Northeast Ontario Labour Market Monitor

RESEARCH REPORT [Dave Plumstead, Research Analyst] [Jean-Guy Belzile, Manager, Emergency Medical Services This report includes two updates on population /dwellings and labour force:

1. POPULATION and PRIVATE DWELLING UPDATE – NIPISSING DISTRICT, 2011

On February 8 2012, Statistics Canada released the population and dwelling counts from the 2011 census. A full report on these two variables will be forthcoming to the Board. In the meantime, this report offers a brief overview of the data.

The population and dwelling counts are the first data release from the 2011 census of population. The remaining census variables and release dates are as follows:

Age and Sex: May 29, 2012 Families, Households, Marital Status: September 19, 2012 Structural type of dwellings: September 19, 2012 Language: October 24, 2012

Unless stated otherwise, the data in this part of the report has been sourced from: Statistics Canada. 2012. Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, census divisions, and census subdivisions (municipalities), 2011 and 2006 censuses (table). Population and Dwelling Count Highlight Tables. 2011 Census.

2. LABOUR FORCE UPDATE – NORTHERN ONTARIO, JANUARY 2012

The past monthly Board reports have included information and data from the Northeast Labour Market Monitor (LMM) which is produced by Service Canada. However, starting in October 2011, the Labour Market Monitor underwent change and it no longer includes the “Labour Force Trends” section specific to the Northeast. Instead, unemployment rates for the economic regions are now included in the Ontario Labour Market Bulletin and the analysis is at a broader level for Ontario’s 11 economic regions.

The analysis in the trends section of the Northeast Labour Market Monitor was based on monthly data from the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey. This data is now available (free of charge) through the Statistics Canada CANSIM database.1 To provide the Board with a labour force update at the regional level, the unemployment and participation rates for Ontario’s 11 Economic Regions are presented along with a brief description of the data.

When viewing the labour force data for Northern Ontario it is important to keep the geographical perspective in mind. Northern Ontario accounts for 88% of Ontario’s land area but only 6% of the population. Thus the aggregated unemployment and participation rates for the Northern regions may not accurately reflect the various sub-regional labour market conditions across the North.

Unless stated otherwise, the data in this part of the report has been sourced from: Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 282-0054 - Labour force survey estimates (LFS), by provinces and economic regions based on 2006 Census boundaries, 3-month moving average, unadjusted for seasonality.

1 CANSIM is Statistics Canada’s national socioeconomic database.

1. At a Glance: Population and Dwellings, Nipissing District 2011

Nipissing District’s 2011 census population is 84,736 people which represents 0.6% of Ontario’s population (12,851,820). This represents a population change of 48 people (0.05%) since the last census count in 2006. In addition to population counts, this first census data release includes the number of “private dwellings” which provides insight into household growth.2 Based on the 2011 census, there are 36,145 private dwellings in Nipissing District which is up 3.5% from the 2006 count of 34,928 dwellings.3 So household growth in the district continues to outpace population growth as noted in past DNSSAB studies and reports. Although the composition of the district’s 2011 population and households is not yet known, one might speculate that a significant trend continues to drive this household growth: more people are living alone (increase in single households).

1.1 Population: Nipissing District’s Municipalities and Areas

Nipissing District’s population continues to be derived from the same 15 geographical areas as in the past. These areas are comprised of 11 municipalities, two unorganized areas and two First Nations. The table below shows the district’s 2011 sub-populations by area, in descending order starting with the largest population (note: Temagami First Nation was not enumerated in the 2011 census so there is no data available):

Table 1. Population, Population, Municipality / Area, 2011 # % North Bay 53,651 63.3 West Nipissing /Nipissing Ouest 14,149 16.7 East Ferris 4,512 5.3 Mattawa 2,023 2.4 Bonfield 2,016 2.4 Nipissing Unorganized North 1,853 2.2 Nipissing First Nation 1,450 1.7 Chisholm 1,263 1.5 South Algonquin 1,211 1.4 Papineau-Cameron 978 1.2 Temagami 820 1.0 Calvin 568 0.7 Mattawan 162 0.2 Nipissing Unorganized South 80 0.1 Total 84,736 100.0

