Rural Manitoba Profile:

A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991-2001)

Read the Executive Summary


Download a PDF of the Entire Report


A Guide to Understanding the Terms and Acronyms Used in the Profiles


Frequently Asked Questions

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Government of Canada's Rural Secretariat initiated this report to advance its goal in improving government and citizen understanding of rural conditions in the province of Manitoba. This report benchmarks major socio‑economic structures and trends regarding rural areas. The overall objective is to help improve policy with respect to the economic and social conditions found in rural Manitoba.

Research Methods

Two major classification systems form the core analysis in this report. First, the Metropolitan Influenced Zones (MIZ) system, developed by McNiven et al. (2000), is utilized to make distinctions within rural and small town Manitoba. The four MIZ categories are Strong, Moderate, Weak, and No MIZ, with each progressively resembling greater rurality. Second, a basic difference between urban centres and rural/small town zones is also presented to capture overall variance between the two sectors of the province. In total, 20 indicators from Statistics Canada's 2001, 1996 and 1991 Censuses of Population have been calculated and analyzed for each of the four degrees of rurality, for rural and small town Manitoba as a whole, and for its urban centres.

Major Findings

Population Indicators

One‑third of Manitobans reside in rural zones of the province. Rural population growth between 1991 and 1996 exceeded urban growth (4.4% compared to 0.8%), but matched urban growth in the most recent inter‑census period (at 0.5%). However, growth in three of the four MIZ zones exceeded urban population growth between 1996 and 2001. Strong and Moderate MIZ zones grew by 3.1 and 1.8%, respectively, and the least populated rural zone, No MIZ, increased by 1.4%. The most heavily populated Weak MIZ zones experienced a population contraction of 1.3%.

Manitoba's rural population comprises a much larger share of the total population than is the case Canada‑wide (33.4% compared to 20.6%). While the share of Canada's rural population contracted between 1996 and 2001 (by 0.4%), Manitoba's rural population grew by 0.5%.

Compared to urban Manitoba, rural and small town zones have a more polarized age structure, with slightly higher proportions falling within the lowest (children) and highest (seniors) age categories. In 2001, Aboriginal‑intensive No MIZ zones had the highest proportional child population in the province (30.7%) and Moderate MIZ zones the highest proportional seniors population (15.5%). Between 1991 and 2001, all but one Manitoba zone aged, with Strong MIZ population aging, as a group, the most rapidly. Populations in No MIZ actually became more 'youthful', no doubt as a function of the higher birth rates among the predominately Aboriginal population residing in these zones.

The share of the population that is Aboriginal increases as the level of urban integration declines. Aboriginal representation increased in every geographic zone between 1996 and 2001, but most dramatically in No MIZ zones, where well over half (55.6%) of the 40,744 residents self‑identified as Aboriginal.

Economic, Education, Social and Health Care Indicators

Most of the results illustrate a great deal of variation in the economic, education, social, and health care situations within rural and small town Manitoba. While differences between the urban and rural populations are apparent, there is often greater variation among the four MIZ categories. Strong MIZ zones typically stand out as being the most advantaged, and for some indicators, actually exceed urban regions. No MIZ zones consistently rank among the least advantaged zones in rural Manitoba.

The use of three consecutive census years permits a review of changes over the decade of the 1990s in rural Manitoba. Most apparent in this over‑time analysis is the continuation of the relative disadvantage of rural zones, when compared to urban Manitoba, and the continuing advantage of Strong MIZ zones compared to No MIZ zones. At the same time, the inter‑census analyses provide some indication of improvement in the rural and small town zones since 1996.

Examples of this pattern include the following:

Economic Indicators

• High labour force participation and low unemployment rates were found across time in Strong MIZ zones, while low labour force participation and high unemployment rates were consistently found in No MIZ zones.


• In 2001, Strong MIZ zones had the highest personal median incomes in the province, while No MIZ zones had the lowest.


• Within rural and small town Manitoba, No MIZ populations were the most likely and Strong MIZ populations the least likely to be considered low income.


• In 2001, social transfer income comprised a larger share of income for No MIZ populations than for Manitobans in other geographic zones (28.4% compared to the provincial average of 13.4%).

Education Indicators

• The lowest level of educational attainment is observed in the Aboriginal‑intensive No MIZ zones where six in ten people of at least 20 years of age had not completed high school as recently as 2001. Strong MIZ populations were the most likely of all rural and small town Manitobans to have a university degree (9.9%), although they were still much less likely than urban Manitobans to have this level of education (17.4%).

Social Indicators

• No MIZ zones had the highest proportion of, and experienced the greatest over time growth, in lone‑parent families (from 10.4% in 1991 to 20.9% in 2001), while the lowest rates were observed in Strong MIZ zones (8.4%).


• Average dwelling values in No MIZ zones in 2001 were nearly half that of Strong MIZ zones, yet No MIZ zones were only slightly less likely to have owner households spending greater than 30% of their income on shelter.

Health Care Indicators

• In 2001, in rural and small town Manitoba resided lower numbers of health care providers per 1,000 population than in urban centres. Within rural Manitoba, in No MIZ zones resided by far the fewest and in Strong MIZ zones the greatest number of health care providers per 1,000 population (14.2 compared to 32.3 per 1,000 population).

Rural and small town Manitobans are clearly not equivalent to their urban counterparts with respect to economic prosperity, social well‑being, educational attainment and access to health care. The differences that exist within rural and small town Manitoba are, however, equally apparent. Despite slight improvements in the most disadvantaged No MIZ zones, populations of these zones continue as recently as 2001 to experience conditions of disadvantage relative to the rest of Manitoba. The MIZ classification system consistently demonstrates that resources and support are increasingly needed as social and economic integration with urban centres decreases. No MIZ zones are in a relative position of greater need in terms of supporting policy and programs than are their more integrated Strong MIZ counterparts.

For a pdf of the entire document, please click here.

You can also receive a Word document or get additional information by contacting:

Manager of Research and Analysis
Rural Research and Analysis Unit
Rural Secretariat, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Tower 7, 6th Floor
1341 Baseline Road
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C5
Tel: 888 781-2222
E-mail: rs@agr.gc.ca

Catalogue No.: A114-13/5-2001E-HTML
ISBN: 0-662-40306-1
©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2005

[ Français | Contact Us | Help | Search | Canada Site ] [ Home | News Releases | Key Rural Initiatives | Site Map | Publications ]