city magnets iii: benchmarking the attractiveness of 50...

CITY MAGNETS III

Benchmarking the Attractiveness of 50 Canadian Cities.

REPORT SEPTEMBER 2014

City Magnets III: Benchmarking the Attractiveness of 50 Canadian Cities The Conference Board of Canada

Preface

City Magnets III: Benchmarking the Attractiveness of 50 Canadian Cities analyzes and benchmarks the features that make Canadian cities attractive to skilled workers and mobile populations. Cities without the ability to act as magnets and attract new people will struggle to stay prosperous in the decades ahead. In keeping with the Conference Board’s How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada, this report ranks outcomes, or proxies for outcomes, and tells us how attractive our cities are to people. The performance of 50 cities is compared across seven different categories: Society, Health, Economy, Environment, Education, Innovation, and Housing.

To cite this report: The Conference Board of Canada, City Magnets III: Benchmarking the Attractiveness of 50 Canadian Cities. Ottawa, The Conference Board of Canada, 2014.

©2014 The Conference Board of Canada* Published in Canada | All rights reserved | Agreement no. 40063028 | *incorporated as AERiC inc.

An accessible version of this document for the visually impaired is available upon request. Accessibility Officer, The Conference Board of Canada Tel.: 613-526-3280 or 1-866-711-2262 E-mail: [email protected]

®The Conference Board of Canada and the torch logo are registered trademarks of The Conference Board, inc. Forecasts and research often involve numerous assumptions and data sources, and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. This information is not intended as specific investment, accounting, legal, or tax advice.

CONTENTS

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chapter 1 1 introduction

Chapter 2 8 Methodology 9 City Selection 10 Indicator Selection 11 Rankings for Each Indicator 12 Rankings for Each Category 13 Overall Rankings

Chapter 3 14 Society

Chapter 4 25 Health

Chapter 5 32 Economy

Chapter 6 42 Environment

Chapter 7 47 Education

Chapter 8 53 innovation

Chapter 9 59 Housing

Chapter 10 65 Magnetic north: The Attractiveness of Canada’s Cities 73 “A” Cities: Strong Magnets 78 “B” Cities: Magnetic Appeal 79 “C” Cities: Room for Improvement 80 “D” Cities: Struggling to Attract

Chapter 11 82 Conclusion

Appendix A 85 Retrospective: Looking Back at City Magnets II

Appendix B 95 Bibliography

Appendix C 97 indicators of Performance in Each Category, by City

AcknowledgementsTeam for the preparation of City Magnets III: Benchmarking the Attractiveness of 50 Canadian Cities

Project Director Pedro Antunes

Principal Author Marni Cappe

Contributors Alan Arcand, Greg Sutherland, Jane McIntyre

Editing Stephanie Small

Proofreading Craig MacLaine

Graphics and Layout Colette Boisvert

Production Management Nikki McGuinty

This work could not have been completed without the incredible support of our investors. Thanks to all of them:

The City of Brampton

The City of Calgary

The City of Edmonton

La Ville de Lévis

The City of Markham

The City of Moncton

La Ville de Montréal

The City of Ottawa

The City of Regina

The City of Richmond

The City of St. John’s

The City of Saskatoon

The City of Surrey

The City of Toronto

The City of Vaughan

Find this and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City Magnets III: Benchmarking the Attractiveness of 50 Canadian Cities

At a Glance

• City Magnets III grades and ranks 50 Canadian cities according to features that make them attractive to mobile populations.

• The 43 features we identify as making cities attractive are grouped into seven main categories: Society, Health, Economy, Environment, Education, innovation, and Housing.

• Six cities earn “A” grades across the board: Waterloo, Calgary, Ottawa, Richmond Hill, Vancouver, and St. John’s.

CiTy MAGnETS iiiBenchmarking the Attractiveness of 50 Canadian Cities

Find this and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca ii

This is the third City Magnets report prepared by The Conference Board of Canada to analyze the dynamics of city living. Like City Magnets II (2010), this report starts with the premise that cities failing to attract new people will struggle to stay prosperous and vibrant. We analyze 50 Canadian cities according to 43 features that make cities attractive to highly mobile populations.

Furthering the work of City Magnets II, this report also investigates

whether university-educated migrants use different criteria than non-

university-educated migrants when choosing where to live. As it turns

out, the criteria used by migrants are almost the same, regardless of

education levels, although modest variations exist on how individual

criteria are weighted. For instance, university-educated migrants value

aspects of urban living that make a city a great place to live, work, and

play (characteristics grouped here under our Society category) more

highly than other migrants do.

This edition of City Magnets includes a retrospective that shows results

for 2014 mirror closely those of 2010: the best cities are still at the top;

and for the most part, the struggling cities continue to struggle.

City Rankings by Category

The 43 features we identify as making cities attractive are grouped

into seven main categories: Society, Health, Economy, Environment,

Education, innovation, and Housing.

in the Society category, Canada’s largest cities generally perform best.

Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, and Ottawa are the top four, followed

by three cities within the Toronto census metropolitan area: Markham,

Richmond Hill, and Brampton. Each of these “A” cities has its own

unique appeal, but they all share a diverse and strong multicultural base.

Executive Summary | The Conference Board of Canada

Find this and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca iii

Small cities tend to have weaker outcomes in this category; five of the

six cities with “D” grades are small. Apart from their small size, these

cities share the following traits: low levels of foreign-born population and

diversity, low density, low levels of non-automobile commuting, and few

residents in cultural occupations.

When it comes to Health, small and mid-sized cities emerge as the

best places for good access to health care. Apart from Halifax (fourth-

best), the top eight cities have populations of less than 160,000. The

performance of small cities is likely due, in part, to the role of regional

health services based in smaller cities and serving a broad hinterland.

Overall, only Kingston and St. John’s score high enough to earn an

“A” grade in the Health category, and only three big cities are counted

among the 11 “B” grades (Québec City, Hamilton, and Vancouver).

Suburban cities generally fare worse than the big cities dominating

their respective census metropolitan areas in Health.

The Economy category, based on 2011 data, provides a snapshot

of how each urban centre performed in the post-recession recovery

period. not surprisingly, cities in the West are among the top performers,

thanks to the booming resource-based economies in Alberta and

Saskatchewan. Overall results reveal solid economies for half of the

50 cities earning “A” or “B” grades. Only 5 cities have a “D” grade;

4 are in Ontario, struggling to recover post-recession.

Cities in British Columbia dominate the Environment category,

accounting for half of the top 10 cities. Montréal and its suburbs

(Longueuil and Laval) have three of the six worst results on the

environment. Montréal (50th) is the only city with a “D” grade. not

much better off, Toronto and the suburbs of Oakville, Mississauga,

and Vaughan find themselves among the bottom 8 cities. What

these cities have in common are too many air quality advisories and

a long solo commute to work.


Find this and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca iv

in the Education category, two small cities stand out in the field of

50: Waterloo (1st) and Kingston (2nd) get the only two “A” grades.

Both enjoy the benefits of a “town and gown” city, with two universities

located within each of their borders. The cities with the poorest results

are generally (although not uniformly) small and also have weak results

on the knowledge employment indicator in the Economy category. in

fact, the cities with the seven lowest results on Education overall are the

same seven cities at the bottom on knowledge employment.

Five cities earn an “A” grade on Innovation: Calgary, Waterloo,

Richmond Hill, Markham, and Burnaby. not surprisingly, the top two

cities, Calgary (1st) and Waterloo (2nd) are also the two best cities in

the Economy category. Of the 10 “B” cities in the innovation category,

3 are in the Toronto census metropolitan area and 3 are in the

Vancouver census metropolitan area. Ottawa, Edmonton, and Regina

complete the list. All but 3 of the 18 “D” cities are in Ontario and Quebec

and, for the most part, have economies based on manufacturing or

resources (excluding oil and gas). The cities with the weakest scores

on innovation also fared badly in the Economy overall.

The Housing category is the smallest, relying on only three indicators,

of which two relate to affordability and the third to housing condition.

Small and mid-sized cities dominate the top tier in this category (with

the notable exception of Québec City and Calgary). Led by Lévis, half of

the six “A” cities are in Quebec—one contributing factor is the existence

of strong rent control legislation resulting in relatively affordable rents.

Oakville, Waterloo, and Calgary account for the other three “A”s—all

three are among the leading cities when it comes to per capita income,

allowing for relatively strong results on affordability. At the low end of the

spectrum, 10 cities have “D” grades, including Vancouver, three of its

suburbs, and Victoria.

Executive Summary | The Conference Board of Canada

Find this and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca v

Magnetic North: The Attractiveness of Canada’s Cities

The overarching goal of this report is to gauge the appeal of these

50 Canadian cities to new migrants and to understand how education

levels may influence locational choices. The evidence is clear: cities that

emerge as the top destinations for university-educated migrants are also

at the top of the list for non-university-educated migrants.

Six cities earn “A” grades across the board: Waterloo, Calgary, Ottawa,

Richmond Hill, Vancouver, and St. John’s. These six cities, extending

from coast to coast, represent a diverse cluster of cities, emblematic

of Canada overall. Each of these cities offers a unique combination of

attributes that add up to a great place to live. For some, like Calgary and

St. John’s, economic opportunities abound; for others, like Vancouver,

welcoming communities strengthen already diverse, multicultural

neighbourhoods. More importantly, each “A” city shares at least one

thing in common: it excels in more than one of the seven categories.

The next tier of successful cities are those 14 cities with an overall

“B” grade, representing six provinces and including a majority of the

mid-sized cities. included among the “B” cities, which are located all

across the country, are a diverse group of suburbs and “hub” cities—

that is, the largest cities within their respective areas, typically the

historical heart of the area

For 17 cities, a “C” grade signals room for improvement. This group

includes a range of small, medium-sized, and big cities from across

Canada, but three-quarters are in Ontario or Quebec. Overall, the

“C” cities have poor results on either Economy or Society, or in a

few instances, on both.

Without question, the “D” cities are struggling, and it matters little

whether they are measured against migrants with a university degree

or without. Most of the “D” cities are in Ontario, and all but one are

small or mid-sized.


CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Chapter Summary

• Attracting skilled and creative workers is crucial to the competitiveness of Canada and its cities.

• City Magnets III compares the performance of 50 Canadian cities across seven categories: Economy, Society, Health, Environment, innovation, Education, and Housing. These categories are broken down into 43 features that make cities attractive to mobile populations.

• Migrants with and without university degrees use similar criteria when choosing where to live, although modest variations exist in how individual criteria are weighted.

• Aside from some notable changes, results for this 2014 report mirror closely those of our 2010 report: the best cities are still at the top; and for the most part, the struggling cities continue to struggle.


Find this and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca 2

This is the third City Magnets report prepared by The Conference Board of Canada to analyze the dynamics of city living. Like City Magnets II (2010), this report starts with the premise that cities failing to attract new people will struggle to stay prosperous and vibrant. The Conference Board has been a keen observer and analyst of the Canadian economy, and has argued strenuously that attracting skilled and creative workers is crucial to this country’s competitiveness.

in City Magnets III, we analyze 50 Canadian cities according to

43 features that make them attractive to mobile populations, be they

from other countries, other provinces, or other cities. These indicators

were developed based on the Conference Board’s own work and

informed by the work of other urban experts. in this 2014 edition, two

new indicators have been added: full-time employment and population

in occupations supporting health care. As in our previous City Magnets

report, cities are benchmarked by grouping the indicators into seven

categories: Economy, Society, Health, Environment, innovation,

Education, and Housing.

in preparing the overall results, the Conference Board developed

a unique analytical tool to explore more deeply the relationship

between migrants and successful cities. As explained in the following

Methodology section, this analytical tool is based on calculating weights

for each of the seven categories, in accordance with the education

levels of immigrants. We set out to explore whether university-educated

migrants use different criteria than non-university-educated migrants

when choosing where to live. As it turns out, the criteria used by migrants

are almost the same, regardless of education levels, although modest

variations exist in how individual criteria are weighted. For instance,

university-educated migrants value education more highly than other

migrants do, but not dramatically more.

Chapter 1 | The Conference Board of Canada


This edition of City Magnets includes a retrospective comparing current

results with those of City Magnets II. As it happens, results for 2014

mirror closely those of 2010: the best cities are still at the top; and for the

most part, the struggling cities continue to struggle. A handful of cities

have seen significant improvement in their rankings (Saskatoon, Regina,

Burnaby, Moncton, Coquitlam, and Saguenay), but others have dropped.

The 50 cities include the 44 most populous cities in Canada, plus 6 cities

that are critical hubs within their respective census metropolitan areas

(Waterloo, Brantford, Victoria, Peterborough, Saint John, and Moncton).

The cities are found in 9 of Canada’s 10 provinces, although of the total,

nearly half are in Ontario (24). What’s more, of these 24, 18 are part of

the Toronto-centred region known as the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Another 9 cities are in Quebec; 8 are in British Columbia.

it must be emphasized the Conference Board does not compare these

50 cities on the premise that they are competing against each other. in

an ideal world, each city would be benchmarked against the optimal level

for each indicator; however, in the real world, such an optimum does not

exist. The second-best option is to benchmark them against each other

to gauge where each city ranks vis-à-vis the top performer. De facto,

this makes the best performance the optimal result. Benchmarking also

becomes more useful when carried out consistently over time, allowing

each city to measure its own progress. This is why City Magnets III

includes an additional section that compares the current results with

those of City Magnets II. in this regard, City Magnets III provides much

added value for decision-makers in each of these 50 cities.

Table 1 provides census data on population and growth rates (between

2006 and 2011) for all cities, grouping the cities according to size,

as follows:

• big cities of over 450,000 inhabitants: 12 (2 more than in City Magnets II)

• mid-sized cities of 150,000–449,999: 18

• small cities of 60,000–149,999: 20

Benchmarking becomes more useful when carried out consistently over time, allowing each city to measure its own progress.



Table 1Population and Growth Rates for 50 of Canada’s Largest Cities

CityPopulation,

2011Population,

2006Average annual

growth (%)Five-year

growth (%)City population as percentage

of census metropolitan area (%) Area km2

Big cities

Toronto, Ont. 2,615,060 2,503,281 0.9 4.5 46.9 630.21

Montréal, Que. 1,649,519 1,620,693 0.4 1.8 43.1 365.13

Calgary, Alta. 1,096,833 988,812 2.1 11.0 90.3 825.29

Ottawa, Ont. 883,391 812,129 1.7 8.8 71.5 2,790.22

Edmonton, Alta. 812,201 730,372 2.1 11.2 70.0 684.37

Mississauga, Ont. 713,443 668,599 1.3 6.8 12.8 292.40

Winnipeg, Man. 663,617 633,451 0.9 4.8 90.9 464.08

Vancouver, B.C. 603,502 578,041 0.9 4.4 26.1 114.97

Brampton, Ont. 523,911 433,806 3.8 20.8 9.4 266.34

Hamilton, Ont. 519,949 504,559 0.6 3.1 72.1 1,117.23

Québec City, Que. 516,622 491,142 1.0 5.2 67.5 454.10

Surrey, B.C. 468,251 394,976 3.5 18.6 20.2 316.41

Mid-sized cities

Laval, Que. 401,553 368,709 1.7 8.9 10.5 247.09

Halifax, n.S. 390,096 372,679 0.9 4.7 99.9 5,490.28

London, Ont. 366,151 352,395 0.8 3.9 77.1 420.57

Markham, Ont. 301,709 261,573 2.9 15.3 5.4 212.58

Vaughan, Ont. 288,301 238,866 3.8 20.7 5.2 273.52

Gatineau, Que. 265,349 242,124 1.8 9.6 21.5 342.98

Longueuil, Que. 231,409 229,330 0.2 0.9 6.1 115.59

Burnaby, B.C. 223,218 202,799 1.9 10.1 9.6 90.61

Saskatoon, Sask. 222,189 202,408 1.9 9.8 85.3 209.56

Kitchener, Ont. 219,153 204,668 1.4 7.1 45.9 136.79

Windsor, Ont. 210,891 216,473 –0.5 –2.6 65.1 146.32

Regina, Sask. 193,100 179,282 1.5 7.7 91.7 145.45

Richmond, B.C. 190,473 174,461 1.8 9.2 8.2 129.27

(continued ...)



Table 1 (cont’d)Population and Growth Rates for 50 of Canada’s Largest Cities

CityPopulation,

2011Population,

2006Average annual

growth (%)Five-year

growth (%)City population as percentage

of census metropolitan area (%) Area km2

Richmond Hill, Ont. 185,541 162,704 2.7 14.0 3.3 100.95

Oakville, Ont. 182,520 165,613 2.0 10.2 3.3 138.88

Burlington, Ont. 175,779 164,415 1.3 6.9 24.4 185.66

Greater Sudbury, Ont. 160,274 157,857 0.3 1.5 99.7 3,227.38

Sherbrooke, Que. 154,601 147,427 1.0 4.9 76.6 353.49

Small cities

Oshawa, Ont. 149,607 141,590 1.1 5.7 42.0 145.68

Saguenay, Que. 144,746 143,692 0.1 0.7 91.7 1,126.48

Lévis, Que. 138,769 130,006 1.3 6.7 18.1 449.31

Barrie, Ont. 135,711 128,430 1.1 5.7 72.6 77.39

Abbotsford, B.C. 133,497 124,258 1.4 7.4 78.4 375.55

St. Catharines, Ont. 131,400 131,989 –0.1 –0.4 33.5 96.11

Trois-Rivières, Que. 131,338 126,293 0.8 4.0 86.5 288.90

Cambridge, Ont. 126,748 120,371 1.0 5.3 26.6 113.00

Coquitlam, B.C. 126,456 114,565 2.0 10.4 5.5 122.30

Kingston, Ont. 123,363 117,207 1.0 5.3 77.3 451.17

Guelph, Ont. 121,688 114,943 1.1 5.9 86.2 87.20

Kelowna, B.C. 117,312 107,035 1.9 9.6 65.2 211.82

Thunder Bay, Ont. 108,359 109,160 –0.1 –0.7 89.1 328.24

St. John's, nfld. 106,172 100,646 1.1 5.5 54.0 446.06

Waterloo, Ont. 98,780 97,475 0.3 1.3 20.7 64.02

Brantford, Ont. 93,650 90,192 0.8 3.8 69.1 72.47

Victoria, B.C. 80,017 78,057 0.5 2.5 23.2 19.47

Peterborough, Ont. 78,698 75,406 0.9 4.4 66.1 63.80

Saint John, n.B. 70,063 68,043 0.6 3 54.8 315.82

Moncton, n.B. 69,074 64,128 1.5 7.7 49.8 141.17

Canada 33,476,688 31,612,897 1.2 5.9 8,965,121.42

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.



By international standards, of course, a big city would have millions

of people. in Canada, only 3 cities top 1 million: Toronto, Montréal, and

Calgary (joining the 1 million+ club as of Census 2011). Accordingly, for

this Canadian study, we have identified a threshold of 450,000 people for

a city to qualify as “big,” resulting in an inventory of 12 big cities.

Large Census Metropolitan Areas

Statistics Canada defines a census metropolitan area as being formed by one

or more adjacent municipalities centred on a population centre, known as the

core or “hub” city.

Toronto census metropolitan area includes:• Toronto

• Mississauga

• Brampton

• Markham

• Vaughan

• Richmond Hill

• Oakville

• plus 16 other municipalities

Vancouver census metropolitan area includes:• Vancouver

• Surrey

• Burnaby

• Richmond

• Coquitlam


Montréal census metropolitan area includes:• Montréal

• Laval

• Longueuil




Between 2006 and 2011, population growth in key suburbs around

Toronto and Vancouver continued to outpace the rest of urban Canada.

Just as in the previous five-year period, Brampton and Vaughan led

all 50 municipalities with explosive growth, topping 20 per cent—more

than three times the Canadian average. Close behind, Surrey grew by

18.6 per cent. Two other suburban municipalities north of Toronto—

Markham and Richmond Hill—also had double-digit growth over the

period, once again among the fastest-growing cities in Canada, albeit at

a somewhat slower rate than in 2001–06. Among Canada’s largest cities,

Calgary and Edmonton led the way with growth above 11 per cent.

in all, fewer than half the cities grew faster than the Canadian

average of 5.9 per cent. And three cities lost population: Thunder

Bay, St. Catharines, and Windsor (which lost the most with a 2.6 per

cent drop in population). Small population increases of less than 2 per

cent occurred in a handful of cities in Ontario and Quebec, including

Montréal, Longueuil, Greater Sudbury, Saguenay, and Waterloo. it is

worth noting that while Saint John’s population growth was modest at

only 3 per cent over 2006–11, the city managed to reverse the trend of

declining population in 2001–06.


