No quick fix for Ontario’s economic decline

 This originally appeared in the Fraser Institute Blog, August 13th.

 Ontario continues a decades-long economic malaise. From time-to-time economic analysts arise to point out the decline only for the news to be treated as so much water off a duck’s back. Indeed, the complete picture as measured by real per-capita GDP has evolved to the point where the response should be alarm rather than concern.

Moreover, the solutions now being advanced by the Ford government (and others) to move Ontario’s economy forward are quick big fix projects that do not address economic fundamentals. Despite an economy considered Canada’s powerhouse in terms of size, export intensity, and manufacturing depth, the trends are disconcerting. This is not a short-term aberration attributable to the tariff disputes with the United States but a sustained inability to effectively grow the economy.

The chart below plots Ontario’s real per-capita GDP (in 2020 dollars) along with the average real per-capita GDP of the rest of Canada from 1926 to the present using data from Finances of the Nation. For most of the last 100 years, Ontario has been the wealthiest province in the Canadian federation as measured by real per-capita income. Moreover, the gap has usually been substantial.

 

 

CanvasJS.com

For example, in the 1920s, the per-capita income of the rest of Canada was about two-thirds that of Ontario. This proportion persisted well into the early 1970s at which point it began to quietly erode. By the late 1970s, the average real per-capita GDP of the rest of Canada had reached more than 80 per cent of Ontario’s. The economic boom of the 1980s masked Ontario’s decline but the period since the 1990s has seen its relative decline continue and the per-capita GDP of the rest of Canada now is just over 100 per cent that of Ontario.

In 1960, Ontario has the highest real per-capita GDP of all 10 provinces. By 1990, it was in second place just behind Alberta but ahead of British Columbia. In 2005, Saskatchewan surpassed Ontario moving it to third place while by 2022 Ontario’s rank had moved to fifth place. Essentially over the course of just over half a century, Ontario went from the top province in terms of per-capita GDP to mid-ranked. Ontario is exhibiting more characteristics associated with the Atlantic provinces—Ontario received equalization for the first time in 2009—than the more dynamic western parts of the country. A province that once had hopes as high as the tallest tree, now is lucky to aspire to economic heights akin to a lilac bush.

What has happened to Ontario is more than a re-equilibration of the federation as resource rich provinces developed or the effects of adjustment to a more competitive free trade world in the wake of the FTA and NAFTA. Simply put, Ontario has experienced a productivity decline rooted in a failure to boost business investment. While Ontario is a mineral and resource rich province, it has been unable to bring resource projects online—the Ring of Fire a case in point. This has been accompanied by a governmental and business culture focused more on process and regulation than on trying to get things done and a cultural shift to gaining wealth through supply restraint and asset appreciation rather than hard work.

Nowhere is this more evident than in housing investment where population growth has outstripped additions to housing stock. The regulatory framework towards getting projects approved, permitted and built is generally a labyrinth. Large amounts of both suburban and northern land were environmentally sequestered from development without steps to ensure density development creating artificial scarcity particularly in the Greater Toronto Sarea (GTA). The effects on new supply were worsened by the fact that new housing began to be treated as an investment by the public and a revenue source by governments given the plethora of tiny investor driven condo buildings and the development charges accounting for a large proportion of the price of new housing.

While there are signs that the Ontario government is finally trying to overcome these past missteps, it’s an uphill struggle given the continual grasping at quick fixes designed to promote rapid economic growth. The passage of Bill 5 gives the Ontario government the powers to establish special economic zones to speed up mining and other development projects. One suspects the goal is to speed up development in the critical mineral rich Ring of Fire area which has been on the cusp of development for decades but has yet to really go anywhere. Yet it may be too little too late as critical minerals are considered crucial for electric vehicle production but the demand appears to be slowing.

The Ontario government does not have a coherent economic strategy designed to boost long term productivity and investment but rather is hitching its wagon to quick fix large scale investment projects and the attraction of federal investment dollars in the face of President Trump’s economic and commercial assaults on the Canadian economy. Among the nation building projects that the Ford government would like federal support for are a tunnelled expressway under Highway 401, all season road access to the critical minerals of the Ring of Fire, new nuclear generation projects, and a new deep sea port on James Bay.

