Ontario’s 2026 Budget: Facing Economic Challenges

  

Ontario's Premier Ford seems to have grown more theatrical over time in his public pronouncements whether of the economic nature or otherwise.  There is also a preoccupation with the announcement of large infrastructure initiatives with many targeted to the GTA area the latest of which is the move to extend the runways at Billy Bishop Airport to accommodate jets.  This is all understandable given the buffeting that the Ontario economy has taken in the wake of the Trump Tariffs and the effect on Ontario exports and the auto sector in particular and the rising unhappiness and dissatisfaction of the Ontario public.  And yet, despite diversionary theatrics and announcements, the challenges facing Ontario are not going away.

There are numerous challenges facing Ontario as Thursday’s budget approaches and they can be divided into short and long term.  On the immediate front, Ontario has seen a decline in employment and a rise in unemployment rates because of the continuing fall out from the trade and tariff dispute with the United States.  There is the continuing challenge of health care as families have difficulty accessing timely physician and hospital services.   And of course there is the cost of housing which has not been helped by Ontario’s inability to boost housing starts which as one report has noted is an Ontario rather than Canadian problem per se.  Then there are the public finances which in the short term have seen continued deficits and despite pledges that the budget will be balanced by 2027, is looking increasingly unlikely.  Over the longer term, Ontario faces a productivity problem best illustrated by real per capita GDP which is essentially unchanged from 2018 and a net debt problem which the province’s Financial Accountability Office estimates will reach $548 billion by 2029-30.

 

 

The best way to summarize the economic challenges facing Ontario is through a few charts.  Figure 1 starts off with a long-term view of Ontario’s real per capita GDP and the growth rates over time.  The takeaway here is that over the long run, the growth rate of real per capita GDP has trended downwards.  More serious from the Ontario Premier’s point of view, real per capita GDP in Ontario has essentially been stagnant since 2019.  In that year, real per capita GDP ($2017) was $59,681 and in 2025 it was $60,052.  If one factors out the pandemic drop and rebound of 2020 and 2021 – real per capita GDP in Ontario since 2018 has grown at 0.4 percent annually. It’s 0.3 percent annually if you factor in the two pandemic years.  Ontario is essentially amidst a lost decade in terms of per person income growth – it just has not been labelled that yet given that Ontario is also amidst a lost decade when it comes to an effective political opposition.

 

 

The slowing of the Ontario economy has been especially noticeable in rising rates of unemployment and those rates while up across the province, have been quite noticeable in the GTA where half of Ontario’s population and employment resides. Figure 2 plots the monthly unemployment rate sin Ontario for the province and by economic region since 2016.  Again, taking away the pandemic spike, they were on the decline until early 2023 and have since started to rise.  In the GTA, the unemployment rate was just over 5 percent in early 2023 and rose to reach 9.5 percent by September of 2025.  It has since subsided a bit but is still at 7.6 percent.  That is the third highest rate of Ontario’s 11 economic regions as illustrated in Figure 3.  Having many unhappy voters concentrated in such a large vote rich area is not good news. 

 

 

The deteriorating employment situation is further illustrated in Figure 4 which plots the change in employment for Ontario and its 11 economic regions both over the course of the last 12 months – February 2025 to February 2026 and more recently since July 2025. While Ontario since February 2025 is only down 7400 jobs, if you look at where employment has gone from the summer peak, the drop has been about 150,000 jobs.  The largest drops in absolute numbers have been Ottawa (-46,400), Toronto (-24,600), Kitchener-Waterloo-Barrie (-40,600) and Hamilton-Niagara (-37,300).  

 

 

So, come Thursday, many Ontarians will be looking at what the government might do to alleviate the economic hardship that is afflicting Ontario.  Will there be long run measures to boost productivity and the supply side of the economy that ultimately will raise incomes, and reduce unemployment and inflation, or will Ontario continue with short term measures that grab political attention or temporarily alleviate cost of living through demand side boosts that boost inflation further. Stay tuned.

Population Growth in Canada's CMAs: An Update

  

A couple of weeks ago, Statistics Canada updated its population estimates for sub provincial areas including CMAs (Census Metropolitan Areas) and CAs (Census Agglomerations). In terms of the distinction between the two, CMAS have populations of over 100,000 while CAs range from 10,000 to 100,000.  As the release noted:

“On July 1, 2025, the total population of Canada's 41 census metropolitan areas (CMAs)—large urban centres with populations above 100,000—reached 31,169,100 people. Following three years marked by strong population growth, CMAs experienced significantly slower population increases from July 1, 2024, to July 1, 2025 (+1.0%). In contrast, the population grew by 3.5% from July 1, 2023, to July 1, 2024. Regions outside of CMAs also experienced slower population growth from July 1, 2024, to July 1, 2025. Census agglomerations (CAs)—smaller urban centres with populations ranging from 10,000 to 100,000—saw their population grow at a rate of +0.9% during that period, while areas outside CMAs and CAs grew by +0.7%. One year earlier, those areas had recorded growth rates of +2.0% and +1.0%, respectively.”

