The news that the Greater Sudbury CMA is poised to reach 200,000 people much sooner rather than later highlights how Canada’s recent population surge has begun to permeate even regions and cities that for years have seen rather lack luster population and economic growth. In the case of Sudbury, the city’s Mayor has made it his goal to grow the city-region’s population to 200,000 by 2050 and given that it is 2025 and population seems to be over 190,000, it is apparent the Mayor may still be in office by the time the goal is reached and thus able to personally celebrat the achievement.
Meanwhile, Thunder Bay has embarked on a “Smart Growth” Plan that among other things also seeks to attract new residents and population though it has not set a goal for population. Such goals and forecasts are dangerous given that the urban renewal schemes of the 1960s forecast that Thunder Bay (The Lakehead) was going to hit 186,000 people by the 1980s. Yet, even in Thunder Bay, the news is that population growth has been higher than anticipated in recent years with international migration boosting the population of the CMA to over 130,000.
All the optimism for growth in Northern Ontario’s two major urban areas is a cause for celebration given what have been decades of low expectations and performance. At the same time, one needs to place the recent performance of northern Ontario’s premiere cities into comparative context. When one looks at the growth of population of Greater Sudbury, and Thunder Bay relative to other Canadian CMAs, the results suggest that even when growth picks up, the lag abides.
Population data for Canada’s CMAs from Statistics Canada is used to plot several charts to provide some context for the last statement. Figure 1 plots Canada’s population by ranked CMA in 2001 but by the current number of CMAs which have increased since that year (for example, Red Deer, Drummondville, Nanaimo, Kamloops and Chilliwack were not CMAs in 2001 but have since grown to over 100,000 people). Not surprisingly, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver were the top three CMAs at 4.9, 3.6 and 2.1 million people respectively. Of the forty CMAs shown in Figure 1, Greater Sudbury ranked 21st out of 40 with 164,210 people while Thunder Bay ranked 31st. Below Thunder Bay were Moncton, Peterborough, Bellville, Kamloops, Lethbridge, Nanaimo, Drummondville, Chilliwack and Red Deer.
Fast forward to 2024 and Figure 2. In 2024, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver were still the three largest CMAs at 7.1, 4.6 and 3.1 million people respectively. Greater Sudbury, even with nearly 192,000 people, had fallen to 25th place while Thunder Bay with 133,000 had fallen to 34th place out of 40. Figure 3 plots the percent growth in population from 2001 to 2024 for these 40 CMAs and here the evidence shows that population growth was the highest in Calgary, Edmonton, Kelowna, Red Deer and Chilliwack with growth ranging from a high of 82 percent for Calgary to a low of 59 percent for Chilliwack. In terms of growth rates, Greater Sudbury grew 17 percent putting it in 37th place in terms of population growth while Thunder Bay at 5 percent growth came 39th out of 40th. While second last place in the population growth sweepstakes is better than last – the honour which went to Saguenay – it was not a sterling performance.
On the plus side all CMAs saw growth from 2001 to 2024 but in the end it is both growth per se as well as relative growth that matters if you are seeking to promote a growth agenda. Of course, the key question is why Thunder Bay (and even Sudbury) have continued to do so poorly when it comes to the relative population growth sweepstakes. Bear in mind that population growth per se is only one indicator of economic performance and the presence of economic opportunity. Rising per capita incomes and by extension individual economic welfare require the economy to grow faster than population. Thunder Bay and Greater Sudbury have done somewhat better in terms of per capita income growth. For example, out of 64 major Ontario communities ranked by CMHC, Thunder Bay and Sudbury rank 41st and 21st respectively in terms of average household income before taxes placing them closer to the middle of the distribution.
Still, despite the celebration of recent population and urban growth, it remains that Greater Sudbury and Thunder Bay are at the bottom in terms of their population growth when it comes to wider comparisons with the rest of Canada. And even worse, Sudbury’s population growth rate since 2001 has been three times that of Thunder Bay at 17 versus 5 percent. Thunder Bay appears to have been particularly afflicted by low overall growth both in terms of its economy and its population and the question is why? Is it a function of remoteness? Likely not as many of these CMAs have as many locational disadvantages as Thunder Bay which likes to boast it is in the middle of the country at the confluence of major transport links. Is it the absence of resources or skilled labour? Again, likely not given its location in the mineral and forest rich shield and the presence of both a community college and university in the community.
This leads to another factor – institutions, or the arrangements that people have for dealing with one another. What is it about Thunder Bay in terms of the environment of the community both in terms of local culture and governance that may be militating against growth? I would argue that it is the absence of competitive behaviour and the prevalence of monopoly that has most stifled the city’s economic growth and development. In this regard, Thunder Bay is a microcosm of what ails Canada as a whole – a country that has long tolerated monopolies and oligopolies in its economic fabric as manifested in its banking, telecommunication, transport and retail sectors.
In Thunder Bay, this type of non-competitive behaviour that often seeks to block entry of new firms through lengthy approval processes has been compounded by a monopoly municipal government in the wake of amalgamation that has also effectivelt stifled local initiative and innovation (it is no coincidence economic growth in the city dramatically slowed after the merger of the ultra competititve cities of Port Arthur and Fort William in 1970) and a growing reliance on the public sector as the main driver of activity. If one looks at Thunder Bay, one third of the population essentially works for the public sector and one third is retired or not working and deriving the bulk of its income from some sort of public sector pension. The remaining third is your private sector and even they are essentially tailoring their businesses to attracting the spending of either the public sector directly via public sector construction projects and contracts or those who derive their incomes from public sector pensions. With the taxpayer footing the bill in one form or another, there is little incentive for competitive behaviour even in the local private sector and their captive market often results in cost overruns especially on public sector projects.
Needless to say, it is amazing that Thunder Bay's population has grown as much as it has.