Ontario is also supporting the idea of an east-west pipeline made with domestically produced steel that would connect to a not-yet-built port of James Bay as well as a new rail line from the mineral rich Ring of Fire to mineral processing facilities in Western Canada. Strangely enough, Ontario has not put forward the enhancement of the vital east-west Canadian highway link passing through its north as a major nation-building project which is a curious oversight, instead leaving it up to municipalities to advocate.

In many respects, this aspirational mega project vision of economic development for Ontario is a serious case of déjà vu as many of these projects resemble a wish list from the 1960s and 1970s. Even developing deep-water ports on James Bay is a concept with a history stretching back to the 19th century. Some of these projects—such as new pipelines—are tied to resource development and are welcome given Canada’s comparative advantage in resources but a return to simple hewers of wood and drawers of water is also not where we should be going.

How does Ontario invest in 21st-century resource extraction in a manner that boosts high technology and create backward linkages into our tech and AI industries? How can Ontario break through the regulatory morass slowing the construction of homes, new resource projects and economic activity in general—regulations that in total have been estimated at 386,000 requirements? What will Ontario do to create tax incentives for business investment and individual labour supply, given that highest marginal personal income tax rates are close to 54 per cent?

Getting on the quick fix mega-project bandwagon is easy. Putting in place the environment that might help some of these projects succeed is not.

 

Is Thunder Bay in Decline?

 

Last night’s Thunder Bay city council meeting was another eventful evening with discussions of tax ratios, highway trucking routes and the ultimate location for the city’s tiny homes endeavour given the demise of the Kam River location.  However, the most interesting aspect of last night’s debates was the exchange between a councillor and the city manager in which the question was asked if Thunder Bay was in decline? Thunder Bay has come a long way in terms of its internal debates as a few decades ago asking such a question would have been met with a bristly closing of ranks among the city’s political leaders with boosterish assertions that all was well in Thunder Bay despite short term challenges.  Times have apparently changed reflecting a maturation of economic discourse in the city though one does get the impression that in some regards it is too little too late given a more vigorous growth agenda should have been in place decades ago.

Nevertheless, the question was asked and answered by the city manager.  While the exact response cannot be replicated from memory, in essence it was that no, Thunder Bay was not in decline.  However, its economy and population were growing more slowly than provincial and national rates and that Thunder Bay needed to do more to boost growth and hence Thunder Bay had to undertake measures to boost economic growth.  This was tied to the discussion of lowering the tax ratios on commercial, large industrial, and multi-residential properties, effectively increasing the proportion of taxes paid by remaining property classes – namely single detached residences which incidentally have gone from footing half the bill to over 70 percent of the bill over the last few decades. Ostensibly this move would serve to attract businesses to Thunder Bay and boost growth and lower the tax burden on existing ratepayers.   Re-balancing the tax ratios is  a long standing issue in Thunder Bay and rooted in provincially driven policies.

There is of course some confusion as to what exactly this would cost the average homeowner in Thunder Bay.  According to one report in the local media: “A home assessed at $100,000 would see a tax increase of $66.58. The median residential single-family detached home in the city, with an assessment value of $219,000, would see a $145.80 increase on its tax bill.” Another media report stated that “For a house assessed at $219,000, the median home value in Thunder Bay, that shift would mean an extra $7.83 on the tax bill, according to Kathleen Cannon, director of revenue.” Needless to say, taxes paid are going up though the amount of the increase is not being clearly communicated.  Most people would indeed be leery of a tax shift that promises lower taxes in the future given that the tax levy in Thunder Bay has been going up for decades even if the rate of increase has declined over time.

