Local and Regional Identity Action Plan

LLOCALOCAL AANDND RREGIONALEGIONAL IIDENTITYDENTITY AACTIONCTION PPLANLAN

TTHEHE TTHOMPSONHOMPSON EECONOMICCONOMIC DIVERSIFICATIONDIVERSIFICATION WORKINGWORKING GROUPGROUP CCONSULTATIONONSULTATION SUMMARYSUMMARY REPORTREPORT JanuaryJanuary 20132013 THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

2 |

The City of Thompson | Keewatin Tribal Council | The Manitoba Metis Federation | Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak | Thompson Unlimited ACTION PLAN #4: LOCAL AND REGIONAL IDENTITY - CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT

LLOCALOCAL AANDND RREGIONALEGIONAL IIDENTITYDENTITY AACTIONCTION PPLANLAN | 3

TTHEHE TTHOMPSONHOMPSON EECONOMICCONOMIC DIVERSIFICATIONDIVERSIFICATION WORKINGWORKING GROUPGROUP CCONSULTATIONONSULTATION SUMMARYSUMMARY REPORTREPORT JanuaryJanuary 20132013

AActionProvincection of ManitobaPlanPlan #4:# |4 Northern: LLocaloc aAssociationl aandnd RRegionalof eCommunitygional Councils IIdentityden t| i tNisichawayasihky - CConsultationonsu Creelta tNationion |SSummary Thompsonumma Chamberry ReportRe ofp oCommerrt ce | Vale Supported by: CITY THOMPSON (CHAIR) UNLIMITED PROVINCE of MANITOBA THOMPSON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FEDERAL THOMPSON GOVERNMENT VALE ECONOMIC MKO UNITED DIVERSIFICATION STEEL WORKERS LOCAL 6166 WORKING GROUP KTC rePLAN

MMF NCN Working Group Members NACC

Invited Stakeholders THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1 4.0 Recommendations 23 1.1 The Thompson Economic Diversifi cation Working Group 1 4.1 Place Branding Strategy 23 1.2 Purpose of this Document 1 4.2 Potential Future Projects 23 1.3 A Note on Language 1

1.4 Area of Study 1 5.0 Conclusion 25 1.5 Engagement Process 2

Appendix A: Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

2.0 Place Branding Survey 6 Appendix B: Place Branding Survey Questionnaire 2.1 Survey Methodology 6 Appendix C: City of Thompson Demographic Mapping 2.2 General Findings 6 (Census 2006) 2.2.1 Summary Profi le of Respondents 7 2.2.2 Summary of Survey Responses 10 2.3 Residents and Visitors 12 2.4 Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Populations 12

3.0 Focus Groups 15 3.1 Purpose of Focus Groups 15 3.2 Summary of Focus Group Findings 15

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

Churchill Lac Brochet Tadoule Lake

Brochet

Lynn Lake South Indian Lake

Leaf Rapids Fox Lake Split Lake Gillam Granville Lake York Landing War Lake Shamattawa Nelson House Pukatawagan THOMPSON Pikwitonei

Thicket Portage Sherridon Setting Lake Snow Lake Oxford House Gods River Wabowden Flin Flon God’s Lake Cross Lake Cranberry Portage Gods Lake Gods Lake Narrows 8 | Red Sucker Lake

Garden Hill Norway House Wasagamack Island Lake The Pas St. Theresa’s Point

Figure 1.1 - The Thompson Region The Thompson Region

1. INTRODUCTION Thompson and Region Infrastructure Plan provide a 20- year strategy to stimulate and manage both economic and population growth through targeted infrastructure develop- 1.1 The Thompson Economic Diversiﬁ cation Working ment and sustainable land use planning in Thompson and Group region.

The need to broaden and diversify the economic base in The TEDWG process will provide immediate direction on Thompson and surrounding region is a long-standing prior- specifi c priorities, such as fostering a local and regional ity. Economic volatility in recent years, coupled with the identity. It will also provide a framework for continued col- November 2010 announcement that Vale will transition its laboration between regional stakeholders and continued ac- operations in Thompson to mining and milling by 2015, tion to support economic diversifi cation and development have underlined the need for the City, the region and com- over the long term. munity partners to tackle this issue head on. 1.2 Purpose of this Document The Thompson Economic Diversifi cation Working Group (TEDWG) was formed to spearhead this effort. Launched The Thompson Economic Diversifi cation Working Group has on May 18, 2011, the TEDWG has a simple mission: to identifi ed Local and Regional Identity as a priority area for accelerate Thompson’s development as a regional service action when addressing barriers to economic development centre in Northern Manitoba with a strong mining pillar. and fostering new economic activities. This Consultation The TEDWG is chaired by the City of Thompson, and enjoys Summary Report provides a comprehensive overview of the broad and diverse stakeholder participation with repre- stakeholder consultation undertaken prior to the develop- sentatives from the Province of Manitoba, Vale, Manitoba ment of a Place Branding Strategy for the City of Thomp- Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO), Keewatin Tribal Council son. The Report summarizes the key themes emerging (KTC), Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF), the Northern As- from consultation activities and outlines recommendations sociation of Community Councils (NACC), Nisichawayasihk for the Place Branding Strategy as well as next steps and Cree Nation (NCN), Thompson Unlimited, and the Thomp- future projects. son Chamber of Commerce. The Government of Canada and USW Local 6166 have also been invited to participate. 1.3 A Note on Language TEDWG is being support by rePlan, a Canadian planning organization that works with resource-based communities This Report includes input from many diverse sources. in Canada and internationally. As such, the perspectives expressed in the summaries of | 1 Place Branding Survey and Focus Group fi ndings are varied This group is responsible for identifying and pursuing the and do not necessarily refl ect those of Advisory Committee most promising opportunities to help Thompson and the members. The Report aims to accurately and fairly refl ect surrounding region diversify its economy and strengthen its the full range of input received in order to support the de- position as an economic contributor in Northern Manitoba. velopment of a Place Branding Strategy. In some cases this Priority areas identifi ed by TEDWG stakeholders include: input is negative or derogatory towards certain groups.

• Restorative Justice In addition, to ensure the data collected through the Place Branding Survey is comparable to other data sets (i.e. Cen- • Education and Training sus data), the Advisory Committee has aligned its data categories with the ones used by Statistics Canada. Regarding • Housing the labels applied to ethnic groups (e.g. White, Black, etc.), • Fostering a Local and Regional Identity the Advisory Committee does not wish to reinforce any negative stereotypes associated with these labels. • Economic Development 1.4 Area of Study Sub-committees, including representatives of the above mentioned organizations as well as other regional stake- The area of study for the stakeholder consultation portion holders, have been established to address these priority of the Place Branding Strategy includes the City of Thomp- areas and prepare plans that support immediate action. son and surrounding region. The boundaries of the surrounding region were defi ned by the Thompson Economic In addition, the TEDWG stakeholders are committed to Diversifi cation Working Group and are highlighted in Figure strengthening the City of Thompson’s governance frame- 1.1 seen at left. The fi nal Place Branding Strategy will be work through an updated District Development Plan and a City Council-adopted plan and apply within the municipal Zoning By-Law. The dynamic relationship between the City boundary of the City of Thompson. Partnerships and ongo- of Thompson and regional communities will be better de- ing consultation with communities in the Thompson Region fi ned through another initiative of the TEDWG, the Thomp- will be encouraged in the Place Branding Strategy. son and Region Infrastructure Plan (TRIP). When taken together, the District Development Plan, Zoning By-Law and

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

1.5 Engagement Process participation of as many people in the city and the region as possible. In order to reach the broadest possible audi- To ensure that this work represents the interests, needs ence, the engagement program includes four levels: and goals of all stakeholders in the Thompson Region, a sub-committee for Local and Regional Identity was estab- • Level 1 Engagement - Education and Outreach (to lished as part of the TEDWG process. This sub-committee Organizations, Institutions, Agencies) comprised a diverse group of organizations and individuals who have expertise, work in, or have an interest in this • Level 2 Engagement - Link to Existing Activities (com- priority area. The sub-committee met regularly from January munity networks, organizations, meetings/confer- to September 2012. The sub-committee was instrumental ences) in identifying the need for and designing the Place Brand- ing Strategy process, in addition to identifying other issues • Level 3 Engagement - High-Level Public Outreach related to local and regional identity to be addressed in (Open Houses, workshops, booth at the Mall, etc.) future projects. • Level 4 Engagement - Group-Specifi c Public Outreach Sub-Committee members represented a number of local (Youth, Elders, Business Community, the disengaged, and regional organizations including: etc.)

• City of Thompson Advisory Committee members placed particular emphasis on the need for Level 4 Engagement to ensure the varied • Community Futures North Central Development perspectives of different groups were captured. Level 4 Engagement typically took the form of Focus Groups. • Futures/Marymound North Detailed fi ndings of the Focus Group sessions are included • Keewatin Tribal Council in Section 3.2 of this report.

• Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Due to the diversity of stakeholders in the City of Thomp- son and surrounding region, the Advisory Committee • Manitoba Housing provided guideance to the consulting team on the need for a clear, highly visual and participatory approach to the • Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak production and presentation of community engagement • Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation materials.

2 | • Northern Manitoba Sector Council

• Royal Bank of Canada

• School District of Mystery Lake

• Spirit Way Inc. • Thompson Boreal Discovery Centre

• Thompson Chamber of Commerce

• Thompson Neighbourhood Renewal Corporation

• Thompson Unlimited

• Vale

In October 2012, the Local and Regional Advisory Com- mittee was formed. The Advisory Committee is a diverse group of stakeholders and individuals with an interest in or organizational capacity to develop a Place Branding Strategy. The Advisory Committee will provide direction to the Place Branding consulting team for the duration of the project. The roles and responsibilities of Advisory Commit- tee members are outlined in the Terms of Reference for the Committee, as seen in Appendix A.

The work plan for the Place Branding Strategy includes a comprehensive Stakeholder and Community Engagement Program. Advisory Committee members emphasized the need for a variety of engagement activities to ensure the

Figure 1.2 - Flip chart notes from an early Local and Regional Identity Sub-Committee meeting identifying the relationship between culture, tourism/visitors and place.

| 3

Figure 1.3 - Flip chart notes from an early Local and Regional Identity Sub-Committee meeting outlining the approach to the Place Branding Strategy. This report is a summary of the activities undertaken as part of Phase 1 or “community building through engagement,” as outlined on the fl ip chart to the left.

