The City of Thunder Bay Has Spoken, The Case is Closed

Thunder Bay City Council and its municipal administrative apparatus seems to have embarked on its Roman imperial phase with respect to community relations with its taxpayer base.  In response to those who provided input ( my input here ) on the 105 Junot Avenue South Rezoning application and following the October 21^st decision to uphold the rezoning in a 7-5 vote, the Office of the City Clerk provided a Notice of Passing decree that begins as follows:

“The Thunder Bay City Council passed By-law 94/2019 on the 21^st day of October 2019, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 as amended.

Public comment has been received and considered and had no effect on Council’s Decision as the application is consistent with all relevant planning legislation and represents good planning.”

I suppose all that was missing at the end of this statement was a simple “All Hail the Glory of the Emperor” to convey the full message of conquest and victory.  The implied message seems to be that any resistance to the edicts of City Council is futile and has no effect.   Whatever is decided is consistent, represents good planning, and the final collective decision is ultimately infallible. 

The entire public drama and division over 105 Junot was amplified by The City of Thunder Bay because they encouraged the Ontario Aboriginal Housing Corporation to expand the scale of the transitional project from 20 to 58 beds to “maximize” the use of the site which one suspects probably really means greater property tax revenues for the City - assuming that the OAHC pays property taxes.  A smaller scale facility more in keeping with other such projects around the province would have been more suitable given the many concerns raised by residents in the area and generated less discord. 

Unfortunately, the Aboriginal Housing Corporation was caught in the middle of this unfortunate situation and making it into an emotional issue that attracted the attention of the Globe and Mail did not serve anyone’s long-term interests.  What the City of Thunder Bay should have done in response to the input received was return to the original proposal of 20-beds but that would have required actually listening and accepting at least some of the arguments made by those who presented their concerns.  Really, how can a facility approved on a much larger 58-bed scale in a neighborhood with the social and crime issues that were raised be “good planning?" 

In the end, it is water off a duck’s back because many members of council believe they have been annointed as “progressive” thinkers who love their community.  The strength of their love means that they are doing good and therefore the ends always justify the means.  If that means tacitly implying that opponents to their good works are insensitive to poverty or diversity, then so be it.  They constantly solicit input from constituents but listen through a set of political noise cancelling headphones so that the discordant notes from any input not coinciding with their vision of fighting social and economic injustice is politely filtered out.

Those in Thunder Bay who uncritically champion all social injustice issues with unquestioned fervour and feel they have the ear of City Council and its municipal-corporate apparatus should be cautious.  In the end, any dispensed progressive works are to be accepted on The City’s terms because they know what is best for you.  Take the example of Dease Pool as a case in point.  Here, a long-standing community pool in what is considered a disadvantaged neighborhood was closed because it was old and needed substantial and expensive renovations.  There is continuing opposition to the closure but The City forges ahead.

The proposed new draft plan (available here) will essentially replace the pool area with a tennis court and a community garden.  Given that swimming pools accommodate a greater and more diverse number of users than a single tennis court, it seems like an oddly elitist rather than progressive use for the site.  However, consciences will be soothed with a multi-user community garden – which also atones for the environmental sin of an asphalt surface on the tennis court.  If all this redevelopment was designed to somehow deal with the rising costs of an old and aging pool, those of us with a more fiscally conservative bent could be understanding.  However, this will still cost a lot of money and in the end not fully serve the needs of the area.

As for the money that will be spent, it does not seem to matter because a “progressive” council that wants to do great things will simply raise the tax rates on its residents - who by the way are now responsible for the lion’s share of property tax revenue given the declining industrial and commercial base.  Be prepared this year for an initial budget proposal that stakes out a high increase in the tax levy.  This will be blamed on the provincial government who, being conservative rather than progressive, are the source of all fiscal evil.  After a cleansing public ritual of debate and input of appropriate length, The City will then retreat to an increase of between 3 and 4 percent thereby demonstrating that it is both fiscally responsible and generous in matters of expenditure. 

We should not complain too much.  We elected them.

 

The Federal Election Results: Northern Ontario

The people have spoken, and Canada has a minority Liberal government.  In my home community of Thunder Bay, there will be double representation on the government side as both ridings went Liberal.  This however was not the result of strategic voting or a calculated decision by the local electorate to go with what they saw as the winning side but the outcome of ingrained behaviour.  Thunder Bay always votes Liberal at both federal and provincial levels except on occasion when it goes NDP because the voters feel the Liberals ought to be punished.  However, their NDP support is a temporary dalliance and they ultimately return to their original faith.   