 

 

That population growth slowed in 2025 because of changes to immigration is the key story in this release but what is also interesting is what population change has been like over the entire pandemic and post-pandemic period - from 2020 to 2025 - considering the new updated numbers.  Figure 1 plots the ranked percentage growth in population for Canadian CMAs from 2020 to 2025.  Over this period, Canada’s population grew from 38.023 million to 41.652 million – an increase of 9.5 percent or 3.623 million.  Growth in the urban areas was 10.4 percent for all CMAs and CAs combined and 10.9 percent for the CMAs alone.  The fastest population growth was for Moncton (24%), Calgary (20.1%), Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo (17.8%), Oshawa (16.3% and Edmonton (15.8%).  Out of the 43 CMAs, Vancouver ranked 18^th at 12.3% growth, Toronto ranked 27^th at 9.5% growth and Montreal 41^st at 5.5%.  

 

 

Of course, what is also of interest to those of us here up North is that northern Ontario CMAs also saw an increase in population with Greater Sudbury seeing an increase from 176,580 to 194,278 – 17,698 more people for an increase of 10 percent. Thunder Bay saw an increase from 128,815 to 133,765 for an increase of 4,950 people or 3.8 percent.  Incidentally, of the 43 CMAs, Thunder Bay ranked 43^rd.  Naturally, many local boosters will argue that Thunder Bay is unique and comparing Thunder Bay with so many larger centres is like comparing apples and oranges, so Figure 2 provides a ranked comparison with our own local fruit orchard and also includes CAs.

Figure 2 shows that the fastest growth over the 2020 to 2025 period was in North Bay at 13.8 percent.  North Bay’s population rose from 73,974 to 84,384. The next largest percent increase was for the Sault which went from 80,757 to 88,307 for an increase of 10.1 percent. Greater Sudbury came in third with an increase of 10 percent while Timmins was 4^th with an increase of 2,999 people or 7.5 percent.  Thunder Bay came in 5^th at 3.8 percent and managed to beat out both Elliot Lake (1.6%) and Kenora, which saw a decline of 1.5 percent.

Those are the numbers as they currently stand.

Is Thunder Bay Housing History About to Repeat Itself?

 

In the early 20^th century, the Lakehead cities of Port Arthur and Fort William were amidst an economic boom fueled by the expansion of the Canadian wheat economy in the west and the Lakehead’s role as a port and transport centre.  As the boom progressed, population surged and the years from 1900 to 1914 saw massive growth with the population growing from just over 6,000 people to 30,000 – a 400 percent increase.  With this boom, the need for housing was paramount and the same era saw a massive construction surge with numerous houses built. 

Indeed, it seemed like the growth would never end and plans were afoot to bring huge swaths of land into readiness for what was certainly to become the Chicago of the North.  The pre-1920 period saw residential subdivisions planned and sometimes started for the Kam River Islands, Parkdale (which incidentally was zoned for 25-foot lots as far back as 1907), The Alma Adair Addition and the areas currently between Lakehead University and Confederation College now off Central Avenue and to be known as Inter-Ocean Park.

The Great Boom came to an end not only at the Lakehead but across Canada and for decades Thunder Bay was marked by huge swaths of land that eventually reverted to the municipality for non-payment of taxes and evolved into informal green spaces throughout the city. Along with large swathes of greenery in the centre of the city, many neighbourhoods have also had patches of green space on empty lots that were never developed.  While these lands sometimes evolved into official parks or parkettes, for the most part they were simply green space – owned by the city.  Visually, they made for a vision of forest within the city and in practical terms, while they served no obvious productivity need, they did harbour wildlife and absorb rainwater.  One only needs to see what happens to the inter-city area after a major deluge given that most of the green space there has been paved over.  If anything, the urban green space contributed to that intangible Thunder Bay often advocates as one if its attractions – quality of life.