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES, AUGUST - DECEMBER 2012

Engagement Activity Organization / Audience Date Participants Presentation and Place • Northern Association of August 15, 2012 • Community Council Branding Survey Community Councils (NACC), representatives from 50 Annual General Meeting NACC Member Communities

Place Branding Website, • Stakeholder Oganizations Late August 2012 • General Public Facebook and Twitter • General Public 4 | accounts

www.thompson.ca/brand Place Branding Survey • Stakeholder Oganizations Late August 2012 • 336 surveys completed by (online) • General Public December 2012

City of Thompson • City of Thompson Council August - November • Mayor and Council Council Updates 2012 Council and Sub- • City of Thompson Council September 13, 2012 • Mayor and Council Committee Workshop • Sub-Committee Members • Sub-Committee Members Focus Groups • Thompson Urban Aboriginal October 23, 2012 • TUAS Steering Committee Strategy Members • Futures/Marymound October 23, 2012 • Futures clients

• Thompson Senior Community October 23, 2012 • TSCRC members Resource Council • Settlement Services October 24, 2012 • Settlement Services Clients (Community Futures North and Coordinator Central Development) • Thompson Unlimited October 26, 2012 • TU Board Members

• Thompson Chamber of October 27, 2012 • Chamber Members Commerce • Thompson Neighbourhood October 29, 2012 • TNRC Staff and Board Renewal Corporation (#1) Members • Manitoba Keewatinowi October 30, 2012 • MKO Staff Members Okimakanak

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES, AUGUST - DECEMBER 2012

Engagement Activity Organization / Audience Date Participants Focus Groups, Cont’d. • Vale October 30, 2012 • Vale Staff Members

• School District of Mystery Lake October 30, 2012 • Superintendent, High School Principal and Vice-Principal, Elementary School Principals and Vice- | 5 Principals • Thompson Neighbourhood October 30, 2012 • TNRC Staff, Board Renewal Corporation (#2) Members and Community Partners • Northern Regional Health October 31, 2012 • NRHA Staff Members Authority • R.D. Parker Collegiate Youth October 31, 2012 • YAC Members Aboriginal Council • Keewatin Tribal Council November 19, 2012 • KTC Staff Members

• R.D. Parker Collegiate Student November 20, 2012 • Student Council Council Members • Thompson Regional Airport November 20, 2012 • TRAA Board Members Authority

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

2. PLACE BRANDING SURVEY

2.1 Survey Methodology

A Place Branding Survey was developed to understand the experience of residents and visitors in the City of Thompson. The survey questionnaire was developed through a collaborative process that relied on sub- committee members for their local and regional expertise. Once fi nalized, hardcopy and on-line versions of the survey were made publicly available in late August 2012. The online survey will continue to be available until March 2013. The survey questionnaire is included in Appendix B to this report. Sub-committee and Advisory Committee members were instrumental in ensuring the participation of the Thompson is a young community, with a median age of 30. Most members of their respective organizations – as well as the survey respondents were between the ages of 25 and 54. general public – in the survey. By December 31, 2012, a total of 336 people had responded to the survey. No Answer 1% 65+ 3%

It is important to note that the survey was not designed 55 to 64 17%

as a rigorous tool, and survey results do not represent a 45 to 54 23%

statistically signifi cant sample of the total population of the 35 to 44 25% Thompson Region. As well, survey results do not represent 25 to 34 27% demographic trends in the City of Thompson as identifi ed in the 2011 Census. Instead, the quantitative results of the 15 to 24 5% survey identify some general trends in areas such as resi- Under 15 0% dency status, ranking of Thompson’s characteristics and 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% demographic indicators. The survey also gathered valuable Figure 2.1 - Age of Respondents (total=330) qualitative data that indicates general attitudes towards 6 | the benefi ts and challenges of living in Thompson. Most survey respondents were legally married or living in a The results of the survey provide a simple ‘snapshot’ common-law relationship. of the city prior to the development of the Place Brand-

ing Strategy. The survey can be administered again as No Answer 4% the Place Branding Strategy is implemented to track any changes in perceptions or attitudes over time. Widowed 2%

2.2 General Findings Separated/Divorced 7%

The following sections include a summary of fi ndings from Legally married or common-law 70% the survey. In each graph or chart, the number of people who answered is clearly indicated. In some cases, respon- Single 17%

dents have not answered all survey questions. To address 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% the issue of ‘skipped’ questions, the analysis of fi ndings Figure 2.2 - Marital Status of Respondents (total=329) was conducted using responses received to each question, not the total number of surveys collected. For example, if 330 respondents answered Question 10, all analysis was based on 330 (not 336) as the denominator. Over 60% of survey respondents are women.

Throughout this report, the summary of survey fi ndings is 4% supplemented by additional Census data from Statistics

Canada, originally analyzed in support of other Thompson 33% Economic Diversifi cation Working Group (TEDWG) plans. Male (33%) Female (63%) Appendix C of this report includes demographic mapping, No Answer (4%) similiar to the maps shown in Figures 2.7 and 2.8 below, completed for the City of Thompson. All maps are based on 63% 2006 Census data. These maps clearly indicate Thomp- son’s diversity across ethnic, income, educational and other key indicators. As noted previously, this diversity was not captured in the results of the Place Branding Survey. Figure 2.3 - Gender of Respondents (total=329)

2.2.1 Summary Proﬁ le of Respondents

Thompson and the surrounding region have one of the youngest and fastest growing populations in Canada. Census data indicates that in the City of Thompson, the median age is 30 (see Figure 2.7). The regional population is younger, with a median age of 24. While survey respondents represent a range of age groups, the majority (75%) are between the ages of 25 and 54. The younger end of that range – people aged 25 to 34 – make up 27% of survey respondents.

The majority of survey respondents were female (63%). This majority is disproportionate to the more balanced gender profi le of the City of Thompson indicated in the latest Census. A higher number of female survey respon- Respondents reported high levels of education. Higher levels of education are dents could indicate, among other things, a general bias likely related to income levels. in the way the survey was distributed, greater interest in No Answer 5% the subject matter, or greater household decision-making Doctoral degree 1% power among women. Graduate degree 14%

The majority of survey respondents also indicated they Undergraduate degree 20% were married or in a common-law relationship (70%). Only Trades certification 5% 17% of survey respondents were single. Taken together with the age and marital status data provided by respon- College diploma / certificate 28% dents, these fi ndings indicate that a majority of survey High school diploma / GED / CEGEP 20% respondents have young families. These fi ndings also indi- Less than high school 7% cate lower survey participation rates among residents and 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% visitors who are single, including single parents and young Figure 2.4 - Highest Level of Education Completed by male contract workers. Respondents (total=329) | 7 Twenty-eight percent of respondents indicated a college diploma or certifi cate as the highest level of education Most respondents (74%) are employed full-time, indicating a attained. Equal numbers of respondents (20%) indicated strong job market in Thompson. a high school diploma/GED/CEGEP or an undergraduate 80% 74% degree as the highest level of education attained. Higher 70% 60% levels of educational attainment are related to income 50% levels reported by survey respondents. Twenty-one percent 40% 30% of respondents reported an annual income of between 20% 8% 6% 4% 6% $100,000 and $149,999, with 15% reporting incomes 10% 2% 1% 4% 3% 2% higher than $150,000 per year. While there was a well- 0% Retired balanced response across all other income groups, these Student No Answer Homemaker fi ndings indicate that the survey did not have a high rate work Self-employed Business owner looking for work Not working and

of participation from those in lower income brackets. Employed Full-time Employed Part-time currently looking for Not working and not Consistent with responses regarding income levels, 74% of Figure 2.5 - Employment Status of Respondents (total=325) respondents indicated they were employed full-time.

The majority (57%) of survey respondents indicated that they were white, followed by 19% indicating First Nations Close to 60% of survey respondents identified themselves as White. identity and 13% indicating Metis identity. Proportional to Approximately 34% of respondents identified as Aboriginal. The most the demographic composition of the City of Thompson and recent Canadian Census indicates that 47% of the City of Thompson's population identifies as Aboriginal. surrounding region in the Census (see Figure 2.8), Aborigi- 60% 57% nal people are underrepresented in the survey fi ndings. 50% Few respondents reported belonging to another ethnic 40% group. When taken together, only 11% of survey respon- 30% 19% 20% 13% dents indicated membership in other ethnic groups. 10% 10% 2% 2% 1% 2% 0%

Figure 2.6 - Ethnicity of Respondents (total=328)

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

Average Age - 25.0

- 30.0

- 35.0

No Residential Development

391

8 |

M 31.5 ILLE NIU M TR 30.4 AIL E D RIVE RSID

IVE R WES TWOOD D RIVE AD RO

31.4 NOR 32.4 KE A T H 28.9 Y L TER THOM S 28.3 PSON MY 28.4 WE DRIVE ST WOO D 30.3 DRIVE 31.2 NORTH SOU TH

MY WATERLOO AVE

STE VE I R 33.6 RY D 31.7

IC K 28.4

T E 28.9 C ROA R 27.8 S A TAT ROAD IO 25.6 D N RO 30.7 AD 27.7 CREE IVE EET T R R H D 30.7 O 34.2 ST MP

F S 33.5 L O ON ELL W 25.1 CAMPB D RIV WE E IVE IR DR

DRIVE SOUT CAMPBELL 30.7 H 35.2 BU RN TWO 6 R O CETON O D IN AD PR

33.4 34.0

ROAD 27.5

ROAD

ES HAY

Figure 2.7 - Average Age of the Population in the City of Thompson, Census 2006.

Percentage of Population with Aboriginal Identity* - 9.0%

- 47.0%

- 75.0%

No Residential Development *20% sample

391

| 9

11.3% MIL LE NIUM TRAI 27.9% L E ID DR S IV E

RIVER WES TWOO D DR IVE AD O R 14.8%

NO 31.3% E RT AK L H Y ER T THO MPS 41.5% MYS 23.9% ON 66.7%

D WES RIV TW E OO D 36.5% DRIV E NORTH 27.0% SOU TH MY WATERLOO AV E STE VE I 26.6% R 35.9% RY D LA 26.3% K TIC 20.7% E C ROA 61.2% R AD STA A 55.2% O TIO R D N 37.9% ROAD E 56.3% CRE IVE 73.7% 9.9% T R REET H D O ST MP

F S ON 36.8% OL ELL W B 74.3% CAMP DR E W IVE IV EI R DR DRIVE SO 20.5% ELL UT CAMPB 19.1% H

BUR N N TW 6 TO OOD E RO AD PRINC

21.5% 26.7%

RO AD 32.2%

AD RO

S E AY H

Figure 2.8 - Percentage of the Population with Aboriginal Identity in the City of Thompson, Census 2006.

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

2.2.2 Summary of Survey Responses • “Thompson is very close to many outdoor activities such as fi shing, camping and other activities in the This section provides a summary of all survey responses forest. There also is an abundance of Aboriginal received. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 below provide further detail culture, which is one of the secrets of the city.” on the responses received from specifi c groups (e.g. full- time residents only, etc.). • “Thompson has so much potential to be a great city. If it were cleaner and in good repair (roads, sidewalks, The majority of survey respondents (65%) are full-time etc.) it has the makings of a beautiful northern town residents of the City of Thompson. The next most frequent and the addition of things like the Spirit Way and responses came from former residents and regular visitors Millennium Trail add lovely local fl avour and interest to to Thompson, with each group representing 13% of survey the area.” respondents. Survey respondents also provided comments on what On a scale of one to fi ve, where one represents “very they liked the least about Thompson. An overwhelming weak” and fi ve represents “very strong,” respondents majority of respondents noted crime, community safety, indicated natural surroundings as the strongest gangs, public intoxication, and the deteriorated state of characteristic of the City of Thompson (with an average the downtown area in their responses. Many also indicated rating of 4.3). Other high-ranking characteristics include the the city’s homeless population; however, comments on this job market (3.6), recreation (3.3), education and training issue were divided into two distinct groups. Some people (3.1), and health and wellness (2.9). Figure 2.9 indicates identifi ed the presence of the homeless population in the the average ranking for all 15 characteristics included in downtown area as the driving force behind most criminal the survey. activity and negative perceptions of Thompson, while others identifi ed the need for better services and programs Of the characteristics they ranked, respondents were to address the systemic causes of homelessness (e.g. also asked to indicate the City of Thompson’s strongest mental health and substance abuse issues). There was characteristic overall. Reponses to this question were very limited overlap of perceptions between these groups. generally consistent with the rankings, with natural surroundings selected as the city’s strongest characteristic Other specifi c areas of concern include lack of childcare by 55% of respondents. Other responses included the job (and a general lack of services, including grocery stores), market (18%), recreation (7%), education and training (6%), racist attitudes, lack of affordable housing options, high 10 | and community pride (5%). property taxes, and a poor service culture. In addition to specifi c concerns, respondents also highlighted a more Importantly, when asked to identify Thompson’s weakest general sense of apathy and limited vision for the future. characteristic, respondents identifi ed some of the key Representative comments include: areas in which the Thompson and Economic Diversifi cation Working Group (TEDWG) has undertaken other Action Plans • “The cloud of apathy that seems to hover around us to address challenges and issues. These areas include all the time. Everybody complains about the problems crime prevention and safety (26%), housing options (18%), we have, but nobody wants to do anything about it. community pride (15%), entertainment options (10%), and Whenever good programs, professionals, speakers, services and amenities (6%). entertainers, etc. take the time to come here, they receive a cool response. But then people complain When asked what they like best about Thompson, how there is too much crime, not enough youth respondents indicated a wide range of characteristics, programming, no entertainment, etc.” activities and lifestyle features. Overall, responses were consistent with the responses collected during Focus • “Although we have a large number of people coming to Group sessions (summarized in Section 3.0). The majority our community, they are not taking the challenge and of respondents referenced the beauty of Thompson’s investing in the community. There are opportunities natural surroundings as a reason for living in the for people to step up and do something to make the community. Lifestyle features such as short commutes community better. Too often the expectation is that to work, school and recreational activities, as well as the ‘government’ should do something about a problem. “small town” friendliness of community members were People have a tough time seeing the opportunities and frequently identifi ed as positive attributes. A number taking on the challenge of making things better.” of respondents shared aspirational, or forward-looking comments. The two characteristics most commonly When asked to choose three words or phrases that cited by these respondents were, broadly, Thompson’s describe the City of Thompson, 67% of respondents “potential” and growing cultural diversity. Representative identifi ed the city as “Northern” (see Figure 2.10). Other comments include: responses included natural beauty (56%), service hub (36%), growing (19%) and diverse (19%). Importantly, 10% • “[I like] that it is growing and has potential. But for of respondents entered “Other” and fi lled in their own word most northerners, grabbing a coffee and passing or phrase, all of which were negative. through it is what is best about Thompson.”