2 Statistics Canada defines private dwellings as “A separate set of living quarters designed for or converted for human habitation in which a person or group of persons reside or could reside. In addition, a private dwelling must have a source of heat or power and must be an enclosed space that provides shelter from the elements, as evidenced by complete and enclosed walls and roof and by doors and windows that provide protection from wind, rain and snow”. While this definition is different than that of a “household”, the number of private dwellings and the number of households closely approximate to each other. For example, in the 2006 census, there was a 0.2% difference between the number of “private dwellings” and the number of “households” in Nipissing District.

3 After the publication of the 2006 census dwelling counts, Statistics Canada revised the dwelling counts for Nipissing South and East Ferris. The district’s 3.5% change between 2006 and 2011 is based on the revised dwelling counts – not the original counts. See footnote # 6.

It is interesting to note that in terms of relative population size and share, the above table has the same order it did five years ago, except that Mattawa and Bonfield have traded places. Population composition aside, this indicates a similar geographic distribution of people within Nipissing District.

1.2 Population Change: Nipissing District’s Municipalities and Areas

As mentioned earlier, Nipissing District’s population has basically remained the same over the past five years. However, the population has not remained constant across the municipalities and areas during this period – in fact, some of the municipalities and areas have experienced population growth while others have experienced decline. The following chart shows the relative population change for the district’s municipalities and areas, in order of the area with the highest growth to the area with the highest decline:

Although Nipissing South4 Figure 1 Population Change in Nipissing District's and Mattawan have had the largest population Municipalities and Areas: 2006 to 2011 growth in Nipissing District 25 in relative terms, their 20 populations are very small (Table 1) so this growth 15 represents a small number 10 of people (less than 30). 5 West Nipissing’s

% change 0 population has grown by 5.5% which is comparable -5 to the provincial growth

-10 Calvin rate – this equates to

Bonfield

Mattawa

Chisholm

North Bay

Pap.-Cam.

East Ferris Mattawan

-15 Temagami approximately 740 more Nipissing 10

South Algon. people living in the

West Nipissing Nipissing South Nipissing North municipality. Nipissing North and Nipissing First Nation have had population growth rates of 3.1% and 2.6% respectively, for a combined total of approximately 90 people. Rounding off the district’s areas with population growth are East Ferris5 and Bonfield at 1.8% each (total of 116 people) and Mattawa at 1.0% (20 people).

In terms of population decline in the district over the five-year period, Temagami experienced the greatest relative loss of -12.2% (114 people). Papineau-Cameron was next at -7.6% (80 people) followed by Calvin at -6.6% (40 people), Chisholm at -4.2% (55 people) and South Algonquin at -3.4% (42 people). While the district’s largest city – North Bay – had the smallest relative population decline of -0.6%, this translates into the largest absolute decline (315 people) in this group.

4 After the publication of the 2006 census population counts, Statistics Canada revised Nipissing South’s population downward from 571 to 67 (due to data error). The percentage change in Nipissing South’s population between 2006 and 2011 is based on the revised 2006 count – not the original count.

5 After the publication of the 2006 census population counts, Statistics Canada revised East Ferris’ population upward from 4,228 to 4,431 (due to data error). The percentage change in East Ferris’ population between 2006 and 2011 is based on the revised 2006 count – not the original count.