Fast forwarding to the present, after decades of economic and population stagnation, it once again appears that Thunder Bay’s hour has struck and a boom – albeit a modest one - is underway.  With infusions of public infrastructure money, growing demand for transport services and mining activity in the region, employment and population have finally begun rising again with some of that growth boosted by recent immigration of permanent and temporary residents.  According to Statistics Canada numbers, between 2015 and 2024, the CMA population rose from 124,719 to 133,063 while the City of Thunder Bay proper rise from 110,298 to 117,100 – increases of 6.7 and 6.2 percent respectively. 

There is a demand for housing and with the assistance of federal and provincial housing money, Thunder Bay has embarked on a plan to boost the number of housing units via a combination of infill in existing neighbourhoods as well as move on disposing of its surplus green space.  The infill in existing neighbourhoods with higher density apartment units and more basement units have naturally disturbed the former pace and character of some neighbourhoods as additional residents and their vehicles have cluttered the streets.  Simply accusing existing residents of NIMBYISM does not address their concerns given that the City of Thunder Bay seems to do little to enforce either parking or noise bylaws.

However, the latest chapter in this saga is the declaration of surplus and sale of four major pieces of municipally owned land to build density housing: 300 Tokio Street, 144 Fanshaw Street, 791 Arundel Street, and the land between 211-223 Tupper Street and 224 Camelot Street.  The City of Thunder Bay wants 400 units on Tokio Street, 200 on Fanshaw Street, 600 on Arundel Street, and 185 on Tupper/Camelot streets for a total of about 1,385 units. A key issue here is that of these pieces of land, only one is in a downtown area and can be considered as part of a deliberate plan to boost density in the downtown cores which have been the focus of substantial redevelopment dollars to revitalize them but still lack higher population and traffic.  The others are all on green space adjacent to existing residential areas which in the case of the Arundel lands are also already marked by some high density apartments. 

So, there has been push-back from residents and the Tuesday January 13^th City Council meeting is expected to see a final decision on whether the city will dispose of this land.  Of course, city councillors and administrators have already generated a narrative to convince themselves and city residents – a large portion who concur – that Thunder Bay needs more housing and that this is the right thing to do.  The city maintains that with rising population, Thunder Bay is facing a shortage of 1,000 units of housing and they need to build large quantities of housing quickly to increase supply and make housing more affordable.  Thunder Bay is also pursuing an active growth agenda and plan, and this construction activity is seen as growing the tax base which is a priority of the new growth plan.  To assuage push-back, the claim has been made that the proposals are all conceptual and subject to change hinting but not stating that they will be down-scaled. And, at least one councillor has argued that << “If you build some of these types of units, you will allow people to still stay in your neighbourhood and you will open up a house that has three bedrooms that could potentially occupy [more] people,”  … “Change is hard to kind of wrap your head around ‘til you see it,” he continued. “Sometimes change is good, and then sometimes … the proposal might not be that change, it might be something different.”>>

In deciding on this matter, Thunder Bay City council needs to consider the following points made with reference to some of the arguments that have been advanced:

1.        Thunder Bay needs more housing and that this is the right thing to do.  The city maintains that with rising population Thunder Bay is facing a shortage of 1,000 units of housing and they need to build large quantities of housing quickly to increase supply and make housing more affordable.

Thunder Bay does need more housing and particularly affordable housing and social or geared to income housing.  To date, most of the new builds have been units at market rent and they have increased supply but that new supply comes at monthly rents between $2,000 to $2,500 a month.  These are GTA level rents in a city that despite its recent surge in growth does not even begin to offer the opportunities of a much larger city but seems to be developing all its drawbacks including crime and generally more inconsiderate behaviour on both the roads and in neighbourhoods.  Indeed, Thunder Bay rents are pretty much at the Ontario average. As for rising population, that growth may be about to end.  With recent changes to federal immigration including the caps on international student enrolment, Thunder Bay’s population may once again be levelling off.  In some respects, this may be a small-scale replay of the early 20^th century where the boom petered out, and Thunder Bay was left with large quantities of zoned land with no demand.  In this case, it will be a lot of units that may not find renters.  On the bright side, a classic overbuilding boom may be just what we need to bring local rents down in the longer run. I am sure City Councillors are not too concerned if developers are left holding the bag as that would be someone else's problem.

 

2.        Thunder Bay is also pursuing an active growth agenda and plan, and this construction activity is seen as growing the tax base which is a priority of the new growth plan. 