How much money are we talking about here in terms of additional tax shifting onto residential homeowners from commercial, industrial and multi-residential assessments? Well, according to the 2021 Census, there were 26,790 single-detached homes in Thunder Bay and 2,040 semi-detached homes.  If we go with the median estimate of $145.80 as the increase in the tax bill, then this would entail a shift of $4.2 million dollars out of a $240 million tax levy onto residential ratepayers.  On the other hand, if it is $7.83, then this would entail a shift of $225,739.  Given the amount of debate that this has been taking up, one suspects that it must be the former rather than the latter.  One would think that if you are going to reduce the total business/industrial tax bill, the $4.2 million dollar amount would be of more significant impact on job creation and growth than a few hundred thousand dollars.

However, the purpose of such a move to boost growth brings us back to the question of whether Thunder Bay is in decline, thereby justifying potential growth enhancing measures.  And, by decline one of course must assume that it applies to economic decline rather than social or moral decline. Definitions are of course important and decline can be defined as “a gradual and continuous loss of strength, numbers, quality, or value.” Thus, an economic decline should exhibit a reduction in key economic variables such as GDP growth, population or employment. 

Figure 1 takes real GDP data largely from Statistics Canada and supplemented where necessary by Conference Board numbers and provides the annual rate of real GDP growth for Thunder Bay, Canada and Ontario for the period 2010 to 2024.  There are years where Thunder Bay has exceeded national or provincial growth rates in real GDP ands years when it has fallen below.  Overall, since 2010, Thunder Bay has experienced faster real GDP growth than Canada 40 percent of the time and Ontario 50 percent of the time.  However, since 2019, Thunder Bay has never grown faster than either Canada or Ontario.  As a result, over the 2010 to 2024 period, Thunder Bay’s average annual real GDP growth was 1.8 percent compared to Canada’s 2 percent or Ontario’s 2.1 percent.  Thunder Bay’s economic output is growing but it is growing at a slower rate than Canada or Ontario.

 

 

Figure 2 presents the population increase from 2001 to 2024 based on Statistics Canada data again for Canada, Ontario and the Thunder Bay CMA.  Between 2001 and 2024, Thunder Bay’s CMA grew from 121,986 to 133,0676 for an addition of just over 11,000 people representing a percent increase of 9.1 percent.  While this is indeed growth, during the same period, Canada added nearly 10 million people for an increase of 33 percent while Ontario added nearly 5 million people for an increase of 42 percent.  Again, Thunder Bay’s population is growing but not as quickly as either the country or the province.

 

 

Finally, Figure 3 looks at employment but like population, given the differences in size, total employment is best analyzed not in terms of absolute numbers but as an index.  In 2006, Thunder Bay had 59,800 employed while Canada was at 16.4 million and Ontario at 6.5 million.  To look at growth comparatively, 2006 is set equal to 100 for each jurisdiction.   By 2024, Thunder Bay had added just over 5,000 more jobs putting the index from 100 to 108.7 – an almost nine percent increase in employment.  By way of comparison, employment in Canada rose 27 percent over the same period while Ontario rose slightly under 27 percent.  As the trend lines illustrate, employment rose in Thunder Bay – albeit with more fluctuations – but also at a lower rate.

 

 

So, is Thunder Bay in decline?  Strictly speaking, it is not. Thunder Bay is growing but it is growing more slowly than the rest of the province and the rest of the country in terms of output, population and employment.  It is growing in absolute terms but getting smaller in relative terms when it comes to population, employment and output. If Thunder Bay had grown at the same rate as the rest of the province over the last two decades in terms of population and employment, it would have a CMA population of over 170,000 people and employment at nearly 76,000 jobs.   It is not decline but relative decline.  It is not as big a problem as absolute decline but a problem nonetheless.

Inflation, Productivity and Real Wage Stagnation: Canada 1960 to 2023

 

Today’s CPI inflation numbers have many breathing a sigh of relief with the expectation that with inflation below 2 percent, more interest rate relief is on the way and Canadians can resume their high personal borrowing lifestyle.   Lost in the short-term euphoria and celebration of expected lower borrowing costs is the long term cost that inflation has had on our standard of living given the low productivity gains of the last five decades.  Nowhere is this more evident than when one takes a look at how real wages have performed over time.