1.3 Private Dwellings: Nipissing District’s Municipalities and Areas

Table 2. Dwelling, Dwelling, The Table to the left shows the Municipality / Area, 2011 # % distribution of Nipissing District’s North Bay 23,257 64.3 private dwellings in descending order, West Nipissing /Nipissing Ouest 6,021 16.6 starting with the municipality /area that East Ferris 1,699 4.7 has the largest number of dwellings. Mattawa 854 2.4 It’s not surprising that the distribution Bonfield 794 2.2 of dwellings follows that of population Nipissing Unorganized North 791 2.2 (Table 1 above), with the exception of Nipissing First Nation 587 1.6 South Algonquin and Chisholm which South Algonquin 555 1.5 have traded places. And similar to Chisholm 485 1.3 population, this indicates that the Papineau-Cameron 385 1.1 district has the same geographical Temagami 386 1.1 distribution of private dwellings as it Calvin 224 0.6 did in the past. Mattawan 75 0.2 Nipissing Unorganized South 32 0.1 Total 36,145 100.0

1.4 Private Dwelling Change: Nipissing District’s Municipalities and Areas

Figure 2 As mentioned earlier, the Figure 2 Change in Number of Private Dwellings in number of private dwellings in Nipissing Nipissing District's Municipalities and Areas: District has increased by 2006 to 2011 3.5% (1,217) since 2006. The chart to the left shows 30% the relative change in the 25% 20% number of private 15% dwellings between 2006 10% and 2011, in the district’s

5% municipalities and areas.6 % change 0% The chart presents the -5% -10% data in order of the area

Calvin with the largest increase

Bonfield

Mattawa Chisholm

North Bay in dwellings to the area

Pap.-Cam.

East Ferris

Mattawan

Temagami Nipissing 10

South Algon. with the largest decrease.

West Nipissing Nipissing South

Nipissing North Given that the distribution of dwellings closely resembles that of population, it’s not surprising that the above chart looks similar to the chart showing

6 After the publication of the 2006 census dwelling counts, Statistics Canada revised Nipissing South’s dwelling count downward from 249 to 25, and East Ferris’ count upward from 1,560 to 1,638. The percentage change in dwellings for these areas is based on the revised 2006 counts – not the original counts.

4 the change in population (Figure 1). It can be noted that for most of the municipalities and areas, the change in the number of private dwellings is in the same direction as the change in population (i.e. increase or decrease). The exceptions are Calvin, Mattawa and North Bay where the change in the number of dwellings is opposite to the change in population.

In absolute terms, North Bay and West Nipissing have had an increase of 665 and 447 private dwellings respectively, accounting for 92% of the districts total growth in dwellings. Where North Bay is concerned, this may seem counterintuitive as the city’s population actually decreased by 315 people over the same period. While it would be prudent to first confirm the integrity of the data with Statistics Canada, the rising number of singles and single households in the population, could help to explain this phenomenon of household growth. For example, over the 10-year period from 1991 to 2001, North Bay’s census population decreased by 2,635 people. However, during this same period, the number of households in the city increased by 780. Also during this period, the city had an increase (21.5%) of 1,035 single households (DNSSAB, 2008).

Until the integrity of the 2011 census data for North Bay is confirmed, and the composition of North Bay’s households is known (September 2012 data release), it is difficult to say with certainty where the discrepancy between the city’s household and population growth lie. But suffice it to say, if the trend of more people living alone continues, household growth will continue to outpace population growth.

References

District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board. (2008). Nipissing District Housing Needs, Supply & Affordability Study (p. 39, Figure 23; p. j, “Household Types: North Bay, 1986-2006”).

2. At a Glance: Unemployment by Economic Region, January 2012

Ontario’s unemployment rate is currently 7.4% (Jan. 2012) and the unemployment rate by Economic Region can be noted on the map below:

Figure 3

The map shows that unemployment ranges from a low of 4.3% in the Stratford-Bruce Peninsula area to a high of 9.7% in Windsor-Sarnia. With the exception of the Stratford-Bruce Peninsula area, unemployment is currently lower in Northern and Eastern Ontario, and higher in Central and Southwestern Ontario.