Thunder Bay’s growth agenda is a municipal revenue enhancement plan masquerading as an economic growth plan.  The key targets are not employment growth targets or business formation targets or per capita GDP growth targets, but measures directly correlated with municipal revenue.  The key targets are to grow the property tax base of 3% annually and grow population by 1 percent annually. Building multi-residential units that generate more tax revenue on a per square foot basis than single family dwellings meet these goals rather nicely – if growth in employment and population continue.  As already noted, continued population growth is not assured. If one looks at Statistics Canada’s labour force characteristics for Thunder Bay, in 2025, the population aged 15 years old and over has stopped growing.  From spring of 2016 to the end of 2024, Thunder Bay’s plus 15 years old CMA population grew from 104,300 to 111,900 – an increase of 7.3 percent.  However, by December 2025, the 15 years plus population was 111,400 – a decline of 500.  A blip? Perhaps? But nevertheless, making decisions based on previous growth rates continuing is always risky.  On the other hand, the developers will be taking the risks and once they have acquired the land, they may simply sit on it for years if economic conditions shift.  At least that is what happened when the city sold off the Municipal Golf Course for housing way back in 2016.  We are still waiting there.

 

 

3.        To assuage push-back, the claim has been made that the proposals are all conceptual and subject to change hinting but not stating that they will be down-scaled.

This is classic bureaucratic issue management.  Make the affected public feel better by giving them the hope that the development will be smaller than the concept drawings illustrate.  That may or may not happen.  Once the land is sold to developers, they will be calling the shots on what is eventually built.  The projects may be scaled down, or they may be scaled up.  People in the Junot /John/Red River area still remember what happened with the Transitional Housing Project for youth that was supposed to be under 30 beds.  If you look at the footprint of the almost completed structure now, it looks like it is well over 50 if not more. In general, in Thunder Bay when there is a development plan, what you see is not always what you get.  Indeed, many of the drawings presented give me a vibe out of Fritz Lang's Metropolis with a 1960s Soviet era flair.

 

4.        “If you build some of these types of units, you will allow people to still stay in your neighbourhood and you will open up a house that has three bedrooms that could potentially occupy [more] people.”  

This is an intriguing argument. I am not sure what type of housing market demand this statement is directed at.  I suppose there are some people in Thunder Bay that would like to downsize to an easier to maintain lifestyle once the kids are gone.  Indeed, the thought has often crossed my mind that it would be nice to sell the house and move into a condo or apartment.  The problem with condos in Thunder Bay is that Thunder Bay’s condo market is very limited in terms of what is available.  Most of it is really glorified apartments with few amenities and outside parking – not terribly attractive.  Moreover, based on average house and condo prices in Thunder Bay, unlike southern Ontario or the GTA where you sell your house, buy a three-bedroom condo in a building with a pool, gym and underground parking and have several hundred thousand dollars left over, the Thunder Bay reality is different.  You sell your house, buy a condo in a building with no pool or gym and outside parking and must sink another $100,000 or so on the purchase price. If that is not enough to change your mind, how about I base the rebuttal here on a simple personal anecdote.  I currently live in a four-bedroom house with yard and deck.  The expenses of maintaining my home (taxes, water, insurance, basic maintenance, etc.…) even with the occasional emergency repair such as an appliance going, do not amount to more than $15,000 annually. Why would I downsize to a two-bedroom apartment at $2,000 a month - $24,000 annually - plus a monthly fee for outside parking that would add another $1,000 annually? True, if I were in my late 70s or early 80s and finding home maintenance challenging, it might be more attractive but at that stage one is looking more at a retirement home or assisted living arrangements.

 

5.        “Change is hard to kind of wrap your head around ‘til you see it,” he continued. “Sometimes change is good, and then sometimes … the proposal might not be that change, it might be something different.”

 

Well, we should save the best for last.  To start, coming right out and saying a proposal is going to change and might be something different means in the end neither we nor City Council for that matter know what City council is deciding to do.  That is not terribly reassuring. Moreover, it is one thing for an administrator or bureaucrat to engage in the assuaging platitudes of issue management; it is another for a ward representative to do so in response to obviously upset people. I am really not sure what to make of this statement by the councillor in question aside from that he is an obvious fan of the Alex Rider series on Prime Video and has decided to channel Dr. Grief.  As aficionados of the series may recall from Season 1 of Alex Rider, Dr. Grief is an evil villain seeking to change the world by placing his clones in key positions around the world.  A key scene is when Dr. Grief in response to a classroom question by teen spy Alex about who gets to choose the one percent in a world starting over, intones: <<Change is never easy. Change hurts, but it can be for the better.>> Not sure if people who are concerned about the erosion of neighbourhood green space and residential quality of life really appreciate this type of lecture from their elected representative but maybe it will work.  People in Thunder Bay complain a lot, but then usually just go back to sleep and let things happen.