Survey respondents ranked Thompson's natural surroundings as its strongest characteristic. The city's job market also ranked highly. Natural surroundings Entertainment options Recreation Innovation and creativity Arts and culture Health and wellness Access to childcare Services and amenities Crime prevention and community safety Education and training Community pride Investment opportunities Ease of doing business Housing options Job market 012345

Figure 2.9 - Characteristics of Thompson, ranked from “very weak” (1) to “very strong” (5) (total=331)

| 11 Survey respondents described Thompson as a naturally beautiful Northern service hub.

80% 67% 70% 60% 56% 50% 40% 36% 30% 19% 19% 20% 10% 0%

Figure 2.10 - Percentage of Respondents describing characteristics of Thompson (total=321)

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

2.3 Full-Time Residents and Frequent Visitors When asked what they like best about Thompson, frequent visitors focused on the services, amenities and shopping As noted above, 65% of survey respondents identifi ed available in the city. Full-time residents were more inclined themselves as full-time residents of the City of Thompson. to comment on qualities such as the area’s natural beauty, Approximately 60% of full-time residents who responded to the city’s “small town” atmosphere, the number of recre- the survey have lived in Thompson for 10 or more years. ational activities available, and the ease of getting around. However, 49% of full-time residents indicated that they do Among full-time residents, crime and community safety not see themselves living in Thompson within the next 10 were most frequently cited as the worst aspects of the years, citing issues such as an uncertain job market, a de- city. Many also commented on the general “decline” of the sire to retire to a location closer to family, wanting greater city, evidenced by issues such as garbage/litter, “small opportunities for their children, and the “decline” of the town politics,” “hidden racism,” and limited retail options. city as reasons for leaving. Those who do plan to stay in Visitors to the city commented primarily on limited retail Thompson identifi ed reasons for staying, including employ- options, a poor customer service culture, and a feeling of ment opportunities, and that the city is “home.” In fact, being unsafe in the downtown area. full-time residents viewed the job market more favourably than frequent visitors to Thompson. 2.4 Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Respondents Figure 2.15 indicates that frequent visitors to Thompson Forty-eight percent of Aboriginal respondents are full-time rank all characteristics of the city – with the exception of residents of Thompson, compared to 27% who identifi ed natural surroundings and the job market – higher than full- themselves as regular visitors to the city. A majority of non- time residents. This could be indicative of Thompson’s role Aboriginal respondents are full-time residents of Thompson as a service hub and provides some insight into the rea- (75%), with very few identifying as regular visitors (3%). sons why people travel to the city from other areas. Impor- Fifteen percent of non-Aboriginal respondents were former tantly, education and training received the second highest residents of Thompson. ranking among frequent visitors yet only 6% of respondents indicated they came to Thompson to access educational Figure 2.16 indicates that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal opportunities. The reason to come to Thompson most cited respondents rank characteristics of Thompson generally by visitors to the city was visiting friends or relatives (42%). the same. However, in the case of characteristics such as This was followed by short-term business travel (34%) and housing and job market, there is a marked difference in shopping (30%) (see Figure 2.14). responses, with Aboriginal respondents ranking opportuni- 12 | The majority of survey respondents (65%) are full-time residents Almost half of the full-time residents who responded to the of Thompson. survey said they do not see themselves living in Thompson in 10 years. Other (please specify) 1%

I have never been to Thompson 2% 20% Tourist 3% 31%

Regular visitor to Thompson 13% Yes (21%) No (49%) Former resident of Thompson 13% Don't Know (31%)

Part-Time resident of Thompson 2% 49% Full-Time resident of Thompson 65%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Figure 2.11 - Residency Status of Respondents (total=331) Figure 2.13 - Living in Thompson in 10 Years (full-time residents) (total=259)

Approximately 60% of full-time residents who responded to the Many respondents come to Thompson to visit friends or relatives. survey have lived in Thompson for 10 or more years. Twenty percent Business travel and shopping are other common reasons to come of full-time residents have lived in Thompson for less than five years. to Thompson. 45% 42% 40% All my life 13% 34% 35% 30% 30+ years 13% 30% 25% 25% 20 to 30 years 20% 21% 20% 10 to 20 years 14% 15% 12% 13% 9% 9% 10% 5 to 10 years 16% 6% 5% 5% 3% 1 to 4 years 20% 0% Less than 1 year 3% Tourism Shopping

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Education Recreation Health Care Services Relatives term) Entertainment term) Thompson Visiting Friends or Figure 2.12 - Years Lived in Thompson (full-time residents) Other Government I have never been to Other (please specify) Contract Work (longer- (total=233) Business Travel (short- Figure 2.14 - Reasons for Visiting Thompson (total=105) The City of Thompson | Keewatin Tribal Council | The Manitoba Metis Federation | Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak | Thompson Unlimited ACTION PLAN #4: LOCAL AND REGIONAL IDENTITY - CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT

Across all characteristics except natural surroundings, housing options and the job market, frequent visitors ranked Thompson higher than full-time residents.

Natural surroundings Entertainment options Recreation Innovation and creativity Arts and culture Health and wellness Access to childcare Services and amenities Frequent Visitors Crime prevention and community safety Full-Time Residents Education and training Community pride Investment opportunities Ease of doing business Housing options Job market 012345

Figure 2.15 - Characteristics of Thompson, ranked from “very weak” (1) to “very strong” (5). This chart compares rankings between full-time residents and frequent visitors. | 13 Across all characteristics except natural surroundings, housing options and the job market, Aboriginal respondents ranked Thompson higher than non-Aboriginal respondents.

Natural surroundings Entertainment options Recreation Innovation and creativity Arts and culture Health and wellness Access to childcare Services and amenities Non-Aboriginal Crime prevention and community safety Aboriginal Education and training Community pride Investment opportunities Ease of doing business Housing options Job market 012345 Figure 2.16 - Characteristics of Thompson, ranked from “very weak” (1) to “very strong” (5). This chart compares rankings between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents.

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

While both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents report ties in these areas lower than non-Aboriginal respondents. higher than average incomes, more Aboriginal respondents report Conversely, Aboriginal respondents ranked education and incomes of under $50,000/year.

training opportunities considerably higher than non-Aborigi- No Answer nal respondents. $150,000 or more $100,000 to $149,999 $90,000 to $99,999 When asked about Thompson’s strongest characteristic, $80,000 to $89,999 $70,000 to $79,999 non-Aboriginal respondents indicated the job market, $60,000 to $69,999 Non-Aboriginal while Aboriginal respondents identifi ed the city’s natural $50,000 to $59,999 Aboriginal $40,000 to $49,999 surroundings, closely followed by education and training $30,000 to $39,999 opportunities. Thompson’s weakest characteristic accord- $20,000 to $29,999 $10,000 to $19,999 ing to Aboriginal respondents was its housing options. Non- Less than $10,000 Aboriginal respondents identifi ed crime prevention, closely 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% followed by community pride and housing options. Figure 2.17 Comparison of Average income

Employment and housing opportunities may have an The majority of Aboriginal respondents are full-time residents of impact on or be related to income. Comparing the average Thompson. Most others are regular visitors to the city. income of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents shows 60 that while Aboriginal respondents are represented across 50 all income categories (with the exception of $10,000 40 First Nations Métis 30 to $19,999), signifi cantly fewer Aboriginal respondents Inuit report an average income of $100,000 or higher. Among 20 Other Aboriginal Aboriginal respondents, 22% report an average income of 10 $100,000 or higher, whereas 49% of non-Aboriginal respon- 0 dents fall in the same category (see Figure 2.17). Tourist Former Full-Time been to Part-Time Thompson Thompson Thompson resident of resident of resident of specify) Thompson I have never to Thompson Other (please Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents who are Regular visitor full-time residents of Thompson were asked whether they Figure 2.18 Residency Status of Aboriginal Respondents see themselves living in the city 10 years from now (Fig- ures 2.19 and 2.20). While the majority of both groups indicated that they did not see themselves living in Thompson Forty percent of Aboriginal residents of Thompson do not see 14 | (51% non-Aboriginal, 40% Aboriginal), those with Aboriginal themselves living in the city in the next 10 years. Nearly as many identity answered “Don’t Know” almost as often (39%). are unsure whether they will stay or leave. Among Aboriginal respondents, uncertainty about whether to remain in Thompson over the longer-term was character- 21% ized in the following ways: 39% • “It depends on if we agree with the direction the city is Yes No moving in and if the career opportunities remain.” Don't Know

• “Have to wait and see if all my needs are met.” 40%

Non-Aboriginal respondents tended to indicate an uncertain/shifting job market or an interest in retiring closer to Figure 2.19 Aboriginal Respondents who see themselves family as their reason for not seeing Thompson as a long- living in Thompson in 10 years term home. Representative responses include:

Over half of non-Aboriginal residents of Thompson do not see • “I will need to see what is going to happen with Vale. themselves living in the city in the next 10 years. About 30% are Will I continue to have employment to support my fam- unsure whether they will stay or leave. ily? It is becoming very expensive to live in Thompson.”

• “I am retired and looking to return to area closer to 21% 29% family.” Yes No • “Work and family may keep us in Thompson. We may Don't Know retire in Thompson should the city continue to expand and develop in positive ways. Post-secondary edu- 51% cational opportunities for our children are also a key issue.” Figure 2.20 Non-Aboriginal Respondents who see themselves living in Thompson in 10 years

3. FOCUS GROUPS 1. What do you think of when you hear the word “Thompson”? 3.1 Purpose of Focus Groups 2. What are some of the benefi ts/positives about life in The fi ndings of the Place Branding Survey, detailed in previ- Thompson? ous sections of this report, paint a broad picture of the 3. What are some of the negatives/challenges about life sentiments and experiences of visitors to and residents in Thompson? of the City of Thompson. The survey was intentionally 4. What is your vision for the City of Thompson in the designed to target a wide audience in order to provide a next 10 years? general baseline prior to the development of a Place Brand- ing Strategy for the city. As noted previously, the results of the survey clearly show a bias toward respondents who Importantly, across all Focus Groups, there was clear are residents of the city, between the ages of 25 and 34, consensus on the themes emerging from the discussion of with higher education and income levels than the regional these questions. However, each group provided a different average. These respondents also have easy access to the perspective on these common themes. Internet. In order to counteract this bias and in the interest of balancing the perspectives gathered through the survey What do you think of when you hear the word with those of a more diverse group of visitors and resi- “Thompson”? dents, Focus Group sessions were carried out with over a two-month period in October and November 2012. This question was designed to elicit an immediate re- A total of 16 Focus Groups were conducted with the follow- sponse from Focus Group participants. Themes emerging ing organizations: from the discussion of this question include:

• Thompson Urban Aboriginal Strategy Location/Geography: Most participants identifi ed Thomp- • Futures/Marymound son’s remote location as one of the city’s defi ning features. Some participants viewed the city’s location as an asset, • Thompson Senior Community Resource Council while others thought of it as a limitation. Youth and seniors • Settlement Services (Community Futures North Central were more inclined to characterize Thompson’s location as Development) a drawback. Youth cited a lack of access to other commu- | 15 • Thompson Unlimited nities for educational and employment opportunities as a challenge. Seniors had similar comments, but were more • Thompson Chamber of Commerce focused on the lack of access to family members (specifi - • Thompson Neighbourhood Renewal Corporation (#1) cally grandchildren), and health care services.

• Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Participants from Aboriginal organizations representing • Vale regional communities were less inclined to characterize Thompson as remote or isolated, primarily due to the ser- • School District of Mystery Lake vice centre/hub role the city plays for surrounding regional • Thompson Neighbourhood Renewal Corporation (#2) communities. Similar comments came from those engaged • Northern Regional Health Authority in providing transportation/logistics and health care services. For these participants, Thompson’s location provides • R.D. Parker Collegiate Youth Aboriginal Council a strategic advantage for service provision across Northern • Keewatin Tribal Council Manitoba. Other participants, particularly those engaged in the tourism and business development sectors, thought • R.D. Parker Collegiate Student Council Thompson’s location could provide unique opportunities • Thompson Regional Airport Authority to tourists and business owners/investors and should be promoted as an asset. Focus Group participants both verifi ed and provided additional context and commentary on the fi ndings of the Climate: All participants commented on Thompson’s Place Branding survey. Perspectives that were particularly climate. In many cases, the cold and snowy winter weather underrepresented in the survey, including those of youth was the fi rst thought that came to mind when describing and seniors, were also captured through Focus Group the city. While some participants see Thompson’s climate discussions. as an opportunity for investment (e.g. the cold weather testing industry), many identifi ed the winter climate as a deterrent to newer residents considering whether to settle 3.2 Summary of Focus Group Findings in Thompson permanently. However, participants indicated that winter sports such as snowmobiling, skiing, and ice Focus Group sessions were structured around the following fi shing could be better marketed to a niche group of visi- four discussion questions: tors and tourists who may come to Thompson specifi cally

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP ACTION PLAN #4: LOCAL AND REGIONAL IDENTITY - CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT

“I like the proximity to nature. Being able to access the outdoors so easily really improves my quality of life.”

| 17

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber ofPisew Commerce Falls | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

to experience its winter climate. Opportunity: Many participants noted that Thompson offers opportunities not available in other cities of the same size Natural Environment: More than any other characteristic, and geographic location. Opportunities in the job market, Focus Group participants identifi ed Thompson’s natural for career advancement, and for education were the most environment as its most important asset. This supports commonly stated across all Focus Groups. While all groups the fi ndings of the Place Branding Survey, in which a major- agreed these opportunities were present in the city, Aborigi- ity of respondents ranked Thompson’s natural surroundings nal organizations, Aboriginal youth and community service as the city’s strongest characteristic. Many participants organizations pointed out that these opportunities were in- thought that the value of the city and region’s natural en- accessible to them or their clients. This inaccessibility was vironment could be more clearly defi ned and celebrated in attributed to a range of issues from the skills gap faced marketing and promotional materials. by some potential employees to prejudice among employers. Non-Aboriginal youth thought Thompson offered more A number of participants also commented on the need limited educational and employment opportunities than for improving public access to natural areas, particularly other cities, noting that they were planning to leave the for groups that do not have the means to access them community after high school to pursue their educational privately (e.g. through cottage ownership, having a boat, goals. Economic development and business organizations etc.). In particular, participants felt that new Canadians identifi ed the need to promote the opportunities available would benefi t from increased access to the natural environ- in Thompson to a broader audience outside of the city ment as a means to gaining an expanded understanding to encourage in-migration of skilled workers and outside of northern culture. Aboriginal organizations and Futures investors. clients emphasized the need for improved and affordable public access (e.g. organized bus trips to Paint Lake), par- Sense of Community: Participants often described Thomp- ticularly for single parents. son as a welcoming and friendly place; however, the sense of community that participants felt within the city varied Crime: Similar to the city’s natural environment, all partici- among groups. While each group identifi ed a sense of pants commented on the level of crime or criminal behav- community within their own cultural, ethnic, language or iour in Thompson. Perspectives on the causes of and solu- social group, most participants noted that the city lacks a tions for dealing with crime varied widely. Most participants broader, cohesive sense of community. Some participants focused on the geography of crime in the city, indicating thought this was due to the demographic transition Thomp- that the majority of criminal behaviour occurred in the son is currently undergoing, as the city’s Aboriginal and 18 | city’s downtown area. While some participants discussed immigrant communities continue to grow and a new sense the need to “move the problem” (e.g. relocate the Home- of community emerges. less Shelter and the Liquor Mart to areas outside of the downtown), many others identifi ed the root socio-economic What are some of the beneﬁ ts/positives about life in causes of criminal behaviour. In many cases, the discus- Thompson? sion of “crime” was linked to a discussion of homelessness, substance abuse, and public intoxication, and some Lifestyle: Participants reported numerous lifestyle benefi ts participants were unable to differentiate criminality from of living in Thompson. All groups commented on the benefi t homelessness. of having housing, work and recreational opportunities in such close proximity to one another. Many commented on Aboriginal youth participants were candid about the reality how important the short driving distance from home to of gang activity in the city and many had safety concerns work and the lack of traffi c in the city were to their quality related to gang activity. Other participants noted that they of life. All groups also commented on the proximity of the actively avoid the downtown area due to a perceived lack of city to its natural surroundings. A number of participants safety in the area. The less fi rst-hand experience partici- gave the example of being able to drive from Thompson to pants had downtown, the more likely they were to have a Paint Lake within half an hour as a major lifestyle benefi t. negative perception of the area. Recreational Opportunities: Thompson has a very active Some participants also indicated that high levels of dispos- recreation sector, with many options available to meet able income in the community contribute to increased drug- theneeds of residents and visitors alike. Participants saw related crime, particularly among young people who are recreational opportunities as a vehicle for becoming more ‘passing through’ Thompson on short-term contracts. engaged in the community and building lasting friendships. Aboriginal and community service organizations pointed out Cultural Diversity: While many participants indicated that the high cost of some organized recreational activi- Thompson’s cultural diversity is an asset, a number of ties in Thompson (e.g. hockey) is a barrier to participation participants identifi ed it as a point of contention within the for lower-income residents. Recreational opportunities city. The city’s ability to embrace its shifting demographic were very closely linked to the “lifestyle” benefi t described profi le was seen by Aboriginal and other community service above, and participants who are engaged in tourism, organizations to be a key measure of its future success recruitment and business development felt that this link and sustainability. should be better promoted.

Advancement Opportunities (education, career, investment): ing and closer collaboration between groups, albeit from Many participants felt that opportunities for advancement different perspectives. in areas such as education, career and business investment were more available in Thompson than other commu- Focus Group participants also raised the need for the nities of a similar size. Access to post-secondary education celebration of other specifi c cultures within the city. Some and the job market was viewed to be very open by some participants wanted to see greater attention paid to the participants. However, many others identifi ed the barriers “pioneer” culture of Thompson and those who established to accessing advancement opportunities in the city, includ- the townsite of Thompson in the late 1950s. Others ing lack of support for Aboriginal people and newcomers. thought that more opportunities for residents and visitors to learn about the culture of more recent immigrants, par- Proximity to Nature: A key component of the “lifestyle” ticularly those from south-east Asia, would support greater described above is the city’s proximity to nature. Similar to community cohesion. comments made about access to recreational opportunities, many participants felt that residents of Thompson Focus Group discussions provided many insights on the take the city’s proximity to nature for granted and therefore topic of culture, two of which are integral to the develop- do not adequately promote the city’s natural surroundings ment of a Place Branding Strategy for the City of Thomp- to potential visitors. son. The fi rst is that Thompson is currently in the midst of a cultural transition due, in part, to an ongoing demograph- Progressive Community: While many participants thought ic shift in the city and the region. Second, the conversation that the city – both as a corporation and as a commu- about cultural identity in Thompson is one that Thomp- nity – could and should be more progressive in terms of sonites and regular visitors to Thompson must fi rst have the cultural values and attitudes it supports, a number of amongst themselves before any external communication of participants highlighted the positive steps many individual the city’s cultural character can be successful. community members, organizations and the City itself have taken towards making Thompson a more progressive What are some of the negatives/challenges about life in community. In general, non-Aboriginal participants viewed Thompson? Thompson as a more progressive community than their Ab- original counterparts. Many Aboriginal participants pointed Negative Perception of Thompson (internal/external): to systemic issues including racism, lack of adequate Related closely to the discussion of culture in the City housing and lack of education and training for skilled jobs of Thompson, is the sense that a negative perception of as barriers to Thompson being a progressive and inclusive the city exists both internally and externally. Focus Group | 19 community for Aboriginal people. participants reinforced survey fi ndings in this regard. Inter- estingly, although Focus Group sessions were designed to Although these barriers persist, participants pointed to give equal time to a discussion of benefi ts/positives (sum- evidence of positive change within the community, including marized above) and negatives/challenges, participants of ongoing implementation of the Thompson Aboriginal Accord all ages and from all groups were more inclined to focus and increased partnerships between Aboriginal organiza- on the negatives/challenges. Some participants, particu- tions and industry. When understood in economic rather larly youth, noted that negative stereotypes of Thompson than cultural terms, many participants saw Thompson as are more likely to be perpetuated internally (e.g. by local a progressive community, noting that the city’s strong job media, by local people posting negative comments, photos market made it an attractive place for young people to or videos to the Internet, etc.) than by those outside the advance both career and family goals. community. Participants, especially those who work to promote Thompson in the areas of business and economic Aboriginal Culture and Multiculturalism: While Aboriginal development, felt that the many positive initiatives within culture and multiculturalism are distinct topics, a discus- the community are being overshadowed by this negative sion of one was usually linked to a discussion of the other messaging and that not enough is being done to counter- during focus group sessions. In this discussion, many par- act negative messages. ticipants identifi ed three distinct cultural groups in the City of Thompson: “white,” “Aboriginal” and “multicultural.” The Systemic Issues (housing, homelessness, substance abuse, term “multicultural” was most often applied to new Canadi- crime, racism): The negative perception of Thompson, ans who are also visible minorities. Aboriginal participants described above, often stems from the challenges the were more likely to advocate for the Aboriginal culture of city faces in addressing systemic issues. Similar to some Thompson and the region to be specifi cally identifi ed and survey respondents, some Focus Group participants saw celebrated rather than included as one of many cultures the role of the city as a hub or service centre within the under the “multicultural” category. Importantly, those who region as a cause of systemic issues like housing short- advocated this approach emphasized the inclusive nature ages and crime. Many participants indicated that visitors of Aboriginal culture, noting that there needs to be space in and residents alike judge the city based on their perception Thompson for a broader discussion of culture and cultural of safety in the downtown area and that issues of crime, understanding between groups. Many participants came to homelessness, substance abuse and public intoxication similar conclusions about the need for better understand- disproportionately infl uence people’s idea of Thompson

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

“I like the Milliennium Trail and Spirit Way. They are very beautiful and right in my backyard, providing easy access to exercise and escaping the city/town.”

