6n - 1960: 8 de junio de 1960,
Resumen general. Mexico, D.F., 1962.
SECRETARIAT OF PROGRAMMING AND BUDGET. Agenda Estadistica
1978, Mexico, 1978.
STATISTICS BRANCH (SIC). Anuarios Estadisticos de los Estados Unidos
Mexicanos, Mexico, various years.
STATISTICS CANADA, DEMOGRAPHY DIVISION. Population Projection
1990-2011 Based on Recent Changes in Fertility Levels and Revised Immigration
Targets, Ottawa, December 1991, 40 p.
UNITED NATIONS. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical
Office, Demographic Yearbook, 1991, New York, 1992, 43rd ed., 570 p.
U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, Current Population Reports, P25-1092,
Population Projections of the United States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: 1992 to 2050. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,
1992.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service 1990. U .S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC, 1991. 230 p.
WARREN Robert and Jeffrey S. PASSEL. "A Count of the Uncountable:
Estimates of undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 United States
Census", Demography, Vol. 24, August 1987, 375-393 p.
Glossary'
Census year: A neologism patterned after "fiscal year". In Canada, it refers to
the 12-month period between June 1 of one year to May 31 of the following
year. It can equally designate the year during which a census is held.
Cohort: A group of individuals or couples who experience the same event during
a specified period. For example, there are birth cohorts and marriage cohorts.
Cohort, fictitious: An artificial cohort created from portions of actual cohorts
present at different successive ages in the same year.
Crude rate: Relates certain events to the size of the entire population. For
example, the crude birth rate for Canada is the ratio of the number of births
in Canada in a year to the size of the Canadian population at mid-year. Crude
death rates and crude divorce rates are calculated in the same way.
Current index: An index constructed from measurements of demographic
phenomena and based on the events reflecting those phenomena during a
given period, usually a year. For example, life expectancy in 1981 is a current
index in the sense that it indicates the average number of years a person would
live if he or she experienced 1981 conditions throughout his or her life.
Dependency ratio: A ratio that denotes the dependency on the working population of some or all of the non-working population.
Depopulation: The decline in the population of an area through an excess of
deaths over births (not to be confused with the depletion of an area through
emigration).
Endogamy: Marriage within a specific group.
Endogenous: Influences from inside the system.
Excess mortality: In differential mortality, the excess of one group's mortality
rate over another's (see Sex ratio).
Exogamy: Marriage outside of a specific group.
Exogenous: Influences from outside the system.
I
For further information consult the following: International Union for the Scientific Study of
Population, Multilingual Demographic Dictionary, Ordina Editions, Li4e, 1980; van de Walle,
Etienne. The Dictionary of Demography, ed. Christopher Wilson. Oxford, England: New York,
NY, USA.
- 220 Fertility: Relates the number of live births to the number of women, couples
or, very rarely, men.
Fertility, completed: The cumulative fertility of a cohort when all its members
have reached the end of their reproductive period.
Fertility, cumulative: Total live births from the beginning of the childbearing
period until a later date.
Frequency: Frequency of occurrence within a cohort of the events characterizing
a particular phenomenon.
Frequency, cumulative: Total frequency from the start of the period of exposure
to risk of event up to a later date.
Infant mortality: Mortality of children less than a year old.
Intercensal: The period between two censuses.
Life expectancy: A statistical measure derived from the life table that indicates
the average years of life remaining for a person at a specified age, if the
current age-specific mortality rates prevail for the remainder of that person's
life.
Life table: A detailed description of the mortality of a population giving the
probability of dying and various other statistics at each age.
Migration: Geographic mobility between one locale and another.
Natural increase: A change in population size over a given period as a result
of the difference between the numbers of births and deaths.
Neonatal mortality: Mortality in the first month after birth (part of infant
mortality).
Net migration: Difference between immigration and emigration for a given area
and period of time.
Nulliparous: Pertaining to a woman or a marriage of zero parity (has not
produced a child).
Parity: A term used in reference to a woman or a marriage to denote the number
of births or deliveries by the woman or in the marriage. A two-parity woman
is a woman who has given birth to a second-order child.
Population growth: A change, either positive or negative, in population size
over a given period.
- 221 -
Population movement: Gradual change in population status over a given period
attributable to the demographic events that occur during the period.
Movement here is not a synonym for migration.
Post neonatal mortality: Mortality between the ages of one month and one year.
-
Prevalence: Number of persons with a certain characteristic in a given group
of persons.
Ca 00.$
STAT STICS CANADA LIBRARY
BIB 10TH QUE STAT ST QUE CANADA
iiiwiiWiiuiuiuio
1010160149
4
"44
-,
-
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertising