View the most recent version.

More information on Census metropolitan area (CMA) and census agglomeration (CA)

Censuses:

2006, 2001, 1996, 1991, 1986, 1981, 1976, 1971, 1966, 1961, 1956, 1951, 1941

Remarks:

Delineation rules for CMAs and CAs

A CMA or CA is delineated using adjacent municipalities (census subdivisions) as building blocks. These census subdivisions (CSDs) are included in the CMA or CA if they meet at least one of the following rules. The rules are ranked in order of priority. A CSD obeying the rules for two or more CMAs or CAs is included in the one for which it has the highest ranked rule. If the CSD meets rules that have the same rank, the decision is based on the population or the number of commuters involved. A CMA or CA is delineated to ensure spatial contiguity.

1. Urban core rule: The CSD falls completely or partly inside the urban core.

A core hole is a CSD enclosed by a CSD that is at least partly within the urban core and must be included to maintain spatial contiguity. In Figure 25, CSDs A, B and C are included in the CMA or CA because of the urban core rule. CSD C is a core hole.

2. Forward commuting flow rule: Given a minimum of 100 commuters, at least 50% of the employed labour force living in the CSD works in the delineation urban core (see following note), as determined from commuting data based on the place of work question in the last decennial census (2001 Census).

Note:

For CMA and CA delineation purposes, a delineation urban core is created respecting CSD limits. For a CSD to be included in the delineation urban core, at least 75% of a CSD's population must reside within the urban core. In Figure 26, CSD A is part of the delineation urban core since its entire population resides within the urban core. CSD B would also be part of the delineation urban core if at least 75% of its population resides within the urban core. For this example, we have assumed that less than 75% of the population of CSD B resides within the urban core; therefore, CSD B and its enclosed hole, CSD C, are not considered to be part of the delineation urban core.

3. Reverse commuting flow rule: Given a minimum of 100 commuters, at least 25% of the employed labour force working in the CSD lives in the delineation urban core as determined from commuting data based on the place of work question in the last decennial census (2001 Census). In Figure 27, at least 25% of the employed labour force working in CSD E lives in CSD A (see Note for rule 2).

4. Spatial contiguity rule: CSDs that do not meet a commuting flow threshold may be included in a CMA or CA, and CSDs that do meet a commuting flow threshold may be excluded from a CMA or CA.

Two situations can lead to inclusion or exclusion of a CSD in a CMA or CA for reasons of spatial contiguity. Specifically these are:

Outlier — A CSD (F in Figure 28) with sufficient commuting flows (either forward or reverse) is enclosed by a CSD (G in Figure 28) with insufficient commuting flows, but which is adjacent to the CMA or CA. When this situation arises, the CSDs within and including the enclosing CSD are grouped to create a minimum CSD set (F + G). The total commuting flows for the minimum CSD set are then considered for inclusion in the CMA or CA. If the minimum CSD set has sufficient commuting flows (either forward or reverse), then all of its CSDs are included in the CMA or CA.

Hole — A CSD (H in Figure 28) with insufficient commuting flows (either forward or reverse) is enclosed by a CSD (I in Figure 28) with sufficient commuting flows, and which is adjacent to the CMA or CA. When this situation arises, the CSDs within and including the enclosing CSD are grouped to create a minimum CSD set (H + I). The total commuting flows for the minimum CSD set are then considered for inclusion in the CMA or CA. If the minimum CSD set has sufficient commuting flows (either forward or reverse), then all of its CSDs are included in the CMA or CA.

5. Historical comparability rule: To maintain historical comparability for CMAs and larger CAs (those with census tracts in the previous census), CSDs are retained in the CMA or CA even if their commuting flow percentages fall below the commuting flow thresholds (rules 2 and 3). See Figure 29.

1. An exception to the historical comparability rule is made in cases where CSDs have undergone changes to their boundaries, such as annexations. To determine whether to keep or exclude a CSD, place of work data are retabulated for the CSD with boundary changes, and a decision to include or exclude the CSD is made according to the previous rules.

6. Manual adjustments: A CMA or CA represents an area that is economically and socially integrated. However, there are certain limitations to the extent by which this ideal can be met. Since the CSDs that are used as building blocks in CMA and CA delineation are administrative units, their boundaries are not always the most suitable with respect to CMA and CA delineation. There are always situations where the application of the above rules creates undesirable outcomes, or where the rules cannot be easily applied. In these circumstances, a manual override is sometimes applied to ensure that the integrity of the program is retained. For example, in Miramichi CA (New Brunswick), the CSD of Red Bank 4, IRI, which is in two parts, is included to maintain spatial contiguity.