20 |

The City of Thompson | Keewatin Tribal Council | The Manitoba Metis Federation | Manitoba Keewatinowi OkimakanakSpirit | Thomps Wayon Unlimitedwolf ACTION PLAN #4: LOCAL AND REGIONAL IDENTITY - CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT compared to the city’s positive attributes. purchase a product or service regardless of the quality of customer care they receive. One indicator of why this poor Some of these participants thought that stricter enforce- service culture exists came from youth and Focus Group ment of City by-laws, the relocation of services and ameni- participants with teenaged children. Since service jobs are ties (e.g. the Homeless Shelter and the Liquor Mart) from so readily available in Thompson, very little effort goes into the downtown area and a redefi nition of “homeless” (e.g. training employees as they are likely to change jobs often with regard to people who have housing options available in search of better wages or scheduling options. in their home communities, etc.) was required. Isolation/Lack of Access: While many participants identifi ed Others felt that better partnerships and working relation- Thompson’s remote location as a positive or benefi t, many ships between governments (both Municipal and Provin- also saw it as a challenge. Among seniors, lack of access cial), community organizations and regional communities to more specialized medical care and affordable housing were key to overcoming systemic issues. In general, the options were cited as major factors in the decision to leave tone of the Focus Group discussions around issues such the community after retirement. Youth viewed the com- as housing, homelessness, substance abuse, crime and munity’s remoteness as a challenge to accessing a wider racism indicate a strong need for both increased educa- range of educational and employment opportunities. Youth tion about “root causes” and action to address these also noted that, in the interest of keeping families closer root causes. As some Focus Group participants indicated, together, their parents have considered leaving the com- greater understanding of and progress on these issues is munity to follow them to university/employment options in most likely to be made through a partnership approach. other locations.

Lack of Inclusivity/Connection: Closely connected to the What is your vision for the City of Thompson in the next 10 discussion of systemic issues, above, is the lack of inclu- years? sivity or connection that many regional residents, frequent visitors, and non-permanent residents of Thompson feel Inclusivity: The theme of inclusivity ran through many Focus when they are visiting or transitioning to life in the city. Group sessions, and was highlighted as a key goal for Even permanent residents noted that they had limited con- Thompson in the next 10 years. Many participants acknowl- nection to people outside of their own professional, family edged that Thompson is currently in a period of transition and friend groups. – from its ‘mining town’ past to its more economically and socially diverse future – and that in order to address the Most participants from Aboriginal and community organiza- many challenges the city faces, all members of and visitors tions who work with members of regional communities as to the community must feel as though they are working to- | 21 they transition to life in Thompson indicated that a lack of wards shared goals. Some participants identifi ed the need programs to support this transition can create a sense of for structural change in both the public and private sectors isolation, and in some cases, results in individuals return- to enable inclusivity. For example, encouraging more local ing to their home communities and losing out on educa- organizations and businesses to implement the Thompson tional or employment opportunities. Participants who had Aboriginal Accord is one way to foster this change. recently immigrated to Canada and Thompson emphasized the role of Settlement Services in helping them transition Many participants also identifi ed grassroots initiatives to northern life. being carried out by community organizations and, in some cases industry, to develop new or strengthen existing Poor Service Culture: Across all Focus Groups, Thompson’s partnerships to deliver education, health, employment and poor service culture was regarded as one of the city’s most other opportunities that promote a sense of belonging negative characteristics when it comes to attracting visitors within the city for all groups. and/or new residents. Each group provided a unique inter- pretation of the issue. Economic and business develop- Community Pride: Participants who were very engaged in ment organizations, as well as major employers, noted that community life reported higher levels of community pride slow and inattentive service has two main consequences: than those who were less involved. For many participants, it deters potential residents from settling in Thompson, increased community pride was linked to the idea of and it encourages high-income earners who are residents “cleaning up” or beautifying areas of the city, particularly of the city to seek services outside of the community (e.g. the downtown. For others, it was connected to the in larger centres like Winnipeg or through online shopping), discussion around inclusivity and feeling part of something instead of spending their earnings in Thompson. bigger than oneself.

Aboriginal organizations pointed to the fact that recent Some participants identifi ed the biggest challenge to customer surveys have shown that members of regional increasing community pride is the negative image that communities are major supporters of retail outlets in many residents of the city perpetuate both internally and Thompson. However, participants felt that despite their externally (e.g. when talking to friends in Thompson, when purchasing power, the attitude toward Aboriginal consum- travelling to another city on business, etc.). On the topic of ers is often negative or discriminatory. Some participants community pride, youth pointed out a sense of frustration felt that service-sector employees don’t provide a high within the community, which they attributed to residents level of service to their customers because they know and visitors setting unrealistic expectations for Thompson that customers have very limited options and are likely to (i.e. trying to be something it’s not).

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

“One of Thompson’s strengths is its diverse population, which I believe to be a true snap-shot of Canadian life.”

22 |

The City of Thompson | Keewatin Tribal Council | The Manitoba Metis Federation | Manitoba KeewatinowiSundance Okimakanak tree |near Thomps Nelsonon Unlimited House ACTION PLAN #4: LOCAL AND REGIONAL IDENTITY - CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT

Celebrate Uniqueness/Embrace Who We Are: The Recommendations based on the fi ndings of theFocus sentiment expressed by youth, above, is integral to a Group sessions include: successful Place Branding Strategy. Through Focus Group discussions, many participants came to the conclusion that 1. Target audiences who positively value Thompson’s a vision for Thompson in the next 10 years must include attributes: It is clear that characteristics such as Thompson’s location and climate can be viewed both increased self-awareness about the real challenges the positively and negatively. This supports the notion city faces, as well as the strengths of its people. Many of targeted marketing to audiences who value the participants emphasized the need to represent a realistic, positive aspects, and the downplaying of focus on honest and hopeful message about Thompson to both audiences likely to take the negative view of these internal and external audiences. Some participants thought characteristics. that diversity and fl exibility should be key features of the Place Branding Strategy in order to capture a fuller picture 2. Reinforce the positive aspects of Thompson’s of the city, its residents and what it has to offer. transition: The Place Branding Strategy can create and reinforce positive messages about Thompson’s changing economic and demographic profi le. Similarly, 4. RECOMMENDATIONS the messages developed must address the perceived lack of community pride and cohesion among different groups within the city. Based on a review of Place Branding Survey and Focus 3. Prioritize messages with clear links to economic Group fi ndings, the Advisory Committee identifi ed a number diversifi cation and development goals: Recreational of recommendations. Some are related specifi cally to the opportunities were frequently mentioned by focus Place Branding Strategy, while others look forward to poten- group participants as a major draw for visitors. These tial future projects the Advisory Committee may undertake. opportunities also have economic diversifi cation/development and business attraction implications for the Place Branding Strategy. 4.1 Place Branding Strategy Recommendations stemming from the fi ndings of thePlace 4. Balance existing conditions and future goals: Similar to Branding Survey include: survey fi ndings, Focus Group discussions indicated a 1. Build on existing strengths to create “quick wins”: need for messages that balance what the city is like Some of Thompson’s strengths, including its natural today (current assets) and what it wants to become surroundings and its role as a service centre, were (future ambitions). This includes ideas like increased | 23 inclusivity and community pride. consistently identifi ed and ranked highly by survey respondents. These existing strengths provide a clear starting point for messaging that will garner buy-in 4.2 Potential Future Initiatives from a wide audience and create “quick wins.” After condsidering all of the input collected through the Place Branding Survey and Focus Group sessions, the 2. Communicate how weaknesses are being addressed: Advisory Committee identifi ed initiatives that could build on Weaknesses that were identifi ed in the survey, such as or support the Place Branding Strategy and other Thomp- a lack of housing options and the need for increased son Economic Diversifi cation Working Group projects in the crime prevention and safety, reinforce the need to future. Recommendations include: formally communicate and promote the steps that have been taken to address them. This includes the 1. Formalize the Local and Regional Identity Advisory outcomes of the TEDWG process and other ongoing Committee: With the TEDWG process slated for com- initiatives currently being undertaken by the City and pletion in June 2013, Advisory Committee members community organizations. identifi ed a potential need for the Local and Regional Identity Advisory Committee to continue to meet in 3. Recognize Thompson as a city in transition: Sentiments order to support and monitor the implementation of expressed about the city’s growth and diversity sup- the Place Branding Strategy and determine future port the need to balance the positioning of the brand initiatives to pursue. Formalizing the Advisory Commit- from both the perspective of what the city is like today tee requires buy-in from existing and new partners in (current assets) and what it wants to become (future terms of ongoing time commitment and administra- ambitions). tion/coordination of the Committee. The Committee’s ability to forge partnerships among member organiza- 4. Customize messaging to appeal to different groups: tions, and externally, will be critical to its ability to Differences in survey responses between groups (e.g. develop and implement future initiatives. frequent visitors and residents; Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal respondents; youth and seniors, etc.) can 2. Support existing, related initiatives: The Advisory Com- serve as a starting point for customizing messages for mittee could provide support to ongoing initiatives these audience groups. related to local and regional identity. This is particu-

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP

“Outdoor activities are available year-round. There’s biking and hiking on excellent local trails, fi shing, curling, baseball, hockey, ATV-ing and snowmobiling.”

24 |

The City of Thompson | Keewatin Tribal Council | The Manitoba Metis Federation | ManitobaSnowmobiling Keewatinowi Okimakanak on the | Thomps Millenniumon Unlimited Trail ACTION PLAN #4: LOCAL AND REGIONAL IDENTITY - CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT

larly true of initiatives that may benefi t from the data • Housing collected through the Place Branding Survey, Focus Group sessions, and other TEDWG initiatives. • Economic Development Additionally, the Advisory Committee could facilitate resource- and information-sharing, awareness and part- In addition, the TEDWG stakeholders are committed to nerships between various groups currently engaged in strengthening the governance and development of the other projects. City and region through an updated District Development Plan and Zoning By-Law, a Sustainable Asset Management 3. Prioritize potential future initiatives based on their Framework for the City of Thompson and the Thompson ability to support economic diversifi cation and develop- and Region Infrastructure Plan. ment in Thompson and the region: The Advisory Com- mittee should consider any future initiatives within the As these plans are implemented and progress is made context of the broader TEDWG process and in light of towards addressing issues such as lack of housing op- the economic diversifi cation/development goals identi- tions, public safety, and low levels of educational attain- fi ed in areas such as education and training, hous- ment, the Place Branding Strategy will be a critical tool for ing, restorative justice and others. The ability to link the City of Thompson as it communicates and builds on its any future initiatives (or existing initiatives, as noted successes. above) to positive economic outcomes for Thompson and the region should guide the Advisory Committee’s decision-making about which initiatives it may undertake or support.

5. CONCLUSION

The work of the Local and Regional Identity Advisory Com- mittee to develop a Place Branding Strategy for the City of Thompson is an outcome of the Thompson Economic Diver- sifi cation Working Group process. As such, the fi ndings of | 25 the Place Branding Survey and Focus Group sessions, as summarized in this report, should be understood through the lense of economic diversifi cation and development.

Many visitors and residents of Thompson who responded to the survey or participated in a Focus Group identifi ed the city’s role as a regional service centre. For many respondents and participants, the health of the city’s economy is closely related to the health, education, employment, earn- ing power and sense of belonging and pride of its people.

The Place Branding Strategy will ultimately be approved by City Council and will provide a framework for the City of Thompson to follow in communicating and promoting the benefi ts of the city to both internal and external audiences. As indicated in Section 4.1, the Place Branding Strategy must balance both the challenges and benefi ts of life in Thompson today (current assets) with what the city wants to become (future ambitions). In order to do this, the Strat- egy will focus primarily on promoting positive aspects of life in Thompson.