 

So, what more can one say.  Thunder Bay probably does need more housing, but a lot already has been or is under construction and it is not obvious that the demand will continue to grow at the same rate. In some respects, Thunder Bay may be about to embark on a small-scale repetition of the early 20^th century when there was a massive push to accommodate housing demand that eventually fell short. Density housing is an obvious solution to future housing needs, but more effort needs to be made to design well placed units with amenities rather than simply throwing up apartment blocks reminiscent of 1960s quick builds.  Most importantly, the City of Thunder Bay is taking the quick and easy way out with greenfield development rather than a more focused approach to building urban density in its core areas especially given the amount of money that is continually being spent to “improve” those areas but without the follow through of increasing the population in those areas. This has been said before and will be said again.

 

 

Thunder Bay Reaches Employment Peak

Thunder Bay has hit an employment milestone.  Data from the Statistics Canada October 2025 Labour Force Survey shows that for the month of October, Thunder Bay hit an employment level of 68,200 jobs.  This was an increase of 700 jobs from September 2025 and 2,100 jobs from October of 2024.  Annualized October to October, employment in Thunder Bay was up 3.2 percent.  Moreover, October 2025 was the highest monthly employment total ever going back over nearly 40 years to 1987.  The accompanying figure plots the monthly ebbs and flows of employment since 1987 (along with a 5th order polynomial smooth to illustrate trend) and while there have been other notable peak periods such as June 2003 (67,400), April 2023 (67,100) and June 2018 (66,200) it remains that 68,200 is the largest yet.  

 

There has definitely been an upswing in employment since 2015, notwithstanding the pandemic drop. Thunder Bay has seen substantial economic activity over the last couple of years particularly as a result of numerous construction projects for housing along with highway work and some major institutional projects such as the one billion dollar new correctional facility, the art gallery and most recently the start of the multiplex turf facility. Of course, whether this can be sustained over the long term is an important question and Thunder Bay's peak employment figures have largely fluctuated between 65,000 and 70,000 jobs but have never been able to break out of this corridor.  Depending on what the impact of federal and provincial infrastructure money is down the road, as well as whether the region's mining projects for critical minerals indeed come to pass. 

Nevertheless, good news for the time being 

Thunder Bay’s Employment Trends in the Wake of the Lost Decade

 

Thunder Bay even during the trade war has been doing quite well.  Population is up as is total employment in the wake of the pandemic.  While the national unemployment rate in August of 2025 was 7.1 percent and Ontario clocked in at 7.7 percent, Thunder Bay was below both at 5 percent.  Moreover, employment grew from 65,300 in July to 66,400 in August which incidentally is one of the highest the highest monthly total employment amounts in 20 years.  While Thunder Bay has seen ebbs and flows over time, there has been a distinct upward trend in total employment since about 2012 marking the end of what could be termed the early 21^st century lost decade as the forest sector crisis ravaged the local and regional economy.

Figure 1 plots monthly total employment obtained from assorted Statistics Canada series from 1987 to 2025.  It also fits a LOWESS non-parametric smoothing curve to highlight the trends in total employment.  The early years of the first decade of the 21^st century saw total employment in Thunder Bay rise as the recessionary 1990s were left behind and the all-time peak employment of 67,400 jobs reached in July of 2003.  Soon after began the shocks and declines of the forest sector crisis began to accumulate and employment trended downwards until 2012.   

 

 

Thunder Bay’s economy transformed in the aftermath of the forest sector crisis as it moved into knowledge economy jobs as well as saw the expansion of the regional mining sector.   Indeed, despite the ebbs and flows, the period since 2012 is the longest continuous upward trend in employment in this nearly 40-year period. However, despite this good news, total employment in August 2025 still falls short of previous peaks reached in July 2003(67,400), June 2018 (66,200) and April 2023 (67,100). Indeed, Thunder Bay’s best employment performances historically have always oscillated within a band of 65,000 to 68,000 jobs.  This band has never been exceeded and until it is one can argue that Thunder Bay remains strangely constrained in a situation of bounded economic ability.

The other interesting point in all this that I came across while cleaning out files was a 2005 Major Employer List out by the Thunder Bay Community Economic Development Corporation.  Sadly, they no longer seem to have such as list on their web site as I could not locate either the old ones or an updated version.  Nevertheless, the list is compelling documentation of the world that we have lost.  Thunder Bay is intriguing in the sense that over time one is faced with the dual reality that there has been both major economic change and no change whatsoever.