 

Figure 1 plots the average annual monthly hourly Canadian manufacturing wage – nominal and real – for the period from 1960 to 2023.  The nominal hourly manufacturing wage data and the All-City CPI data are both from the US Federal Reserve of St. Louis data sets [CPALCY01CAA661N; LCEAMN01CAM189S] with the real hourly wage data in $2015.   Why manufacturing wages?  Well, the manufacturing sector has generally been held up as the beacon for good quality and high paying jobs with a lot of hand wringing as manufacturing jobs have declined as a share of employment.  It sounds old fashioned but many still regard manufacturing jobs as the “high ground” of an economy in terms of value added to which I would also add the resource sector (including agriculture).

 

 

 

When nominal hourly wages are examined, their performance looks impressive.  The monthly nominal manufacturing wage in Canada in 1960 averaged $1.78/hr. By 2023, it was $30.66/hr and the average annual growth rate of real nominal hourly wages in manufacturing was 4.7 percent.  However, when adjusted for inflation using the All-City CPI for Canada with 2015 as the base year, real nominal wages barely double over the period going from $13.64/hr to $24.91/hr.  The average annual growth rate of real hourly manufacturing wages over this entire period was only 1 percent annually.  Given that at 1 percent annual growth it would take approximately 72 years for a quantity to double, we can expect real hourly wages in manufacturing to be double those in 1960 by 2032.

 

 

 

Figure 2 plots the annual average growth rate of real hourly manufacturing wages and adds a 5^th order polynomial smoothing plot.  When one examines both Figure 1 and 2, it becomes apparent that the stagnation in real wage growth really sets in during the 1970s.  There was a brief uptick in real wage growth in the wake of the FTA and NAFTA (in 1988 and 1994 respectively) but decline sets in again after the 2008-09 financial crisis.  When one combines the productivity decline that starts in the 1970s following the first oil price shock with the effects of inflation, the erosion of the standard of living – as captured by real wages – is dramatically illustrated.  It makes the case for why bringing inflation under control is so important and also why we need a productivity agenda to drive Canadian policy going into the next election.

Canada's Life Expectancy at Birth in Decline

 

Standards of living are marked by a number of indicators most upfront of which are economic measures such as per capita GDP or per capita wealth.  However, other indicators of the standard and quality of life include basic health indicator and life expectancy at birth has long been a marker of the average “quantity of life” a country provides.   Yet after the increases of the twentieth century and 21^st centuries which saw average life expectancy in the world rise from 32 years in 1900 to 71 in 2021, much of the world has seen a decline in recent years in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.   Statistics Canada has already noted that for three years in a row, life expectancy at birth for Canadians has declined from 2019 to 2022 with this decline being driven by an increase in unexpected deaths (such as substance related deaths, suicides and homicides) as well as the impact of COVID.

 

However, what is more interesting in the Canadian case is just as real per capita GDP growth slowed after 2010, so did the growth in life expectancy at birth which highlights the connection between economic growth and performance and ultimately health indicators such as life expectancy.  The accompanying figure plots life expectancy at birth for Canada and Ontario at assorted overlapping three-year intervals since 2005 and they show that life expectancy at birth grew from 2005/07 to 2011/13 from 80.51 years to 81.73 years for Canada and 80.86 years to 82.19 years for Ontario.  Growth then slowed and life expectancy at birth peaked at 81.94 years from 2015 to 2018 for Canada and 82.41 years for Ontario.  Since then, both have declined hitting 81.55 years for Canada and 81.97 for Ontario by 2020-22.

 

 

 

While much of the decline definitely coincides with the pandemic, life expectancy was essentially flat from approximately 2011/13 to 2017/19 when the decline begins but then accelerates during the 2019/2021 window as the pandemic strikes.  So, the takeaways I get from this is that the pandemic indeed is associated with a decline in life expectancy at birth, but growth had already plateaued and begun to slip well before this in the wake of the 2008/09 recession and the slower economic growth and performance since.  The pandemic appears to have strained or augmented whatever forces were already in play prior to 2020. 