Importantly, many of the systemic challenges and issues identifi ed through the Place Branding Survey and Focus Group sessions have been considered and are being addressed through other TEDWG Action Plans in the following areas: • Restorative Justice

• Education and Training

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale

A. ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE THOMPSON + REGION LOCAL AND REGIONAL IDENTITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.0 Thompson Place Branding Strategy These terms of reference will provide a framework for the Thompson and Region Local and Regional Identity Advisory Committee with regard to mandate, structure, decision-making and roles, specifically in the development of the Thompson Place Branding Strategy. The main goals of the Thompson Place Branding initiative are three-fold:

x To engage and inform the community through focus groups, surveys, open houses and interviews. This ensures that ambassadorship and buy-in happen throughout the process.

x To develop a visual graphic identity and guideline. This will include logo candidates and a brand manual for use.

x To develop a realistic place branding strategy that includes actions in priority order, timelines, deliverables, budget and measures.

A word about place branding Place branding differs from traditional product branding. Although it uses many of the same techniques, there are some differences that are worth noting:

First, the requirements of the brand are more demanding. Unlike a brand for most products or companies, place brands must serve many different stakeholders and audiences. A strong brand must be flexible and versatile enough to apply to community development, tourism, business development and to target specific sectors. It must accommodate the needs of multiple groups and communicate a number of ideas. It must do this without suffering the watering down that often results from trying to be all things to all people. This is a delicate balance to strike.

Second, the development and management of the brand is decentralized and informal in place branding. There is no corporate marketing department that is bestowed with the power to define and control all aspects of the brand. Rather, place branding requires a high degree of coordination and cooperation.

According to the Medinge Group (http://medinge.org):

“Place brand partnerships are not like central government departments, or local government or private companies or voluntary, community and charitable organizations. They are a hybrid form of organization. Their characteristics are determined by those who set them up, the purpose for which they were created and by those who form the team that leads the work of the partnership, the key stakeholders of the place. The form of partnership organization and operation is rarely a given. It has to be negotiated and agreed by those who are going to be involved. Brand partnership has to be worked at.”

This Advisory Committee will work together with the consulting team to create a strong and unique identity. They will learn principles and practices of place branding, and will become the brand champions throughout and at the conclusion of this process.

1 2.0 Guiding Principles The activities of the Advisory Committee will be based on the following principles:

Fairness – All stakeholder groups will be treated fairly;

Openness – All stakeholder groups will undertake their activities in an open and transparent manner;

Mutual Respect – All stakeholder groups will treat each other with respect;

Cooperation – All stakeholder groups will strive to develop plans that best meet the needs of all parties;

Collaboration – All stakeholder groups will work together in a collaborative manner towards the development of plans;

Egalitarian – All stakeholder groups will be afforded equal input into the process;

Agreement Seeking – All stakeholder groups will seek to develop plans using a consensus-based decision-making processes;

Informed Participation – All stakeholder groups will ensure the transfer of information to and from the communities they represent.

3.0 Advisory Committee Membership The following stakeholders will be represented on the Advisory Committee:

Stakeholder Group Representative(s)

2 It is expected that representatives are able to contribute to the discussion of the Advisory Committee and provide input that will guide decisions about any necessary changes to the project work plan, budget or schedule; community engagement events; identity development; the Place Branding Strategy; and initial implementation.

Advisory Committee representatives will engage with and report to their constituents, staff or colleagues, and the public regarding the activities of the Advisory Committee.

From time to time as necessary, outside representatives may be invited to participate in Advisory Committee meetings to share information or provide specific input into the work of the Advisory Committee.

Reporting Mechanism to and Function of the TEDWG Project Management Team The TEDWG Project Management Team (PMT) comprises three representatives from the City of Thompson and three representatives from Vale and is facilitated by rePlan. The PMT is responsible for oversight of all TEDWG Action Plans and Regulatory Framework projects. As such, the PMT will be the final decision-making authority for all administrative matters related to the development of a Place Branding Strategy, including changes to the project work plan, budget or schedule. The PMT will also provide input to the Advisory Committee and consulting team on community engagement events; identity development; the Place Branding Strategy; and both initial and long-term implementation of the Strategy.

As the facilitator of both groups, rePlan will be responsible for ensuring that communication between the PMT and the Advisory Committee is open, timely and ongoing.

Reporting Mechanism to and Function of the Thompson and Area Round Table The Thompson Economic Diversification Working Group will transition its work to two organizations beyond October 2012: The Thompson and Area Round Table (TART) and Thompson Unlimited. The Thompson and Area Round Table is dedicated to strengthening the relationship among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal governments and peoples in and around the Thompson area. Arising from the previous Northern Manitoba Round Table, the TART recognizes that the basis for gaining a stronger relationship will be based upon a foundation of the shared values of honesty, respect, mutual sharing and contribution of all members. The TART’s focus for gaining a stronger relationship will be to enhance and foster economic development as well as address other areas of common concern in and around the Thompson area. The Advisory Committee will provide regular updates on its activities to the TART.

3 4.0 Roles and Responsibilities of Members Member Roles and Responsibilities x Act as an ambassador/champion of the project by Advisory Committee members promoting and communicating the project goals and objectives to constituent groups, staff or colleagues, and the public x Provide input into decision-making and development of a Place Branding Strategy x Facilitate connections and relationships between the Consulting Team and constituent groups x Take an active role in the planning and execution of community engagement activities x Identify opportunities for partnerships that will support or strengthen implementation of the Place Branding Strategy x Support implementation of the Place Branding Strategy, as appropriate x Act as an ambassador/champion of the project by promoting and communicating the project goals City of Thompson and objectives to constituent groups, staff or colleagues, and the public x Provide input into decision-making and development of a Place Branding Strategy x Provide political and administrative oversight to the process x Facilitate connections and relationships between the Consulting Team and constituent groups x Take an active role in the planning and execution of community engagement activities x Identify opportunities for partnerships that will support or strengthen implementation of the Place Branding Strategy x Assist in securing adoption of the Place Branding Strategy by City Council x Mobilize existing or create new policies to support the implementation of the Place Branding Strategy x Provide ongoing oversight and management for implementation of the Place Branding Strategy x Undertake ongoing monitoring and evaluation activities relating to the Place Branding Strategy x Support the Advisory Committee in coordinating and facilitating community engagement events rePlan (Consulting Team – Community and activities Engagement Focus) x Facilitate the resolution of issues among stakeholders x Monitor, coordinate and prioritize activities to ensure adherence to work plan, budget and schedule (and overall project management) x Support the open, timely and ongoing communication between the Advisory Committee and TEDWG PMT

4 Member Roles and Responsibilities Support and participate in community on3 (Consulting Team – Place Branding x engagement events and activities Focus) x Responsible for collection and analysis of data, identity development, and Place Branding Strategy, as well as identification of priorities for implementation and support for immediate implementation x Responsible for planning, developing and delivering the Place Branding Strategy document x Provide technical expertise related to place branding in the development and implementation of the Place Branding Strategy Facilitate connections and relationships between Beke Communications (Consulting Team – x the Consulting Team and local stakeholders Local Communications Advisor) x Provide local perspective and critical feedback in the analysis of data, identity development, and Place Branding Strategy Support an integrated and consistent approach TEDWG Project Management Team (PMT) x across all TEDWG Action Plans and development of an overarching Economic Diversification Plan. x Oversee the Consulting Team’s responsibilities (outlined above). x Provide administrative oversight for the project work plan, budget and schedule x Maintain open, timely and ongoing communication with the Advisory Committee Provide political and strategic leadership in a Thompson and Area Round Table (TART) x discussion of regional economic development, including local and regional identity x Engage in an ongoing dialogue with the Advisory Committee x Oversee the coordination and implementation of Thompson Economic Diversification Working Group Action Plans and the Thompson and Region Infrastructure Plan

5.0 Procedures

Meeting Chair Meetings of the Advisory Committee will be chaired by rePlan in their role as facilitator of the project process. The Chair will:

x Attend and chair all meetings, or identify a replacement chair in advance of a meeting to be missed

x Ensure that meetings are conducted in a reasonable, calm and orderly manner and in accordance with agreed principles and procedures

x Keep the meetings on schedule and focused on agreed agenda items

5 x Ensure that all views and voices are heard and no one Advisory Committee member dominates x Maintain objectivity with no bias shown to any one Advisory Committee member or point of view

Agendas and Minutes The Advisory Committee will determine the agenda items to be discussed at its next meeting prior to the end of each meeting and rePlan will finalize and circulate agendas in a timely manner before each meeting. As facilitator, rePlan will prepare and finalize written records including a brief summary of discussion and the key outcomes of all Advisory Committee meetings, following a period of review and comment by all members.

Meeting Attendance In order to ensure consistency in decision-making and to advance the work of the Advisory Committee according to the work plan and schedule developed for the project, members must make a strong commitment to regularly attend Advisory Committee meetings. Meetings will occur approximately once every four to six weeks between September 2012 and June 2013.

Decision-Making In the spirit of the Guiding Principles defined for the Advisory Committee, high-level and procedural decisions of the group (e.g. adjustments to work plan, timeline, budget, etc.) will strive to be consensus- based. With the aim of completing the project on time and on budget, in the day-to-day work of the Consulting Team, the consultants will make decisions based on the pre-established principles and direction of the Advisory Committee.

Regular Communication with Constituent Groups All Advisory Committee members are responsible for regularly communicating the work of the Committee with their respective constituent groups to ensure constituent groups are informed of ongoing activities and that their input is being reflected in Advisory Committee discussions..

Reimbursable Expenses Advisory Committee members who live outside of Thompson will be reimbursed for the cost of travel to and from the meeting and accommodation while in Thompson. Travel and accommodation rates are set by the City of Thompson as per the Expense Summary included in Annex A to this Terms of Reference.

6.0 Communications Strategy The Communications Strategy developed for the TEDWG will apply to the work of the Advisory Committee. In addition, an Electronic Communications Strategy will be developed to identify protocols for Internet communications. The draft Electronic Communications Strategy will be reviewed by Advisory Committee members and members will provide input into the development of a final Strategy. A final Strategy will be in place by early October 2011.

7.0 Public Statements and the Media Advisory Committee members are responsible for distributing information about Committee activities to their organizations and communities in order to ensure that they are adequately informed and engaged in the process of developing a Place Branding Strategy.

With regard to media releases, members may be required to make public statements about their organization’s involvement in the Place Branding Strategy on behalf of their organization. In such cases,

6 members are encouraged to refer to the protocols outlined in the TEDWG Communications Strategy and notify the Advisory Committee of their statement prior to the public release.

In cases where the Advisory Committee decides to issue a joint public or media statement on Committee developments, representatives will work together to draft the statement, which will then be issued by the City of Thompson.

8.0 Community Engagement Program The work plan for the Place Branding Strategy includes a comprehensive Community Engagement Program with four levels:

x Level 1 Engagement - Education and Outreach (to Organizations, Institutions, Agencies) x Level 2 Engagement - Link to Existing Activities (community networks, organizations, meetings/conferences) x Level 3 Engagement - High-Level Public Outreach (Open Houses, workshops, booth at the Mall, etc. x Level 4 Engagement - Group-Specific Public Outreach (Youth, Elders, Business Community, the Disengaged, etc.)

Due to the diversity of stakeholders in the City of Thompson and surrounding region, the Advisory Committee will take a clear and highly visual approach to the production and presentation of community engagement materials. rePlan and on3 will assist the Advisory Committee in maintaining open dialogue with all stakeholders, hosting meaningful events, and continued but focused outreach. As outlined in the roles and responsibilities of Advisory Committee members, above, members will provide important insight into effective methods of communication and consultation when involving other members of the public. See attached work plan and schedule for specific tasks in other phases of work.