Figure 2 plots the major employers in 2005 ranked from highest to lowest.  Highlighted in red are all the employers that to the best of my knowledge are no longer with us.  In 2005 the list has 55 employers with then largest being the City of Thunder Bay (3,080 employees) and the smallest being DST consulting Engineers and Loch Lomond Ski Resort (both at 100 employees each). Interestingly, the top ten employers on this list are all still with us showing the amazing continuity that is often Thunder Bay despite all the change that has occurred.

 

This list of major employees added up accounts for 29,320 employees with average total monthly employment in Thunder Bay in 2005 at 64,000.  Notable by their absence is any of the grain elevator companies but these had been hollowed out in the 1980s and 1990s and to my knowledge there could not have been more than 300-400 workers left in that sector.  Then there is TBayTel which easily has several hundred employees also, but it is possible that they are under the municipal total. Nevertheless, if you add these jobs too, then this list was essentially the city’s economic high ground with nearly 50 percent of employment.

Since 2005, Thunder Bay’s economy lost several major employers.  Gone are Buchanan Group Northern Wood (550 employees), Cascades Fine Papers Group Thunder Bay Inc. (550 employees), Abitibi Consolidated (down to 400 by 2005 after other closures), Buchanan Group Great West Timber (290 employees), Buchanan Northern Hardwoods (200 employees), Zellers (368 employees), Sears Canada (300 employees) and OPG Generating Station (150 employees)for a total of 2,518 jobs. The last three employers mentioned went later than the forest sector companies with Zellers departing 2013 (it was a national departure), Sears Canada (2018, another national departure) and OPG Generating more recently.

Between 2005 and 2010, average annual monthly total employment went from 64,000 to 59,800 as associated multiplier effects worked in reverse affecting retailers, suppliers and other services.  Thunder Bay itself lost about 5,000 jobs during this period – many high paying resource sector jobs - an upheaval that essentially ended a way of middle-class life for many families.  The fact that Thunder Bay is currently back to 66,400 jobs is a remarkable achievement given that it means that nearly 7,000 jobs have been created since the forest sector crisis low point.  In other words, the 5,000 lost jobs have been made up – in quantity of not always quality – with growth of an additional 2,000 jobs.  This is good news. 

Crucial to the remainder of this decade will be continued growth in Thunder Bay’s economy that boosts employment well above its historic 65,000 to 68,000 glass ceiling.

Charting CMA Population Growth in Canada

 

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 21^st out of 40 with 164,210 people while Thunder Bay ranked 31^st.  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 25^th place while Thunder Bay with 133,000 had fallen to 34^th 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 37^th place in terms of population growth while Thunder Bay at 5 percent growth came 39^th out of 40^th.  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 41^st and  21^st  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.

Thunder Bay Is Not Growing Where It Should

 

Thunder Bay has embarked on a plan to build and diversify the municipal tax base and attract more residents.  This plan for growth is seen as an imperative given that Thunder Bay’s economy while not shrinking in absolute terms is nonetheless growing less slowly than Ontario and Canada.  For example, 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.  Employment has also shown this differential given that between 2006 and 2024; Thunder Bay added 9 percent more jobs to its economy while Ontario and Canada both added about 27 percent more jobs. 

So, the focus is on growth and a large part of that growth is on growing our population.  Population growth is of course correlated with economic growth as more people usually means more economic activity and therefore a larger economy which in turn should spillover into growth of taxable assessment.  This is a key concern for the City of Thunder Bay given that it is the anemic growth in taxable assessment that have helped shift an ever-larger tax burden onto the residential tax base given the decline in the industrial tax base of forest product mills and grain elevators over the last tree decades. 

Of course, simply growing population in Thunder Bay is not the panacea that one might think when it comes to increasing taxable assessment.  The reality is that population in the Thunder Bay area is increasing and has been for some time.  However, the population of the City of Thunder Bay has not been increasing relative to its surrounding areas.  If more people live around Thunder Bay but they are not owning homes and businesses within the confines of the City of Thunder Bay, then the impact on the city’s taxable assessment is going to be rather muted at best.  As the accompanying figure shows, there is a difference between population growth in the City of Thunder Bay and the Thunder Bay Census Metropolitan area.  Population statistics for the CMA are from Statistics Canada counts while the City of Thunder Bay’s population is taken from the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Financial Information Returns.

The results are plotted for the period 2001 to 2024 and are quite interesting. According to the official numbers compiled  by the Ontario government, the City’s Thunder Bay’s population in 2001 was surprisingly just over 115,000 while the CMA population was about 126,000.  During the first decade of the 21^st century – the period of the forest sector crisis – the CMA population declined by 1.2 percent while the city proper itself declined by 5 percent.  Since 2010, there has been growth in the CMA population going from 125,000 to 133,000 for an increase of 6 percent.  The city population itself has gone from 109,140 in 2010 to 108,843 in 2023 – a slight decline.  However, since 2016 – which is when population began to grow more robustly in the CMA, the city population has indeed grown by about 1 percent.