7. Merging adjacent CMAs and CAs: A CA adjacent to a CMA can be merged with the CMA if the total percentage commuting interchange between the CA and CMA is equal to at least 35% of the employed labour force living in the CA, based on place of work data from the decennial census. The total percentage commuting interchange is the sum of the commuting flow in both directions between the CMA and the CA as a percentage of the labour force living in the CA (i.e., resident employed labour force).

1. If more than one CA is adjacent to the same CMA, each CA is assessed separately with the CMA. Several CAs may be merged with one CMA. If the total percentage commuting interchange is less than 35%, the CMA and CA are not merged. After a CA is merged with a CMA, the urban core of the former CA is called the secondary urban core of the CMA. See figure 30.

Names and coding structure

CMA and CA names are usually based on the principal urban area or census subdivision (as of the geographic reference date) within the CMA or CA. Each CMA and CA is assigned a three-digit code that identifies it uniquely in Canada. The first digit is the same as the second digit of the province code in which the CMA or CA is located. If a CMA or CA spans a provincial boundary, then the province code assigned represents the province with the greater proportion of urban core population. Codes for CMAs or CAs in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories begin with the same digit as for those CMAs or CAs located in British Columbia. There are currently no CMAs or CAs in Nunavut.

If data for provincial parts are required, it is recommended that the two-digit province/territory code precede the CMA/CA code for those CMAs/CAs that cross provincial boundaries. For example:

Changes to the number of CMAs and CAs for the 2006 Census

Table 1 in the Introduction shows the number of census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations by province and territory.

As of March 2003, CAs are no longer required to have an urban core population count of 100,000 to be promoted to the status of a census metropolitan area. Instead, census agglomerations assume the status of a census metropolitan area if they have attained a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more live in the urban core.

Six CAs from the previous census became CMAs: Moncton (N.B.), Barrie (Ont.), Brantford (Ont.), Guelph (Ont.), Peterborough (Ont.), and Kelowna (B.C.).

Three CMAs had their names changed: Chicoutimi - Jonquière became Saguenay (Que.), Ottawa - Hull became Ottawa - Gatineau (Ont./Que.) and Greater Sudbury became Greater Sudbury / Grand Sudbury (Ont.). One CA had its name changed: Haileybury became Temiskaming Shores (Ont.).

Seven new CAs were created: Bay Roberts (N.L.), Miramichi (N.B.), Centre Wellington (Ont.), Ingersoll (Ont.), Okotoks (Alta.), Canmore (Alta.) and Salmon Arm (B.C.).

The 2001 CA of Magog (Que.) merged with the CMA of Sherbrooke (Que.) since the commuting interchange between the CMA and CA is equal to at least 35% of the employed labour force living in the CA, based on the 2001 Place of work data. The census subdivisions formerly assigned to the 2001 CA of Magog (Que.) are assigned to the 2006 CMA of Sherbrooke (Que.).

The CAs of Labrador City (N.L.) and Gander (N.L.) were retired because the population of their urban cores dropped below 10,000 in 2001.

Data quality

CMAs and CAs are statistically comparable because they are delineated in the same way across Canada. They differ from other areas such as trading or marketing areas, or regional planning areas designated by regional authorities for planning and other purposes, and should be used with caution for non-statistical purposes.

The CSD limits used in CMA and CA delineation are those in effect on January 1, 2006 (the geographic reference date for the 2006 Census) and received by Statistics Canada before March 1, 2006. In addition, CMA and CA delineation uses commuting data based on the place of work question asked in the decennial census. Thus, the 2006 CMAs and CAs are based on the population and place of work data from the 2001 Census while the 2001 and 1996 CMAs and CAs are based on population and place of work data from the 1991 Census.

Refer to the related definitions of census subdivision (CSD); urban area (UA); and urban core, urban fringe and rural fringe, and to the geography working papers Reviewing Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA) and Census Agglomerations (CA) in Canada According to Metropolitan Functionality (Catalogue no. 92F0138MIE2003001) and Preliminary 2006 Census Metropolitan Area and Census Agglomeration Delineation (Catalogue no. 92F0138MIE2003002).

Changes prior to the current census:

2001

1996

1986

1981

1976

1971

1966

1961

1956

1951

1941