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.

 

 

What Is Thunder Bay's Population?

 

During the last Thunder Bay City Council Meeting, the discussion over the city’s new Smart Growth Plan included a few remarks by the mayor that the city was growing and that according to conversations that he has had, it is probably around 150,000.  Of course, while it cannot be denied that Thunder Bay has seen its population grow over the last few years based on even anecdotal observation, the 150,000 number is vastly at odds with any estimate provided by Statistics Canada or even the City itself in its annual submissions of municipal data to the Ontario Government via the Financial Information Return (FIR). This type of mixed messaging and confusion on what Thunder Bay’s population is, including the usual casting of doubt on Statistics Canada, does not do anyone any favours.  This becomes even more problematic given that Thunder Bay is engaged in long-range financial planning that also presents population and household numbers. 

Thunder Bay will soon be dealing with a Long-Range Financial Plan for the 2026 to 2035 period, and the current draft presents population estimates (Plan starts at page 32 of December 9th Agenda for Finance and Administration Standing Committee) taking the city from 112,330 in 2020 to 117,003 in 2025.  Over the same period, the same draft has the number of households in Thunder Bay growing from 47,180 to 48,405.   In other words, the City of Thunder Bay says it has added 1,225 households since 2020 and 4,673 people.  However, it should be noted that average household size in Thunder Bay is approximately 2.2 people so the additional households should probably only be associated with only an additional 2,695 people.  Or perhaps it could be that our current population increase is also being accompanied by an increase in household size.  In addition, the household number in the draft plan is also out of whack with the household number and population in the finally submitted Thunder Bay FIR report to the provincial government for 2024 which says Thunder Bay has 50,995 households and a population of 108,843.

This range of estimates – none of which incidentally approach 150,000 - begs the question as to what then the population of Thunder Bay is?  Part of the issue is that there is a distinction between the population of Thunder Bay as contained within the city limits – the City of Thunder Bay – and the population of the immediate surrounding area as defined by Statistics Canada as the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA).  The accompanying map shows that the city itself is contained with a much larger CMA which in turn is within an even larger District which according to Statistics Canada in 2024 had a population estimated at 157,293.   Perhaps this the source of so much confusion among our elected officials in that they conflate the population of the district (which essentially stretches from Fort Frances to Wawa) with the population of the city itself which is anywhere from 108,843 to 117,003 or perhaps even the CMA at 133,063.  That Thunder Bay is a service centre for a regional population of 157,293 that accesses its government, health, retail and education services is a reasonable statement but saying that our city itself is swarming with 150,000 people is not.

 

 

The accompanying figure plots three population series: the CMA and City populations from Statistics Canada and the City population according to the annual FIR reports - which I again must note, are filed by the City of Thunder with the provincial government.  For the CMA, the StatsCan numbers show a decline from 2001 to 2011 from 126,696 to 124,926 followed by a flat population that starts to increase after 2016 and in 2024 is estimated at 133,063.  For the city itself, the Statistics Canada numbers show a pattern like the CMA but the numbers are larger than the numbers the city itself seems to be using in its annual FIR reports.  The City of Thunder Bay’s population according to this series declines from, 113,298 in 2001 to 110,861 in 2016 and then starts to grow and in 2024 was estimated at 117,100.  According to the StatsCan estimates, between 2016 and 2024, the Thunder Bay CMA grew 6.6 percent and the city itself 5.6 percent.  However, the FIR numbers say the Thunder Bay had a population of 115,419 in 2001 which shrank to 107,909 in 2016 and has since grown an anemic 0.9 percent to 108,843.

 

 

If the city is making the case that its population numbers are underestimates that affect the grants it receives from the federal and provincial governments, a key part of the problem is that the city itself seems to be submitting numbers in reports that are much lower than the StatsCan estimates.  On the other hand, the provincial government probably has a good handle on how many people live in the city of Thunder Bay versus the surrounding area based on Driver’s License and OHIP usuage data and does believe the population of the city itself is closer to 108,000 with a large percentage of the CMA population outside the city. Indeed, based on the FIR estimate, 20 percent of the CMA population lives outside the city limits and is probably a factor in all the traffic being generated as they come in and out of town accessing city services.