 

The point is that Thunder Bay is growing but not necessarily where the taxable assessment needs to be to broaden and diversify the municipal  tax base.  True, if the CMA population goes up, more businesses are likely to open in the city thereby expanding the business tax base, but a lot of growth is nevertheless occurring outside of the city boundaries.  What is more interesting according to these numbers is the following. Between 2001 and 2023, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs numbers put Thunder Bay’s population going from 115,000 to about 109,000 – a decrease of about 5 percent.  Municipal taxes per household have gone up from $1,947 dollars in 2001 to $4,070 in 2023 – an increase of over 100 percent - while water and sewer charges have gone from $379 in 2001 to $1,195 in 2023 – an increase of over 200 percent.  Meanwhile, total municipal employment over the same period went from 2,344 (FT, PT and Seasonal) to 3,122 – an increase of 33 percent.

Is it any surprise that population outside of the city boundaries has grown while the city proper has either declined or remained stagnant?  When choosing where to live in the Thunder Bay area, there has clearly been a substantial number of people voting with their feet.  The surrounding townships offer a lower municipal tax burden while providing access to whatever Thunder Bay proper has to offer.  If the City of Thunder Bay itself is to grow its population and economy, it will need to address the fundamentals that have fostered this shift outside the city.

Rising Life Expectancy: A Human Success Story

 

With the constant barrage of negative news over the last few months, its time for some good news.  One of the great success stories of human achievement has been the increase in life expectancy at birth.  Once upon a time, as Thomas Hobbes wrote, the natural condition of mankind was “nasty, brutish and short” and one should emphasize the short part. And this shortness of life had been the normal situation for centuries.  What is a substantial achievement is the increase in life expectancy at birth over the course of two centuries because of improvements in nutrition and public health as part of a process of economic development and economic growth.  While improvements in medical care have been a factor, these other factors were much more important initially particularly as they reduced the high rates of child mortality. Anyone familiar with 19th century Canadian census data knows that at one time half of deaths were children under age five that were carried away by an assortment of maladies that today are in the distant past.

If one goes to Our World in Data and checks out the life expectancy calculators, one finds that in 1770, average world  life expectancy at birth was a mere 28.5 years.  By 1850, it had risen to 29.3 years and by 1900, 32 years.  By 1960 it had risen to 47.8 years, but a fair amount of divergence had emerged around the world.  For example, in 1900, life expectancy at birth was 42.7 years in Europe and 41.0 in the Americas but only 28.0 years in Asia. By 1960, Europe was at 68.7 years, the Americas at 60.8 and Asia at 41.8 years.  Fast forward to the present, and life expectancy at birth is 79.1 years in Europe, 77.3 years in the Americas and 74.6 years in Asia.  From 1850 to 1900, world life expectancy at birth went from 29.3 to 32 years and by 1960 it reached 47.8 years.  Amazingly, the period since 1960 has added another 25.4 years bringing world life expectancy at birth to 73.2 years.

Of course, the results of broad based economic and social development have played a major role in less developed parts of the world resulting in large gains in life expectancy at birth but even the developed world has seen substantial gains.  Figure 1 plots life expectancy at birth for OECD countries in 1960/61 and 2021/22 (taking the higher of the two-year spread as some years have missing data) and ranks them by life expectancy in 2021/22.  At the top is Japan with a life expectancy at birth for the total population (male and female rates differ) of 84.5 years followed by Switzerland at 83.9 and Korea at 83.6.  Canada ranks 18^th of these 30 countries while Mexico is at the bottom at 75.2 years.  Between these two time points, the average went from 68.7 years to 81.1 years for gain of 12.4 years.

 

 

Figure 2 plots the years of life expectancy at birth gained for these OECD countries between 1960/61 and 2021/22.  At the top are Korea, Turkey (Turkiye), Portugal and Mexico at 31.2, 28.5, 17.9 and 17 years respectively.  At the bottom are the Netherlands, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the United States at 7.9, 7.1, 6.4 and 6 years respectively.  Canada managed to add 10.3 years to life expectancy at birth over this period which is just a bit below the average of 12.4 years.  The largest gains in years have accrued to countries that were at low points in the early 1960s not only in terms of life expectancy but also economic development. 