B. PLACE BRANDING SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE City of Thompson Place Branding Strategy Questionnaire 1

Thompson Place Branding Strategy

QUESTIONNAIRE

The Thompson Economic Diversification Working Group (TEDWG) was established in May 2011 to identify and pursue the most promising opportunities to help Thompson and the surrounding region diversify its economy and strengthen its position as an economic contributor in Northern Manitoba. One priority identified by TEDWG stakeholders is the need to define a clear Place Branding Strategy for the City of Thompson with input from both residents and visitors. A place's brand is more than just a logo. It is how that place is experienced by both residents and visitors alike. The results of this survey are confidential and will only be used as input into the development of a Place Branding Strategy for the City of Thompson.

If you are a resident of the City of Thompson, please answer the following questions based on your experience as a resident. If you visit the City of Thompson, please answer the following questions based on the time you have spent in Thompson as a visitor. If you have never visited Thompson, please answer the following questions based on your perception of the City.

The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas about Thompson!

Introduction

Q1. I am a: (Choose ONE option from the list below). Full-Time Resident of Thompson Part-Time Resident of Thompson (e.g. contractor, student, etc.) Former Resident of Thompson Regular Visitor to Thompson Tourist I have never been to Thompson

How do you see Thompson?

Please rank Thompson on a scale of 1 to 5 in the following areas, where 1 = very weak, 3 = average Q2. and 5 = very strong. (Please rank ALL of the options below) . 1 2 3 4 5 Don't Very Weak Weak Average Strong Very Strong Know Job market Housing options Ease of doing business Investment opportunities Community pride Education and training Crime prevention and community safety Services and amenities Access to childcare Health and wellness Arts and culture Innovation and creativity Recreation Entertainment options Natural surroundings City of Thompson Place Branding Strategy Questionnaire 2

Of the areas you ranked above, where is Thompson the STRONGEST overall? Q3. (Please choose only ONE option). Job market Access to childcare Housing options Health and wellness Ease of doing business Arts and culture Investment opportunities Innovation and creativity Community pride Recreation Education and training Entertainment options Crime prevention and community safety Natural surroundings Services and amenities

Of the areas you ranked above, where is Thompson the WEAKEST overall? Q4. (Please choose only ONE option). Job market Access to childcare Housing options Health and wellness Ease of doing business Arts and culture Investment opportunities Innovation and creativity Community pride Recreation Education and training Entertainment options Crime prevention and community safety Natural surroundings Services and amenities

Q5. What do you like BEST about Thompson? (Please provide specific examples where possible) .

Q6. What do you like LEAST about Thompson? (Please provide specific examples where possible) .

Which THREE (3) words or phrases below best describe Thompson? ( Please choose only THREE options from Q7. the list below). Growing Natural beauty Authentic Business-friendly Friendly Welcoming Innovative Cosmopolitan Northern Active people Hi-tech Unspoiled Safe Sophisticated Diverse Creative Rich history Quiet Charming Family-oriented Close-knit Senior- and Elder-friendly Culturally rich Healthy citizens Progressive Tolerant Accessible Student-friendly Service hub Other (please specify): ______City of Thompson Place Branding Strategy Questionnaire 3

Q8. In a few words or sentences, what makes Thompson BETTER and DIFFERENT from other places?

Q9. Please share any other thoughts that you have about Thompson:

About You:

Q10. How old are you? (Please select ONE option from the list below). Under 15 45 to 54 15 to 24 55 to 64 25 to 34 65+ 35 to 44 No Answer

Q11. Please indicate your sex: (Please select ONE option from the list below). Male Female No Answer

Q12. Please indicate your marital status: (Please select ONE option from the list below). Single Legally married or common-law Separated/Divorced Widowed No Answer

Q13. Which Canadian Census category best describes you? (Please select ALL options that apply from the list below). White Latin American First Nations Southeast Asian Métis Arab Inuit West Asian Other Aboriginal Korean South Asian Japanese Chinese Mixed visible minority Black Other visible minority Filipino No Answer

Q14. Please indicate your employment status. (Please select ALL options that apply from the list below). Employed Full-time Student Employed Part-time Retired Self-employed Business owner Not working and looking for work No Answer Not working and not currently looking for work Homemaker City of Thompson Place Branding Strategy Questionnaire 4

Q15. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please select ONE option from the list below). Less than high school Undergraduate degree High school diploma / GED / CEGEP Graduate degree College diploma / certificate Doctoral degree Trades certification No Answer

Q16. What is your total household income? (Please select ONE option from the list below). Less than $10,000 $70,000 to $79,999 $10,000 to $19,999 $80,000 to $89,999 $20,000 to $29,999 $90,000 to $99,999 $30,000 to $39,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $150,000 or more $50,000 to $59,999 No Answer $60,000 to $69,999

Living In or Visiting Thompson

If you are a full-time resident of Thompson, how long have you lived in Thompson? Q17. (Please select ONE option from the list below). Less than 1 year 1 to 4 years 5 to 10 years 10 to 20 years 20 to 30 years 30+ years All my life

If you are not a full-time resident of Thompson, why do you visit Thompson? (Please select ALL options that Q18. apply from the list below). Business Travel (short-term) Other Government Services Contract Work (longer-term) Recreation Shopping Entertainment Visiting Friends or Relatives Tourism Health Care I have never been to Thompson Education Other (please specify): ______

If you are a full-time resident of Thompson, do you see yourself living in Thompson 10 years from now? Q19. (Please select ONE option from the list below). Yes No Don't Know

If you are a visitor to Thompson, do you plan to return to Thompson? (Please select ONE option from the list Q20. below). Yes (if "Yes," please describe why): ______ No (if "No," please describe why not): ______

Don't Know

Q21. Where were you born? Q22. Where did you grow up? Q23. What community would you call “home” today?

C. CITY OF THOMPSON DEMOGRAPHIC MAPPING (CENSUS 2006) Average Household Income - $38,000

- $78,000

- $118,000

No Residential Development

391

M $104,010 ILLEN IUM T R $74,120 AIL E ID DRI RS VE E IV R WEST WO OD D D $82,998 RIVE ROA

N ORT $60,820 KE A H L

$63,161 Y ER T THOMPSON S $96,277 MY $67,876

WEST DRI VE WO OD $54,716 DRI VE NORTH $109,519 SOUTH TERLOO MYS A W A VE E V T

I E R $97,797 $73,573 R D Y LAKE R

C $57,698 $105,702 CTI D R $45,981 A STAT A $77,404 OAD O I R $84,637 ON ROAD

EE $116,398 CR $66,629 T E T RIVE H D $65,564 O STRE M P $74,703 LF SON WO $38,918 CAMPBELL DRI WEIR VE IVE DR

DRIVE SOU ELL T CAMP B $59,488 $76,235H

BUR NTW ON O 6 R OD OAD PRINCET

$62,993 $116,398

ROAD $76,439

OAD R

ES HAY Median Household Income - $26,000

- $72,500

- $119,000

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T $118,453 RAIL $47,261

IDE DRI S V R E

IVE R W ESTW OOD D D RIVE A RO $103,767 N $96,022 ORT KE A L H

$31,938 Y ER ST THOMPSON $81,173 MY $65,301

WESTWO DRI VE OD $58,288 DRIVE NORT H SOUTH $90,581 RLOO MYS ATE W A VE E

T $92,269 E $72,579 RY LAKE R DRIV $50,714 $105,242 C CTI $44,551 R STATIO A $55,006 O ROAD $69,253 AD N ROAD

EE $58,658 CR VE T $26,955 I E E T R $76,873 H TR O S M P $69,165 LF SON WO $40,569 CAMPBELL D DR E I WEIR VE DRIV

DRIVE SOU ELL T CAMP B $80,473 $61,295H

BU RNTW 6 TON OOD E ROA NC D I PR

$108,361 $84,772

ROA D $70,484

ROAD

ES HAY Average Number of Persons per Household - 1.9

- 2.7

- 3.5

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T 2.6 R 3.2 AIL E ID DRI RS VE E IV R WEST WO OD D D RIVE 3.3 ROA

N 3.0 ORT KE A 2.7 L H

Y ER T THOMPSON S 2.9 MY 3.3

WEST DRI VE WO OD 2.7 DRI 2.8 VE NORTH SOUTH TERLOO MYS A W A VE E V T I 2.8 E R 2.8 R D Y LAKE R 2.7 3.1 C CTI D R A STAT A O OAD 3.4 2.9 R I ON 3.1 ROAD EE 2.7 CR ET 2.5 T RIVE H 2.5 1.9 D O STRE M P LF SON WO 2.7 CAMPBELL DRI WEIR VE IVE DR

DRIVE SOU ELL T CAMP B H 1.9 2.6 BUR NTW ON O 6 R OD OAD PRINCET

2.5 3.0

ROAD 2.4 OAD R

ES HAY Percentage of Dwellings Rented - 0%

- 50%

- 100%

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T R 52% AIL E ID DRI RS VE E 9% IV R WEST WO OD D D 9% RIVE ROA

N 19% ORT KE A H L

64% Y 27% ER T THOMPSON S MY 49%

WEST DRI VE WO OD 62% DRI 28% VE NORTH SOUTH 33% TERLOO MYS A W A VE E V T I 13% E R 41% R D Y LAKE R

0% C CTI D R A STAT A O OAD 54% 69% R I ON

ROAD

EE R 23% 35% C 28% T E T RIVE H D O STRE M P LF SON WO 50% 98% 84% CAMPBELL DRI WEIR VE IVE 19% DR DRIVE SOU ELL T CAMP B H 74% BUR NTW ON O 6 R OD OAD 0% PRINCET

R OAD 100%

OAD R

ES HAY Average Number of Persons per Bedroom - 0.75

- 1.13

- 1.51

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T 1.13 R AIL E ID DRI RS VE E 0.94 IV R WEST WO OD D D RIVE ROA

N 0.95 0.96 ORT KE A H L

Y ER T THOMPSON S 0.94 1.48 MY 1.14

WEST DRI VE WO OD 1.01 DRI VE NORTH SOUTH 0.87 TERLOO MYS A W A 0.87 VE E V T I 0.82 E R 1.00 R D Y LAKE R

0.87 C CTI 1.11 D R A STAT A O OAD 1.28 R I ON

ROAD

EE R 0.94 1.06 C 0.88 ET T RIVE H D O STRE M P LF SON 1.05 1.51 WO 1.33 CAMPBELL DRI WEIR VE IVE DR

DRIVE SOU 0.99 ELL T CAMP B 0.94 H

BUR NTW ON O 6 R OD OAD PRINCET

0.75 0.85

R OAD 1.02

OAD R

ES HAY Percentage of Population with Aboriginal Identity* - 9.0%

- 47.0%

- 75.0%

No Residential Development *20% sample

391

MIL 11.3% LEN IUM T R 27.9% AIL E ID DRI RS VE E IV R W ESTWO OD D D RIVE ROA 14.8% N 31.3% ORT KE A L H

Y ER T S THOMPSON 23.9% 41.5% MY 66.7%

WEST DRI VE WO OD 36.5% DRI VE NORTH 27.0% SOUTH TERLOO MYS A W A VE E V TER I 35.9% 26.6% DR Y LAKE R 26.3% 20.7% C CTI 61.2% D R A STAT A 55.2% O OAD I R ON 37.9% ROAD EE 56.3% CR ET 73.7% 9.9% T HOM DRIVE STRE P LF SON 36.8% WO 74.3% CAMPBELL DRI IVE W VE R EIR D DRIVE SOU 20.5% ELL T CAMP B 19.1% H

BUR NTW ON O 6 R OD OAD INCET PR

21.5% 26.7%

R OAD 32.2%

OAD R

ES HAY Percentage of Population that are Non-American and Non-European Immigrants - 0.0%

- 14.0%

- 28.0%

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T 27.4% RAIL 1.9% E ID DRI S VE