2.1 Change in Unemployment by Economic Region

The following chart shows the year-over-year change in unemployment between the regions, listed in order from the largest decrease in unemployment to the largest increase: The annual change in Figure 4 unemployment ranges Annual Change in Unemployment between a – 3.4% decrease in the 12.0 10.0 Muskoka-Kawarthas 8.0 and a 0.7% increase in 6.0 the Windsor-Sarnia 4.0 area. In Northern 2.0 Ontario, the Northwest 0.0

region has seen a unemployment rate, %

significant decrease in

Ottawa London

unemployment since the Toronto

Niagara

Kingston-

Hamilton-

Northeast

Muskoka-

Pembroke Kawarthas

same time last year Northwest Peninsula

while in the Northeast, Kitcener-

Windsor-Sarnia Stratford-Bruce the decrease has been Waterloo-Barrie a marginal one. Jan 2011 Jan 2012 Generally, between January 2011 and 2012 most of Ontario’s regions have had a decrease in unemployment – the exceptions are London, Toronto and the Windsor-Sarnia area, which have had increases.

2.2 Annual Unemployment Trend: Northern Ontario and Ontario

During the past 12 months, Ontario’s Figure 5 Annual Unemployment Trend: Northern Ontario and unemployment rate has Ontario, January 2011 to 2012 hovered around the 8% mark until the later part 12 of the year when it 10 notably started to decrease. While 8 Northern Ontario Ontario followed a similar 6 unemployment trend, 4 Northeast the changes have been Northwest 2

more pronounced. unemployment rate, %

Jul-11

Jan-11 Jan-12

Jun-11

Oct-11

Apr-11

Feb-11 Sep-11

Dec-11

Aug-11

Nov-11

Mar-11 May-11

Unemployment in Northwestern and Northeastern Ontario increased during the first and second quarters, peaking at 10% and 9% respectively. The unemployment rate then started a marked decline in both regions, and by June, unemployment in the Northwest was lower than Ontario. The Northeast followed suit four months later and both northern regions are now 1.5% below the provincial unemployment rate. This is bucking the longer-term historical trend whereby Northern Ontario has generally experienced higher unemployment rates than Ontario.

3. At a Glance: Participation Rate by Economic Region, January 2012

Ontario’s participation rate is currently 65.9% (Jan. 2012) and the participation rate by Economic Region can be noted on the map below:

Figure 6

The map shows that labour force participation ranges from a low of 59.4% in Northeastern Ontario to a high of 70.3% in the Kitchener-Waterloo- Barrie area.

3.1 Change in Participation by Economic Region

The following chart shows the year-over-year change in labour force participation rates between the regions, listed in order from the largest decrease in participation to the largest increase: The change in participation ranges Figure 7 from a decrease of Annual Change in Participation – 1.7% in Toronto to an 80.0 increase of 4.6% in 70.0 60.0 Northwestern Ontario. 50.0 It’s interesting to note 40.0 that while the 30.0 20.0 participation rate 10.0 0.0 increased significantly participation rate, % in the Northwest over

the same time last

Ottawa

London Toronto

year, it dropped slightly Niagara

Kingston-

Hamilton-

Northeast

Muskoka-

Pembroke

Kawarthas

Northwest Peninsula

in the Northeast. Kitcener- Windsor-Sarnia

Stratford-Bruce Waterloo-Barrie When taken in conjunction with the Jan 2011 Jan 2012 change in unemployment over the same time period (figure 4), the data shows that the regions with the largest increase in participation also had the largest decrease in unemployment (and vice versa). Or in other words, the largest labour force expansion in Ontario during this period, occurred in the regions which had the largest increase in jobs.

3.2 Annual Participation Trend: Northern Ontario and Ontario

During the past year, Ontario’s participation rate was steady during the winter and into early spring. The rate then increased through the summer and into fall, when it started to decrease again (as the data is not adjusted for Figure 8 seasonality, this trend is Annual Participation Trend: Northern Ontario and speaking to the seasonal nature of Ontario, January 2011 to 2012 employment). It can be 70 noted that while the 68 participation rate of 66 Northeastern Ontario is well below that of the 64 province, it followed the 62 Ontario same trend during the 60 Northeast period. 58 Northwest participation participation rate, % 56