Of course, rather than blame someone else, the solution here in part is that the city of Thunder Bay needs to get its act together in terms of getting a handle on its own numbers.  For a city with 3,207 employees (2,165 full time, 995 part time and 47 seasonal), Thunder Bay seems unwilling or unable to hire a couple of graduate school level trained economists and statisticians who could provide a more disciplined and consistent approach to compiling and analyzing its economic and population data to make its case with both higher tiers of government and its own municipal ratepayers.  Instead, we are left with plans, pronouncements and submissions that have conflicting data and population estimates that seem to emerge out of thin air.

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.

Is Thunder Bay in Decline?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

The Growing North

 As a followup to my last post dealing with dealing with Canada's growing population based on the Statistics Canada population estimates for sub-provincial areas as of July 1st, 2023, this post focuses on northern Ontario Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and Census Agglomerations (CAs).  It turns out that the era of declining or stagnant population in northern Ontario urban centers has come to an end.  The period from 2001 to 2015 was essentially one of stagnant and even declining population.  From 2001 to 2015, Ontario's population  grew by 15 percent and its CMAs by 18 percent.  However, during this period, Thunder Bay, Elliot Lake, Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, and Kenora all saw declining populations.  Only Greater Sudbury saw an increase during this entire period and it was just under 3 percent.  Fast forward to the period since 2015 and there has been quite the reversal.

The accompanying figure ranks northern Ontario's CMAs and CAs by their population growth from 2022 to 2023 but includes alongside the growth rate from 2015 to 2023 as well as the accompanying growth rates for all of Ontario, Ontario's CMAs and Ontario's CAs.  The results show that from 2022 to 2023, Sault Ste. Marie and Timmins grew the fastest at a population growth rate of nearly 4 percent, followed by North Bay at 3.8 percent, then Greater Sudbury at 2.8 percent, Elliot Lake at 1.6 percent, then Thunder Bay at 1.4 percent and finally Kenora at 0.4 percent.  The Sault, Timmins and North Bay all grew faster than both Ontario as a whole as well as either its total CMA population or total CA population.  

The results are not as impressive but still quite robust for the entire period from 2015 to 2023.  Here, North Bay, Sudbury and Elliot Lake have been growing at rates below Ontario as a whole but still well above 8 percent while Ontario as a whole grew 14 percent.  The remaining CMAs and CAs ranged from 0.8 percent (Kenora) to 4.9 percent (Sault Ste. Marie).  Overall, while population growth in northern urban centers has picked up, growth has been more robust in the Northeast than the Northwest. While the percent increases place the Sault as the top recent performer, in absolute numbers, Greater Sudbury grew the most from 2022 to 2023 hitting a population of 185, 230 by adding nearly 5,000 people to its population in one year. Greater Sudbury seems well on its way to hitting the Mayor's population target of 200,000 and indeed has already exceeded a recent Ministry of Finance projection of its population hitting 183,871 by 2042.  Next came the Sault which added 3,158 and then North Bay adding 2,924.  Overall, good news after decades of seeing little to no growth.

Canada's Growing Population: Urban Perspective

 Statistics Canada has released its population estimates for sub-provincial areas as of July 1, 2023 and they show rapid growth in population in Canada as well as all of its Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs).  As noted by statistics Canada: "On July 1, 2023, the combined population of Canada's 41 census metropolitan areas (CMAs) reached 29,814,146 people. The population growth experienced in CMAs (+3.5%) from July 1, 2022, to July 1, 2023, outpaced that of Canada as a whole (+2.9%). In comparison, census agglomerations (CAs) saw a population growth rate of 2.0%, while areas outside CMAs and CAs grew at a combined rate of 1.1%. These differences are a sign that Canada continues to get more urbanized, as the proportion of Canadians living in a CMA reached almost three in four (74.4%) on July 1, 2023. However, it should be noted that the population growth rate for areas outside CMAs and CAs was at its highest in over 20 years and that 2022/2023 was the third consecutive year in which these regions grew faster than 1.0%."