 

Of course, one might ask if this has also occurred in other countries.  For example, a quick glance shows life expectancy at birth in Japan rising from 2012 until 2020 before a decline set in going from 83.1 years to peak at 84.56 in 2020 before declining to 84 by 2022.  From 2012 to the pandemic start in 2020, life expectancy at birth grew 1.8 percent in Japan but only 0.2 percent in Canada.  Germany, on the other hand from 2012 to 2020 grew by 0.6 percent (from 80.54 to 81.04) years.  The United States on the other hand saw life expectancy essentially flat since 2012 (growing just under 0.1 percent) to the pandemic with a decline during the pandemic.  These trends are food for thought indeed. 

What is a Provincial Government to Do?

 

Ontario is coming up to Budget Day next week on March 26^th and it will be interesting to see what the provincial government does on a number of issues because quite frankly the provincial government is in a bit of a pickle when it comes to economic and fiscal policy.  Over the last decade, Ontario has been hit by a productivity decline that has translated into slower economic growth.  Since the pandemic, this has been combined with a bout of inflation and a surge in population growth.  When you start looking at Ontario fiscal and economic indicators in real per capita terms, there are going forward disturbing implications for our standard of living.

 

If one compares the 2023-24 fiscal year forecast from the Fall Economic Update with the 2018-19 fiscal year, total provincial government revenues and expenditures are up approximately 30 percent respectively.  Health expenditure is up 33 percent.  The size of the provincial economy is up 22 percent.  On the surface, this is seemingly good news in the wake of the pandemic.  The problem is that over the same period, population in Ontario has grown by an estimated 12 percent while prices have risen nearly 19 percent.  Put another way, the combination of population and inflation at nearly 30 percent has outstripped nominal GDP growth while essentially matching the growth of government revenues and expenditures and in particular health spending.

 

The best way to visually illustrate these effects is to create an index.  Figure 1 uses data from Statistics Canada, the Fiscal Reference Tables and the 2023 Ontario Fall Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review to create real per person indices of economic and fiscal performance setting 2013/14 as 100.  Figure 1 plots real per capita (deflated using the CPI-All Items Index) Ontario provincial government Own Source Revenue, Federal Transfers, Total Revenue, Program Expenditure, Debt Service Costs and Total Expenditures.  Note that 2023-24 is an estimate.

 

 

 

In real per capita terms, debt service costs have been a bright spot in that despite the continuing rise in both the provincial net debt and interest rates, inflation and population growth have served to reduce the real per capita burden of servicing Ontario’s debt.  Indeed, the drop-in debt service has probably been able to free up resources for program spending. On the other hand, compared to 2018/19, real per capita revenues and expenditures are now below where they were.  In other words, provincial government revenue and spending have not kept up with inflation and more importantly population growth.

 

 

 

Figure 2 illustrates the decline in the Ontario way of life a bit more succinctly.  Does the health care system feel strained?  Real per capita provincial government health care spending after the surge of the pandemic is back to where it was in 2018/19.  Indeed, it has not changed much since 2013/14.  During that time, one imagines that labor costs for health care have gone up pretty dramatically which means there are indeed fewer doctors and nurses available to service a growing population. And to top it all off, real per capita output in Ontario has not kept pace with either inflation or population growth.  While real per capita GDP in Ontario grew somewhat from 2013/14 to the pandemic, it has since declined.

 

Looking at Figure 2, if the average Ontario had to ask themselves am I better off than a decade ago when it comes to my real per capita income and health spending, the answer is one that should concern the provincial government.

Ontario Economic Decline is Real and Substantial

 This post originally appeared in the Fraser Institute Blog.

A spectre is stalking Ontario, and it’s the spectre of decline. For most of post-war Canadian economic history, Ontario has had a per-capita real GDP substantially above the Canadian average. At the same time, Ontario has had real per-capita GDP growth relatively close to the Canadian average.

This dominance was rooted in Ontario’s role as Canada’s industrial heartland that developed in the wake of Confederation. Ontario was indeed a beneficiary of Canada’s national economic development policies based on development of the Canadian prairie wheat economy, a tariff wall to protect domestic manufacturing and an east-west railway transport corridor. At the same time, Ontario’s economy was also marked by prosperity driven by market-based economic development best described in the words of economic historian Ian Drummond as “progress without planning.”

