Page 1 of 7 MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 1:00 PM Middlesex County Building 399 Ridout Street North, London
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER AND WARDEN’S REMARKS
Changes to the Agenda: Item A. 6 – Swift Update has been added to the agenda.
Under the Closed Session, Item 13 c – Personnel – this item has been removed from the agenda and will be presented at the next meeting
2. PROVISION FOR DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
4. MINUTES
a) Minutes of the Middlesex County Council meeting held on May 23, 2017 4 a - CC - June 13 - CC Minutes - May 23, 2017
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That the minutes of the Middlesex County Council meeting held on May 23, 2017 be approved as presented.
b) Closed Session Minutes of the Middlesex County Council meeting held on May 23, 2017. (paper copy handed out to members of council)
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That the closed session minutes of the Middlesex County Council meeting held on May 23, 2017 be approved as presented.
5. DEPUTATIONS
6. ENQUIRIES OR NOTICES OF MOTION
Councillor Maudsley gave Notice of Motion under Item #6 at the May 23, 2017 Middlesex County Council meeting as follows: Page 2 of 7 Notice of Motion is hereby given to reconsider the following motion made at the March 8, 2016 – County Council Session as follows: “That no changes be made to Middlesex County governance” at the 1:00 p.m, Tuesday, June 13, 2017 Middlesex County Council meeting.
Councillor Maudsley noted that he will be requesting the CAO to prepare a report for the June 27, 2017 meeting on governance options for Middlesex County that focusses on the implementation of directly elected representatives for the County of Middlesex. The report should provide a number of options for potential implementation, pros and cons of direct election, legislative requirements and implementation timing and a decision making schedule. The County Clerk was provided with the Notice of Motion in writing.
7. REPORTS
a) Middlesex County Library Board Minutes held on May 23, 2017, Fifth Report 7 a - CC - June 13 - Library Board Minutes - May 23, 2017 Councillor Maudsley, will present the Fifth Report
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That the Fifth Report of the Middlesex County Library Board be received
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. COUNCILLOR'S COMMENTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
10. BY-LAWS
a) A BY-LAW to enter into an employment agreement with Ms. Bettina Weber with respect to the position of Community Emergency Management Co-ordinator for the County of Middlesex for the period April 15, 2017 to April 15, 2019 10 a - CC - June 13 - Agreement - Bettina Weber -CEMC -
b) A By-Law to confirm proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex – June 13, 2017 10 b - CC - June 13 - Confirming By-law - June 13, 2017
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That first and second reading of the By-laws be given:
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That third and final reading of the preceding By-laws be given. Page 3 of 7
10 minute Recess if required
11. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
A. DELEGATIONS / REPORTS OF COUNTY OFFICERS
1. Progress Report to Middlesex County Council on the MLEMS Multi-Use Facility A 1 - CW - June 13 - MLEMS Headquarters Update for Council June 13, 2017 Power point presentation by Jason Sparks, MLEMS Logistics Coordinator and Al Hunt, Deputy Chief of Operations
2. Bargaining Update A 2 - CW - June 13 - BARGAINING PROCESS JUNE 13, 2017 Power point presentation by Doug Spettigue, Human Resource Manager
3. Building Official Services A 3 - CW - June 13 - Building Official Services Power point presentation by Bill Rayburn, CAO
4. Budgeting Software A 4 - CW - June 13 - Budgeting Software-Questica Council Presentation June 13 2017 Power point presentation by Cindy Howard, Director of Finance and Community Services
5. Local Planning Service Update A 5 - CW - June 13 - Local Planning Service Update - June 13, 2017 Power point presentation by Durk Vanderwerff, Director of Planning
6. SWIFT Update (Added item to the agenda) A 6 - CW - June 13 - Swift update Power point presentation by Bill Rayburn, CAO
B. ACTION ITEMS
1. Treatment of Vacant and Excess Land and Vacant Unit Rebates B 1 - CW Action - June 13 -Vacancy Reform Report from Cindy Howard, Director of Finance and Community Services
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That administration further consult with the Treasurers at the local municipalities to determine the need to pursue these vacancy reforms for the 2018 taxation year and develop a process to engage the business community. Administration will report back with recommendations for Council.