Naturally, those of us in Northern Ontario have been wondering how much our population has grown and the results show that Thunder Bay and Sudbury have also experienced growth.  In 2023, Greater Sudbury reached an estimated population of  185,230 - up from 180,271 the year previous for an increase of 2.8 percent. Indeed, Sudbury is pretty close to meetings its projected population of 188,510 by 20151 several decades ahead of schedule.  Meanwhile, Thunder Bay - which has been marked by a debate over missing tens of thousands of people in its population tallies - is also up and its CMA appears to have topped 130,000 for the first time coming in at 130,752 for an increase of 1.4 percent over the year previous.  Half of Thunder Bay's population growth since 2001 appears to have occurred in just one year which is remarkable.  Thunder Bay's population has been growing and the estimates do show a much larger number than the official 2021 Census tally but the estimates have always been larger than the census tally.  In 2021 for example, the census tally for the Thunder Bay CMA was 123,258 while the July 1st population estimate by Statistics Canada was 128,040.

As much as Thunder Bay has grown over the last year - adding nearly 2,000 people in one year according to the estimates - its population growth rate for 2022 to 2023 was nevertheless still the lowest of all Canadian CMAs as illustrated in the accompanying figure.  The estimates suggest that the official census headcount based on individuals filling out the census does  underestimate actual population but one is looking at something in the range of about 5,000 people - maybe 10,000 if one wants to be generous about it.  That is still a substantial difference this is due to transient elements of the population less likely to fill out census documents including students as well as Indigenous peoples.  However, it is likely not the tens of thousands that some have argued in the past. One estimate that there are 15 percent more people than the official census count would put our population at over 140,000. 

 

So, Thunder Bay is growing and that is good.  But, it is not growing as much as we think in terms of population and indeed relative to everyone else, it seems to have the slowest growth rate.

Tracking Thunder Bay’s Economy: Another View

 

As 2022 begins to wind up, it is worth taking a look at how Thunder Bay’s economy is doing using less traditional indicators to shed light not only on its economic performance but the perennial question of whether its population is growing or not.  One way of looking at Thunder Bay’s economy and making some comparisons to other centers is the use of Tax Filer data available from Statistics Canada. The number of T1 Tax Filers can be used as a correlate of not only population numbers but also incomes and economic activity.   

 

Figure 1 plots the number of tax filers by year from 2000 to 2001 in the Thunder Bay CMA with a linear trend.  There has definitely been some growth in the number of tax filers over the last few decades. From 88,240 T1s filed in 2000 to 92,660 in 2021, Thunder Bay has seen a 5 percent increase in the total number of tax filers between those two years though numbers do fluctuate from year to year.  Thunder Bay’s CMA population in the 2001 Census was 121,986 and its CMA population in the 2021 Census was 123,258 – an increase of 1 percent.  One would expect the number of tax filers reporting income is somewhat a more robust count than the number of people filling out the census at least in terms of compliance. 

 

 

 

If the 5 percent growth Tax Filer growth rate was applied to Thunder Bay’s population in 2001, then in 2021 one would have a CMA population of 128,085.  So, in response to the question of whether or not there are more people living in Thunder Bay than the official census count states, the answer it is perhaps so.  Even so, it is not the tens of thousands of people that seems to have seized the imagination of local politicians lobbying for more resources.  At least that is assuming that these tens of thousands of additional people have employment and are reporting an income.  Of course, if they are not working and therefore not reporting an income or are working and not reporting an income, well those are entirely different matters that should definitely concern the federal and provincial governments.