CHAPTER 2

Methodology

Chapter Summary

• This report grades the attractiveness of 50 of Canada’s largest cities, selected not only by population size but also to make sure the core city of each census metropolitan area is included.

• Report card rankings of A–B–C–D are used to assess each city’s overall performance, its performance in each of seven categories, and its performance on a range of indicators within each category.

• Three overall rankings of each city’s attractiveness to migrants were calculated: one for migrants overall, a second for migrants with a university degree, and a third for migrants without a university degree.

• The interplay of the weights of the categories with the migration indicators gave us these three overall rankings, and allowed us to test whether the attractiveness of cities to migrants differs by level of education.



For almost two decades, the Conference Board has been ranking Canada’s performance on a wide range of socio-economic indicators in comparison with other peer countries. In 2007, City Magnets built on that tradition by comparing the performance of all 27 census metropolitan areas in Canada across seven categories: economy, innovation, environment, education, housing, health, and society. The over-arching goal of “a high and sustainable quality of life for all Canadians” provides the context to select specific indicators within these categories.

Drawing on the success of the very first City Magnets report, the

Conference Board created an expanded report card in 2010, grading

50 major Canadian cities. in City Magnets II: Benchmarking the

Attractiveness of Canada’s Cities, we adopted the methodology of

City Magnets by using the same seven categories, using a report card

ranking, and using the same formula to calculate grades. in this edition,

City Magnets III carries forward the methodology and city selection

process used in 2010. However, the indicators have been updated for the

current report—all gross domestic product indicators were re-estimated

using employment data based on place of work (as opposed to place

of residence), while full-time employment and occupations supporting

health care are new indicators.

City Selection

A key starting point for this benchmarking project was the decision

about which cities to include. The original intent was to include

Canada’s 50 largest cities, but that was modified to ensure that the

core city of each census metropolitan area, as defined and used by

Statistics Canada to conduct Canada’s census, was not omitted.



For that reason, cities with larger populations were excluded in favour

of Guelph, Thunder Bay, St. John’s, Waterloo, Brantford, Victoria,

Peterborough, Saint John, and Moncton.

Indicator Selection

The search for indicators began with a commitment to find measures

that influence the location decisions of Canada’s migrants, be they

international, interprovincial, or intercity migrants. Using this as a

starting point, we set out to benchmark the attractiveness of Canada’s

cities using metropolitan boundaries according to Statistics Canada’s

classification of census subdivisions.

The indicators we selected were based on input from municipal officials

and had to meet the following criteria:

1. The indicator provides valuable information on the performance or status

of the particular category—either as a direct output (e.g., disposable

income) or proxy measure (e.g., number of physicians per capita as a

proxy for health care access).

2. The indicator data are consistent to ensure comparability among the

50 cities and to enable future time series analysis.

3. The data are reliable and have timely availability.

By far, the second criterion was the most limiting, as it ruled out the

possibility of using municipal own-source data and had the effect of

eliminating some key measures. For instance, it is widely recognized that

the availability of green space in a city can be a major draw for people

contemplating a move. However, there is no readily available consistent

source of information on the proportion of green space within cities for

all 50 census subdivisions. Furthermore, terms like green space, open

space, and recreational space are often used interchangeably, putting

a question mark on the reliability of survey data.



Rankings for Each Indicator

This study uses a report card–style ranking of A–B–C–D to assess

the performance of cities on each indicator. We assigned a grade level

to performance using the following method: For each indicator, we

calculated the difference between the top and bottom performer and

divided this figure by four. A city received a grade of “A” on a given

indicator if its score was in the top quartile, a “B” if its score was in the

second quartile, a “C” if its score was in the third quartile, and a “D” if

its score was in the bottom quartile.

For example, on the Society indicator that measures the proportion of

the population that is foreign-born, the top performer (Richmond) had

59.3 per cent of its population foreign-born in 2011 and the bottom

performer (Saguenay) had only 1.1 per cent. Applying the method for

scoring yields the following ranges for each grade:

• “A”: 59.3–43.3 per cent

• “B”: 43.2–28.5 per cent

• “C”: 28.4–13.7 per cent

• “D”: 13.6–1.1 per cent

(note: in this example, a high score indicates a high level of

performance. For indicators where a low score signifies a high level of

performance—such as the incidence of violent crime—the ranking levels

are reversed, i.e., the highest result receives the lower grade.)

it must be emphasized that two cities with “A” grades do not necessarily

perform equally according to this methodology. in the example above, a

city scoring 45 per cent would get an “A” grade in the same way that a

city scoring 55 per cent would. However, when we establish a ranking of

cities, the city scoring a 55 per cent would be placed higher than the one

scoring 45 per cent even if they both get an “A” grade.



Rankings for Each Category

The overall category rankings are based on a composite index (an

average of the normalized scores for each indicator in the specific

category). in other words, the top-ranking city for a given indicator

will receive a 1, while the bottom-ranking city will receive a zero.

Normalization Formula

normalized value =(indicator value – minimum value)

(maximum value – minimum value)

To use the example above, a score of 1 would be attributed to

Richmond, given that it leads with 59.3 per cent of its population

foreign-born—(59.3-1.1) ÷ (59.3-1.1). Meanwhile, a zero would be

attributed to Saguenay, given that it ranks last with only 1.1 per cent

of its population foreign-born—(1.1-1.1) ÷ (59.3-1.1). A city with a 25 per

cent foreign-born population, for example, would get a normalized score

of 0.41—(25.0-1.1) ÷ (59.3 -1.1)—good enough for a “B” grade.

To calculate a category ranking, the cities were then ranked according to

their composite index scores (the mean value of the normalized scores

for each indicator). no attempt was made to give explicit differential

weights to the indicators inside a category: we are implicitly giving

equal weight to each indicator. We assigned a grade level to the overall

category performance by calculating the difference between the category

composite index of the top and bottom performer and divided this figure

by four.

A city received a grade of “A” for the category if its score was in the top

quartile, a “B” if its score was in the second quartile, a “C” if its score

was in the third quartile, and a “D” if its score was in the bottom quartile.



Overall Rankings

Overall scores were calculated for each city by taking a weighted value

of the normalized scores for all seven categories. The weights were

calculated with three additional indicators that were ranked using the

same methodology above: total number of migrants (international,

interprovincial, and intercity) per city population, total number of

migrants with a university education per city population, and total

number of migrants without a university education per city population.

We then conducted three ordinary least squares regressions where

the independent variables (the seven category rankings) remained the

same in each equation. Conversely, the dependant variable changed in

each equation, with the three migration indicators represented in each

regression equation.

This allowed us to estimate the relationship between these three

migration indicators and all seven categories, thereby creating estimated

coefficients for each category. We constrained these coefficients to

be non-negative and to sum to one. Thus, the constrained coefficients

gave us differential weights for each category. it is the interplay of these

weights with the migration indicators that gave us three different sets

of overall rankings, and allowed us to test whether the attractiveness

of cities to migrants differs by level of education.

For the three sets of rankings, we assigned a grade level to the overall

performance by calculating the difference between the overall score of

the top and bottom performers and dividing this figure by four. A city

received an overall grade of “A” if its score was in the top quartile, a

“B” if its score was in the second quartile, a “C” if its score was in the

third quartile, and a “D” if its score was in the bottom quartile.


CHAPTER 3

Society

Chapter Summary

• Five of the seven cities with “A” grades in the Society category are big cities: Toronto, Montréal, and Vancouver lead the way with strong results on population diversity, people employed in cultural occupations, population density, non-automobile commuting, low incidence of drug crime, and access to libraries and museums.

• Toronto’s surrounding suburbs also rank high.

• Apart from their small size, “D” cities share the following traits: low levels of foreign-born population and diversity, low density, low levels of non-automobile commuting, and few residents in cultural occupations.



The Society category tries to capture diverse aspects of urban living that make a city a great place to live, work, and play: a place that’s good for raising families, that’s fun and exciting, and that’s full of opportunities. This is the most extensive category, with the largest number of indicators. (Table 3 at the end of this chapter describes each in more detail.) For the most part, each of the 14 indicators in this category relate to one of the four following attributes of a good urban society:

• accessibility (as measured by mode of travel, population density, access

to culture)

• diversity (as measured by foreign-born population, diversity mix, age

cohort, multilingualism)

• social cohesion (as measured by immigrant success, gender equality,

poverty, incidence of crime)

• creativity (as measured by cultural employment)

indicators within each broad theme tend to complement each other;

cities that do well on measures of density, for example, tend to be

cities with higher levels of walking, cycling, and transit use. Similarly,

cities with large foreign-born populations tend to do well on measures

of diversity and multilingualism (although not necessarily on measures

of immigrant success).

Overall, Canada’s largest cities perform best in the Society category, just

as they did in City Magnets ii. Five of the seven cities with “A” grades

are big cities, with Toronto and Montréal once again leading the way.

(See Table 2.) However, improved outcomes for a number of other cities

make Toronto and Montréal less dominant than they were in 2010, when

they were the only two to earn an “A” grade. Vancouver and Ottawa rank

third and fourth, while rounding out the complement of “A” cities are three

Toronto suburbs: Markham, Richmond Hill, and Brampton.



Table 2Society Report Card

Rank City Grade Rank City Grade

1 Toronto A 26 Kingston B

2 Montréal A 27 Windsor B

3 Vancouver A 28 Oakville C

4 Ottawa A 29 Québec C

5 Markham A 30 Oshawa C

6 Richmond Hill A 31 Hamilton C

7 Brampton A 32 Regina C

8 Victoria B 33 Peterborough C

9 Burnaby B 34 Cambridge C

10 Mississauga B 35 Abbotsford C

11 Vaughan B 36 Saskatoon C

12 Edmonton B 37 Surrey C

13 Guelph B 38 Lévis C

14 Gatineau B 39 Brantford C

15 Longueuil B 40 Barrie C

16 Laval B 41 Sherbrooke C

17 Calgary B 42 St. John’s C

18 Kitchener B 43 Moncton C

19 Winnipeg B 44 Halifax C

20 Waterloo B 45 Thunder Bay D

21 Coquitlam B 46 Saguenay D

22 Richmond B 47 Kelowna D

23 St. Catharines B 48 Greater Sudbury D

24 Burlington B 49 Trois-Rivières D

25 London B 50 Saint John D




Toronto, Montréal, and Vancouver earn “A” grades on half or more of the

indicators, sharing strong results on:

• population diversity

• people employed in cultural occupations

• population density

• non-automobile commuting

• low incidence of drug-related crimes

• access to museums and libraries

Each of the top three cities of course has its own strengths that

characterize its individual attractiveness. For Toronto, it is the city’s large

and vibrant foreign-born population—not only in sheer numbers but also

in the diversity represented by the many countries of origin of Toronto’s

newcomers. Toronto ranks first in diversity and, perhaps surprisingly,

only seventh in the proportion of the population that is foreign-born (at

47.9 per cent). Rather, it is the large suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver

that outrank Toronto and the other big cities on foreign-born population.

in five cities, more than half the population is foreign-born: Richmond

ranks the highest, at 59.3 per cent, followed by Markham, Richmond Hill,

Mississauga, and Brampton.

On other measures, Toronto distances itself from its suburbs with

much higher results on density, non-automobile travel to work, and

people employed in cultural occupations. For instance, 46 per cent of

Torontonians get to work by transit, cycling, or walking compared with

18.6 per cent of Mississauga residents and 13.7 per cent of Brampton

residents. On the other hand, all of the suburban cities in the Toronto

census metropolitan area have much lower levels of violent crime—

about half that of Toronto. in fact, they rank among the top eight cities

for low levels of violent crime in Canada.

Montréal ranks among the top five cities on half of the 14 indicators,

distinguishing itself in particular on multilingualism and gender

equality. nearly three-quarters of the population identify as multilingual

(74.5 per cent), compared with 54.2 per cent in Toronto and 54.1 per

cent in Vancouver. The three most multilingual cities are all in Quebec



(Montréal, Laval, and Gatineau). not surprisingly, the cities outside

Quebec with large multilingual populations have a high proportion of

foreign-born residents: Richmond Hill, Markham, Richmond, Vaughan,

and Burnaby.

But one indicator in particular sets Montréal apart from Toronto and

Vancouver: gender inequality. Montréal ranks fifth, with university-

educated women earning 80.6 per cent of the income of their male

counterparts. While this is still far from parity, Montréal women are far

better off than their colleagues in Toronto and Vancouver, where the

comparable figure is just above 68 per cent. Worse still, in Calgary, that

income ratio plummets to just 55.8 per cent. When it comes to gender

inequality, six of the best cities for women are in Quebec, with Gatineau

leading them all (earnings of university-educated women are 83.3 per

cent of their male counterparts).

Finally, like Toronto, Montréal outperforms suburban cities when it comes

to sustainable choices for travelling to work. in fact, Montréal ranks first,

with the highest percentage of workers choosing to walk, cycle, or take

transit (at 47.9 per cent).

Vancouver, close behind Toronto and Montréal, is the “youngest” of the

top three cities, with 18.7 per cent of the population aged 25–34, and

the only one to earn an “A” grade on this indicator. Victoria, however,

tops them all with 19.6 per cent of the population in this young labour

force cohort. Vancouver has the highest density of all 50 cities, more

than 25 per cent denser than third-ranked Toronto and nearly four times

denser than Calgary. Like Toronto and Montréal, relatively high numbers

of Vancouverites commute to work by walking, cycling, or transit (46 per

cent, fractionally ahead of Toronto). Vancouver’s multicultural population

also contributes to its high ranking, although like Toronto, it falls slightly

behind two of its big suburbs, Richmond and Burnaby, on indicators for

multilingualism and diversity.

As with their strengths, Toronto, Montréal, and Vancouver share similar

vulnerabilities. in particular, they all have unacceptable levels of people

living in poverty; and the success of their considerable foreign-born

Montréal ranks fifth in gender inequality, with university-educated women earning 80.6 per cent of the income of their male counterparts.



populations is well below that of Canadian-born residents. Measured

by the number of people below Statistics Canada’s low income measure

(LiM), the percentage of Montrealers living in poverty exceeded 26 per

cent in 2011—the highest of all 50 cities surveyed. Vancouver, at

20.5 per cent ranks 44th; Toronto is 41st at 19.3 per cent. These figures

contrast sharply with the best cities, such as Burlington where 7.6 per

cent of the population had incomes below the poverty line. And this

cannot be “excused” as a big city problem; the incidence of poverty

in Calgary, Ottawa, and Edmonton is not even half that of Montréal.

nonetheless, for both Montréal and Toronto, suburban cities within

their respective census metropolitan areas reported much lower

levels of poverty. For example, Laval at 12.8 per cent is about half

that of Montréal; similarly, Oakville’s and Vaughan’s levels below

10 per cent are not quite half that of Toronto. in the Vancouver

region, both Richmond and Burnaby had even higher poverty

rates than Vancouver, putting them near the bottom of all 50 cities.

When it comes to immigrant success, we look at the average income

of university-educated immigrants compared with their Canadian-

born counterparts. Toronto, with an otherwise-enviable record on

multiculturalism, continues to have the worst results on immigrants’

economic success. in Toronto, well-educated immigrants earn only

61 per cent of the income of their Canadian-born counterparts; in

Montréal, the comparable figure is 66 per cent. Vancouver’s immigrants

are more successful, earning about 76 per cent of the income of their

counterparts. (Among these three, Vancouver is the only city where

immigrants do better than women when it comes to income parity.)

Suburban cities tend to show better results than their respective census

metropolitan area core cities, although the gap between Toronto and

most of its suburban cities is widest. Unlike Montréal and Toronto,

immigrants in Vancouver do better than their suburban counterparts.

Aside from Toronto, Montréal, and Vancouver, three of the four other

cities that get “A”s in the Society report card are part of the Toronto

census metropolitan area: Markham, Richmond Hill, and Brampton.

Like Toronto, they draw much of their strength from their vibrant



multicultural and diverse communities. On measures of poverty, they are

more attractive than Toronto. But as mentioned, they falter on measures

related to density and commuting travel.

The other “A” city, with the fourth-best score, is Ottawa, which emerges

near the top of the Society report card on the strength of a balanced

set of results, highlighted by relatively low levels of poverty and crime,

evidence of strong multilingualism, relatively high levels of non-

automobile commuting, and growing diversity. Of the nine cities with

the best record on violent crime, Ottawa is the only one that is not a

suburban city; seven are within the Toronto census metropolitan area

and one is within the Québec City area. Ottawa’s success is marred by

its low density—the only indicator for which it gets a “D” grade. However,

at 2,790 square kilometres, Ottawa is the third-largest city among the

50 in this report—four times larger than Toronto—and includes

agricultural communities within its borders.

Of the 27 cities with “A” or “B” grades in the Society category, the

majority are big or mid-sized cities. However, 6 small cities emerge

from the shadows, with Victoria, eighth-highest overall, leading the

way. Guelph, Waterloo, Coquitlam, St. Catharines, and Kingston follow.

Victoria’s success portrays a somewhat atypical small city. Victoria led

all 50 cities on 3 of the 14 indicators: proportion of the population aged

25–34, proportion of the population employed in cultural occupations,

and travel time to museums. Furthermore, Victoria sets itself apart

from other small cities because of its density (only slightly greater

than Toronto’s) and its strong share of non-automobile travel to work.

With 47.4 per cent of the population walking, cycling, or taking transit

to work, Victoria is second only to Montréal, putting it ahead of

Vancouver and Toronto.

Of the six cities with “D” grades on the Society report card, five are

small (with a population below 150,000) and are found in four different

provinces: new Brunswick (Saint John), British Columbia (Kelowna),

Quebec (Trois-Rivières and Saguenay), and Ontario (Thunder Bay).

Greater Sudbury is the one mid-sized city with a “D” grade (still, at

160,000, at the small end of the mid-size range). Apart from their small

Victoria led all 50 cities on all 3 of the 14 indicators: population aged 25–34, population employed in cultural occupations, and travel time to museums.



size, these cities share the following traits: low levels of foreign-born

population and diversity, low density, low levels of non-automobile

commuting, and few residents in cultural occupations.

individually, each of the “D” cities has particular characteristics that

complete its make-up. in the case of Saint John (50th), the incidence of

violent crime is the highest among all 50 cities (more than double that

of Toronto and triple Calgary’s), further cementing its weak position.

Similarly, Kelowna is pulled down by high levels of violent crime (third-

worst) and drug crime (second-worst). Trois-Rivières also finds itself with

one of the highest rates of drug crime, just a little better than Kelowna.

On the other hand, Saguenay’s results present a paradox: it ranks last

on the indicators of foreign-born population and diversity, but it earns an

“A” grade on the success of its foreign-born population (second-highest

overall). Only 1.1 per cent of the population in Saguenay are foreign-

born, and they are succeeding in ways that would be envied by other

cities: university-educated newcomers are out-earning their Canadian-

born counterparts (15 per cent higher).

Greater Sudbury suffers from its size: the second largest city among the

50, at over 3,700 km2, it is six times larger than Toronto. not surprisingly,

Greater Sudbury emerges as the least dense of all cities; this, in turn,

contributes to its poor score on travel time to museums (twice as long as

the second-worst time reported in Barrie) and relatively weak outcomes

on travel time to libraries (third-highest).

Finally, Thunder Bay (the best of the “D” cities) is fairly representative of

the overall struggles of all “D” cities, with its worst result on the indicator

measuring travel time to libraries (still, only a 6.3-minute journey, but

longer than any that of any other city).

no discernible pattern emerges among the 17 “C” grade cities; they

come from seven different provinces and include cities across all size

ranges—from under 70,000 to over 500,000. Oakville and Québec

City are the best of this cluster, narrowly missing out on a “B” grade.

Oakville offers the advantages of being a safe city (second-lowest rate

of violent crime) where low income levels are well below average, at



only 8.6 per cent (third-best overall). yet on another key measure of

inclusion, Oakville stumbles badly, with the worst record on gender

inequality—university-educated women earn just over half that of their

male counterparts. Québec City, with just 5.3 per cent of its population

foreign-born, loses ground on this same indicator and on diversity, where

it sits among the 4 least diverse cities in the survey—all of which are in

the province of Quebec.

Table 3Indicators of Performance in the Society Category

Indicator Definition MeaningBright spots (ranking)

Disappointments (ranking)

Population aged 25–34, 2011

This measures the proportion of the population between the ages of 25 and 34.

This young adult population represents the mobile and educated heart of the “creative class.” A city able to attract workers in this age range is better positioned for the future.