 

 

The rapid economic development Korea and Turkey were accompanied by spectacular gains in life expectancy.  Indeed Figure 3 shows the largest gains accrued on average to countries with lower life expectancy in 1960/61 – they simply had more to gain as economic development progressed.  In life expectancy, as in everything else, one expects there are diminishing returns over time.  Nevertheless, the performance of the world’s largest economy, the United States can be seen as a bit disappointing given as a share of GDP it spends the most on health of these OECD countries and ranked 28^th out of 30^th in terms of life expectancy in 2021/22 and dead last in terms of years gained since 1960/61.

 

 

In terms of what accounts for all this differential performance, that is of course a topic for another day.  However, the good news is that the human species during the 20^th century managed to escape from its Hobbesian fate and a child born today particularly in highly developed countries can expect a life expectancy at birth approximately double what was the case in 1900.  Despite all the doom and gloom, we should take that as a win.

Getting Ready for Budget Season: A look at Thunder Bay Municipal Indicators

 

Municipal budget season is well underway in Thunder Bay, but the main public theatrics over the 2025 budget should be transpiring over the next few months.  The most recent indication is that City Council is expected to target a 3.8 percent municipal tax levy increase.  There are budget pressures underway not the least of which is apparently an additional $5.6 million to cover wages and benefits. Putting budgets into context is always more useful if a long term is taken and fortunately the Ontario government does provide resources to track municipal spending.  Here, a useful tool are the multi-year financial reports provided from the Financial Information Returns which provide standardized reporting of a municipality’s financial activities as well as additional statistical information.

 

Figure 1 presents municipal property taxes per household and water and sewer charges per household since 2000.  While many other municipalities appear to have filed their 2023 returns, Thunder Bay appears to be lagging and therefore this long-term snapshot only goes to 2022.  From 2000 to 2022, municipal property taxes in Thunder Bay have nearly doubled going from $1,947 to $3,918.  The growth of water and sewer charges has been more pronounced going from $379 per household in 2000 to $1,158 in 2022 – a tripling of the average per household charge.

 

 

 

Figure 2 plots a dual scale chart with the total municipal workforce (full time, part time and seasonal) on the right size axis and the value of wages, salaries, and benefits per employee on the left axis.  Perhaps one of the reasons Thunder Bay is lagging in putting out its financial information is that it is a bit short staffed given that the total size of the municipal workforce has declined from a peak reached circa 2013 and has been pretty flat since 2016.  On the other hand, since 2000, the size of the municipal workforce has gone from 2,344 employees (there is a data  gap in 2003) to 3,404 in 2022 – an increase of 45 percent.  Over the same period, average wages, salaries and benefits per employee have grown from $46,978 to $83,799 – an increase of 78 percent.

 

 

 

However, these indicators and the increases over time are best placed in context to an assortment of other indicators and this is done in Figure 3 which plots the percent increase in an assortment of indicators from 2000 to 2022.  As one can see, prices in Thunder Bay as measured by CPI inflation have risen by 49 percent.  Own purpose property tax revenues (the total tax levy) has grown 122 percent while total grants revenues have only grown by 55 percent.  Municipal property taxes per household have grown 101 percent while water and sewer charges have grown 205 percent.  

 

 

 

Meanwhile the total taxable assessment has grown by 60 percent which when divided by the number of years works out to an annual average growth of 2.7 percent.  This seems at odds with the fact that published reports have been of average assessment growth over the last ten years of only 0.6 percent annually.  However, one suspects that the 0.6 percent is real growth – after inflation – because the average annual assessment growth of 2.7 percent minus the average annual inflation rate of 2.2 percent from 2000 to 2022 yields real average annual assessment growth of 0.5 percent.  Given that property prices have grown substantially in Thunder Bay over the last decade in particular, the nominal rather than inflation adjusted tax assessment has been growing in tandem

 

More interesting is the fact that between 2000 and 2022, the population of the City of Thunder Bay has actually decreased by 6 percent.  This also seems at odds with recent reports that Thunder Bay is over 130,000 people but it must be remembered that FIR deals with municipal finances and the population of the City of Thunder Bay is that within its city limits while the recent population reports are for the larger Census Metropolitan Area.  Essentially, growth in Thunder Bay has been occurring outside the city limits where they do not have to pay property taxes to the City of Thunder Bay.

 

And finally to round things off, the municipal workforce over the 2000 to 2022 period grew by 45 percent, the total compensation per employee grew 78 percent and the total value of building permits grew 85 percent.  However, after inflation of 49 percent, salaries and benefits per employee only grew in real terms by 29 percent while to end things,  the real total value of permits grew by 36 percent.