If Monday’s election had yielded a Conservative minority or majority, then Thunder Bay would have been on the outs and of course complaining incessantly about the lack of government attention. Yet, loyalty to one party by a smaller and more remote community does not always ensure you will get what you want if your team is in power.  If your support is always assumed to be there, than that can also work against you when it comes to getting your issues on the table.

Electing a variety of representatives over the years based on calculation rather than political faith or loyalty is another approach to collective voter wisdom and diversity in outcomes over time is one way of ensuring your support is not taken for granted.  While Thunder Bay generally always votes the same way, nearby Kenora is much more flexible and over the years has voted in representatives at the provincial and local level affiliated with all three of the major parties.  This time, they switched from Liberal to Conservative at the federal level.   

While parts of northern Ontario seem to be closed shops when it comes to voting patterns, the region as a whole, has actually elected a diverse portfolio of representatives with the balance what one might term centre-right rather than centre-left - if you assume the Liberals are more centrist than the other two parties.  Given that the Liberals and NDP generally term themselves as “Progressive” the region as a whole is probably more centre-left.  One can only imagine what the “Progressives” would now term themselves if the federal Conservatives had not rebranded and retained their “Progressive Conservative” label.

In terms of results for the 10 ridings, they are:

Kenora: Conservative

Thunder Bay-Rainy River: Liberal

Thunder Bay-Superior North: Liberal

Timmin-James Bay: NDP

Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing: NDP

Sault Ste. Marie: Liberal

Nickel Belt: Liberal

Sudbury: Liberal

Nipissing-Timiskaming: Liberal

Parry Sound-Muskoka: Conservative

 

On a map, electoral northern Ontario is a bit of an oreo sandwich made up of two conservative graham wafer borders -Kenora and Parry Sound-Muskoka - and a rather large dollop of Liberal cream accented with some additional NDP filling.  Obviously, northern Ontario voters as a whole like their electoral food spiced with diversity even if smaller regions within prefer more monotonous diets.  However, if one takes a pan-northern view, the north is greater than the sum of its local parts when it comes electoral wisdom and has made sure it has its bases covered.

On a final note, a special congratulations to Eric Melillo who pulled ahead of incumbent Bob Nault to win the Kenora riding.  Eric is a graduate of the Economics program at Lakehead University and I am thrilled to see him do well.  Eric was a hardworking and keen student in Economics and a very pleasant young man and I wish him all the best.

Which Federal Party Can Open the Door to Thunder Bay's Employment Growth?

With the federal election into its home stretch and the vote scheduled for tomorrow, voters in Thunder Bay have to decide who to vote for.  Needless to say, it has been a disappointing election given that the major parties – as well as the smaller ones – have presented grandiose expenditure visions that are for the most part fiscally unsustainable.  Moreover, much of the campaign has been not on policy but on opportunistic promises with major efforts expended on digging up dirt on opponents, mixing it with a little self-righteous water and then spattering it about in the hope that it sticks somewhere. 

When it comes  to making a ballot-box decision, the prevailing sentiment on the street seems to be that it is hard to choose from a set of equally unpalatable national parties.  So, the next best approach might be: let us look locally and make the decision, based not on what might be best for the country, but what might be best for Thunder Bay.  Here too, the answer is really quite muddy as ultimately what is best for Thunder Bay is making sure that at least one of the ridings is with whoever ends up as the governing party.  However, even that is a difficult game to play given that we are probably looking at a minority government situation.  And such strategic behaviour is made even more difficult by Thunder Bay's historical genetic aversion to any federal choice but Liberal - except when they seek to punish the Liberals by voting New Democrat.  Thunder Bay has not elected a federal conservative since the 1930s but then oddly wonders why conservative governments do not grant its wishes.

In terms of what is best for Thunder Bay, needless to say a government that promotes economic growth and diversification is always a safe bet but that can often only be judged years after the fact.  The current north side incumbent who is also a member of the present governing party certainly points to the last four years as a period of economic growth for Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario in part due to the “millions of dollars coming into our area” which she no doubt ascribes to her government and her role as a Minister of the Crown.

Quantitatively assessing growth in Thunder Bay and the region is never easy but a glance at employment numbers is one way of providing an evidence-based attempt on how much growth there has been.  Between 2014 and 2018, total employment in Thunder Bay has indeed grown by 3.6 percent – from 61,500 to 63,700 jobs – which is actually not bad given that Ontario over the same period increased by 5.3 percent.  However, when employment is examined in a longer-term framework using the period from 2001 to 2018 – see Figure 1 – it is still within the traditional employment range of the last two decades.  We basically bounce up and down between 60,000 and 65,000 jobs and never seem to break out of that corridor in any sustained fashion.  Between 2001 and 2018, Thunder Bay’s employment grew 3.4 percent while Ontario grew 22 percent. 

