Growth, Assessments and Municipal Taxation in the Northern Ontario Big Five

The economic narrative in northern Ontario has evolved in recent years.  From lamentations of stagnation and decline, the north is now talking about growth and development with visible construction booms in many of its major centers.  While the growth rates of population and the economy are not on par with what has occurred recently in southern Ontario, they are nevertheless a change from what was.  And this growth has also translated into growth in taxable assessment even despite assessment values being at 2016 levels. The municipal tax base has been growing.

It has been a decade of change for the five major northern Ontario cities, and an examination of growth over the 2015 to 2025 period using an assortment of sources (BMA Municipal Studies, Financial Information Return and Statistics Canada) allows us to piece together the dimensions of the changes.  Figure 1 plots population growth in the five cities with the most growth in Greater Sudbury at 11 percent, followed by North Bay at 10 percent, then Thunder Bay at 8 percent and the Sault and Timmins at nearly 5 percent each.  However, it should be noted that Ontario as a whole over the same period grew by 18 percent so northern Ontario’s population as a share of the province most certainly still declined over this period.

 

 

Figure 2 plots the growth in average household income growth over the 2015 to 2025 period.  For northern Ontario cities, growth rates during this period ranged from a high of 33 percent for Greater Sudbury to a low of 25 percent for North Bay.  Thunder Bay came in at 29 percent, the Sault and Timmins at 26 percent. Note that for Ontario’s 35 largest cities, the average household income growth during this period was somewhat better at 34 percent.  

 

 

Population and economic growth must inevitably result in a growing municipal tax base and Figure 3 looks at the growth in the per capita taxable unweighted assessment in these cities.  It is done in per capita terms (provided in the BMA Reports) because total assessments do not adjust for population and per person comparisons allow for this.  Unweighted rather than weighted assessment is used as actual current value assessment of properties are a better raw economic measure of the total assessment base. 

 

 

The growth in per capita unweighted tax assessment over the 2015 to 2025 period ranged from a low of 11 percent in Greater Sudbury to a high of 30 percent in Thunder Bay with Sault Ste Marie at 27 percent, Timmins at 19 percent and North Bay at 11 percent.  Per capita assessment value in Ontario’s 35 major cities grew an average of 21 percent over the same period which means that Thunder Bay and the Sault actually grew their per capita municipal tax bases faster. 

This is a remarkable achievement and in the case of Thunder Bay raises the question of the target property tax base growth target in its Smart Growth Action Plan. The property tax base growth target is set at 3 percent in the plan.  However, over the 2015 to 2025 period, per capita taxable assessment grew 30 percent (which averages to 3 percent annually) but given that population grew 8 percent during this period, it means total unweighted assessment grew 38 percent or 3.8 percent annually.  In other words, the plan was a success before it was even started.

Also of interest is how increases in the per capita tax levy compare to increases in the per capita tax assessment base.  In theory, a growing property tax base should afford the opportunity for relatively lower growth in future property tax rates.  Figure 4 plots for each city the growth rate of per capita taxable assessments alongside the per capita tax levy (Net municipal levy per capita from BMA Reports) and the evidence suggests all five cities are in a municipal property tax regime whereby per capita property taxes are rising faster than the per capita assessment base thereby outstripping the growth in assessments. 

 

 

Greater Sudbury seems to have the largest gap with its per capita tax levy growing 51 percent whereas the per capita assessment grew 11 percent – more than four times the resource base per capita.  Next is North Bay where the gap is 28 percentage points.  For the Sault, the gap is 18 percentage points while for Timmins it is 13 points.  Meanwhile, the smallest gap is Thunder Bay which had its per capita assessment grow 30 percent and the per capita tax levy grow 35 percent.

Where does this bring us?  Since 2015, the major cities of northern Ontario have grown substantially in terms of income, population and taxable assessment.  This growth has yielded additional taxable resources to municipal government in terms of expanded assessment bases.  However, despite an expanding tax base, the property taxes paid per capita have grown faster than the growth in the tax base.  Taxes growing faster than the resource base suggest a rising tax burden relative to the ability to pay.  Despite economic growth and rising taxable assessment bases, major municipalities in northern Ontario are raising taxes faster than the resource base. 

One could blame this on the need to compensate for lower growth in provincial grant funding.  One could blame it on rising costs of service delivery in the post pandemic era. Or it could be blamed on municipalities expanding spending oblivious to the rising burden being placed on ratepayers.  When it comes to municipal finances in Ontario’s north, there may not necessarily be a revenue problem but an expenditure problem.  Going into an election year, it is a situation that could use some explanation.