IVER R WE STW OOD D RIVE AD O R

9.9% NO 7.3% E RT AK L H 15.2% RY E T THOMPSO YS 8.3% N M 6.0%

WESTW DR IVE OO D 1.5% DR IVE NORTH SOUTH ERLOO MYS WAT 3.2% AVE E V TER I 5.8% DR 8.2% Y

LAK

8.0% T E C R AD R S O TA A T A 19.3% 0.0% RO ION D

ROAD

EE 6.1% 2.7% CR ET E T 0.0% 3.0% H STR OMPSON DRIVE 15.9% LF 4.3% WO PBELL 2.7% CAM DRI E W VE RIV EIR D

DRIVE SOU 7.0% ELL TH CAMP B 6.2%

BURN TWOOD 6 N ROA D RINCETO 0.0% P

2.3%

ROAD 6.8%

ROAD

S E Y A H Percentage of Population with Métis Identity - 3.0%

- 16.0%

- 29.0%

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T 7.9% RAIL 4.3% IDE DRI V RS E

RIVE WE STW OOD D 7.4% RIVE AD RO

N 11.3% ORT KE A 6.5% L H

Y R E ST THOMPSON 13.4% MY 9.6%

WESTWO DRI VE OD 8.1% DRIVE 8.0% NORT H SOUTH RLOO MYS ATE W A VE E 15.6% TERY LAKE R RIV 19.6% D 9.9% 8.0% C CTI R STATIO A OAD O AD 9.3% 14.7% R N 19.8% ROAD EE 27.8% CR T IVE E E T 8.8% 6.1% HO 5.7% TR S M P LF SON WO 8.7% CAMPBELL DR DR E I W VE RIV EIR D

DRIVE SOU ELL T CAMP B 8.7% H 9.6% BU RNTW TON O 6 E R O OA D D PRINC

12.7% 11.7%

ROA D 3.4%

ROAD

ES HAY Percentage of Population with First Nation Identity - 3.0%

- 34.0%

- 65.0%

No Data

391

M ILLEN IUM T R 23.2% 3.3% AIL E ID DRI RS VE E IV R WEST WO OD D D RIVE ROA 7.4% N 18.6% ORT KE A H L

35.0% Y ER T THOMPSON S 8.2% MY 52.6%

WEST DRI VE WO OD 27.0% DRI 17.0% VE NORTH SOUTH TERLOO MYS A W A VE E V T I 11.0% E R 14.1% R D Y LAKE R 14.8% 11.4% C CTI 47.7% D R A STAT A 41.3% O OAD I R ON 17.7% ROAD EE 26.5% CR T 64.9% E T RIVE 3.7% H D O STRE M P LF SON 29.2% WO

CAMPBELL DRI 62.4% WEIR VE IVE DR

DRIVE SOU ELL T CAMP B 11.6% H11.0%

BUR NTW ON O 6 R OD OAD PRINCET

8.9% 12.9%

R OAD 25.4%

OAD R

ES HAY Type of Housing Stock

Single Family House Row House Apartment (> 5 storeys) Apartment (< 5 storeys) Moveable Dwelling Total Dwellings

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T RAIL E ID DRI S VE

IVER R WE STW OOD D RIVE AD O R 235 165 NO E RT AK L H 165 RY E T THOMPSO 230 YS 230 M N 250 200 WESTW DR IVE OO 170 D DR IVE NORTH 130 SOUTH ERLOO 175 MYS WAT AVE E V TER I

DR Y

LAK

T E C R AD R S O TA A T 195 A 150 RO ION 140 240 D 120 ROAD

EE CR 155 T E T E H STR OMPSON DRIVE 275 LF WO 205 PBELL 160 CAM DRI 150 E W V 305 E RIV EIR D

DRIVE SOU ELL TH CAMP B 130 195 BURN TWOOD 6 N ROA D RINCETO P

175 ROAD130 115 ROAD

S E Y A H Average House Age* - 25.0

- 36.5

- 48.0

No Residential Development *As of 2012

391

M ILLEN IUM T RAIL 44.9

IDE DRI V RS E 39.4 IVE R W ESTW OOD D RIVE AD RO 42.9 N 38.2 ORT KE A L H

Y R E ST THOMPSON 41.5 42.9 MY 33.8

WESTWO DRI VE OD 36.3 DRIVE NORT H SOUTH RLOO MYS ATE W A 28.2 VE E

T 40.1 E RY LAKE R DRIV 39.5 46.8 28.8 C CTI 35.6 R AD STATIO A O 42.7 RO AD N R 47.3 OAD EE 33.4 CR T IVE E 42.1 E T R 37.4 H TR O S M P LF SON 41.2 WO 37.0 CAMPBELL D DR E I WEIR VE 40.7 DRIV DRIVE SOU BELL TH 6 CAMP 36.2 37.0 BU RNTW TON OOD E ROA NC D I PR 40.2 25.7

ROA D 34.2

ROAD

ES HAY Percentage of Houses Constructed Prior to 1970 - 6%

- 53%

- 100% No Residential Development

391

MIL LEN IUM T R 90% AIL E ID DRI RS VE E 70% IV R W ESTWO OD D D RIVE 85% ROA

N 93% ORT KE A L H

Y 83% ER T S THOMPSON 100% MY 24% WEST DRI VE WO OD 50% DRI 11% VE NORTH SOUTH TERLOO MYS A W A VE E V TER I 62% 81% 100% DR Y LAKE R

7% C CTI D R A STAT A O OAD 39% 67% R I ON

ROAD

EE R 90% 35% C 50% ET T 57% HOM DRIVE STRE P LF SON 88% WO 58% CAMPBELL DRI IVE W VE R EIR D

DRIVE 31% SOU 6 ELL T CAMP B H 62%

BUR NTW ON O R OD OAD INCET 92% PR

R OAD 43%

OAD R

ES HAY Average Age - 25.0

- 30.0

- 35.0

No Residential Development

391

M 31.5 ILLEN IUM T R 30.4 AIL E ID DRI RS VE E IV R WEST WO OD D D RIVE ROA 31.4 N ORT 32.4 KE A H L

28.9 Y ER T THOMPSON S 28.3 MY 28.4 WEST DRI VE WO OD 30.3 DRI 31.2 VE NORTH SOUTH TERLOO MYS A W A VE E V T

I E R 33.6 R D 31.7 Y LAKE R

C 28.4 28.9 CTI D R 27.8 A STAT A OAD O I 25.6 R ON 30.7 ROAD EE CR T 27.7 E T RIVE H D 30.7 O 34.2 STRE M P SON 33.5 LF WO 25.1 CAMPBELL DRI WEIR VE IVE DR

DRIVE SOU ELL T CAMP B 30.7 H 35.2 BUR NTW ON O 6 R OD OAD PRINCET

33.4 34.0

ROAD 27.5

OAD R

ES HAY Labour Force Participation Rate - 50%

- 71%

- 92%

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T 73.7% 86.0% RAIL IDE DRI V RS E

IVE R W ESTW OOD D RIVE AD RO 86.4% N ORT 69.1% KE A L H

Y 68.2% R 76.0% E ST THOMPSON MY 73.1% WESTWO DRI VE OD 68.8% DRIVE NORT H SOUTH 81.8% RLOO MYS ATE W A VE E

E 79.8% RY LAKE R DRIV 86.4%

C 71.0% 86.2% CTI R 54.7% AD STATIO A O 77.2% RO AD N R 72.2% OAD EE CR T68.9% VE I E T R E H 76.9% TR O 76.2% S M P LF SON 80.5% WO

CAMPBELL D DR E 67.5% I WEIR VE DRIV

DRIVE SOU BELL TH 79.0% CAMP 73.7% BU RNTW 6 TON OOD E ROA NC D I PR

91.9% 82.1%

ROA D 77.5%

ROAD

ES HAY Percentage of Population with No High School Diploma Attained* - 5%

- 30%

- 55%

No Residential Development *25 to 64 years

391

M 13.8% ILLEN IUM T R 22.5% AIL E ID DRI RS VE E IV R WEST WO OD D D 6.3% RIVE ROA

N 16.3% ORT KE A H L

Y ER T THOMPSON S 28.4% 44.1% MY 21.3% WEST DRI VE WO OD 34.1% DRI VE NORTH 21.1% SOUTH TERLOO MYS A W A VE E V T I 11.3% E R 24.5% R D Y LAKE R 16.7% 14.0% C CTI D R A STAT A O OAD 20.0% 19.0% R I ON 33.3% ROAD EE 48.6% CR T 33.3% E T RIVE 26.4% H D O STRE M P LF SON 40.3% WO 52.7% CAMPBELL DRI WEIR VE IVE DR DRIVE SOU 20.6% ELL T CAMP B 27.5% H

BUR NTW ON O 6 R OD OAD PRINCET

35.1% 24.0%

ROAD 9.7% OAD R

ES HAY Population Change (2006-2011) - 45%

- 9%

- (27%)

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM TR AIL -24% DRIVE

RSIDE

IVE -5% R WESTW OOD DR IVE AD O R -2%

NORTH 9% AKE L

Y R -5% TE S THOMPSO Y N -27% M -8%

DR WESTWO I VE OD -14% DRIVE NORTH 5% SOUTH RLOO MYS WATE 5% A VE E V -1% TER DRI 0% Y LAKE R -14% AD S O T ARCTIC -22% O A T AD 12% R ION

RO AD

-13% CREE -11% -4% T H 45% TREET O S MP DRIVE S ON WOLF BELL -5% P -12% CAM D RI W VE EIR DRIVE

DRIVE SOUT BELL H 6 CAMP 7% 15% BURNT N W TO OO ROAD D CE IN PR

29% -5% ROA D -7%

ROAD

HAYE Population Density (people/hectare) - 2.0

- 32.0

- 62.0

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T 12.3 RAIL

IDE DRI V RS E

IVE 10.1 R W ESTW OOD D RIVE AD RO 34.5 N ORT 6.8 KE A L H

Y R E ST 24.9 THOMPSON 38.5 MY 10.8

WESTWO DRI VE OD 26.6 DRIVE NORT H 24.3 SOUTH RLOO MYS WATE 8.0 A VE E

E 28.7 17.0 RY LAKE R DRIV

20.4 CTI R AD STATIO A O 45.9 RO AD 43.5 N R OAD

EE 61.6 CR 14.4 T IVE E R 38.6 E T H TR O 12.1 S M P LF SON WO 2.6 55.1 CAMPBELL D DR E I WEIR VE DRIV

DRIVE SOU ELL T CAMP B 17.3 H 19.5 BU RNTW 6 TON OOD E ROA NC D I PR

23.5 2.7

ROA D 23.0

ROAD

ES HAY Households Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Payments/Rent - 4%

- 35%

- 66%

No Residential Development

391

M ILLEN IUM T R 20% AIL E ID DRI RS VE E 4% IV R WEST WO OD D D RIVE ROA 12% N 19% ORT KE A H L

Y ER T 27% THOMPSON S 20% MY 32%

WEST DRI VE WO OD 15% DRI 6% VE NORTH SOUTH 33% TERLOO MYS A W A VE E V T I 16% E R 9% R D Y LAKE R

29% C CTI D R A STAT A O OAD 48% 39% R I ON 16% ROAD EE 25% CR 6% ET 55% T RIVE H D O STRE M P SON 17% LF WO 44% CAMPBELL DRI WEIR VE IVE 19% DR DRIVE SOU 15% ELL T CAMP B H

BUR NTW ON O 6 R OD OAD PRINCET

17% 19%

ROAD 13%

OAD R

ES HAY THE THOMPSON ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION WORKING GROUP ACTION PLAN #4: LOCAL AND REGIONAL IDENTITY - CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT

| 63

Province of Manitoba | Northern Association of Community Councils | Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation | Thompson Chamber of Commerce | Vale