 

 

 

Delving deeper into the numbers, Figure 2 plots the average annual growth rate of the number of T1 Tax filers over the period 2001 to 2021 for Thunder Bay, as well as Toronto, Hamilton, Greater Sudbury, and Ontario as a whole.  It appears that Thunder Bay’s average annual tax filer growth rate is well below that for Ontario and Toronto but also Hamilton and Greater Sudbury.   Thus, another indicator that while we are growing, we are not growing as quickly as other population centres. 

 

 

 

Finally, Figure 3 plots average annual T1 Tax Filer Income and it illustrates that while average income has grown, Thunder Bay is below Ontario and also below the other three comparison cities in the chart.  As of 2021, average tax filer income in Thunder Bay is $53,289 compared to $56,691 in Greater Sudbury, $57,936 in Hamilton and $59,410 in Toronto with the average for Ontario at $56,893. Given that average rents and cost of living in Thunder Bay have grown to levels not incomparable to southern Ontario cities, this would suggest that many in Thunder Bay are currently quite stretched when it comes to their finances.

 

So, there you have yet another set of performance indicators on Thunder Bay’s economy. 

Thunder Bay Crime, Policing and Population: An Update

 

Statistics Canada has released the police-reported crime statistics in Canada for 2022 and police-reported crime in Canada, as measured by the Crime Severity Index (CSI), increased for the second consecutive year, up 4% in 2022.  The CSI considers both the volume and the severity of crime. The police-reported national crime rate—a measure of the volume of crime—increased by 5% from 2021 to 2022, up to 5,668 incidents per 100,000 population. However, like the CSI, the crime rate in 2022 (-4%) was lower than in 2019.

 

Figures 1 and 2 provide the 2022 CSI and Crime Rate Per 100,000 population for Canada 35 CMAs and ranks them from highest to lowest.  Crime Severity was highest in Winnipeg, followed by Kelowna and Lethbridge while in terms of crime rates, Kelowna topped the ranking followed by Lethbridge and then Winnipeg.  In terms of crime severity, Thunder Bay ranked 7^th highest of the 35 CMAs whereas in terms of crime incidents per 100,000, Thunder Bay dropped to 10^th spot.  For those interested in a northern Ontario comparison, Thunder Bay's crime severity and crime rate exceeds  Greater Sudbury.

 

 

 

 

In the case of Thunder Bay, to provide some additional time series perspective, Figure 3 plots both crime severity and the number of police officers per 100,000 population from 2000 to 2022. Crime Severity has fluctuated somewhat over time though it has been on an upward trend since 2015 but remains below the peak year of 2009 when it reached nearly 115. Between 2015 and 2022, Crime Severity in Thunder Bay grew by 27 percent but if one looks at the period 2000 to 2022, then there has been a decline in crime severity of just over two percent.  

 

 

 

Another metric – not shown in any charts here – is the crime rate and the total number of crime incidents.  In 2000, the total number of total crime violations in Thunder Bay was 10,869 whereas by 2021 it had fallen to 8,117 – a decline of about 25 percent. Over the same period, the number of total crimes per 100,000 fell from 9084 to 6940 – a drop of 24 percent. If one takes the 2022 numbers in consideration, the rate appears to have declined further to 5842.

 

It is always interesting to compare the crime time series numbers to police resource numbers.  Policing numbers per 100,000 have trended upward throughout the period going from 173 officers per 100,000 population in 2000 and reaching 213 in 2022.  This represents an increase in per capita policing resources of 23 percent.  It should be noted that over the same period, the total number of civilian employees grew from 95 to 119 while the total number of officers grew from 207 to 249 – total increases of 25 and 20 percent respectively. 

 

Putting these increases into perspective, it helps to have some population numbers.  Over the same period, the population of Thunder Bay, Municipal as reported in these crime statistics by Statistics Canada fell from 119,657 to 116,968 – a decline of 2.2 percent. This is certainly a different number than one has seen in the past referring to either the CMA or the municipal population. While this is a larger number than the 2021 census city of Thunder Bay population figure of 108,843, it is also smaller than the CMA census population of 123,258.  One city, many population statistics.