Ontario’s performance can be summarized in two charts using data from the Macro-data Base of Finances of the Nation. The first chart below plots real per-capita GDP separately for Ontario versus the rest of the country (Canada without Ontario) from 1990 to 2022.

 

CanvasJS.com

The second chart plots the average annual growth rate for Ontario, the rest of the country and all of Canada for the 1990 to 2022 period and the approximately 30-year period preceding it. The evidence suggests that during the 1990s, Ontario fell dramatically below the rest of the country in terms of its real per-capita GDP growth. In 2006, the rest of the country surpassed Ontario’s real per-capita GDP and remained higher for a decade before converging from about 2015 to the pandemic era. However, in the immediate post-pandemic era, Ontario has once again fallen behind the rest of the country.

 

 

CanvasJS.com

During the 30-year period prior to 1990, Ontario’s real GDP per-capita growth was quite close to the overall Canadian average and that of Canada without Ontario. What’s remarkable is what’s happened since.

Ontario’s average annual growth rate of real per-capita GDP fell from 2.6 per cent to 0.6 per cent. To be fair, a productivity decline has also marked the rest of the country. Indeed, Ontario and the rest of Canada appear locked as partners in a long-term productivity and growth decline, but Ontario’s performance is both dire and unique. The rest of Canada since 1990 saw its per-capita income growth rate cut in half. While hardly a sterling performance, compared to Ontario it was a veritable boom given that Ontario’s post-1990 average annual growth rate was barely one-quarter that of its 1960 to 1990 growth rate. One can argue that Ontario is dragging down the overall Canadian growth rate.

One can construct all kinds of palatable and soothing stories to explain why this has happened and why it’s not as unflattering as these statistics suggest. For example, one can argue that convergence of income is a good thing as it provides for a more economically balanced federation and is a logical outcome of economic development spreading across the country. At the same time, convergence could also mean that once per-capita incomes have equalized, growth rates should be similar, too, which is not the case here.

One could argue that Ontario was exceptionally hard hit by the economic adjustment its manufacturing base underwent during the 1990s in the wake of the 1998 Canada-U.S. Free Trade agreement and then NAFTA. Yet most of that adjustment was done in the 1990s and a breakdown of growth rates in the 1990 to 2022 period shows 1990 to 2000 had higher per-capita income growth than afterwards. One could also argue that the real per-capita slowdown is an illusion fuelled by rapid population growth. This of course ignores the reality that Ontario’s population has been growing about the same as the rest of the country and its share of total Canadian population today remains pretty much the same as 30 years ago.

Another potential argument is that the relatively better performance of the rest of the country is the result of natural resources with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador doing much of the heavy lifting. Yet this ignores that Ontario, and especially its north, is resource rich with abundant minerals and hydropower resources. Yet Ontario has been planning for more than two decades to access its Ring of Fire and little yet emerged. If the early 20th century could be characterized as “Progress without planning” then the early 21st may as well be “Planning without progress.”

Finally, one could argue it’s all just a rough patch for Ontario and that things are about to turn around. At the 1960 to 1990 growth rate, Ontario’s per-capita income would double in about 30 years. At the post-1990 average annual growth rate, the next doubling will take more than a century.

These are all ultimately unconvincing stories strung together to provide a comforting and bearable account as to why we shouldn’t worry and indeed shouldn’t do anything at all. Yet the first step to a solution is acknowledging a problem exists. Unfortunately, Ontario seems serene in the confidence it does not have to worry. Ontario needs to wake up and realize it has a problem.

 

Ontario Housing Prices Coming Down

The pandemic era in Canada saw a thirty percent increase in housing prices that were already high as a result of a decade of low interest rates and rising demand due to population growth.  However, a combination of rising interest rates led by the Bank of Canada in an effort to curb inflation, the inevitable subsequent slowdown in the economy, as well as inflation reducing the household resources available for home purchases has meant that home prices in Canada have finally reached their peak and are on the way down.  The latest Teranet-National Bank Housing Price Index Release shows that the National Composite House Price Index fell 3.1% from August to September, the largest monthly decline on record since the index began in 1999 and exceeded the previous month’s record decline of 2.4%. Needless to say, Ontario did not escape this trend but despite the drop, prices are still higher than they were a year ago.