• Victoria (1)• Vancouver (2)• Edmonton (3)• Montréal (4)• Calgary (5)

• Oakville (50)• Richmond Hill (49)• Burlington (48)• St. Catharines (47)• Laval (46)

Foreign-born population, 2011

This is based on the proportion of the population in the city who are foreign-born.

immigrants are key to boosting Canada’s workforce in the future. Cities with a high proportion of foreign-born residents are ethnically diverse, tolerant, and therefore attractive to newcomers.

• Richmond (1)• Markham (2)• Richmond Hill (3)• Mississauga (4)• Brampton (5)

• Saguenay (50)• Lévis (49)• Trois-Rivières (48)• St. John’s (47)• Saint John (46)

Success of foreign-born population, 2011

A composite measure, this compares the average income of university-educated immigrants to that of Canadian-born residents, based on immigrants arriving in the five years between the 2006 Census and 2011 Census.

University-educated immigrants will seek jobs commensurate with their educational qualifications. A city with less disparity between immigrant and Canadian-born earners will have great advantages in attracting newcomers.

• St. John’s (1)• Saguenay (2)• Thunder Bay (3)• Halifax (4)• Peterborough (5)

• Toronto (50)• Richmond (49)• Surrey (48)• Longueuil (47)• Montréal (46)

Diversity of population, 2011

Using only first- and second-generation immigrant data, a formula was created to establish the ethnic composition of the population (adapted from the Shannon Diversity index).

This is meant to show the “diversity of diversity,” recognizing that it is important to attract large numbers of newcomers from many different cultures. A city with a wide variety of people from around the world ranks highest.

• Toronto (1)• Mississauga (2)• Richmond Hill (3)• Vaughan (4)• Oakville (5)

• Saguenay (50)• Lévis (49)• Trois-Rivières (48)• Québec City (47)• St. John’s (46)

Evidence of multilingualism, 2011

This is based on the proportion of the population with “knowledge of” a second language, defined by Statistics Canada as an individual’s ability to carry on a conversation.

More than just a measure of diversity, this indicator determines how proficient Canadians are in other languages. it can also be viewed as a “cultural” indicator, revealing the percentage of the population that is multilingual.

• Montréal (1)• Laval (2)• Gatineau (3)• Richmond Hill (4)• Markham (5)

• St. John’s (50)• Peterborough (49)• Brantford (48)• Barrie (47)• Oshawa (46)

(continued ...)



Table 3 (cont’d)Indicators of Performance in the Society Category



Population with low income, 2011

This measures the percentage of the population below the low income measure, established by Statistics Canada.

The indicator is a proxy for the incidence of poverty. The highest-scoring cities have the lowest incidence of people below the low income measure.

• Burlington (1)• Lévis (2)• Oakville (3)• Vaughan (4)• Waterloo (5)

• Montréal (50)• Windsor (49)• Richmond (48)• Saint John (47)

(only 4 cities with a “D” grade)

Gender equality, 2011

This shows the average income of university-educated females compared with their male counterparts, expressed as a percentage (100 per cent is best).

income distribution can be an important determinant for attracting people. The greater the income equality between men and women, the more attractive the city.

• Gatineau (1)• Sherbrooke (2)• Longueuil (3)• Lévis (4)• Montréal (5)

• Oakville (50)• Calgary (49)


Population density, 2011

This measures the number of people per square kilometre within the City.

This indicator is a proxy for urban sprawl. A denser city uses land more efficiently and makes service provision more cost-effective, particularly urban transit.

• Vancouver (1)• Montréal (2)• Toronto (3)• Victoria (4)

(only 4 cities earned “A” grades and none earned a “B”)

• Greater Sudbury (50)• Halifax (49)• Saguenay (48)• Saint John (47)• St. John’s (46)

Travel to work by public transit, walking, cycling, 2011

This measures the percentage of people who commute to work by transit, walking, or cycling (i.e., non-automobile).

A city with a high proportion of non-auto commuters is a more sustainable community. A city with access to good public transit, cycling routes, and pedestrian paths is more attractive.

• Montréal (1)• Victoria (2)• Vancouver (3)• Toronto (4)• Burnaby (5)

• Abbotsford (50)• Saguenay (49)• Cambridge (48)• Trois-Rivières (47)• Brantford (46)

Travel time to libraries, 2010

This measures the average travel time (in minutes) from home to the nearest library in the city, based on all modes of transportation.

This indicator is a proxy for access to culture within the City. A city with greater access is more attractive.

• Regina (1)• Saskatoon (2)• Guelph (3)• London (4)• Québec City (5)

• Thunder Bay (50)

(only 1 city with a “D” grade)

Travel time to museums, 2010

This measures the average travel time (in minutes) from home to museums within the city, based on all modes of transportation.

As with libraries, this indicator is a proxy for access to culture. A city with easier access is more attractive to potential newcomers.

• Victoria (1)• Peterborough (2)• Regina (3)• Oshawa (4)• Saskatoon (5)

• Greater Sudbury (50)

(only 1 city with a “D” grade)

Population employed in cultural occupations, 2011

Based on Statistics Canada, this shows the percentage of the employed work force in cultural occupations, such as writers, curators, artists, performers, and designers.

A city with a greater proportion of cultural workers is appealing to the creative class, and more broadly offers diversity and access to a wide range of associated cultural events.

• Victoria (1)• Toronto (2)• Vancouver (3)• Gatineau (4)• Montréal (5)

• Saint John (50)• Surrey (49)• Cambridge (48)• Oshawa (47)• Peterborough (46)

(continued ...)



Table 3 (cont’d)Indicators of Performance in the Society Category



incidence of violent crime, 2012

This is based on the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people, including homicides, attempted murders, assaults, other sexual offences, abductions and robberies.

Cities with a low crime rate offer a safer environment and are more attractive to newcomers and domestic migrants.

• Burlington (1)• Oakville (2)• Markham (3)• Richmond Hill (4)• Vaughan (5)

• Saint John (50)• Victoria (49)• Kelowna (48)


incidence of drug crime, 2012

This is based on the number of drug-related crimes per 100,000, including possession, trafficking, importation, and production.

Drug-related crimes are generally viewed as some of the most serious and threatening crimes in a community. A low rate of criminal drug activity makes a city more desirable.

• Calgary (1)• Winnipeg (2)• Montréal (3)• Toronto (4)• St. Catharines (5)

• Victoria (50)• Kelowna (49)


Note: For each indicator, bright spots are the five top-ranked cities with at least a “B” grade. Disappointments are the five lowest-ranked cities with a “D” grade.Sources: The Conference Board of Canada; Statistics Canada.


CHAPTER 4

Health

Chapter Summary

• Small and mid-sized cities emerge as the best places for good access to health care, likely due, in part, to the role of regional health services based in smaller cities that serve a broader community of people who live well beyond the city’s borders.

• Only Kingston and St. John’s earn an overall “A” grade, and only 3 big cities are counted among the 11 “B” grades (Québec City, Hamilton, and Vancouver). The other big cities get “C” grades overall.

• Suburban cities generally fare the worst: other than Toronto itself, all six of the cities within the Toronto census metropolitan area earn “D” grades.



Access to health care is a highly valued characteristic of most attractive cities. This focus on health access in this study does not undermine the importance of sound health outcomes. However, relevant data on outcomes are typically available only for larger geographic units, such as census metropolitan areas. Therefore, the following five indicators are used in this edition of City Magnets to measure access to health care:

• number of hospital beds per 100,000 population

• number of general practitioners (GPs) per 100,000 population

• number of specialist physicians per 100,000 population

• proportion of population employed in health care services

• proportion of population employed in occupations supporting health care

The fifth indicator, proportion of population employed in occupations

supporting health care, is new to this edition of City Magnets. it takes

into account workers who are critical in ensuring quick and effective

access to health care, including firefighters, emergency medical

responders, etc. Table 5 describes each indicator in more detail, along

with a summary of the cities with highest and lowest results.

Just as in City Magnets II, small and mid-sized cities emerge as the

best places for good access to health care. (See Table 4.) Apart from

Halifax (fourth-best), the top eight cities have populations of less than

160,000. The performance of small cities is likely due, in part, to the role

of regional health services based in smaller cities that serve a broader

community of people who live well beyond the city’s borders. Despite

the pivotal role provinces play in funding and managing health care,

provincial trends are less easy to identify in the rankings. in fact, each

of the top six cities is in a different province: Ontario, newfoundland and

Labrador, Quebec, nova Scotia, British Columbia, and new Brunswick.



Table 4Health Report Card


1 Kingston A 26 Barrie C

2 St. John’s A 27 Toronto C

3 Sherbrooke B 28 Windsor C

4 Halifax B 29 Burnaby C

5 Victoria B 30 Calgary C

6 Moncton B 31 Abbotsford D

7 Thunder Bay B 32 Oshawa D

8 Saint John B 33 Brantford D

9 Saskatoon B 34 Burlington D

10 London B 35 Coquitlam D

11 Québec City B 36 Surrey D

12 Hamilton B 37 Longueuil D

13 Vancouver B 38 Gatineau D

14 Winnipeg C 39 Laval D

15 Edmonton C 40 Oakville D

16 Kelowna C 41 Kitchener D

17 Peterborough C 42 Guelph D

18 Trois-Rivières C 43 Richmond Hill D

19 Saguenay C 44 Richmond D

20 Greater Sudbury C 45 Markham D

21 Lévis C 46 Mississauga D

22 Ottawa C 47 Cambridge D

23 Regina C 48 Waterloo D

24 Montréal C 49 Brampton D

25 St. Catharines C 50 Vaughan D




Overall, only Kingston and St. John’s score high enough to earn an

“A” grade, and only 3 big cities are counted among the 11 “B” grades

(Québec City, Hamilton, and Vancouver).

Kingston tops all cities on three of the five indicators, lifting it easily into

first place overall. Kingston claims the most general practitioners and

most specialists per 100,000 population, and has the highest percentage

of people employed in occupations that support health care. Second-

best St. John’s scores among the top four cities on the four original

indicators, but drops to the bottom third on the indicator measuring

occupations supporting health care. The presence of a medical

school at Queen’s University in Kingston and at Memorial University

in St. John’s no doubt provides a boost for these two small cities

when it comes to health care.

Canada’s two biggest cities, Toronto and Montréal, earn “C” grades,

positioned in the middle rank of the 50 cities, scoring well below

Kingston, the country’s leader. Calgary barely ekes out a “C” grade,

while Edmonton performs much better and just misses out on a “B.”

Canada’s largest cities (except Edmonton) typically show their best

results on the number of specialist physicians per 100,000 population,

scoring more highly than on the number of general practitioners.

Vancouver outscores Edmonton, Toronto, Montréal, and Calgary on

four of the five indicators, but falters when it comes to the proportion

of people employed in supporting health care. in this instance,

Edmonton and Calgary do better.

Suburban cities generally fare worse than the big cities dominating their

respective census metropolitan areas. All six of the suburban cities

within the Toronto area earn “D” grades, with Brampton and Vaughan

the weakest two cities of all. The “suburban factor” appears to be more

important than the “provincial factor,” notwithstanding the fact that these

“D” cities are all in Ontario.

Little has changed since City Magnets II in terms of the availability

of hospital beds in Canada’s cities. The best seven cities are all

small, with Victoria and Moncton offering the most number of beds

Suburban cities generally fare worse on health indicators than the big cities dominating their respective census metropolitan areas.



per 100,000 population, well ahead of every other city. Victoria, with

more than 1,200 beds per 100,000 people, has proportionately triple the

number of Vancouver, which ranks 13th overall. Victoria and Moncton are

so dominant that they are the only two cities to earn an “A” grade. And

the next group of four cities are the only ones with “B” grades for hospital

beds, pushing 44 cities into “C” and “D” territory. Saint John, St. John’s,

St. Catharines, and Thunder Bay make up the “B” cities—all small and

all serving a much wider regional population. Of the big Canadian cities,

Winnipeg and Vancouver do best, although as noted, offering far less

access to hospital beds than Victoria or Moncton. Edmonton, Toronto,

and Montréal are clustered in the middle, offering hospital beds in the

range of 320 to 301 per 100,000 people. Suburban municipalities find

themselves at the bottom of the list of cities. Despite having a hospital in

their community, they rely on nearby facilities in larger centres (Montréal,

Toronto, Vancouver, e.g.) for hospital access. Two cities are still without

hospitals: Vaughan and Waterloo, although residents in each of these

communities also have access to hospitals in nearby communities.

Kingston sets the bar high on access to physicians, both general

practitioners and specialists. Kingston stands alone as the only

“A” city for general practitioners; at 385 per 100,000, Kingston has

proportionately twice as many GPs as Québec City, the ninth-best

city, and three times as many as Regina (27th). Five other cities earn

“B” grades, with more than 210 GPs per 100,000: St. John’s is second-

best, followed by Vancouver, Sherbrooke, London, Saskatoon, and

Halifax. Apart from Vancouver, all other big cities earn “C” or “D” grades.

Looking at the number of specialist physicians per 100,000 people, the

top “GP cities” generally also score well on this indicator, led again by

Kingston (1st) and St. John’s (2nd). Although big cities generally do

better on the ratio of specialists than on the ratio of GPs, Vancouver is

the only big city to earn one of the four “A” grades (Sherbrooke is the

other “A” city). Toronto is 10th-best for specialists (15th for GPs) but

still has barely half the number of specialists per 100,000 people as

Kingston (180 vs. 357); Montréal has a similar profile. Winnipeg, 9th-best

Kingston sets the bar high on access to physicians, both general practitioners and specialists.



for specialists, is one of the weakest big cities for GPs (27th) and, in

fact, offers its residents far more specialists than GPs (202 per 100,000

compared with 121).

Small cities across the country are the best places to live if access to

health care professionals is a top priority. Thunder Bay has the highest

proportion of people employed in health care services, followed by

Saint John, St. John’s, Sherbrooke, and Peterborough. Of the 10 “A”

cities, only 1, Saskatoon, has a population greater than 200,000.

At the bottom of the list, 11 the 12 cities that earn “D” grades are all in

southern Ontario, including Toronto and the 6 cities within the Toronto

census metropolitan area. (Richmond is the non-Ontario city with a

“D” and, in fact, does a little better than the other 11.) Waterloo (50) has

proportionately only half the number of people employed in health care

services as top-ranked Thunder Bay (2.6 per cent vs. 5.8 per cent).

Finally, when taking into account occupations that support health care,

we see that Kingston strengthens its commanding lead on access to

health care. Once again, Kingston leads all 50 cities, just ahead of

Halifax. no discernible pattern emerges here; of the four “A” cities,

Kingston and Trois-Rivières are small, Halifax is mid-sized, and Québec

City is big. And they represent three different provinces. On the other

hand, the cities that fare worst are generally the same cities with poor

results on employment in health care services occupations—in other

words, Toronto and the other six cities within its census metropolitan

area, together with Waterloo and Richmond. in addition, Vancouver

earns its only “D” grade in the Health category on this indicator.



Table 5Indicators of Performance in the Health Category



Hospital bed availability, 2012

This measures the number of hospital beds per 100,000 people in the city.

This indicator is a measure of availability of and access to hospital care. A city with a proportionately greater number of beds is more attractive.

• Victoria (1)• Moncton (2)• Saint John (3)• St. John’s (4)• St. Catharines (5)

• Waterloo (50)• Vaughan (50)• Markham (48)• Surrey (47)• Cambridge (46)

Access to general practitioners, 2011

This indicator shows the number of general practitioners per 100,000 people living in the city.

The availability of GPs is a common proxy for access to health care. A city with more family doctors per population is more attractive for newcomers.

• Kingston (1)• St. John’s (2)• Vancouver (3)• Sherbrooke (4)• London (5)

• Oshawa (50)• Brampton (49)• Brantford (48)• Surrey (47)• Richmond (46)

Access to specialist physicians, 2011

This indicator shows the number of specialist physicians (including surgeons, e.g.) per 100,000 people living in the city.

Similar to the indicator for GPs, the greater the proportion of specialists, the more attractive the city will be to newcomers.

• Kingston (1)• St. John’s (2)• Sherbrooke (3)• Vancouver (4)• Halifax (5)

• Brampton(50)• Cambridge (49)• Oshawa (48)• Kitchener (47)• Abbotsford (46)

Population employed in health care services, 2011

This indicator measures the percentage of employed people working in any health-related service (e.g., nurses, ambulance drivers, emergency medical technicians) per 100,000 people living in the city.

This is another indicator of health care availability and access. A greater number of health care workers indicates better potential access, and adds to the city’s attractiveness.

• Thunder Bay (1)• Saint John ( 2)• St. John’s (3)• Sherbrooke (4)• Peterborough (5)

• Waterloo (50)• Vaughan (49)• Oakville (48)• Cambridge (47)• Guelph (46)

Population employed in occupations supporting health care, 2011

This indicator measures the percentage of employed people working in occupations that support health services, such as emergency medical responders, nurse aides, firefighters, and police officers (excluding commissioned police officers).

This is another indicator of access to health care services, considered in a broader context. A greater number of workers supporting health services indicates better and more efficient access.

• Kingston (1)• Halifax (2)• Québec City (3)• Trois-Rivières (4)• Sherbrooke (5)

• Richmond Hill (50)• Vaughan (49)• Markham (48)• Oakville (47)• Waterloo (46)



CHAPTER 5

Economy

Chapter Summary

• Cities in the West are among the top performers in the Economy category, thanks to the booming resource-based economies in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

• Overall results reveal solid economies for half of the 50 cities, earning “A” or “B” grades.

• Only five cities get a “D” grade; four are in Ontario, struggling to recover post-recession and highlighting the difficulties associated with automobile manufacturing and forestry.

• Four big cities generally perform well on the employment indicators (Calgary, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Edmonton), but Toronto and Montréal do not (apart from knowledge workers).



No one disputes the importance of local economic factors to a city’s attractiveness; for many, they are the main draw. After all, a city with a strong economy promises opportunity, jobs, and good incomes. In recognizing the importance of urban economies to residents and employers, the Conference Board has been tracking the economy of Canada’s census metropolitan areas in its Metropolitan Outlook series, published quarterly, since 1998. Furthermore, as study after study has shown, economically robust cities are not only vital to local communities but are important to provincial and national economies.

in this edition of City Magnets, the Conference Board uses

eight indicators to assess the attractiveness to migrants of a city’s

economy, including one new indicator to deepen our understanding of

these 50 urban economies. The indicators rely on a mix of standard

(indicators 1 through 6) and innovative measures (7 to 8):

1. GDP per capita

2. GDP growth

3. employment growth

4. unemployment rate

5. full-time employment (new)

6. disposable income per capita

7. knowledge employment (jobs that are key to a successful, modern city)

8. proportion of workforce commuting outside the city



Table 8, at the end of this chapter, describes each indicator in

more detail along with a summary of the cities with highest and

lowest outcomes.

As with the other categories, economic data is based on the 2011

Census and national Household Survey, allowing us to examine these

economies in the post-recession recovery period. not surprisingly,

cities in the West are among the top performers, thanks to the booming

resource-based economies in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Overall

results reveal solid economies for half of the 50 cities, earning “A” or

“B” grades. (See Table 6.) Only five cities get a “D” grade; four are in

Ontario, struggling to recover post-recession. For example, Oshawa

(49th) and Windsor (50th) are two cities dependent on the automobile

manufacturing sector.

Calgary leads the western juggernaut, with Regina (4th) and Edmonton

(6th) close behind. St. John’s, another city benefiting from the resource

sector, claims 5th place. Ottawa, with high incomes and sizable

knowledge-based workforce is 2nd-best, and Waterloo, on the strength

of its knowledge economy, is 3rd. Of course, since data was collected

for the 2011 Census and national Household Survey, both Waterloo and

Ottawa have faced and continue to face big job cuts. This would suggest

a likely realignment at the top when more recent data are available. For

now, four of the nine “A” cities are big cities (Québec City is 9th). This

contrasts with City Magnets II, when Calgary and Edmonton were the

only 2 big cities within the cluster of 11 “A” and “B” cities.

Calgary is the only city with no “C” or “D” grades, displaying strength

across all eight economic indicators. its best results are on disposable

income per capita, GDP per capita, and low proportion of the workforce

travelling outside the city for employment. in the case of the latter,

Calgary’s success in providing work opportunities for its residents is not

surprising, given that the city accounts for more than 90 per cent of the

Calgary census metropolitan area. For Ottawa, its top-five rankings on

disposable income per capita and knowledge employment lift it to the top

of the pack. However, Ottawa also benefits from a solid GDP per capita

ranking. in Waterloo, success comes from its number-one ranking on

Calgary is the only city with no “C” or “D” grades, displaying strength across all eight economic indicators.