 

Northwest Resilience and Growth

  

The Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association (NOMA) will be meeting April 22^nd to 24^th for its 2026 conference and annual general meeting in Thunder Bay, under the theme “Resilience.” After the winter we have had, resilience is an apt theme though one suspects the choice of theme pertains to the economy and municipal finances rather than the weather and the gauntlet that has become the region’s highways. Economic resilience is especially important these days and it is important to note that the economy in Northwestern Ontario has been doing rather well over the last few years if one is to take labour force data at face value.

It has been an era not of decline or stagnation but of growth with that growth occurring both in the region’s dominant metropolis of Thunder Bay but also outside of it.  Indeed, there has been a noticeable improvement in one of the key indicators at least from the general public’s perspective – the unemployment rate.  From highs of 8 percent in the wake of the Great Recession and Forest Sector Crisis, the unemployment rate in Northwestern Ontario in 2025 stood at 4.6 percent compared to over 6 percent for Canada and over 7 percent for Ontario.  Using data from Statistics Canada, a more detailed portrait of improvement emerges. 

 

Figure 1 plots three labour market indicators for Northwestern Ontario comparing 2015 with 2025.  Between these two years, the population aged 15 years and over grew from 173,400 to 184,200. The labour force grew from 104,700 to 112,500 and employment grew from 98,400 to 107,300.  Of course, it is worth looking at the data in terms of the Thunder Bay CMA and the rest of the region given that Thunder Bay CMA accounts for about 60 percent of both the population and employment of the entire region.  

 

Figure 2 repeats the indicators for the Thunder Bay and adds Full Time(FT) and Part Time (PT) Employment.  Thunder Bay’s population aged 15 years and over increased by 7,400 between 2015 and 2025.  This was accompanied by labour force growth also of 7,400 individuals and employment growth again of 7,400 with FT employment growing by 8,100 while PT Employment declined by 700 jobs.  The good news here is that this employment creation was overwhelming FT employment, and this pattern repeats itself outside of Thunder Bay.   Figure 3 shows that for the rest of Northwest Ontario outside of Thunder Bay, the population aged 15 years and over grew by 3,400 with the labour force growing by 400 and employment growing by 1500.  FT employment in the region outside Thunder Bay grew by 1,800 while PT employment also declined by 300 jobs.  

 

Figure 4 compares percent growth in these indicators across Thunder Bay and the Rest of Northwest Ontario.  Between 2015 and 2025, population aged 15 and over grew 7 percent in Thunder Bay and 5 percent in the rest of the region.  The labour force grew nearly 12 percent in Thunder Bay but only 1 percent in the rest of the region.  Meanwhile, employment grew 12.5 percent in Thunder Bay and 3.8 percent in the rest of the region.  Full time employment grew impressively by nearly 18 percent in Thunder Bay and almost 6 percent outside of Thunder Bay.  Part time employment declined more in Thunder Bay at -5 percent as opposed to about -4 percent outside of Thunder Bay.

 

Figure 5 illustrates the annual unemployment rates in Thunder Bay and the outside region.  Both have declined over time with the decline somewhat sharper in the region outside of Thunder Bay.  That is because the labour force has expanded more rapidly in Thunder Bay relative to the rest of the region as Thunder Bay has attracted more population growth.  Nonetheless, a rising tide appears to have lifted all boats and the improvement in full time employment is especially welcome.

 

What has been driving these improvements?  The construction work both in Thunder Bay and the region whether on the electricity grid or highway improvement has been a factor.  Thunder Bay can add housing and hotel construction to this set of projects not to mention a billion-dollar correctional facility. Then there is mining development which continues to generate employment and activity.  Of course, the region also benefits from a large public sector and quasi-public sector particularly in the health, social assistance and indigenous economic sectors which has also been a factor in employment growth nationwide.  All these sectors in Northwest Ontario have been relatively well sheltered from the ongoing tariff dispute with the United States.  While the Northwest has not escaped unscathed from recent employment losses, it remains that much of the fallout has hit the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario.

So, regional municipal delegates and leaders will have a lot to celebrate at this year’s NOMA Meetings. Indeed, this growth should also be reflected in growing municipal tax bases which will afford additional revenue.  Yet, it is not time to rest on laurels given that the economy both nationally and globally remains turbulent and uncertain.  Hopefully the region will be able to capitalize both on critical minerals mining as well as the growth in defense related spending.

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.