 

 Figure 1 shows that year over year (September to September), prices were up in 15 out of 16 major Ontario cities with the exception being Peterborough.  The largest percentage increases year over year have been in Greater Sudbury, Kingston and Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo.  Thunder Bay's increase over the last twelve months was just under 4 percent.  However, prices are down from their peak in all of these cities as illustrated in Figure 2.  Most of these cities saw their prices peak in May of 2022 with the exceptions being Belleville, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo and London  (peak in April 2022), Ottawa-Gatineau (peak in June 2022) and Thunder Bay (peak in July 2022).  

 

 

The largest declines since peak price have been in Windsor (16.2 percent), Oshawa (16.4 percent) and Peterborough (23.2 percent).  Meanwhile, the smallest declines since peak price were in Thunder Bay (5.7 percent), Greater Sudbury (6.1 percent) and Ottawa-Gatineau (8 percent).  Northern Ontario cities like Thunder Bay and sudbiury are not immune from national or provincial trends but they have historically not been as subject to the same fluctuations as other cities.  In Thunder Bay for example , the housing price boom while substantial relative to its historic prices was nevertheless more muted than the GTA.  The downturn will likely be similar.  It is probably no coincidence that to date the price drop in Thunder Bay, Sudbury and Ottawa-Gatineau has been the least of these 16 major cities as all three of these cities have an economic base of broader public sector employment at 30 percent of jobs or more (in the case of Ottawa- Gatineau) which provides a substantial economic stabilizer when the national average in closer to 20 percent.

Given that interest rates are expected to rise substantially next week as  inflation really shows no signs of abating in Statistics Canada's latest release, one should see the price decline continue into the fall.

The Incredible Shrinking Newspaper and the Decline of the Forest Sector

Going through some old stuff, I came across a full newspaper from 1981 – a copy of the Tuesday June 30^th edition of the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal.  Examining it, one is struck by how hefty the paper was in terms of both paper volume as well as article content compared to what is currently being published.  Indeed, I put this old copy of the Chronicle-Journal on my dining room table alongside the Monday February 11^th, 2019 edition for a comparison (see the photo) and the differences are quite striking.

Newspapers have indeed shrunk.  The 1981 version of the Chronicle-Journal was 15 5/8 inches (39.7 cm) wide and 22 5/8 inches (57.5 cm) long while the 2019 version is 11 ½ inches (29.2 cm) wide and 22 5/8 inches (57.5 cm) long.  More important is the thickness.  The 1981 newspaper consists of two section – each 32 pages long while the 2019 version is in two sections – each 10 pages long.  The long and short of it is that the amount of newsprint required has shrunk by over two-thirds.  Even more interesting is the fact that until the mid 1990s, Thunder Bay actually had two papers published – a morning edition which was the Chronicle-Journal and an evening edition known as the Times-News.

When what looks at what has happened to the Canadian forest sector over the last fifteen years, one only needs to take what has happened at our own local paper and extrapolate it across North America.  Newspapers have been either shrinking in size or simply going out of print completely.  There was certainly a lot more advertising in the pages of the 1981 version of the Chronicle-Journal and competition from electronic media and the internet have been important factors in the decline in the demand for newspapers.

Along with changing consumer preferences when it comes to news sources, there have been other shocks to the pulp and paper industry.  The recession of 2008-09, international newsprint and pulp competition from lower cost suppliers, a high Canadian dollar, aging capital stock and high electricity prices were all factors which helped decimate the Northwestern Ontario pulp and paper industry in the first decade of the 21^st century.  Across Canada, employment in logging, pulp and paper and wood dropped by over 40 percent between 2004 and 2014 while the number of paper mills fell from 50 to 30 – also a 40 percent decline.

It is really quite remarkable that newspapers have been able to survive at all given the size of the demand and technology shocks hitting them over the last thirty years.  I must admit, that while I have adjusted to the era of e-papers, I do occasionally miss having a more hefty newspaper in hand.