Table 6Economy Report Card


1 Calgary A 26 Kelowna C

2 Ottawa A 27 London C

3 Waterloo A 28 Sherbrooke C

4 Regina A 29 Greater Sudbury C

5 St. John’s A 30 Markham C

6 Edmonton A 31 Burnaby C

7 Saskatoon A 32 Richmond C

8 Oakville A 33 Barrie C

9 Québec City B 34 Peterborough C

10 Gatineau B 35 Surrey C

11 Halifax B 36 Montréal C

12 Moncton B 37 Kitchener C

13 Richmond Hill B 38 Laval C

14 Vancouver B 39 Thunder Bay C

15 Toronto B 40 Abbotsford C

16 Burlington B 41 Trois-Rivières C

17 Lévis B 42 Brampton C

18 Winnipeg B 43 Brantford C

19 Vaughan B 44 Hamilton C

20 Kingston B 45 Longueuil C

21 Guelph B 46 Cambridge D

22 Mississauga B 47 Coquitlam D

23 Saint John B 48 St. Catharines D

24 Saguenay B 49 Oshawa D

25 Victoria B 50 Windsor D




knowledge employment and second-best on employment growth. On

three other indicators, Waterloo is among the five best cities. Regina, our

fourth-best “A” city, claims the most “A” grades of all on the Economy,

including leading the country on GDP growth. However, Regina’s

three “C” grades on other economic indicators offset the otherwise

stellar results.

Taking a closer look at per capita GDP, four of the six top-ranked cities

are small: Victoria, St. John’s, Moncton, and Waterloo. Calgary and

Edmonton join this group of “A” cities in 3rd and 6th place respectively.

Per capita GDP in Victoria is highest of all. At $68,383, it is not only

well above the average for Canada, it is at least double that of 17 other

cities, including, for example, Hamilton, Richmond Hill, Kitchener, and

Gatineau. More than one-third of all cities earn a “D” grade for GDP per

capita, with some of the suburban cities around Vancouver, Montréal,

and Toronto posting the lowest results.

Waterloo is the only city with a top-five result for both per capita GDP

and GDP growth, but in each case, it was outperformed at the top.

Regina’s 4.2 per cent average annual GDP growth between 2007

and 2011 was the highest, followed closely by Surrey and Saskatoon.

Edmonton has the highest GDP growth rate of all big cities—the only

one to earn an “A” grade. The more dramatic story comes at the bottom,

where eight cities had zero or negative growth. All but one (Victoria) are

in Ontario, highlighting the difficulties associated with manufacturing,

auto-making, and forestry (particularly in Thunder Bay). Windsor fared

worst of all, experiencing an average drop in GDP of 2.5 per cent each

year in 2007–2011.

The suburban-urban relationship, often cited in this report, comes

into sharp focus on the indicator reporting on workforce commuting.

Residents of suburban cities are more likely to have to travel outside

their cities for work. in general, cities with a lower percentage of

residents working outside their boundaries are more attractive

because fewer people must leave the city to find work.

Eight cities (seven in Ontario) had zero negative growth, highlighting the difficulties associated with manufacturing, auto-making, and forestry.



This indicator is also affected by an area’s political boundaries—that is,

whether or not an area’s core city dominates its census metropolitan

area. Specifically, the proportion of the workforce travelling outside the

city for work is inversely correlated with the size of the city relative to

its census metropolitan area (generally, but not perfectly—the proximity

of census metropolitan areas within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton

area leads to a lot of commuting between them). Table 7 illustrates this.

Halifax, the city that not only dominates but consumes the entire census

metropolitan area, has the smallest share of its workforce commuting

outside the city, just 4 per cent. The best four cities follow a similar

pattern. On the other hand, smaller suburbs that make up only a small

portion of a larger census metropolitan area have a greater share of their

population leaving the city to work. For instance, looking at the bottom,

Richmond Hill, which makes up only 3.3 per cent of the Toronto census

metropolitan area, has over 77 per cent of its workforce commuting

beyond its borders—the highest of all 50 cities.

Table 7Residents of Suburban Cities More Likely to Commute Outside Their City to Work(per cent)

City

City population’s share of wider census metropolitan

area populationProportion of the workforce commuting outside the city

Halifax 99.9 4.0

Calgary 90.3 4.2

Winnipeg 90.9 4.2

Greater Sudbury 99.7 4.5

Markham 5.4 69.4

Coquitlam 5.5 76.5

Richmond Hill 3.3 77.1

Sources: The Conference Board of Canada; Statistics Canada.



Four indicators contribute to our understanding of employment trends:

employment growth, unemployment rate, full-time employment, and

knowledge employment. no one city or region dominates across all

four indicators; five provinces are represented among the “A” cities

on at least one of these four indicators. Four big cities generally

perform well on these markers of employment (Calgary, Ottawa,

Vancouver, and Edmonton), but Toronto and Montréal do not (apart

from knowledge workers).

However, one city stands out for achieving two “A” grades on

employment. Lévis, a suburb of Québec City, had the lowest

unemployment rate and the sixth-best employment growth. Lévis also

ranked eighth on real GDP growth. in each case, Lévis outperforms

Québec City, the dominant city within the census metropolitan area.

Lévis’s success comes from the public sector, as significant gains in

health, education, and government employment put it near the top of

the rankings. yet Lévis finds itself in the middle of the pack (lagging

Québec City) on knowledge employment—a field dominated by a

handful of cities led by Waterloo and Ottawa.

Two other cities show strong employment-related results: Richmond Hill

and Calgary. They are the only cities to earn at least two “A” and no “C”

or “D” grades. Richmond Hill’s success mirrors that of suburban Lévis

by being more successful than its dominant census metropolitan city,

Toronto, but in Richmond Hill’s case, it succeeds by a very wide margin

on three of the four indicators: employment growth, unemployment

rate, and full-time employment (where Toronto is second-lowest of

all). Richmond Hill is particularly strong on knowledge-economy

employment—no doubt a contributing factor to its solid employment

growth. Finally, although Calgary is not among the top five leaders on

any of the employment indicators, its posts a suite of solid employment

results across the board—the largest city to do so.

Although many cities show signs of employment struggles, four

Ontario cities show signs of persistent distress. Cambridge, Oshawa,

St. Catharines, and Windsor each have at least three “D” grades.

Employment fell in all four of these cities between 2007 and 2011,

Many cities show signs of employment struggles but four Ontario cities show signs of persistent distress: Cambridge, Oshawa, St. Catharines, Windsor.



causing high unemployment rates. As cities with solid manufacturing

ties, none of the four have a strong base of knowledge employment.

However, Oshawa, which is highly dependent on the automotive sector,

distinguishes itself with a rate of full-time employment of 61.8 per cent,

thanks to strong union participation. Of the other three communities

that are highly dependent on the automotive sector (Cambridge, St.

Catharines, and Windsor), St. Catharines and Windsor had a greater

share of part-time employment than Oshawa.

A closer look at full-time employment uncovers an interesting group of

new leaders; only three of the eight “A” cities show strong results on

other employment indicators—Ottawa, Richmond Hill, and Burlington.

And Ottawa is the only one among these eight to earn an “A” grade

overall on the Economy. Saint John leads all cities on full-time

employment, with 65.4 per cent of the resident workforce in full-time

employment, yet it had 0.5 per cent annual average employment

growth and an unemployment rate of 9.7% (well above top-ranked Lévis

at 4 per cent). interestingly, most provincial capitals rank high on the full-

time employment indicator, no doubt from a larger presence of unionized

public sector employees. The same can be said for the large number of

full-time workers in the Ottawa and Gatineau area. nevertheless, Victoria

(53.2 per cent) has the second-lowest level of full-time employment after

Abbotsford (53.7 per cent) and shows weaknesses on other employment

indicators. The B.C. government recently eliminated numerous full-time

positions in Victoria, leading to the city’s increased reliance on part-time

work. And nearly 6 per cent of Abbotsford’s workforce is employed in

the agricultural sector (by far the largest of the 50 cities), which tends

to employ more part-time and seasonal workers.

The remaining indicator, disposable income per capita, is of course

related to employment factors. So it is no surprise to see Calgary

(2nd), Ottawa (4th), Waterloo (5th), and Edmonton (6th) among the

top six cities. However, the highest disposable per capita incomes are

found in suburban Oakville, at just under $50,000. Torontonians, along

with residents in two other suburbs within the census metropolitan area

(Vaughan and Richmond Hill), are among the top 10 income earners.



incomes in Calgary are close enough to those in Oakville to merit an “A”

grade; beyond that, the next four cities make up the total inventory of “B”

cities. More than half the cities have “D” grades, and 31 cities fall below

the Canadian average of $33,998. Four of the five cities with the lowest

incomes are in Québec City, including Montréal; the fifth is Saint John.

Table 8Indicators of Performance in the Economy Category



GDP per capita, 2011

GDP measures the overall value of goods and services produced in the city. GDP is divided by total population to get GDP per capita.

GDP is the broadest measure of aggregate economic activity. This is commonly used to compare relative wealth between cities.

• Victoria (1)• St. John’s (2)• Calgary (3)• Moncton (4)• Waterloo (5)

• Coquitlam (50)• Surrey (49)• Richmond Hill (48)• Laval (47)• Brampton (46)

GDP growth, 2007–11

GDP growth is the average annual increase in GDP over the five years between 2007 and 2011.

A city with stronger GDP growth generates more employment opportunities, making it more attractive to people.

• Regina (1)• Surrey (2)• Saskatoon (3)• Waterloo (4)• Gatineau (5)

• Windsor (50)• St. Catharines (49)• Oshawa (48)• Cambridge (47)• Thunder Bay (46)

Employment growth, 2007–11

Percentage increases in total employment are calculated for 2007 to 2011.

Strong employment growth means more opportunities for work, making a city more attractive.

• Surrey (1)• Waterloo (2)• Richmond Hill (3)• Gatineau (4)• Saskatoon (5)

• Windsor (50)• St. Catharines (49)• Oshawa (48)• Cambridge (47)• Thunder Bay (46)

Unemployment rate, 2011

This measures the percentage of the labour market without a job.

A city with a lower unemployment rate has a more engaged workforce and therefore is more attractive to migrants.

• Lévis (1)• Québec City (2)• Regina (3)• Gatineau (4)• Saskatoon (5)

• Windsor (50)• Oshawa (48)


Disposable income per capita, 2011

Average after-tax income is divided by total population.

A city with high average incomes will attract more people, both domestic and international migrants.

• Oakville (1)• Calgary (2)• Burlington (3)• Ottawa (4)• Waterloo (5)

• Trois-Rivières (50)• Montréal (49)• Sherbrooke (48)• Saint John (47)• Longueuil (46)

Full-time employment, 2011

This measures the percentage of employed persons in a city in full-time positions, i.e., people who usually worked 30 hours or more per week, at their main or only job.

Cities with more full-time employment are more attractive, particularly to highly mobile and global workforce.

• Saint John (1)• St. John’s (2)• Halifax (3)• Richmond Hill (4)• Vaughan (5)

• Victoria (50)• Abbotsford (49)• Kelowna (48)• Sherbrooke (47)• Montréal (46)

(contiued...)



Table 8 (cont’d)Indicators of Performance in the Economy Category



Knowledge employment, 2011

This measures the share of total employment in knowledge occupations as defined by Statistics Canada (professional occupations such as physicians, engineers, judges, professors).

A city with a higher percentage of knowledge employment is consistent with a modern city, and more attractive to migrants.

• Waterloo (1)• Ottawa (2)• Richmond Hill (3)• Vancouver (4)• Markham (5)

• Cambridge (50)• Surrey (49)• Brantford (48)• Oshawa (47)• Brampton (46)

Workforce travelling outside the city for employment, 2011

This measures the percentage of the resident workforce travelling outside the city for employment.

Cities with a high percentage of residents working outside their boundaries are less attractive, because people must leave the city to find work.

• Halifax (1)• Calgary (2)• Winnipeg (3)• Greater Sudbury (4)• Thunder Bay (5)

• Richmond Hill (50)• Coquitlam (49)• Markham (48)• Vaughan (47)• Burnaby (46)



CHAPTER 6

Environment

Chapter Summary

• Cities in British Columbia dominate the top of the Environment report card, accounting for half of the top 10 cities, thanks to mild weather and good air quality.

• Montréal, Toronto, and their respective suburbs have too many air quality advisory days and long solo commutes to work.

• The top five cities with the shortest solo commutes are where residents drive to work in overwhelming numbers.

• Although 15 cities earn “A” grades for water use, Richmond Hill stands out above the rest with per capita domestic water use that’s four times less than the worst city, Saint John.



Canadians are increasingly aware of the importance of environmental stewardship, as climate change continues to affect daily living in dramatic and sometimes tragic ways. Extreme weather events are on the rise. Flooding in Calgary and ice storms in southern Ontario and Quebec affected millions of Canadians in 2013–14. The Insurance Bureau of Canada recorded 2013 as the year with the highest levels of insured losses, valued at $3.2 billion.1

With local governments responsible directly or indirectly for 44 per cent

of total greenhouse gas emissions, it is no wonder that cities seek ways

to monitor the environment within their communities.2 in this report, we

use four indicators of environmental health and quality of life that affect

a city’s attractiveness:

• average monthly maximum temperature

• domestic water use, based on per capita household flow

• number of days under Environment Canada’s air quality advisory

• median driving distance to work for solo commuters

Table 10 describes each indicator in more detail at the end of

this chapter, along with a summary of the cities with highest and

lowest outcomes.

Cities in British Columbia dominate the top of the field, accounting

for half of the top 10 cities. (See Table 9.) Led by Victoria, the cities

of Abbotsford (2nd), Kelowna (3rd), and Coquitlam (4th) are close

behind; Surrey is 8th-best. interrupting the chain of five B.C cities are

the cities of Moncton, Regina, and St. John’s. At the other end of the

spectrum, Montréal and its suburbs (Longueuil, Laval) have three of

1 insurance Bureau of Canada, Canada Inundated by Severe Weather in 2013.

2 Partners for Climate Protection, National Measures Report 2012, 1.



Table 9Environment Report Card


1 Victoria A 26 Guelph B

2 Abbotsford A 27 Burnaby B

3 Kelowna A 28 Ottawa B

4 Coquitlam A 29 Richmond Hill B

5 Moncton A 30 Kingston B

6 Regina A 31 Cambridge B

7 St. John’s A 32 Lévis B

8 Surrey A 33 Greater Sudbury B

9 Sherbrooke A 34 Edmonton B

10 St. Catharines A 35 Gatineau B

11 Brantford A 36 Calgary B

12 Vancouver A 37 Hamilton B

13 Barrie A 38 Markham C

14 London A 39 Québec City C

15 Saskatoon A 40 Brampton C

16 Richmond B 41 Burlington C

17 Halifax B 42 Saguenay C

18 Thunder Bay B 43 Oakville C

19 Trois-Rivières B 44 Toronto C

20 Windsor B 45 Laval C

21 Winnipeg B 46 Mississauga C

22 Peterborough B 47 Vaughan C

23 Oshawa B 48 Longueuil C

24 Kitchener B 49 Saint John C

25 Waterloo B 50 Montréal D




the six worst results on the environment. Montréal (50th) is the only

city with a “D” grade. not much better off, Toronto and the suburbs of

Oakville, Mississauga, and Vaughan find themselves among the bottom

seven cities. What these cities have in common are too many air quality

advisories and a long solo commute to work.

naturally, everyone jumps to climate as a key factor binding the top B.C.

cities, but mild weather alone doesn’t account for these strong results.

All of the cities in B.C. enjoy good air quality, with Victoria having a

perfect record: no air quality advisories were issued during the eight

years spanning 2004 to 2011. in this, Victoria is joined by five other

cities: Regina, Saskatoon, St. John’s, Thunder Bay, and Winnipeg.

Among cities in B.C., Vancouver and three of its suburbs had the

most advisories but still averaged only 4.1 days over the period. By

contrast, Montréal has the worst record, with an average of 24.5 air

quality advisory days—the only city with more than 20. All of the cities

with “C” or “D” grades are in Ontario and Quebec, lying within Canada’s

manufacturing heartland and upwind from the industries of the northern

and mid-western United States.

The dominance of B.C cities ends when it comes to domestic water

use. All six cities in the Lower Mainland plus Victoria rank in the

bottom quartile; only Kelowna is in the top half. Although 15 cities earn

“A” grades, Richmond Hill stands out above the rest. Per capita domestic

water use averages only 122 litres per day, less than half the rate of

Toronto and 29 other cities. in Saint John—the biggest water user—per

capita daily domestic water usage exceeds 560 litres. This is a city

where a mix of flat-rate pricing and metering contributes to high water

consumption. Saguenay is the only other city with a “D” grade.

The fourth and final indicator in the environment category looks at solo

commuting in each city, reporting on the median driving distances to

work. Commuters in the “A” cities travel fewer than 7 kilometres to work

and typically live in small or mid-sized cities. Brantford leads the way

with a 5-kilometre trip, closely followed by Regina and Thunder Bay.

The big city with the best result is Winnipeg (still only 22nd), with a

median solo commute of 7.2 kilometres. All of the top five cities with

Richmond Hill has the lowest per capita domestic water use, averaging only 122 litres per day, less than half the rate of Toronto and 29 other cities.



the shortest solo commutes are cities where residents drive to work

in overwhelming numbers. in the five cities with the shortest solo

commutes, about 90 per cent of workers travel by car (an indicator

in the Society category). Only one city captures an “A” grade on both

indicators: Victoria. More than 47 per cent of Victoria’s residents travel to

work by walking, cycling, or transit; for those who drive, the commuting

distance to work is about 5.6 kilometres (7th best of all 50 cities).

Table 10Indicators of Performance in the Environment Category



Average maximum temperature, 1991–2010

This indicator is based on the maximum temperature reading recorded monthly by Environment Canada. This measures the average of those 12 readings each year.

A mild climate is generally viewed as “better weather.” in Canada, this will of course mean that a city with warmer average temperatures is more attractive.

• Richmond (1)• Surrey (2)• Abbotsford (3)• Vancouver (4)• Coquitlam (5)

• Saskatoon (50 )• Edmonton (49)• Thunder Bay (48)• Saguenay (47)• Winnipeg (46)

Domestic water use, 2004

This measures water use in households, based on per capita average daily water flow in litres for each city.

This indicator deals with domestic use only, and does not take into account local pricing or other policies affecting usage. A city where water use is low is using this resource more efficiently and sustainably, and will rank highest.

• Richmond Hill (1)• Ottawa (2)• St. John’s (3)• Regina (4)• Sherbrooke (5)

• Saint John (50)• Saguenay (49)

(only 2 cities get a “D” grade)

Air quality advisory days, 2004–11

This indicator shows the number of days under an air quality advisory for each city. These advisories are issued by provincial governments, and the number of days per year are averaged over the eight-year period.

Air quality is an important factor in a city’s attractiveness. Poor air quality can have serious repercussions on the health of the population, stifle economic growth, and ruin the city’s overall aesthetics. Therefore, fewer days under air quality advisory makes a city more attractive.

Six cities had zero air quality advisory days: St. John’s, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, and Victoria. Calgary and Halifax each had less than 1.0.

• Montréal (50)• Laval (49)• Windsor (48)• Oakville (47)• Mississauga (46)

Driving distance to work for solo commuters, 2006

This indicator shows the median driving distance (in kilometres) for automobile commuters travelling alone.

ideally, if people must drive to work alone, then a shorter driving distance makes a city more attractive and does less harm to the environment.

• Brantford (1)• Regina (2)• Thunder Bay (3)• Trois-Rivières (4)• Saskatoon (5)

• Toronto (50)• Vaughan (49)• Mississauga (48)• Oakville (47)• Burlington (46)



CHAPTER 7

Education

Chapter Summary

• Two small cities stand out: Waterloo (first) and Kingston (second) garner the only two “A” grades on Education, thanks to their relatively large universities, which account for a sizable share of employment in each city. They also rank first and second for their share of professors and college instructors.

• The cities with the poorest Education results are generally (although not uniformly) small and also have weak results on the knowledge employment indicator in the Economy category.

• Big cities tend to do worse than small and mid-sized cities on the teacher–student ratio. in particular, cities that have grown rapidly also do badly on this indicator, such as Brampton, Surrey, Calgary, and Edmonton.



Opportunities to get a good education are among the most highly valued attributes of an attractive city. Immigrants often cite “better chances for my children” as a motivating factor for moving to Canada. Education is not only a key predictor of an individual’s success, but it also contributes to overall prosperity within a community.