 

What is also interesting as shown in Figure 2 is when employment growth by occupational category over the period 2014 to 2018 is examined. The most employment growth since 2014 has been in occupations related to arts and culture (26.7%), health (22.2%), natural and applied sciences (17.6%), manufacturing (13.3%) and law, social and government services (12%).  However, sales and services, business and finance, and construction have all seen declines.  As for the manufacturing resurgence, given the 550 jobs slated to disappear at Bombardier, manufacturing is poised to continue the decline that has been underway since 2001.

 

So, has Thunder Bay’s employment grown over the last four years?  Yes, but there are important qualifications given the dynamic nature and unique features of any local economy.   Here in Thunder Bay jobs are both created and destroyed but in almost perfect balance over time so as to keep total employment locked within a narrow corridor.  This corridor has remained the same for decades and Thunder Bay remains in an overall total employment stasis despite the efforts of two growth plans - one provincial and the most recent federal.   This is unlike Ontario as a whole where jobs are both created and destroyed but on net over the last 20 years many more jobs have been created than have been destroyed.  In choosing who to vote more tomorrow, voters need to think long and hard on which party they believe can actually open the door to getting us outside our historical corridor of employment stasis.

Why Understanding Crime Numbers Is Important for Public Policy

The meetings currently underway in Thunder Bay for police service boards and chiefs is focusing on challenges facing the north and in particular those dealing with guns, drugs and gangs.  In particular, the lack of funding for addressing what is perceived to be escalating crime is a major grievance given that the federal government has transferred money to the Ontario government to fight gangs, drugs and gun related activity but to date the province has apparently only chosen to assist Toronto and Ottawa.  Jeff McGuire, executive director of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, is in Thunder Bay for the meetings and stated: “I think the government had the right intentions, there were serious guns and gangs issues going on at that moment in Toronto and GTA area. Members of OACP were quick to point out it’s not just a GTA challenge.”

What is interesting when looking at this issue is taking a look at the violent crime statistics.  Figure 1 plots total violent crimes from 1998 to 2018 for Thunder Bay, Toronto and Ottawa.   If a provincial government politician handing out money to fight growing violent crime is deciding on where need was most urgent based on Figure 1, they would automatically judge that need was greatest in Toronto.   Toronto not only has the most violent crime incidents of the three cities but also what seems visually to be a rapidly escalating problem since 2015 - which by the way was preceded by a long decline.  Indeed, after a period of decline, all three cities have seen an increase in total violent crime largely related to increased gang and drug activity, but Toronto has the most violent crimes, followed by Ottawa and then Thunder Bay.

 

However, making the decision only based on total volume misses the point that crime is not only about total scale but also intensity relative to the size of local populations. Toronto and the GTA does indeed have the most violent crime, but it also accounts for almost half of Ontario’s population.  What is also relevant is crime per person or per capita which adjusts for total population size.

 

Figure 2 plots the number of violent crimes per 100,000 population and here the difference is startling.  While all three cities have seen an increase in violent crimes per capita over the last three years, Thunder Bay’s rate is practically double that of either Ottawa or Toronto.  Its policing numbers and resources per capita are definitely not double those of either city.  Some help is obviously needed.

The provincial government does need to address the local policing situation though as has been noted, more money alone will not solve the problem.  We need to understand why it is that after years of decline, violent crime in all three cities is now trending upwards.  As was noted by Jeff McGuire, there are other issues to be addressed including mental health, poverty and firearm access. Nevertheless, a good start would be understanding the distinction between totals and per capita amounts and making it part of any decision making process that allocates new resources.

International Relations & Trade Discussion Missing in Current Federal Election Campaign

Monday's Federal Leader's debate made nary a mention of international trade, our current dispute with China or even what is going on with the USMCA ratification in the United States.  With exports accounting for about 30% of our GDP, it is astounding that such an important issue is being ignored.  It is therefore worth re-posting the piece I had published early this week on the Fraser Institute Blog.

Canada needs more major trading partners beyond China and the U.S.

First Appeared in Fraser Blog , October 7^th, 2019

On the campaign trail, there’s little talk about Canadian trade policy and the repercussions of our current poor political relationship with China. The need to continue diversifying our trade is the elephant in the room this federal election.