 

So, that is a brief overview of the numbers. Make of them what you wish.  One imagines that personal and individual experience with crime never mind population growth in Thunder Bay may vary depending on your location or socioeconomic status.

Population, Growth and Statistics in Thunder Bay

 

The City of Thunder Bay’s population according to the Census of Canada has remained essentially the same since the 1970s with some minor growth in the surrounding CMA.  This has occurred while elsewhere in the province and country, population soars.  Indeed, the city’s growth rate between July 2021 and July 2022 while positive at 0.2 percent, was actually the lowest in Canada for cities with populations above 100,000. 

 

With every census, there are the usual concerns with stagnation but despite the census evidence, there are actually two narratives when it comes to population in Thunder Bay.  One story is that given the city’s growth rate in population, there is a lack of economic growth and stagnation is a real concern given that population is attracted to economic opportunity.  When combined with the fact that the city and region appear to be aging faster than the rest of the province, the prospects for a more dynamic future look increasingly precarious.  However, the other story often voiced by local officals is that Thunder Bay’s population is much larger than the official population figures indicate.  In this narrative, Thunder Bay is an attractor for a transient regional population that comes in and makes use of its services. 

 

Even the current Mayor of Thunder Bay recently was quoted asserting that “he believes there are 15 per cent more people than recorded by Statistics Canada, adding that’s where a lot of the city’s financial problems come from, having to provide services for people that aren’t officially on the books, and hence aren’t counted when senior levels of government hand out transfer payments.” More directly, he said: ““We’ll ride with 120,000, but the police know, the hospitals know, the health-care system knows, and even the mercantile areas know it’s more than that. There’s more people around and if you spent one hour at city hall you’d know there are a lot more people wandering around the city than actually meet any census.” With an offical City population of 108,843 and a CMA/Metro population of 123,258, the mayor’s assertion suggests that Thunder Bay’s actual population range from City to CMA is from about 125,000 to 142,000.

 

Of course, such assertions would be useful if accompanied by time series data from police, paramedic, and hospital services though even that of itself is not sufficient.  After all, it is possible to have population growth flat, but usage rates rise.  With more use per capita, even with flat population growth, one could see paramedic or police services rise in total incidents.  Indeed, rising usage for hospital and paramedic services could be a function of a larger transient population or it could also be the result of an aging population.  However, without more detailed data, simply saying “if you spent one hour at city hall you’d know there are a lot more people wandering around the city than actually meet any census” is probably not going to cut it with the city’s governmental transfer partners. 

 

 

 

In the search for other approaches to the numbers, another way at looking at growth in a city is through federal tax filer data collected by the Canada Revenue Agency and disseminated through Statistics Canada.   The accompanying Figure 1 presents an index for the number of tax filers and their dependents for the period 2000 to 2021 for Ontario as a whole and a number of its major cities with the year 2000 set at a value of 100.  Over this period, the total number of tax filers in Ontario rose from 11,331,080 to 14,248,730 which when normalized with 2000 equal to 100 means Ontario went from 100 to 125.7 for an increase of 25.7 percent (See figure 2).  Over the same period, Thunder Bay went from 120,140 to 119,180 which when normalized goes from 100 to 99.2 for a decrease of -0.8 percent.  Indeed, of the cities on these two charts, Thunder Bay is the only one that sees a decrease in the number of total tax filers and dependents.

 

 

 

Does this mean that the mayor is wrong? Not necessarily. Given that the assertion is that these additional users of services are transient or temporary population, there is no reason that they would be registered with a residential address in Thunder Bay for income tax purposes.  All these figures do is confirm the official narrative from the Census and Statistics Canada that Thunder Bay’s population is essentially flat and has been for quite some time.  If there are indeed a large number of unofficial residents moving to and from the city using its services, then Thunder Bay needs to do a better job of presenting a credible statistical method of capturing that population.