Four indicators are used to benchmark success in the

Education category:

• proportion of the population with at least a bachelor’s degree

• proportion of the population with an advanced degree (master’s,

doctorate, law, medicine)

• number of teachers (elementary and secondary) per school-age

population

• number of professors and college instructors per 1,000 adult population

Table 12 describes each indicator in more detail at the end of

this chapter, along with a summary of the cities with highest and

lowest outcomes.

Two small cities stand out in the field of 50: Waterloo (1st) and Kingston

(2nd) are well ahead and garner the only two “A” grades on Education.

(See Table 11.) Both enjoy the benefits of a “town and gown” city, with

two universities located within each of their borders. Beyond Waterloo

and Kingston, only nine cities do well enough to earn a “B” grade,

including the four big cities of Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto, and Montréal.

Victoria (4th) and Guelph (8th) are the only other small cities in the top

10. Rounding out the group are three mid-sized cities in the Greater

Toronto and Hamilton Area: Richmond Hill, Oakville, and Burlington.



Table 11Education Report Card


1 Waterloo A 26 Hamilton C

2 Kingston A 27 Edmonton C

3 Vancouver B 28 Winnipeg C

4 Victoria B 29 Lévis C

5 Ottawa B 30 Trois-Rivières C

6 Richmond Hill B 31 Richmond C

7 Oakville B 32 Moncton C

8 Guelph B 33 Thunder Bay C

9 Toronto B 34 Greater Sudbury C

10 Burlington B 35 Regina C

11 Montréal B 36 St. Catharines C

12 Vaughan C 37 Kitchener C

13 St. John’s C 38 Windsor D

14 Sherbrooke C 39 Saguenay D

15 Markham C 40 Laval D

16 Halifax C 41 Kelowna D

17 Peterborough C 42 Barrie D

18 London C 43 Longueuil D

19 Québec City C 44 Brampton D

20 Gatineau C 45 Brantford D

21 Saskatoon C 46 Abbotsford D

22 Burnaby C 47 Oshawa D

23 Mississauga C 48 Surrey D

24 Coquitlam C 49 Saint John D

25 Calgary C 50 Cambridge D




The cities with the poorest results are generally (although not uniformly)

small and also have weak results on the knowledge employment

indicator in the Economy category. in fact, the cities with the seven

lowest results on Education overall are the same seven cities with the

lowest proportions of employment in knowledge occupations.

Waterloo and Kingston can, of course, thank the universities in their

communities for lifting them to the top. As large employers in small cities,

the universities contribute to the high proportion of college and university

instructors living in these two cities. Kingston and Waterloo rank first and

second on this indicator, followed by Sherbrooke and Guelph, two other

“town and gown” cities (Sherbrooke is also home to two universities).

in a similar vein, Kingston and Waterloo do well when it comes to the

percentage of adults with advanced degrees. in Waterloo, 15.8 per cent

of the adult population have advanced degrees, making it the most

“educated” city. Ottawa follows with 14.6 per cent. But for Kingston,

the comparable figure is 12.3 per cent (8th best).

Cities With Universities

Cities with five or more universities:

Montréal, Halifax, Québec City, Toronto, Winnipeg

Cities with four universities:

Ottawa, Edmonton, London, Regina

Cities with three universities:

Waterloo, Saskatoon

Cities with two universities:

Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary, Kingston, Hamilton, Greater Sudbury, Sherbrooke,

Gatineau, Saguenay

Cities with one university:

Abbotsford, Burnaby, Guelph, Moncton, Peterborough, St. Catharines,

St. John’s, Saint John, Surrey, Thunder Bay, Trois-Rivières, Windsor

Source: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.



Waterloo can also claim to be one of the best cities in the country when

it comes to the percentage of the population with a bachelor’s degree,

but falls short of being number one. Richmond Hill earns that distinction,

with 38.1 per cent of the population having at least a bachelor’s degree,

compared with 36.9 per cent in Waterloo. Eight cities merit an “A” grade;

each one has more than 30 per cent of the population with a bachelor’s

degree, well above the Canadian average of 20.9 per cent (just over half

of the 50 cities do better than the average for Canada). Among these top

eight are four cities in the Toronto census metropolitan area (Richmond

Hill, Oakville, Markham, Toronto), as well as Vancouver, Ottawa, Victoria,

and of course, Waterloo. Six of the top eight cities are also home to the

largest pool of adults with more advanced educational degrees; Victoria

and Markham fall just short.

Looking at the number of elementary and secondary school teachers

per 1,000 school-age population, small and mid-sized cities outperform

big cities at the top of the list. The best four cities are in Ontario, led

by Burlington with 105.5 teachers per 1,000 school-age population.

Peterborough is a close second and the only other city with more

than 100 (104.9). Waterloo and Kingston strengthen their education

credentials with strong third- and fourth-place results on this indicator

(both above 90). With the average for Canada at 68.7 teachers per

1,000 people aged 5 to 19, these top four cities establish a high

standard. The fifth “A” city is in Quebec: Sherbrooke.

Despite the fact that the four top cities for elementary and secondary

school teachers are in Ontario, there is no wider pattern of provincial

success: Brampton, Cambridge, and Mississauga are among the seven

“D” cities. Brampton, in particular, is likely suffering from growing pains,

having recorded the fastest population growth rate of all 50 cities. Surrey,

Calgary, and Edmonton suffer a similar fate; e.g., Surrey has the lowest

teacher-to-student ratio and the second-fastest population growth.

For the number of elementary and secondary school teachers per 1,000 school-age population, small and mid-sized cities outperform big cities.



Table 12Indicators of Performance in the Education Category



Population with a bachelor’s degree, 2011

This measures the proportion of the population 25 years and older with at least a bachelor’s degree.

This is a commonly used indicator to show the proportion of the adult population with a university degree. A more educated population will be more attractive to newcomers.

• Richmond Hill (1)• Waterloo (2)• Oakville (3)• Vancouver (4)• Ottawa (5)

• Oshawa (50)• Brantford (49)• Cambridge (48)• Saint John (47)• Abbotsford (46)

Population with an advanced degree, 2011

This shows the proportion of the population aged 25 and over with an advanced degree (master’s, doctorate, medical).

Highly educated newcomers will most likely be attracted to cities with a large population of similarly educated adults.

• Waterloo (1)• Ottawa (2)• Richmond Hill (3)• Oakville (4)• Vancouver (5)

• Oshawa (50)• Saint John (49)• Brantford (48)• Saguenay (47)• Cambridge (46)

number of elementary and secondary school teachers, 2011

This shows the number of elementary and secondary school teachers per 1,000 school-age children.

This indicator is used as a proxy for a good public education system. More teachers per pupil make a city more attractive.

• Burlington (1)• Peterborough (2)• Waterloo (3)• Kingston (4)• Sherbrooke (5)

• Surrey (50)• Brampton (49)• Richmond (48)• Cambridge (47)• Burnaby (46)

number of university professors and college instructors, 2011

This shows the number of university professors and college instructors per 1,000 people aged 18–39.

This indicator is intended to signal availability of higher education. A city with more college and university instructors will have better access to higher education.

• Kingston (1)• Waterloo(2)• Guelph (3)• Sherbrooke (4)

(only 4 cities get an “A” or a “B” grade)

• Brampton (50)• Brantford (49)• Surrey (48)• Cambridge (47)• Vaughan (46)



CHAPTER 8

Innovation

Chapter Summary

• Five cities earn an “A” grade on innovation: Calgary, Waterloo, Richmond Hill, Markham, and Burnaby.

• The top two, Calgary and Waterloo, are also the two best in the Economy category. The next three—suburban cities—shine when it comes to the number of science, engineering, and information technology graduates among its employed workforce.

• Of the 10 “B” cities, 3 are in the Toronto census metropolitan area and 3 are in the Vancouver census metropolitan area.

• All but 5 of the 18 “D” cities are in Ontario and Quebec and, for the most part, have manufacturing- or resource-based economies (but not oil and gas).



The Conference Board of Canada defines innovation as a process through which economic or social value is extracted from knowledge—through the creation, diffusion, and transformation of knowledge to produce new or significantly improved products or processes that are put to use by society.1 Cities are known incubators of innovation, providing dense clusters of talented workers who create and transfer knowledge. A city with stronger markers of innovation will attract the best and brightest from around the globe.

With this in mind, we have developed five indicators for the innovation

category (further described in Table 14 at the end of this chapter):

• proportion of workers employed in natural and applied sciences other

than information technology

• proportion of workers employed in computer and high-technology

occupations

• number of university graduates with a major in engineering,

mathematics, or computer, applied, and physical sciences

• labour productivity level (output per worker)

• labour productivity growth over five years

Five cities earn an “A” grade on innovation: Calgary, Waterloo, Richmond

Hill, Markham, and Burnaby. (See Table 13.) not surprisingly, the top

two cities, Calgary (1st) and Waterloo (2nd) are also the two best cities

in the Economy category. The three suburban cities, while less

successful in the Economy overall, shine when it comes to the number

of science, engineering, and information technology graduates among

its employed workforce. in the case of Richmond Hill and Markham,

1 The Conference Board of Canada, “innovation.”



Table 13Innovation Report Card


1 Calgary A 26 Laval C

2 Waterloo A 27 Lévis C

3 Richmond Hill A 28 Brampton C

4 Markham A 29 Burlington C

5 Burnaby A 30 Guelph C

6 Ottawa B 31 Saint John C

7 Mississauga B 32 Surrey C

8 Coquitlam B 33 Saguenay D

9 Edmonton B 34 London D

10 Vancouver B 35 Greater Sudbury D

11 Richmond B 36 Moncton D

12 Regina B 37 Kelowna D

13 Vaughan B 38 Windsor D

14 Oakville B 39 Cambridge D

15 Toronto C 40 Kingston D

16 St. John’s C 41 Sherbrooke D

17 Saskatoon C 42 Trois-Rivières D

18 Montréal C 43 Hamilton D

19 Kitchener C 44 Thunder Bay D

20 Halifax C 45 Barrie D

21 Québec City C 46 Peterborough D

22 Victoria C 47 Abbotsford D

23 Gatineau C 48 St. Catharines D

24 Longueuil C 49 Brantford D

25 Winnipeg C 50 Oshawa D




both cities outperform Toronto (15th and a “C” grade) by a wide margin in

this category. Vancouver does better relative to Burnaby, only five places

behind with a “B” grade.

Of the 10 “B” cities, 3 are in the Toronto census metropolitan area and

3 are in the Vancouver census metropolitan area. Ottawa, Edmonton,

Regina and St. John’s complete the list. All but 5 of the 18 “D” cities are

in Ontario and Quebec and, for the most part, have manufacturing- or

resource-based economies (excluding oil and gas). Except for Hamilton,

they are all small or mid-sized. The cities with the weakest scores on

innovation also fare badly in the Economy category overall; in fact,

both Oshawa and St. Catharines finish in the bottom three positions in

both categories.

Calgary emerges at the top of two of the five indicators of innovation,

namely, productivity level and the proportion of population employed in

natural and applied sciences. Just over 10 per cent of Calgarians are

employed in natural and applied sciences, close to double the share in

Toronto. This should come as no surprise, given the number of corporate

headquarters in Calgary linked to the oil and gas sector. yet no other city

earns an “A” grade on this indicator; even second-place Waterloo, with

an 8.1 per cent share, has to settle for a “B” grade. Similarly, Calgary

dominates on the productivity level—the only city with an “A” grade.

in all, three indicators provide insight into the number of science

professionals in a city. Two are employment-based, measuring the

proportion of workers engaged in natural and applied sciences and in

computer and information systems. The third indicator, as highlighted

above, reports on the proportion of university graduates in engineering,

math, and sciences. Waterloo and Richmond Hill are the only two cities

with a first, second, or third ranking on all three indicators. Waterloo

ranks first when it comes to computer and information systems, and

second on each of the other two indicators—results consistent with its

top ranking on knowledge workers in the Economy category and, of

course, reflecting the prominence of the high-tech industry. Richmond

Hill is best when it comes to graduates in engineering, math, and

science, reflecting in part its number-one ranking on university

Calgary is tops in two of the five innovation indicators: productivity level, and proportion of population employed in natural and applied sciences.



graduates overall (see the Education category). The city’s proximity to

engineering and high-tech employment underpins this factor (e.g., iBM

is just next door). And as previously mentioned, Calgary’s strength in the

natural and applied science occupations positions it as the only “A” city.

Burnaby and Ottawa also deserve a mention here, because each city

ranks no lower than sixth on any of these three indicators.

The productivity level and productivity growth indicators tell us how

efficiently a city uses its human and physical capital to create wealth.

Calgary’s productivity levels are hard to match. At $135,400 per worker,

Calgary’s productivity is 50 per cent higher than that of 30 of the

50 cities. in fact, no other city comes close, although second-place

Edmonton at $113,745 is well above the Canadian average of $94,382.

Even so, Edmonton is a “B” city compared with Calgary. These two

Alberta cities outshine the rest, leaving the remaining 48 to eke out

a “C” or “D” grade. At the other end of the spectrum, the bottom

nine cities are all in Quebec, including Montréal and Québec City.

Even the best-performing city in Quebec, Lévis, earns a “D” grade.

Although Calgary can boast the highest productivity level among this

report’s 50 cities, its productivity growth record over the past five years

has been less impressive. On this indicator, Calgary is in the middle of

the pack with average annual compound growth of only 0.5 per cent.

The strongest growth took place in Regina (1st), at an average rate of

2 per cent, and in Saskatoon (2nd with 1.6 per cent average growth)

during a period that saw an economic boom in both cities. Coquitlam

is the only other city to earn an “A” grade on productivity growth.

Weak productivity is a hallmark of Ontario cities across the board. The

best, Vaughan (19th), averaged only 0.5 per cent growth. Even worse,

all of the seven cities suffering productivity declines are in Ontario.

in this case, the blame cannot be pinned solely on the depressed

manufacturing and resource sectors; even Ottawa, Kingston, and

Guelph all had negative productivity growth.



Table 14Indicators of Performance in the Innovation Category



Population employed in natural and applied sciences occupations, 2011

This measures the percentage of employed people with jobs in science occupations (natural and applied) as defined by Statistics Canada (including those in life and physical sciences, engineers, architects, and urban planners, but excluding those in high-tech).

This indicator shows the proportion of people working in “innovative jobs.” The higher the percentage, the more attractive the city.

• Calgary (1)• Waterloo (2)• Richmond Hill (3)• Ottawa (4)• St. John’s (5)

• Abbotsford (50)• Brantford (49)• Oshawa (48)• St. Catharines (47)• Barrie (46)

Population employed in computer and information systems occupations, 2011

This measures the percentage of employed people with jobs in computer and information systems occupations.

A city with a proportionately greater number of people in the information technology sector is viewed as more innovative and creative and, hence, more attractive to the creative class of workers.

• Waterloo (1)• Richmond Hill (2)• Markham (3)• Ottawa (4)• Burnaby (5)

• Brantford (50)• Abbotsford (49)• Greater Sudbury (48)• Trois-Rivières (47)• St. Catharines (46)

Graduates in engineering, math, and science, 2011

This indicator shows the number of employed university graduates with a major in engineering, mathematics, or computer, applied, and physical sciences, per 1,000 people.

This indicator shows the relative numbers of university graduates with degrees in innovative disciplines. The higher the number, the more attractive the city to the creative class of workers.

• Richmond Hill (1)• Waterloo (2)• Markham (3)• Burnaby (4)• Calgary (5)

• Brantford (50)• Abbotsford (49)• Saint John (48)• Oshawa (47)• Barrie (46)

Productivity level, 2011

Productivity is GDP divided by employment and measures total output per worker.

Productivity is highly correlated with technological improvements and generates wealth in a city. The higher the productivity, the more attractive the city.

• Calgary (1)• Edmonton (2)

• Sherbrooke (50)• Trois-Rivières (49)• Saguenay (48)• Laval (47)• Québec City (46)

Productivity growth, 2007–11

Productivity growth is measured over five years from 2007 to 2011, and the results for each city show average annual compound growth.

Productivity growth indicates how quickly a city is making gains in wealth creation. Strong productivity growth fosters greater purchasing power for households. A city with high rates of productivity growth is more attractive.

• Regina (1)• Saskatoon (2)• Coquitlam (3)• Burnaby (4)• Winnipeg (5)

• Peterborough (50)• Ottawa (49)• Oshawa (48)• Kingston (47)• Burlington (46)



CHAPTER 9

Housing

Chapter Summary

• Small and mid-sized cities dominate the top tier in the Housing category, given that housing is the most expensive in some of Canada’s most popular cities, as population growth and the rising demand for housing outstrips supply.

• The big cities that do well (Calgary, Ottawa, Edmonton) are those where high average incomes compensate for high housing prices.

• All cities in Quebec earn “A” or “B” grades except for Montréal, partly thanks to the existence of strong rent control legislation that results in relatively affordable rents.

• At the low end of the spectrum, 10 cities have “D” grades, including Vancouver, 3 of its suburbs, and Victoria.



Decent affordable housing is fundamental to a high quality of life. In a world of highly mobile populations, cities that can offer a good supply of housing have a comparative advantage in attracting newcomers. Housing typically accounts for the largest single household expenditure and inevitably becomes an important factor in choosing among locations.

However, housing is the most expensive in some of Canada’s

most popular cities, as population growth and the rising demand for

housing outstrips supply, leading to elevated prices. And in the case of

Vancouver, the local housing market is also being used as a financial

safe haven for wealthy people in emerging markets.1 it is a conundrum

that is difficult to solve as cities become more and more popular,

attracting young and talented workers. Recent reports on the housing

affordability crisis in London, U.K., underscore this dilemma: “The cool,

creative class has been priced out of London, which means the capital

is becoming more bland and boring by the minute.”2

There is not yet any indication that Canada’s “popular” spots are

becoming any more bland and boring. The proportion of young adults

(population 25 to 34 years old, as measured in the Society category) is

still highest in the big cities, and this rate has increased over the past

five years.

The Housing category is our smallest, relying on only three indicators

(described in more detail in Table 16 at the end of the chapter):

• percentage of household income spent on mortgages (includes only

households with mortgages)

1 James Surowiecki, “Real Estate Goes Global”; Robin Wiebe, “Vancouver Housing Markets Cannot Fully Escape the Chinese Dragon.”

2 Alex Proud, “Cool London is Dead, and the Rich Kids Are to Blame.”



• percentage of tenant household income spent on rent (based on

incomes of those who rent)

• percentage of homes in need of major repair

Led by Lévis, half of the six “A” cities are in Quebec, including second-

best Saguenay and sixth-best Québec City. (See Table 15.) Overall,

cities in Quebec do well in this category; all earn “A” or “B” grades

except for Montréal. in this case, one contributing factor is the existence

of strong rent control legislation resulting in relatively affordable rents.

Oakville, Waterloo, and Calgary account for the other three “A”s—all

three are among the leading cities when it comes to per capita income,

allowing for relatively strong results on affordability.

Small and mid-sized cities dominate the top tier in the Housing category,

accounting for 8 of the 10 best (Calgary and Québec City are the

outliers). Apart from Québec City, the big cities that do well (Calgary,

Ottawa, Edmonton) are those where high average incomes that

compensate for high housing prices. At the low end of the spectrum,

10 cities have “D” grades, including Vancouver and 3 of its suburbs:

Richmond, Burnaby, and Coquitlam (Surrey is the exception). Victoria is

the least successful of all 50 cities, with a combination of poor results

on affordability and on housing condition.

Lévis and Saguenay are the most affordable cities for both rental and

ownership housing. When it comes to the percentage of income spent

on mortgages, Lévis edges out Saguenay as the most affordable city;

for renting, Saguenay tenants are fractionally better off. On average,

homeowners in Lévis spend only 12 per cent of their income on

mortgage payments, compared with 19.9 per cent for homeowners in

Brampton, who are the worst off. To put this into perspective, Canadians

on average spend 14.5 per cent of their income on mortgage payments.

in all, 16 cities earn an “A” grade on mortgage affordability; of these,

only 3 big cities are included in this group (Québec City, Calgary, and

Ottawa). Six of the eight cities at the bottom of the list are in British

Columbia, where high home prices mean big mortgage payments.