In what seems to be explicit retaliation over the Meng Wanzhou Affair, China has detained Canadian citizens—putting a chill on business travel there—and essentially halted our exports of meat and canola. Any memories of Norman Bethune appear to have faded as China reveals its view of us as a small, inconsequential and puny power that should do as told. As a result, an important trade strategy—to diversify our trade away from dependence on what has also become a more capricious United States—lies in tatters.

The U.S. takes nearly 75 per cent of our exports, and despite recent bumps, has been by international trade standards a dream trade partner. It’s a large, rich, populous market literally on our doorstep where we share a close political and social culture, common language and history. It’s a market economy like ours with a strong rule of law. Subsequently, Canadians have not had to work very hard when it comes to exports given that the access to such a profitable market has historically been easy. A one stop export market for 75 per cent of your exports has become the gold standard of Canadian trade policy.

But Canadian business has been seduced by the prospects of China’s growing economy and the vision of a rich market of 1.4 billion people as a sort of future U.S.-like trade relationship. China has rapidly industrialized and is developing a large, dense and wealthy market. At first, it even seemed to be moving towards a more liberal market order in its economy.

Yet despite early promise, it would appear China is only playing lip service to liberal economic values and seems set on explicitly using trade relationships as part of its diplomatic and political arsenal, given that it views government policy and trade relationships as one dominion. Its recent behaviour raises an important question: Do we really want to ever be in a situation where 75 per cent of our exports are dependent on China’s market? Do we really want to give the Chinese government a quasi-monopoly over both our trade and political affairs?

It really would be the road to serfdom.

Despite the large dollar value of our trade relationship with China, it currently still only represents five per cent of our exports. Trade is about free exchange and mutually beneficial gains. If China wants our trade goods, we should certainly sell them as part of a free and open bargaining process. However, if it wants to use its economic relationships as a tool to get its way when dealing with countries on other issues, then we must protect ourselves. We are a small open economy dependent on trade and we must diversify our trade. Our recent efforts in negotiating agreements with the EU and the Trans-Pacific are only a start. We need many countries to compete for our business, but to do so we also need to show interest and compete for theirs. Part of this also involves reducing our own protectionism (agricultural supply management would be a good place to start).

If the Asia-Pacific is the future of trade, then look for opportunities in other wealthy Asian countries. Japan, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are all important economies that can serve as markets for Canadian products.

Moreover, instead of waiting for government-led initiatives, Canadian businesses should start the process themselves. Rather than placing all your eggs in a one-shot market-access strategy in the hopes that China can one day replicate our success in the U.S., shift your markets to other partners. Make sure there are a lot of them so no one country can ever hold our economy hostage. This should become the new gold standard for Canadian trade policy.

CNEH 2019 Wraps Up in Thunder Bay

The Canadian Network for Economic History (CNEH) successfully concluded its 2019 Meetings sponsored by Lakehead University in Thunder Bay and held at the historic Prince Arthur Waterfront Hotel. The three-day event from September 27th to 29th, 2019 included three days of sessions, two keynote speakers and also provided keynote Professor Ann Carlos from the University of Colorado-Boulder as the speaker for the Lakehead Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies September 26th Science Speakers Event.  The event was met with sunny crisp autumn weather that highlighted the scenic Sleeping Giant out in the harbour.

The conference theme was the economic history of Indigenous communities, and interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous economies in Canada and the conference attracted Canadian and international scholars. The Mary MacKinnon Memorial Lecture was given by Donna Feir (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and University of Victoria) and was titled “Economic History and Reconciliation”.  The Saturday evening keynote by Ann Carlos (University of Colorado-Boulder) was on “Globalization and the Fur Trade.”  Elder Gerry Martin from Mattagami First Nation shared his insight and wisdom with opening and closing remarks.  A theme that emerged from all speakers as well as the specific sessions dealing with Indigenous and European interaction, Indigenous health and well-being was that more effort must be made to bring the Indigenous perspective into our research and teaching on Canadian and North American economic history. 

Generous financial support was provided by the Canadian Economics Association, the Alan Green Memorial Fund, Lakehead University's departments of history and economics, the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies at Lakehead and the Lakehead University Office of the Vice Provost of Aboriginal Initiatives.  Special thanks to administrative assistants Jennifer McKee (Lakehead) and Sharon Sullivan (Queen's) for their hard work in putting everything together.

Plans are for the next CNEH to be held in Vancouver in the Spring of 2021.  From the mid-coast to the west coast.  See you there!