The North and Ontario's Population

Well, today is election day and as we pause and wait for the results later today, why not take another look at northern Ontario's population but this time with numbers from the 2017 BMA Municipal Study.  Two items for your consideration. First, a table showing population in the major northern Ontario municipalities as well as the growth rates of their population for the period 2006 to 2011 and 2011 to 2016.  The table ranks the cities from the highest to lowest growth rates for the period 2011 to 2016 and they show that at the top are Parry Sound and Greater Sudbury.  Their populations have continued to expand and while their proximity to the GTA and its opportunities may be a factor it remains that proximity has not helped North Bay.  Also of interest is Elliot Lake which has taken to marketing itself as a retirement community.  Despite an aging population, people are not retiring to Elliot Lake in droves.



With the north not really growing while Ontario's population rises, its share of Ontario's population is also declining.  However, in this case it turns out that the North has plenty of company when it comes to shrinking population shares.  The figure below - also taken from the 2017 BMA Municipal Study (using data from the Ontario Finance Ministry) plots the population share of each of Ontario's regions since 1991 and projected to 2041.  It turns out that each region is expected to decline as a share of Ontario's population by 2041 with the exception of the GTA.  The GTA is projected to rise from 42% in 1991 to hit 53% by 2041.  As for northern Ontario - it is going from 8 percent of the population in 1991 to 4 percent by 2041.  At present it is about 7 percent.


Two things.  First, Ontario is becoming increasingly lopsided in terms of population and employment with the GTA enjoying a perpetual boom and the rest of the province with perhaps the exception of the Ottawa area undergoing a slow stagnation.   This will be a major challenge for the next government when it comes to dealing with the provincial economy.  Second, as many of you are aware, there was an increase in riding numbers for today's elections - there are now 124 seats in the legislature up for grabs.  Of those, 13 are in northern Ontario which means that 10 percent of the election ridings are in the north but only about 7 percent of the population.  Whatever northerners may think about their relative alienation and neglect by the south, it remains that their votes yield clout out of proportion to their population numbers.  Northern Ontario needs to make use of this influence while it still retains it. It is unlikely that 2041 will see the north with 10 percent of the seats in the legislature but only 4 percent of the population.

The State of the North

The State of the North conference hosted by the Northern Policy Institute was held in Timmins from September 27-28 with much of the discussion focusing on reversing the north's economic decline.   Charles Cirtwill, President of the Northern Policy Institute sent out the slides of his presentation with an invitation to share and today's post reproduces a few of those slides.  Figures 1-2 present some GDP estimates by sector for the Northwest and the Northeast of Ontario while Figures 3-5 present non-residential building permits for assorted northern Ontario districts.

The Decline of Saving

Most of us are aware that Canadian households have reached record levels of indebtedness over the last few years.  Household debt in Canada is now over $2 trillion and household debt to disposable income ratios in Canada are now at 170 percent.  Less discussed is what has happened to savings.  While low interest rates have been a factor in Canadians being able to carry substantially larger debt burdens, they have also been a factor in reducing the interest income from saving and as a result have led to a drop in the number of savers.

The Bank of Canada rate dropped from 6 percent in 2000 to 0.75 percent in 2015.  Over the same period, the total number of savers in Canada as reported by Statistics Canada from data compiled from Income Tax returns (Table 1110036 - Canadian savers, by savers characteristics, annually) dropped from 4,808,930 to 3,356,840 – a decline of 30 percent.  Over the same period, the median annual interest income of Canadians fell from $400 to $230, a drop of 43 percent.

Why the North's Cities are Losing Population

Everyone is still pretty much digesting last week's census results and the news that many northern Ontario's cities actually lost population.  Of course, the immediate gut reaction to the population decline of what are supposed to be the regional magnets for growth will focus on a slow economy as well as cries that the provincial government needs to do something.  I think its important to think more carefully about what actually is happening given that northern Ontario as a whole actually saw a slight population increase.  Here is my take on what some of the factors may be.