Table 15Housing Report Card


1 Lévis A 26 London C

2 Saguenay A 27 Mississauga C

3 Oakville A 28 Winnipeg C

4 Waterloo A 29 Cambridge C

5 Calgary A 30 Moncton C

6 Québec City A 31 Halifax C

7 Trois-Rivières B 32 Regina C

8 Sherbrooke B 33 Windsor C

9 Laval B 34 Brampton C

10 Burlington B 35 Toronto C

11 Gatineau B 36 Hamilton C

12 Thunder Bay B 37 Montréal C

13 Markham B 38 Saint John C

14 Ottawa B 39 St. Catharines C

15 St. John's B 40 Kingston C

16 Longueuil B 41 Brantford D

17 Vaughan B 42 Coquitlam D

18 Surrey B 43 Oshawa D

19 Richmond Hill B 44 Vancouver D

20 Edmonton B 45 Peterborough D

21 Greater Sudbury C 46 Kelowna D

22 Abbotsford C 47 Barrie D

23 Saskatoon C 48 Burnaby D

24 Kitchener C 49 Richmond D

25 Guelph C 50 Victoria D




Across the board, tenants—who tend to be younger and have less

income—spend a greater proportion of their income on housing than

homeowners spend. For tenants, there are only three “A” cities: Surrey

joins Saguenay and Lévis as the most affordable places to rent. in

Saguenay, tenants spend 18.6 per cent of income on rental housing,

compared with the 12.3 per cent that homeowners spend. Surrey, on

the other hand, is the third-most attractive city for tenants, even though

it is the second-most expensive place for homeowners (49th place).

Somewhat of an anomaly, Surrey’s homeowners spend nearly as much

of their income on housing as tenants (18.1 per cent vs. 20.5 per cent).

The top seven cities on rental affordability are either in British Columbia

(two cities) or Quebec (five cities)—provinces with rent control

mechanisms in place. Even Montréal fares well on this indicator. For

Toronto and the six suburbs, rental affordability exceeds the average

for Canada (22.1 per cent). Six cities earn “D” grades, with Kelowna

emerging as the least affordable place for tenants. Despite the presence

of rent controls, Kelowna’s tenants spend 27.7 per cent of their income

on rent. Kelowna’s rapid growth has likely contributed to a housing

squeeze (Kelowna is 40th among 50 cities on homeowner affordability).

As expected, suburban communities, where the housing stock is newer,

are the best places to find housing in good repair. The eight “A” cities

are all in Ontario; of these, five are suburbs in the Toronto census

metropolitan area. nearby Burlington, Waterloo, and Barrie complete

the list. Vaughan is best, with only 2.3 per cent of homes in need of

major repair. By contrast, proportionately, Saint John (50th) and Regina

(49th) have 9.9 per cent and 9.4 per cent of their homes in need of

major repair. Four of Canada’s biggest cities—Toronto, Vancouver,

Montréal, and Winnipeg—also find themselves among the worst

eight cities, while Canada’s oldest city, Québec City, is in the upper

half of the list and earns a “B” grade.

The top seven cities on rental affordability are either in British Columbia or Quebec—provinces with rent control mechanism in place.



Table 16Indicators of Performance in the Housing Category



income spent on mortgage, 2011

This measures the percentage of total household income spent on mortgage payments. Average monthly mortgage payments are divided by average monthly household income for all households with a mortgage.

Housing affordability is a key factor in deciding where to live. CMHC uses 30 per cent as the threshold for affordability. Cities where the share of income spent on mortgages is lowest receive the best grades.

• Lévis (1)• Saguenay (2)• Regina (3)• Thunder Bay (4)• Trois-Rivières (5)

• Brampton (50)• Surrey (49)• Richmond (48)• Burnaby (47)• Barrie (46)

income spent on rent, 2011

This indicator measures the percentage of monthly household income spent on rent, based on average tenant household income.

Rental affordability is a particularly important factor for newcomers, who typically rent housing when they first arrive. Cities with lower average rents are more attractive.

• Saguenay (1)• Lévis (2) • Surrey (3)• Abbotsford (4)• Laval (5)

• Kelowna (50)• Peterborough (49)• Barrie (48)• Kingston (47)• Victoria (46)

Homes in need of major repair, 2011

This shows the percentage of homes in need of major repair within each city. Statistics Canada defines major repairs as: the repair of defective plumbing or electrical wiring, and structural repairs to walls, floors, ceilings, etc.

This indicates the quality of the housing stock in each city. Cities with the lowest percentage of homes in need of major repair rank highest.

• Vaughan (1)• Markham (2)• Richmond Hill (3)• Brampton (4)• Waterloo (5)

• Saint John (50)• Regina (49)• Winnipeg (48)• Montréal (47)• Thunder Bay (46)



CHAPTER 10

Magnetic North: The Attractiveness of Canada’s Cities

Chapter Summary

• in deciding where to live, all migrants value cities that offer centres of innovation the most. For university-educated migrants, features related to society are second-most important, followed by a city’s economic strength. For migrants without a university education, it’s the environment.

• But overall, the 6 “A” cities are at the top of the list regardless of education levels—Waterloo, Calgary, Ottawa, Richmond Hill, Vancouver, and St. John’s. Each offers a unique combination of attributes that add up to a great place to live.

• The 17 overall “C” cities have poor grades on either Economy or Society, or in a few instances, on both.

• The 13 “D” cities are struggling to attract migrants regardless of whether they have a university degree. Most of these cities are in Ontario, and all but one are small or mid-sized.



In the previous sections, we assessed 50 of Canada’s largest cities using 43 indicators grouped into seven broad categories. The overarching goal of this research, however, is to gauge these cities’ attractiveness to new migrants. The analysis so far sets the stage, but falls short of explaining which cities are the most attractive overall. To arrive at a measure of overall attractiveness, we need to address the challenging reality that people’s locational choices are influenced by their individual values. For example, some people value educational opportunities for their children as most important; for others, a strong local economy is the biggest draw. In other words, each of our seven categories will be valued differently by different groups of people, with implicit weights assigned to each.

To measure each city’s overall attractiveness to people, we devised a

weighting system to be applied to each category (for more detail, see the

Methodology chapter). We further examined the categories through the

lens of new migrants, distinguishing between migrants with a university

education and those without. As a result, we arrived at three sets of

rankings to help us understand the attractiveness of cities to migrants:

1) for migrants overall; 2) for migrants with a university education; and

3) for migrants without a university education.

in deciding where to live, all migrants value cities that offer centres

of innovation the most. in other words, the innovation category

seems to matter the most in locational decisions, followed by aspects

of urban living that make a city a great place to live, work, and



play—characteristics grouped here under the Society category. (See

Chart 1.) The Environment category is third-most important, slightly

ahead of Economy.

Looking more closely at the two subcategories (migrants with a

university degree and migrants without), the top draws remain the

same: innovation and Society. Modest variations are apparent among

the remaining five categories. For instance, Environment receives a

much smaller weight among university-educated migrants, as Economy

jumps into the third-most important category. (See Chart 2.)

For migrants without a university degree, innovation remains the

most important category. But now, both the Economy and Society are

more evenly weighted, while the Environment has leapfrogged them

both, compared with university-educated migrants. not surprisingly,

Education is less highly valued. (See Chart 3.)

What does all this weighting mean? From our results, regardless of the

level of education, migrants will strongly favour cities that offer centres of

innovation, as well as the best chance for a high quality of life. Economic

opportunities also matter, as do places with access to good health care.

Chart 1Weight Given to Each Category When Migrants Decide Where to Live(per cent)


13.5

4.9

15.0

9.26.2

31.6

19.6

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society



Drilling down further, the next set of charts illustrates the weight that

intercity, interprovincial, and international migrants place on each

category separately. For example, intercity migrants overall place the

most weight on Environment and Housing, with the Economy and

Society also being significant factors. (See Chart 4.) But when we look

at it further, intercity migrants with a university education clearly put the

Chart 2Migrants With a University Degree: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


12.2

4.4

9.6

8.5

7.228.6

29.5Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society

Chart 3Migrants Without a University Degree: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


14.0

6.7

23.2

10.97.3

23.5

14.4

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society



greatest weight on Society. (See Chart 5.) For intercity migrants without

a university education, the Environment is the most important. (See

Chart 6.)

interestingly, interprovincial migrants place the greatest weight on the

Economy category. (See Chart 7.) As we have seen in recent years,

many Canadians are willing to relocate to Alberta and Saskatchewan

for employment. However, it seems that interprovincial migrants with

Chart 4Intercity Migrants: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


18.2

6.7

20.8

10.1

19.0

8.3

16.9

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society

Chart 5Intercity Migrants With a University Degree: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


15.8

5.1

13.5

10.216.6

11.8

27.0Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society



a university education still favour a location with a strong Society and

Environment score, as quality of life trumps strong job prospects. (See

Chart 8.) For interprovincial migrants without a university education,

strong job prospects are an overwhelming factor. (See Chart 9.)

Chart 6Intercity Migrants Without a University Degree: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


16.3

10.2

27.510.6

18.5

6.0

11.0

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society

Chart 7Interprovincial Migrants: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


20.0

7.8

18.6

11.0

10.3

19.0

13.1

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society



Finally, international migrants undoubtedly favour innovation and Society

when choosing where to migrate in Canada. (See charts 10, 11, and 12.)

All of the other categories take a backseat. Perhaps this is why most

international migrants chose to land in Toronto, Montréal, or Vancouver;

these cities are top 3 in Society and top 20 in innovation. Of course,

once migrants land in Canada, they will be counted as an intercity or

an interprovincial migrant if they decide to relocate again.

Chart 8Interprovincial Migrants With a University Degree: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


13.8

6.7

20.0

8.911.0

17.2

22.4

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society

Chart 9Interprovincial Migrants Without a University Degree: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


22.6

8.8

17.212.6

10.4

18.0

10.5

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society



Table 17 presents the overall scores for attractiveness to migrants for

each of the 50 cities, according to the three scenarios: 1) all migrants;

2) university-educated migrants; and 3) non-university-educated

migrants. Generally, results for the three scenarios are comparable,

despite some variations in weightings. Ultimately, cities that emerge

Chart 10International Migrants: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


7.47.7

9.4

11.2

4.935.1

24.2

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society

Chart 11International Migrants With a University Degree: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


8.5

10.3

8.4

11.7

5.133.8

22.0

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society



as the top destinations for university-educated migrants are at the top

of the list for non-migrants, suggesting that a city can and should be

attractive to all individuals, regardless of education levels.

“A” Cities: Strong Magnets

Six cities earn overall “A” grades across all three scenarios (all migrants,

university-educated migrants, and non-university-educated migrants),

led by Waterloo, Calgary, and Ottawa. These six cities, extending from

coast to coast, represent a diverse cluster of cities, emblematic of

Canada overall. They include three big and two small cities, but only

one suburb. They represent four provinces, and none are part of the

same census metropolitan area or in neighbouring regions. Two of the

six are capital cities—possibly a relevant common denominator. (All of

the eight provincial capital cities in the report are at least “B” cities and

make it in the top 19.)

Whether you are a migrant with a university degree or without, these

cities are appealing places to live. Each has strong attributes that draw

people to its community, but the top three are particularly highly prized

cities when it comes to the economy.

Chart 12International Migrants Without a University Degree: Weight Given to Each Category When Deciding Where to Live(per cent)


7.26.7

10.8

11.3

5.333.6

25.0

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Housing

Innovation

Society



Table 17Attractiveness to Migrants Report Card

CityAll migrants

(rank) GradeUniversity-educated

migrants (rank) GradeNon-university-educated

migrants (rank) Grade

Waterloo 1 A 1 A 1 A

Calgary 2 A 2 A 2 A

Ottawa 3 A 3 A 3 A

Richmond Hill 4 A 4 A 6 A

Vancouver 5 A 5 A 5 A

St. John’s 6 A 8 B 4 A

Edmonton 7 B 6 A 10 B

Regina 8 B 12 B 8 B

Burnaby 9 B 9 B 13 B

Markham 10 B 7 B 15 B

Victoria 11 B 11 B 7 A

Saskatoon 12 B 13 B 9 B

Toronto 13 B 10 B 21 B

Coquitlam 14 B 18 B 16 B

Halifax 15 B 23 B 11 B

Québec City 16 B 16 B 14 B

Oakville 17 B 15 B 20 B

Mississauga 18 B 14 B 27 C

Winnipeg 19 B 20 B 18 B

Kingston 20 B 22 B 12 B

Gatineau 21 C 21 B 24 C

Lévis 22 C 24 C 22 B

Vaughan 23 C 19 B 30 C

Richmond 24 C 26 C 26 C

Guelph 25 C 25 C 25 C

(continued ...)



Table 17 (cont’d)Attractiveness to Migrants Report Card

CityAll migrants

(rank) GradeUniversity-educated

migrants (rank) GradeNon-university-educated

migrants (rank) Grade

Sherbrooke 26 C 30 C 17 B

London 27 C 29 C 23 B

Kitchener 28 C 27 C 28 C

Moncton 29 C 31 C 19 B

Montréal 30 C 17 B 38 C

Burlington 31 C 28 C 29 C

Surrey 32 C 35 C 33 C

Laval 33 C 32 C 41 D

Saguenay 34 C 36 C 37 C

Kelowna 35 C 40 D 31 C

Thunder Bay 36 C 38 D 32 C

Longueuil 37 C 33 C 45 D

Brampton 38 D 34 C 46 D

Trois-Rivières 39 D 42 D 34 C

Peterborough 40 D 39 D 36 C

Abbotsford 41 D 41 D 35 C

Hamilton 42 D 37 D 40 D

Greater Sudbury 43 D 44 D 39 D

Saint John 44 D 45 D 47 D

Windsor 45 D 43 D 44 D

Barrie 46 D 47 D 42 D

St. Catharines 47 D 46 D 43 D

Brantford 48 D 49 D 48 D

Cambridge 49 D 48 D 49 D

Oshawa 50 D 50 D 50 D




WaterlooWaterloo, despite being one of the smallest of the 50 cities, shines as

one of the top cities for both university- and non-university-educated

migrants. Considering Waterloo’s well-earned reputation for innovation

and education, this should not be surprising. its reputation is borne out

by our analysis, ranking first in Education and second in innovation.

Waterloo and second-best Kingston dominate the Education category

as the only two “A” cities. Education and innovation are drivers of

the economy in Waterloo, leading to a strong third-place result in the

Economy category, behind Calgary and Ottawa. it’s important to note,

however, that data come from the 2011 Census and do not reflect more

recent job cuts and other financial losses associated with BlackBerry.

Still, Waterloo boosts its appeal with well-maintained and relatively

affordable housing. Where Waterloo is vulnerable, however, is in Health,

where it falls to the bottom (48th) with a “D” grade.

CalgaryCalgary is the only city to rank first in two categories: Economy and

innovation. A powerful combination, these two categories lift Calgary

to the top tier of cities despite weak outcomes in Education, Health,

and Environment. Although Calgary has a well-educated workforce,

overall results in Education suffer from poor teacher-to-student ratios,

including those at the university level. This is not uncommon for such a

fast-growing city, where keeping services up with growth is challenging.

Similarly, in Health, Calgary scores a “D” grade for hospital beds per

100,000 people—another symptom of escalating growth.

OttawaOttawa’s appeal can be traced back to solid results in four key

categories: Society, Education, innovation, and Economy. The presence

of a well-educated public sector has also helped to incubate creative

ideas and to seed private sector innovation. Ottawa’s ranking is boosted

by the fact that it ranks in the top half in each of the seven categories.

These strengths help us understand why Ottawa ranks second when

Ottawa’s appeal can be traced back to solid results in four key categories: Society, Education, innovation, and Economy.



it comes to migrants with university education, where Education and

innovation are valued more highly. Ottawa’s weakness can be found

in Health, where it earns its only “C” grade, attributed primarily to

low numbers of health care support workers, rather than physicians

or specialists.

Richmond HillBoosted by strong results in Education, innovation, and Society,

Richmond Hill is the fourth “A” city. With over 54 per cent of its

population foreign-born, it is the third-most diverse city in Canada after

Toronto and Mississauga. you will also find the highest number of

graduates in engineering, science, and math per capita in Richmond

Hill, along with the second-highest share of computer and information

systems employees. The city’s proximity to large engineering and high-

tech businesses is a draw for these workers. not surprisingly, Richmond

Hill is somewhat more attractive to migrants with a university education.

VancouverVancouver is the fifth “A” city, appealing because of its overall high

quality of life, demonstrated by strong results on Society, Education,

and Environment. Graced with a beautiful setting and temperate climate,

Vancouver is one of the key destinations for new Canadians, including

a young demographic. no doubt, climate also contributes to the large

numbers of cycling and walking commuters, but so does good planning

and good governance. Vancouver’s Achilles heel is housing; it ranks

near the bottom with a “D” grade—the city’s high cost of housing is

an unfortunate side effect of its success and geography.

St. John’sThe second of the small “A” cities, St. John’s is boosted by strong

economic activity and exceptional outcomes in the Health category.

Activity in the oil and gas sector has made St. John’s one of Canada’s

“A-list” urban economies, with the second-highest GDP per capita and

third-highest productivity level of all 50 cities. However, it is in the Health



category that St. John’s distinguishes itself from every other city except

Kingston. Ranked second overall behind Kingston and only one of two

“A” cities in Health, St. John’s has the second-best ratio of GPs and

specialists per 100,000 people. To improve its overall attractiveness,

St. John’s needs to find ways to improve its outcomes in the Society

category, where it languishes in the bottom decile of all 50 cities.

“B” Cities: Magnetic Appeal

The next tier of successful cities are the 14 cities with an overall “B”

grade, representing six provinces and including a majority of the mid-

sized cities. included among the “B” cities are a diverse group of suburbs

and “core” cities (that is, cities that are the largest within the respective

census metropolitan areas, typically the historic heart of the metropolitan

area), located all across the country.

included in the “B” list is Toronto, one of four “B” cities in the Toronto

census metropolitan area, along with Oakville, Markham, and

Mississauga. All of these cities in the Toronto area boast large numbers

of residents born outside Canada. Toronto’s draw comes from a number

of factors highlighted in the Society category, where it is best overall. As

the biggest welcoming metropolis for immigrants to Canada, Toronto’s

diversity generates its own magnetic appeal.

Four western cities rank among the “B” cities: Edmonton (7th overall),

Regina (8th), Saskatoon (12th), and Winnipeg (19th). All have seen

sizable increases in newcomer populations during the past 10 years

as local economies have improved. Edmonton’s relatively low

unemployment rates, high per capita incomes, and growing employment

opportunities have attracted newcomers in growing numbers. in the case

of Saskatoon and Regina, resources in Saskatchewan have fostered

booming economies, making both cities “A” cities in the Economy,

among the top 7 of all 50 cities. Though it garners middle-of-the-pack

results in most categories, Winnipeg’s success comes in its top-15

ranking in Health.

As the biggest welcoming metropolis for immigrants to Canada, Toronto’s diversity generates its own magnetic appeal.



Of the remaining “B” cities, 3 are in British Columbia (Victoria, Burnaby,

and Coquitlam), while Halifax, Québec City, and Kingston round out the

group. Burnaby (9th overall) and Coquitlam (14th), part of the Vancouver

census metropolitan area, share some of the benefits stemming from the

metropolitan region, but lag behind Vancouver when it comes to Society,

Education, Health, and Housing (Coquitlam ranks two spots ahead of

Vancouver on Housing, but still receives a “D” grade). Victoria (11th),

thanks to its temperate climate and young and educated population,

scores best on Environment, Education, and Society. Meanwhile, Halifax

(15th) and Québec City (16th) earn great results in the Health category,

being well supported with GPs, specialists, and workers in support of

health care. Finally, Kingston’s “A” grade on Education, Environment,

and Health were enough to lift it into 20th position.

“C” Cities: Room for Improvement

For 17 cities, a “C” grade signals room for improvement. Just like the

“A” and “B” cities, this group includes a range of small, medium-sized,

and big cities from across Canada, but three-quarters are in Ontario

or Quebec (Gatineau, Lévis, Vaughan, Guelph, Sherbrooke, London,

Kitchener, Montréal, Burlington, Laval, Saguenay, Thunder Bay, and

Longueuil.) in addition, two suburban cities in B.C.—Richmond and

Surrey—find themselves well behind Vancouver, the hub of the census

metropolitan area. Particularly weak outcomes on Education and Society

are at the root of this particular city-suburban gap. Overall, the “C” cities

have poor outcomes on either Economy or Society, or in a few instances,

on both.

Elsewhere, Moncton balances weak results in Society with strong

Environment and Health credentials, while Kelowna’s low ranking

on Society and Housing offsets its third place in Environment.

nonetheless, despite their differences, all cities that earn a “C” grade

would strive to do better in order to boost their appeal to newcomers.

Overall, the “C” cities have poor outcomes on either Economy or Society, or, in a few instances, on both.



“D” Cities: Struggling to Attract

Without question, the “D” cities are struggling, and it matters little

whether they are measured against migrants with a university degree

or without. Except for Brampton and Hamilton, all cities are small or

mid-sized. in all, 13 cities are included in this group, which is dominated

by Ontario (which has 10 of 13 “D” cities):

• Ontario: Brampton, Peterborough, Hamilton, Greater Sudbury, Windsor,

Barrie, St. Catharines, Brantford, Cambridge, and Oshawa

• B.C.: Abbotsford

• Quebec: Trois-Rivières

• new Brunswick: Saint John

Of these 13 “D” cities, 9 experienced very low or negative population

growth (1 per cent annually or lower), including 2 that saw their

population decline between 2006 and 2011, namely, St. Catharines

and Windsor. Overall on Society, 10 of the cities are in the bottom

half, but notably, Brampton gets an “A,” thanks to its diversity and

foreign-born population.

Almost all of the “D” cities (except Peterborough) fall in the bottom half

of the rankings on Education, and 8 are included among the 13 cities

with a “D” grade in this category. Similarly, all are in the bottom half of

the Economy and innovation categories; 10 of 13 earn “D” grades on

innovation. Cities in central and southern Ontario were hit hard by the

recession and the slow recovery of the manufacturing and automotive

sectors. This is evident in the poor economic results for Hamilton,

Cambridge, St. Catharines, Windsor, and Oshawa. Each had negative

GDP growth, negative employment growth, and high unemployment

rates. Furthermore, 8 of these “D” cities are among the 10 weakest in

the Economy. Similarly, a poor showing in the Economy category, also

caused by the slow recovery of the manufacturing sector, hurt the overall

ranking of Trois-Rivières.

Cities in central and southern Ontario were hit hard by the recession and the slow recovery of the manufacturing and automotive sectors.



Saint John, the second-smallest city among all 50 cities, struggles to

improve on measures linked to Society, Education, and Environment

where it lands in 49th or 50th place. Saint John does better than all

other “D” cities on the Economy, thanks to decent GDP growth that has

resulted in making Saint John the ninth-highest city for GDP per capita.


CHAPTER 11

Conclusion

Chapter Summary

• An attractive city is attractive to everyone—despite the different weight migrants may attach to the various aspects that make cities appealing.

• The strength of the most magnetic cities has stood the test of time: the top six cities in our last ranking are still at the top this year.

• The most noticeable improvements since our last ranking came in the Economy category, driven by robust growth in the West, but spreading out across the country to places like Moncton and Halifax. However, for manufacturing cities in southern Ontario, economic growth remained elusive, keeping Windsor and Oshawa from progressing up the list of 50 cities.



This report analyzes the magnetic appeal of Canada’s cities, with a particular perspective focusing on the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have been drawn to Canada’s cities for decades. Following closely the format of City Magnets II (2010), this edition continued to explore three different scenarios, viewed from the perspective of: 1) university-educated migrants; 2) migrants without a university degree; and 3) all migrants. In so doing, we are better able to understand whether there are attributes of a city with greater appeal to university-educated migrants, and similarly those with more appeal to non-university-educated migrants. In other words, can we assess whether a migrant’s level of education strongly influences locational choice?

After examining three sets of tabulations based on 43 indicators,

our conclusions support, and indeed strengthen, the conclusion first

arrived at in City Magnets II : “an attractive city is attractive to everyone.”1

While it is surprising that university-educated migrants place less weight

on Education outcomes than migrants with no university degree, both

groups of migrants are more interested in innovation outcomes than

anything else. The overall results bear this out—the top three cities

are the same no matter which category of migrants is examined; ditto

for the bottom three cities.

in all, six cities earn “A” grades: Waterloo, Calgary, Ottawa, Richmond

Hill, Vancouver, and St. John’s. With such a diverse group of big

and small cities strung across the country, there is clearly no magic

formula for magnetic appeal. Each in their own way offers an attractive

1 The Conference Board of Canada, City Magnets II, 55.



combination of attributes. For instance, Calgary is an economic

juggernaut holding the promise of jobs and steady incomes. Meanwhile,

Vancouver is a shining example of a city built on diversity to strengthen

its outcome in Society. Waterloo, on the other hand, receives its ranking

from its reliance on the high-tech sector. Significantly, all six are tops

across the board for migrants, regardless of their education.

For the most part, the fundamentals of these top cities have stood the

test of time. in our 2010 report, we identified that 8 of the top 10 cities

remained at the top. This year, all of the six “A” cities in 2010 hung on to

their top spots in 2014. Saskatoon and Regina are the newcomers in the

top 10, displacing Victoria and Vaughan (which dropped slightly). The

most noticeable improvements came in the Economy category, driven

by robust growth in the West, but spreading out across the country to

places like Moncton and Halifax. However, for manufacturing cities in

southern Ontario, economic growth remained elusive, keeping Windsor

and Oshawa from progressing up the list of 50 cities.

Certainly, the evidence from this report reinforces the important message

first put to policy-makers in our previous edition, namely, to be careful

in crafting immigration policies that are aimed solely at attracting

university graduates.

Finally, by identifying the cities that act as strong magnets, this report

sheds lights on what it takes to be a magnetic city. Cities that fail to

attract new migrants from other countries, other provinces, and other

cities will struggle to be prosperous and vibrant. indeed, attracting skilled

and creative workers is crucial to the competitiveness of Canada and its

cities. Most importantly, a successful city must be attractive to all people.

Tell us how we’re doing—rate this publication.

www.conferenceboard.ca/e-Library/abstract.aspx?did=6441

Appendix A | The Conference Board of Canada


APPENDIX A

Retrospective: Looking Back at City Magnets II

in this edition of City Magnets, we seized the opportunity to compare

current results with those of City Magnets II, released in 2010. The

following retrospective is based on a systematic review of each category,

ensuring that the 2014 results are directly comparable to those in the

2010 report. Accordingly, for this retrospective, we recalculated the

rankings in this year’s report based on the definitions and number of

indicators used in 2010. This involved adjusting the GDP figures to

align with the methodology used in the 2010 report, and extracting the

new indicators from the current results (see Methodology section for a

description of the indicators added for the 2014 report and the changes

to GDP calculations). Consequently, two indicators were eliminated (full-

time employment and population in occupations supporting health care)

and four indicators were adjusted:

• real GDP per capita

• real GDP growth

• labour productivity

• labour productivity growth

So, on this basis, what changed in the past five years? As it happens,

results for 2014 mirror closely those of 2010: the best cities are still at

the top; and for the most part, the struggling cities continue to struggle.


Find this report and other Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca 86

The overarching message from 2010 resonates even more strongly in

2014; namely, that an attractive city is attractive to everyone, despite the

different values migrants may attach to their choice of relocation.1

Even so, we identified a number of changes since 2010. The following

are the most important:

1. The number of “D” cities rose, from 9 to 17.

2. The difference in results between migrants with a university degree and

those without is much less pronounced in 2014 than in 2010.

3. Six cities saw significant improvements in ranking in 2014: Saskatoon,

Regina, Burnaby, Moncton, Coquitlam, and Saguenay. in four of these

cities (Regina and Saguenay excluded), there was also an improvement

in grade.

4. Eight cities declined significantly in ranking in 2014: Guelph, Lévis,

Vaughan, London, Barrie, Kingston, Sherbrooke, and St. Catharines.

Vaughan, Kingston, and Sherbrooke kept the same letter grade; all

others dropped.

5. in the Economy category, there are more “A” cities and fewer “D” cities,

and western cities are more dominant than ever.

6. in the Environment category, many cities saw improvements: in 2014,

50 per cent more cities earned “A” grades (15 vs. 10); and only one city,

Montréal, earned a “D,” compared with seven in 2010.

Five cities are included in the top flight of “A” cities, one fewer than

in 2010. (See Table 1.) At the top, the best five cities stay the same,

although Waterloo slips to 5th place, while Ottawa, Richmond Hill,

and Vancouver all move up a spot, to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place,

respectively. Calgary maintains its number-one position. At this

point, the relative strengths of each of these five cities have been

robust enough to keep them at the top. For Calgary, it’s the Economy

and innovation; for Waterloo, it’s Education and innovation; and for

Ottawa, it’s Economy and Society.

1 The Conference Board of Canada, City Magnets II, 54.



Table 1Comparison of City Rankings and Grades

City

All migrants University-educated migrants Non-university-educated migrants

2014 report 2010 report 2014 report 2010 report 2014 report 2010 report

Rank Grade Rank Grade Rank Grade Rank Grade Rank Grade Rank Grade

Calgary 1 A 1 A 1 A 3 A 4 A 1 A

Ottawa 2 A 3 A 2 A 2 A 2 A 3 A

Richmond Hill 3 A 4 A 3 A 4 A 8 A 5 A

Vancouver 4 A 5 A 4 A 6 A 5 A 4 A

Waterloo 5 A 2 A 5 A 1 A 1 A 2 A

Edmonton 6 B 7 B 6 B 12 B 10 B 7 A

St. John’s 7 B 6 A 9 B 5 A 3 A 6 A

Saskatoon 8 B 30 C 10 B 29 C 9 A 29 C

Markham 9 B 9 B 7 B 8 B 23 B 9 B

Regina 10 B 18 B 15 B 23 C 6 A 14 B

Victoria 11 B 8 B 11 B 9 B 7 A 8 B

Oakville 12 B 12 B 12 B 10 B 17 B 12 B

Toronto 13 B 14 B 8 B 13 B 19 B 18 B

Burnaby 14 B 27 C 13 B 22 C 18 B 32 C

Moncton 15 B 31 C 18 B 31 C 14 B 30 C

Vaughan 16 B 10 B 14 B 14 B 28 C 10 B

Kingston 17 B 11 B 16 B 7 B 11 B 11 B

Coquitlam 18 B 28 C 17 B 27 C 25 C 33 C

Halifax 19 B 16 B 20 C 17 B 12 B 16 B

Burlington 20 C 20 B 19 C 18 B 26 C 20 B

Québec City 21 C 19 B 21 C 16 B 13 B 19 B

Winnipeg 22 C 22 C 23 C 25 C 15 B 22 C

Richmond 23 C 25 C 25 C 28 C 29 C 26 C

Gatineau 24 C 23 C 24 C 24 C 21 B 23 C

London 25 C 15 B 28 C 15 B 22 B 17 B

(continued ...)



Table 1 (cont’d)Comparison of City Rankings and Grades

City

All migrants University-educated migrants Non-university-educated migrants

2014 report 2010 report 2014 report 2010 report 2014 report 2010 report

Rank Grade Rank Grade Rank Grade Rank Grade Rank Grade Rank Grade

Guelph 26 C 13 B 27 C 11 B 24 B 13 B

Mississauga 27 C 24 C 22 C 20 B 27 C 25 C

Sherbrooke 28 C 21 C 31 C 21 C 16 B 21 C

Lévis 29 C 17 B 29 C 19 B 20 B 15 B

Kelowna 30 C 34 C 33 C 45 D 30 C 28 C

Kitchener 31 C 26 C 30 C 30 C 31 C 27 C

Surrey 32 C 38 C 32 C 43 D 33 C 35 C

Montréal 33 C 35 C 26 C 26 C 38 C 39 C

Thunder Bay 34 D 36 C 38 D 32 C 32 C 36 C

Abbotsford 35 D 32 C 36 D 36 C 35 C 31 C

Greater Sudbury 36 D 40 C 41 D 35 C 39 C 40 C

Brampton 37 D 33 C 34 C 38 D 46 D 34 C

Hamilton 38 D 41 C 37 D 37 C 40 D 42 C

Saguenay 39 D 47 D 39 D 44 D 37 C 47 D

Laval 40 D 43 D 35 C 41 D 42 D 43 D

Peterborough 41 D 37 C 40 D 33 C 34 C 37 C

Trois-Rivières 42 D 44 D 43 D 42 D 36 C 44 D

Barrie 43 D 29 C 45 D 39 D 41 D 24 C

Saint John 44 D 49 D 46 D 49 D 43 D 49 D

St. Catharines 45 D 39 C 44 D 34 C 44 D 38 C

Longueuil 46 D 48 D 42 D 47 D 45 D 48 D

Cambridge 47 D 42 D 48 D 46 D 49 D 41 C

Windsor 48 D 45 D 47 D 40 D 48 D 46 D

Brantford 49 D 46 D 50 D 48 D 47 D 45 D

Oshawa 50 D 50 D 49 D 50 D 50 D 50 D

Note: Rankings for 2014 are recalculated (and therefore slightly different from the rankings in the main body of the report) to make them directly comparable with the rankings in the 2010 report.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.



Unfortunately, the number of cities falling into the “D” category

increased—from 9 in 2010 to 17 in 2014. Hamilton, Brampton,

Peterborough, Greater Sudbury, Abbotsford, St. Catharines, Thunder

Bay, and Barrie all dropped from a “C” to a “D” grade. no common

trend underpins the decline of these seven cities; for some, worsening

economies were a factor— Barrie was hit particularly hard; for others,

poorer outcomes in the Society category contributed to their downfall

(e.g., Greater Sudbury).

The second important change reinforces the conclusion that a city

attractive to university-educated migrants is attractive to all. This finding

is even more pronounced in this 2014 edition of City Magnets, which

reveals only modest differences among university-educated migrants

and those without a university degree. Perhaps the most significant

variation is the value placed on outcomes in the Education category; in

this edition, migrants without a university education viewed them as more

important. Even so, the difference is small (with the Education category

weighted at 6.7 per cent for migrants without a university degree vs.

4.4 per cent for migrants with a university degree). Looking back to 2010,

migrants with a university degree overwhelmingly considered Education

as the most important category (accounting for 21 per cent of the total

decision). By contrast, migrants without a university degree view the

Economy category as most important (at 33 per cent) and Education

only at 10 per cent (half the weighting of those with a university degree).

Overall, five cities saw significant improvements since 2010, including

four that rose 10 or more points in the rankings. Saskatoon experienced

the most dramatic improvement, jumping from 30th to 8th place, from a

“C” to a “B” grade. A booming economy fuelled Saskatoon’s rise, pushing

the city up to an “A” grade in the Economy, from its “C” standing in 2010.

Strong GDP and employment growth underpin Saskatoon’s success.

The only other city from Saskatchewan—Regina—moved up 8 places

in the rankings, but kept its “B” grade. Regina’s rise can be attributed

mostly to Economy, where it finished in 2nd spot. Moncton’s rise is just

as impressive, up 16 places from 31st to 15th, from a “C” to a “B” grade.

Like Saskatoon, big gains in the economy lifted Moncton in the overall



rankings. Formerly a “C” city in the Economy category, Moncton earns

a “B” grade in 2014, largely thanks to significant gains in GDP per

capita, alongside strong GDP and employment growth. Both Burnaby

and Coquitlam were also able to jump in the rankings, moving from a

“B” to a “C.” Like most of the other cities with big gains, Burnaby and

Coquitlam improved thanks to stronger economic performance leading

to gains in both the Economy and innovation categories. But both also

saw improvement in the Health category, while Burnaby made huge

strides in Society. Finally, Saguenay also moved up 8 places in the

rankings to 39th, but did not improve on its “D” grade.

Gains for some cities brought losses for others: eight cities fell

significantly in ranking and grade. Five of the cities are in Ontario,

where they all suffered from economic losses: Kingston, Vaughan,

London, Guelph, Barrie, and St. Catharines. in the most extreme

example, Barrie dropped from 29 to number 41 in the Economy category.

The struggling manufacturing sector in Ontario has been highlighted

previously. Lévis and Sherbrooke are the only non-Ontario cities that

experienced significant losses, though their drop is not a result of

economic decline. Although Lévis retained its number-one ranking in the

Housing category, its drop from a “B” to a “C” grade (and from 17th to

29th) is linked more closely to poorer results in the Society category.

The final two key changes relate to shifts within two of the categories:

Economy and Environment. Both saw collective improvements: more

“A” cities, fewer “D” cities. notwithstanding the struggling Ontario

manufacturing sector, the 2014 Economy category includes 5 “A” cities,

up from only 3 in 2010, and perhaps more impressively, only 4 “D” cities

compared with 17 in 2010. While this is in part due to the formulaic

methodology used to assign grades, it does, more importantly, signal

an upswing in many parts of the country. This is most acutely observed

in Western Canada, where as Table 2 illustrates, four of the five top

economies are in the West: Calgary, Regina, Edmonton, and Saskatoon.

Vancouver and Winnipeg also saw significant gains. Looking eastward,

economic fortunes also improved for Toronto, Québec City, Montréal,

Halifax, and Moncton, among others.



Similarly, in the Environment category, a number of cities had significant

improvements. Fifteen cities earned “A” grades, compared to ten in 2014.

Equally significant is the drop in the number of “D” grades: Montréal is

the lone “D” city in 2014, stuck at the bottom as it was in 2010. Cities in

British Columbia still dominate, blessed by good weather and good air

quality—factors unlikely to change. Still, better air quality in cities along

the Great Lakes meant far fewer air quality advisory days. in the previous

report, 21 cities averaged 20 or more air quality advisory days; that

number has now shrunk to only one. For many cities, shorter commuting

distances also boosted their overall outcomes in the Environment

category, e.g., Saskatoon, London, and Winnipeg.

Table 2 provides a closer look at the comparative performances of

cities in the 2014 and 2010 reports, highlighting the bright spots and

disappointments by each of the seven categories. Apart from the

differences noted above, the results for the best cities (bright spots)

show remarkable consistency. For example, Calgary is the top city

in both reports for Economy and innovation. Waterloo and Kingston

continue to dominate at the top of the Education category, just as

Kingston and St. John’s continue to lead all others in Health. Four of

the top cities in innovation are the same; Calgary replaces St. John’s

at the top. in this instance, St. John’s suffered a notable decline,

dropping to 17th place, but still maintaining a “B” grade. As noted

above, B.C. cities continue to claim four of the top five spots on the

Environment. Finally, the top results for Society are similarly consistent,

with modest variations among the top 10. (not shown on the summary

table are results for the entire top 10. in Society, Mississauga and

Victoria dropped slightly from 2010 to 2014 but stay in the top 10.

Ottawa and Vancouver had previously ranked 6th and 7th.)

Looking more closely at “disappointments,” we note greater—but

typically not dramatic—variations for the most part. One notable

exception is Saguenay’s improvement in the Economy category,

climbing from 50th place in 2010 to 24th in 2014—a jump from a “D”

to a “B” grade, mostly from improved employment growth and a lower

unemployment rate. St. Catharines had already been a “D” Economy



Table 2Bright Spots and Disappointments by Category

Indicator

Bright spots, 2014 Bright spots, 2010 Disappointments, 2014 Disappointments, 2010

City Grade City Grade City Grade City Grade

Economy Calgary A Calgary A Cambridge D Windsor D

Regina A Vaughan A Longueuil D Saint John D

Ottawa A Edmonton A St. Catharines D Oshawa D

Edmonton A Richmond Hill B Oshawa D Longueuil D

Saskatoon A Oakville B Windsor D Saguenay D

Education Waterloo A Waterloo A Abbotsford D Oshawa D

Kingston A Kingston A Oshawa D Saint John D

Vancouver B Vancouver A Surrey D Surrey D

Victoria B Guelph B Saint John D Kelowna D

Ottawa B Ottawa B Cambridge D Cambridge D

Environment Victoria A Abbotsford A Montréal D Mississauga D

Abbotsford A Victoria A Burlington D

Kelowna A Kelowna A Vaughan D

Coquitlam A St. John’s A Oakville D

Moncton A Coquitlam A Montréal D

Health Kingston A Kingston A Waterloo D Cambridge D

St. John’s A St. John’s A Richmond D Oshawa D

Sherbrooke B Sherbrooke B Vaughan D Kitchener D

Victoria B London B Cambridge D Vaughan D

Moncton B Moncton B Brampton D Brampton D

Housing Lévis A Lévis A Kelowna D Barrie D

Saguenay A Calgary A Barrie D Richmond D

Oakville A Saguenay A Burnaby D Burnaby D

Waterloo A Oakville A Richmond D Victoria D

Calgary A Sherbrooke A Victoria D Peterborough D

(continued ...)



performer in 2010. in the Health category, Waterloo is the only city to

have experienced a significant change in outcomes since 2010, dropping

from a “C” grade (32nd) all the way to 46th. Waterloo lost ground on both

measures related to physicians in the community: general practitioners

and specialists. Once again, Saguenay is the outlier in the innovation

category; with a stronger economy, outcomes in innovation improved

enough to lift Saguenay from a “D” to a “C” city. Otherwise, the shifts

within the innovation category are minor: all other cities have “D” grades

in both reports despite small shifts in the ranking. The final variation

worth noting is Saskatoon’s improvement in the Society category, moving

from a disappointing 49th place in 2010 to 36th and a “C” grade in 2014.

Saskatoon’s gains in Society can be linked to its growth and economic

success, as evidenced by improvements on diversity, gender equality,

and young labour force population (aged 25–34).

Table 2 (cont’d)Bright Spots and Disappointments by Category

Indicator

Bright spots, 2014 Bright spots, 2010 Disappointments, 2014 Disappointments, 2010

City Grade City Grade City Grade City Grade

innovation Calgary A Calgary A Kelowna D Thunder Bay D

Richmond Hill A Richmond Hill A St. Catharines D Saguenay D

Waterloo A Ottawa (A) A Barrie D Sherbrooke D

Markham A St. John’s B Brantford D Brantford D

Ottawa A Markham B Abbotsford D Trois-Rivières D

Society Toronto A Toronto A) A Saguenay D Saguenay D

Montréal A Montréal A) A Kelowna D Saint John D

Vancouver A Victoria B Greater Sudbury D Trois-Rivières D

Ottawa A Mississauga B Trois-Rivières D Saskatoon D

Markham A Richmond Hill B Saint John D Kelowna D

Note: For each category, bright spots are the five top-ranked cities with at least a “B” grade. Disappointments are the five lowest-ranked cities with a “D” grade.Sources: The Conference Board of Canada; Statistics Canada.



Finally, while the overall picture of Canada’s biggest 50 cities has

changed little since City Magnets II, for a handful of cities, change is

significant. The uptick in the economy has meant progress and growth

for a number of cities particularly in the West, but it has left some others

behind—particularly, in southern Ontario. Saskatoon has powered its

way up 18 places to land just behind the top 10, propelled by economic

prosperity and growth. On the other hand, Barrie has fallen 17 places to

arrive at a disappointing 46th spot. Across Canada, migrants continue to

account for the main source of growth in urban areas, and as we have

learned, the factors that appeal to migrants with a university education

are representative of those of all.

Appendix B | The Conference Board of Canada


APPENDIX B

Bibliography

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Our Universities.

www.aucc.ca/canadian-universities/our-universities/.

Canadian Council on Learning. www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl/.

Canadian institute for Health information. www.cihi.ca/CiHi-ext-portal/

internet/En/Home/home/cihi000001.

Environment Canada. Municipal Water Use Data. www.ec.gc.ca/eau-

water/default.asp?lang=En&n=ED0E12D7-1.

Environment Canada. National Climate Data and Information Archive.

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/index_e.html#access.

insurance Bureau of Canada. Canada Inundated by Severe Weather

in 2013. news release, Toronto: iBC, January 20, 2014. www.ibc.ca/en/

Media_Centre/news_Releases/index.asp.

Lefebvre, Mario, and Marni Cappe. City Magnets: Benchmarking the

Attractiveness of Canada’s CMAs. Ottawa: The Conference Board of

Canada, 2007.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Smog Advisory

Statistics. www.airqualityontario.com/press/smog_advisories.php.

Partners for Climate Protection. National Measures Report 2012.

Ottawa: Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2012. www.fcm.ca/

Documents/reports/PCP/2013/PCP_national_Measures_Report_

2012_Five_year_Edition_En.pdf.

http://www.aucc.ca/canadian-universities/our-universities/

http://www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl/

http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/internet/EN/Home/home/cihi000001

http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/internet/EN/Home/home/cihi000001

http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=ED0E12D7-1

http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=ED0E12D7-1

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/index_e.html#access

http://www.ibc.ca/en/Media_Centre/News_Releases/index.asp

http://www.ibc.ca/en/Media_Centre/News_Releases/index.asp

http://www.airqualityontario.com/press/smog_advisories.php

http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/PCP/2013/PCP_National_Measures_Report_2012_Five_Year_Edition_EN.pdf





Proud, Alex. “Cool London is Dead, and the Rich Kids Are to Blame.”

The Telegraph, April 7, 2014. www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-

man/10744997/Cool-London-is-dead-and-the-rich-kids-are-to-blame.html.

Quebec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, and the

Fight Against Climate Change. Portrait statistique: qualité de l’air et

smog. www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/air/info-smog/portrait/.

Statistics Canada. 2011 Census of Canada. www12.statcan.gc.ca/

census-recensement/index-eng.cfm.

—. 2006 Census of Canada. www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-

recensement/2006/index-eng.cfm.

—. National Household Survey. www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/index-

eng.cfm?HPA.

—. Table 252-0051 Crimes, by Type of Violation, and by Province

and Territory. www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/

legal50b-eng.htm.

—. Tables 252-0075 to 252-0081, Incident-Based Crime Statistics, by

Detailed Violations and Police Services, 1998 to 2013. www5.statcan.

gc.ca/cansim/a03?lang=eng&pattern=252-0075..252-0090&p2=31.

Surowiecki, James. “Real Estate Goes Global.” The New Yorker,

May 26, 2014. www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2014/05/26/140526ta_

talk_surowiecki.

The Conference Board of Canada. City Magnets II: Benchmarking the

Attractiveness of 50 Canadian Cities. Ottawa: CBoC, 2010.

—. “innovation,” How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada.

www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/innovation.aspx.

Wiebe, Robin. “Vancouver Housing Markets Cannot Fully Escape the

Chinese Dragon.” The Conference Board of Canada, March 11, 2014.

www.conferenceboard.ca/economics/hot_eco_topics/default/13-03-11/

vancouver_housing_markets_cannot_fully_escape_the_chinese_dragon.

aspx.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10744997/Cool-London-is-dead-and-the-rich-kids-are-to-blame.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10744997/Cool-London-is-dead-and-the-rich-kids-are-to-blame.html

http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/air/info-smog/portrait/

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/index-eng.cfm

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/index-eng.cfm

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/index-eng.cfm?HPA

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/index-eng.cfm?HPA

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal50b-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal50b-eng.htm

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a03?lang=eng&pattern=252-0075..252-0090&p2=31

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a03?lang=eng&pattern=252-0075..252-0090&p2=31

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2014/05/26/140526ta_talk_surowiecki

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2014/05/26/140526ta_talk_surowiecki

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/innovation.aspx

www.conferenceboard.ca/economics/hot_eco_topics/default/13-03-11/vancouver_housing_markets_cannot_fully_escape_the_chinese_dragon.aspx



Appendix C | The Conference Board of Canada


APPENDIX C

Indicators of Performance in Each Category, by City

The following section outlines the performance of each city on every

indicator across the seven main categories. included is a letter grade

for each indicator, as well as the overall letter grade weighted by all

migrants. The Appendix is in alphabetical order.



Abbotsford D

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth B

Workforce travelling outside the city for work B

Employment growth A

Unemployment rate C

Disposable income per capita D

Knowledge employment D

Full-time employment D

Education D

Population with a bachelor’s degree D

Population with an advanced degree D

number of elementary and secondary school teachers D

number of university professors and college instructors D

Environment A

Average maximum temperature A

Air quality advisory days A

Domestic water use B

Driving distance to work for solo commuters A

Health D

Hospital bed availability D

Access to general practitioners D

Access to specialist physicians D

Population employed in health care services C

Population employed in occupations supporting health care B

Housing C

income spent on mortgage C

income spent on rent B

Homes in need of major repair B

Innovation D

Proportion of population employed in natural and applied science occupations D

Graduates in engineering, math, and science D

Productivity level C

Productivity growth C

Proportion of population employed in computer and information systems occupations D

Society C

Population aged 25–34 C

Foreign-born population C

Success of foreign-born population C

Diversity of population B

Evidence of multilingualism C

Population with low income B

Gender equality B

Population density D

Travel to work by public transit, walking, cycling D

Travel time to libraries B

Travel time to museums A

Proportion of population employed in cultural occupations C

incidence of violent crime B

incidence of drug crime B



Barrie D

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate C

Disposable income per capita C


Full-time employment B

Education D



number of elementary and secondary school teachers B


Environment A

Average maximum temperature B

Air quality advisory days C

Domestic water use A


Health C




Population employed in health care services B


Housing D

income spent on mortgage D

income spent on rent D

Homes in need of major repair A

Innovation D



Productivity level D

Productivity growth D


Society C


Foreign-born population D



Evidence of multilingualism D

Population with low income A

Gender equality B

Population density C



Travel time to museums B

Proportion of population employed in cultural occupations D

incidence of violent crime A

incidence of drug crime A



Brampton D

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth B

Workforce travelling outside the city for work D

Employment growth A

Unemployment rate C




Education D

Population with a bachelor’s degree C

Population with an advanced degree C



Environment C




Driving distance to work for solo commuters C

Health D




Population employed in health care services D

Population employed in occupations supporting health care D

Housing C




Innovation C


Graduates in engineering, math, and science C



Proportion of population employed in computer and information systems occupations C

Society A


Foreign-born population A


Diversity of population A

Evidence of multilingualism B


Gender equality A



Travel time to libraries A







Brantford D

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth C


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate B




Education D





Environment A





Health D






Housing D

income spent on mortgage B

income spent on rent C

Homes in need of major repair C

Innovation D






Society C



Success of foreign-born population B




Gender equality A






incidence of violent crime C




Burlington C

Economy B

GDP per capita C

GDP growth C

Workforce travelling outside the city for work C

Employment growth B

Unemployment rate A

Disposable income per capita B

Knowledge employment C

Full-time employment A

Education B

Population with a bachelor’s degree B


number of elementary and secondary school teachers A


Environment C




Driving distance to work for solo commuters D

Health D


Access to general practitioners C

Access to specialist physicians C



Housing B




Innovation C

Proportion of population employed in natural and applied science occupations C





Society B

Population aged 25–34 D






Gender equality C










Burnaby B

Economy C

GDP per capita B

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education C


Population with an advanced degree B



Environment B



Domestic water use C


Health C

Hospital bed availability C




Population employed in occupations supporting health care C

Housing D




Innovation A

Proportion of population employed in natural and applied science occupations B

Graduates in engineering, math, and science B


Productivity growth B

Proportion of population employed in computer and information systems occupations B

Society B

Population aged 25–34 B


Success of foreign-born population D


Evidence of multilingualism A

Population with low income C

Gender equality A


Travel to work by public transit, walking, cycling B








Calgary A

Economy A

GDP per capita A

GDP growth B

Workforce travelling outside the city for work A

Employment growth B

Unemployment rate A

Disposable income per capita A

Knowledge employment B


Education C



number of elementary and secondary school teachers C


Environment B

Average maximum temperature D




Health C






Housing A

income spent on mortgage A



Innovation A

Proportion of population employed in natural and applied science occupations A


Productivity level A



Society B







Gender equality D


Travel to work by public transit, walking, cycling C








Cambridge D

Economy D

GDP per capita C

GDP growth D


Employment growth D

Unemployment rate C




Education D





Environment B




Driving distance to work for solo commuters B

Health D






Housing C




Innovation D






Society C







Gender equality B










Coquitlam B

Economy D

GDP per capita D

GDP growth B


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate B



Full-time employment C

Education C





Environment A





Health D






Housing D




Innovation B




Productivity growth A


Society B


Foreign-born population B





Gender equality B










Edmonton B

Economy A

GDP per capita A

GDP growth A


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education C




number of university professors and college instructors C

Environment B





Health C






Housing B




Innovation B



Productivity level B



Society B

Population aged 25–34 A






Gender equality B










Gatineau C

Economy B

GDP per capita D

GDP growth A


Employment growth A

Unemployment rate A




Education C





Environment B

Average maximum temperature C




Health D






Housing B




Innovation C






Society B




Diversity of population C



Gender equality A





Proportion of population employed in cultural occupations A





Greater Sudbury D

Economy C

GDP per capita C

GDP growth C


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate B




Education C





Environment B





Health C






Housing C




Innovation D






Society D







Gender equality B



Travel time to libraries C

Travel time to museums D






Guelph C

Economy B

GDP per capita B

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education B




number of university professors and college instructors B

Environment B





Health D






Housing C




Innovation C






Society B







Gender equality A










Halifax B

Economy B

GDP per capita C

GDP growth B


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate B




Education C





Environment B





Health B



Access to specialist physicians B


Population employed in occupations supporting health care A

Housing C




Innovation C






Society C



Success of foreign-born population A




Gender equality B










Hamilton D

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth C


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate C




Education C





Environment B





Health B






Housing C




Innovation D






Society C







Gender equality B










Kelowna C

Economy C

GDP per capita C

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education D





Environment A





Health C




Population employed in health care services A


Housing D




Innovation D






Society D







Gender equality B






incidence of violent crime D

incidence of drug crime D



Kingston B

Economy B

GDP per capita C

GDP growth C


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate C




Education A




number of university professors and college instructors A

Environment B


Air quality advisory days B



Health A


Access to general practitioners A

Access to specialist physicians A



Housing C




Innovation D






Society B







Gender equality B





Proportion of population employed in cultural occupations B





Kitchener C

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth C


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate B




Education C





Environment B





Health D






Housing C




Innovation C






Society B







Gender equality A










Laval C

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education D





Environment C


Air quality advisory days D



Health D






Housing B




Innovation C






Society B







Gender equality A










Lévis C

Economy B

GDP per capita D

GDP growth A


Employment growth A

Unemployment rate A




Education C





Environment B





Health C






Housing A


income spent on rent A


Innovation C






Society C




Diversity of population D



Gender equality A










London C

Economy C

GDP per capita C

GDP growth C


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate C




Education C





Environment A





Health B


Access to general practitioners B




Housing C




Innovation D






Society B







Gender equality B










Longueuil C

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education D





Environment C





Health D






Housing B




Innovation C






Society B







Gender equality A










Markham B

Economy C

GDP per capita C

GDP growth C


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate B


Knowledge employment A


Education C

Population with a bachelor’s degree A




Environment C





Health D






Housing B




Innovation A


Graduates in engineering, math, and science A



Proportion of population employed in computer and information systems occupations A

Society A







Gender equality B










Mississauga B

Economy B

GDP per capita B

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate C




Education C





Environment C





Health D






Housing C




Innovation B






Society B







Gender equality B










Moncton C

Economy B

GDP per capita A

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education C





Environment A





Health B

Hospital bed availability A





Housing C




Innovation D






Society C







Gender equality A










Montréal C

Economy C

GDP per capita B

GDP growth C


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate C




Education B





Environment D





Health C






Housing C



Homes in need of major repair D

Innovation C






Society A






Population with low income D

Gender equality A

Population density A

Travel to work by public transit, walking, cycling A








Oakville B

Economy C

GDP per capita B

GDP growth D


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate A




Education A





Environment B



Domestic water use D


Health D






Housing A




Innovation B






Society C







Gender equality D










Oshawa D

Economy D

GDP per capita D

GDP growth D


Employment growth D

Unemployment rate D




Education D





Environment B





Health D






Housing D




Innovation D






Society C







Gender equality A










Ottawa A

Economy A

GDP per capita B

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education B


Population with an advanced degree A



Environment B





Health C






Housing B




Innovation B






Society A







Gender equality B










Peterborough D

Economy C

GDP per capita C

GDP growth C


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate C




Education C





Environment B





Health C






Housing D




Innovation D






Society C







Gender equality B










Québec City B

Economy B

GDP per capita C

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate A




Education C





Environment C





Health B






Housing A




Innovation C






Society C







Gender equality A










Richmond B

Economy C

GDP per capita B

GDP growth B


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate B




Education C





Environment B





Health D






Housing D




Innovation B






Society B







Gender equality B







incidence of drug crime C



Richmond Hill C

Economy B

GDP per capita D

GDP growth A


Employment growth A

Unemployment rate B




Education B





Environment B





Health D






Housing B




Innovation A






Society A







Gender equality B










Regina A

Economy A

GDP per capita B

GDP growth A


Employment growth A

Unemployment rate A




Education C





Environment A





Health C






Housing C




Innovation B






Society C







Gender equality B










Saguenay C

Economy B

GDP per capita D

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education D





Environment C





Health C






Housing A




Innovation D






Society D







Gender equality B










Saint John D

Economy B

GDP per capita B

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate C




Education D





Environment C





Health B

Hospital bed availability B





Housing B




Innovation C






Society C







Gender equality D




Travel time to museums D






Saskatoon B

Economy A

GDP per capita C

GDP growth A


Employment growth A

Unemployment rate A




Education C





Environment A





Health B






Housing C




Innovation C






Society C







Gender equality B










Sherbrooke D

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education C




number of university professors and college instructors B

Environment A





Health B






Housing B




Innovation D






Society C







Gender equality A










St. Catharines D

Economy D

GDP per capita D

GDP growth D


Employment growth D

Unemployment rate C




Education C





Environment A





Health C






Housing C




Innovation D






Society B







Gender equality B










St. John’s A

Economy A

GDP per capita A

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education C





Environment A





Health A






Housing B




Innovation C






Society C







Gender equality B










Surrey C

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth A


Employment growth A

Unemployment rate B




Education D





Environment A





Health D






Housing B




Innovation C






Society C







Gender equality B










Thunder Bay B

Economy C

GDP per capita C

GDP growth D


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate B




Education C





Environment B





Health B






Housing B




Innovation D






Society D







Gender equality A



Travel time to libraries D







Toronto B

Economy B

GDP per capita B

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate C




Education B





Environment C





Health C






Housing C




Innovation C






Society A







Gender equality B










Trois-Rivières D

Economy C

GDP per capita D

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education C





Environment B





Health C






Housing B




Innovation D






Society D







Gender equality B







incidence of drug crime C



Vancouver A

Economy B

GDP per capita B

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education B





Environment A





Health B






Housing D




Innovation B






Society A







Gender equality B










Vaughan C

Economy B

GDP per capita C

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate B




Education C





Environment C





Health D






Housing B




Innovation B






Society B







Gender equality C










Victoria B

Economy B

GDP per capita A

GDP growth C


Employment growth C

Unemployment rate B




Education B





Environment A





Health B

Hospital bed availability A





Housing D




Innovation C






Society B







Gender equality A






incidence of violent crime D

incidence of drug crime D



Waterloo A

Economy A

GDP per capita A

GDP growth A


Employment growth A

Unemployment rate B




Education A




number of university professors and college instructors A

Environment B





Health D






Housing A




Innovation A






Society B







Gender equality C










Windsor D

Economy D

GDP per capita C

GDP growth D


Employment growth D

Unemployment rate D




Education D





Environment B





Health C






Housing C




Innovation D






Society B







Gender equality B










Winnipeg B

Economy B

GDP per capita C

GDP growth B


Employment growth B

Unemployment rate A




Education C





Environment B





Health C






Housing C




Innovation C






Society B







Gender equality B








conferenceboard.ca

The MoreEnlightened Way to Make Business Decisions.If your organization, program, or project requires expertise in economic

or organizational performance or public policy, talk to us fi rst. You’ll

fi nd the expertise and knowledge you need to make more enlightened

decisions with The Conference Board of Canada.

ServicesExecutive NetworksExchange ideas and make new contacts on strategic issues

e-LibraryAccess to in-depth insights … when you need them most

The Niagara InstituteDevelop leaders of the future through interactive and engaging leadership development programs

The Directors CollegeCanada’s university-accredited corporate director development program

Custom ResearchTap into our research expertise to address your specific issues

Customized SolutionsHelp your organization meet challenges and sustain performance

e-DataStay on top of major economic trends

Conferences, Seminars, Webinars, and WorkshopsLearn from best-practice organizations and industry experts

About The Conference Board of Canada

We are:

• The foremost independent, not-for-profit, applied research organization in Canada.

• Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests.• Funded exclusively through the fees we charge for services to the

private and public sectors.• Experts in running conferences but also at conducting, publishing,

and disseminating research; helping people network; developing individual leadership skills; and building organizational capacity.

• Specialists in economic trends, as well as organizational performance and public policy issues.

• Not a government department or agency, although we are often hired to provide services for all levels of government.

• Independent from, but affiliated with, The Conference Board, Inc. of New York, which serves nearly 2,000 companies in 60 nations and has offices in Brussels and Hong Kong.

Insights. Understanding. Impact.

255 Smyth Road, Ottawa On

K1H 8M7 Canada

Tel. 613-526-3280

Fax 613-526-4857

inquiries 1-866-711-2262

conferenceboard.ca

PUBLiCATiOn 6441

E-COPy: $675

http://www.conferenceboard.ca