2. 2017 Property Tax Capping Parameters This report will be presented to County council at the June 27, 2017 meeting Page 4 of 7 Report from Cindy Howard, Director of Finance and Community Services
C. CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATION ITEMS
1. General Payables to May 31, 2017 totalling $437,546.54 C 1 - CW Info - June 13 - General Payables 3-31 May 2017
2. Planning Payables to May 31, 2017 totalling $5,311.24 C 2 - CW Info - June 13 - Planning Payables 3-31 May 2017
3. Electronic Payments for the month of May 2017 totalling $1,499,544.68 C 3 - CW Info - June 13 - Electronic Payments- May 2017
4. Social Services Payables to May 31, 2017 totalling $227,444.41 C 4 - CW Info - June 13 - Social Services Payables 3-31 May 2017
5. Strathmere Lodge Payables to May 31, 2017 totalling $174,996.97 C 5 - CW Info - June 13 - Strathmere Lodge Payables 3-31 May 2017
6. Road Payables to May 31, 2017 totalling $582,786.59 C 6 - CW Info - June 13 - Roads Payables 3-31 May 2017
7. MLEMS Payables to May 31, 2017 totalling $2,223,928.79 C 7 - CW Info - June 13 - MLEMS Payables 3-31 May 2017
8. IT Payables to May 31, 2017 totalling $42,203.83 C 8 - CW Info - June 13 - IT Payables 3-31 May 2017
9. Economic Development Payables to May 31, 2017 totalling $12,081.47 C 9 - CW Info - June 13 - Economic Development Payables 3-31 May 2017
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That Items C.1 – CW through C.9 – CW, (Payables) be received for information.
10. Strathmere Lodge - Family, Friend and Responsible Party Newsletter – June 2017 C 10 - CW Info - June 13 - Strathmere Lodge FamilyNewsletter-June2017
11. AdvantAge Ontario Action Update Newsletter dated May 2017. (Formerly known as the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors (OAHNSS) Newsletter) C 11 - CW Info - June 13 - AdvantAge Ontario-Seniors Update-May17-B
12. South West LHIN update entitled “Transition day for the South West CCAC and South West LHIN” dated May 24, 2017 C 12 - CW Info - June 13 - LHIN-CCAC integration - HSP memo - May 24-17
13. South West LHIN update entitled “Residential hospice planning in the South West LHIN – Update” dated May 31, 2017 C 13 - CW Info - June 13 - SWLHIN-Communique5_RH_Regional_Planning_Update Page 5 of 7
14. AMO Update entitled “Members’ Update – Changing Workplaces Final Report Released” dated May 23, 2017 C 14- CW Info - June 13 - AMO Update - May 23
15. AMO Update entitled “Province Announces Emergency Services Changes Including Dispatch and Fire-Medic Pilots” dated June 5, 2017 C 15 - CW Info - June 13 - AMO Update - June 5
16. AMO Update entitled “Ontario Announces New Proposed Changes to the Land Use Planning and Appeal System” dated May 16, 2017 C 16 - CW Info - June 13 - AMO Update - May 16 - OMB Changes
17. Letter from the Rural Ontario Institute enclosing a copy of the publication “Focus on Rural Ontario 2016 Fact Sheet Series” C 17 - CW Info - June 13 - Rural Ontario Institute - fact sheets
18. Final Approval of Pemic Komoka (Prince Street) Phase IV Plan of Subdivision, File 39T- 97004, Middlesex Centre C 18 - CW Info - June 13 - FA-39T-97004-Middlesex Centre Report from Durk Vanderwerff, Director of Planning
19. Final Approval of Prosperity Development Plan of Condominium, File 39T-AM- CDM1501, Adelaide Metcalfe C 19 - CW Info - June 13 - FA-39T-AM-CDM1501 Report from Durk Vanderwerff, Director of Planning
20. Letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with respect to The Proposed Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, dated May 31, 2017 C 20 - CW Info - June 13 - MMA 17-73913
21. Middlesex County Fire Inspection Activity – May 2017 C 21 - CW Info - June 13 - FPO Activity May 2017 Report from John Elston, Fire Prevention Officer
22. Ministry of Labour News Release entitled “Proposed Changes to Ontario’s Employment and Labour Laws” C 22 - CW Info - June 13 - proposed-changes-to-ontarios-employment-and-labour-laws
23. Letter from the Minister of Labour with respect to employers submitting information about post-traumatic stress disorder prevention plans C 23 - CW Info - June 13 - Message from the Minister of Labour
24. Notice from the Ontario Energy Board to customers of Hydro One Networks Inc to raise electricity distribution rates and other changes C 24 - CW Info - June 13 - OEB_Notice_to_Hydro_One_Networks_Customers_May_2017_ENGLISH
25. Notice of Public Open House #1 for the Middlesex County Cycling Strategy scheduled for Thursday, June 29, 2017 in Strathroy and Dorchester libraries C 25 - CW Info - June 13 - Notice of Public Open House #1 - 06.05.17
26. FreshSpoke Workshop for local food producers or wholesalers Page 6 of 7 C 26 - CW Info - June 13 - FRESHSPOKE - SOUTH CENTRAL ONTARIO INFO SESSIONS.compressed
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That Items C.10 – CW through C.26 – CW be received for information.
12. INQUIRIES
13. NEW BUSINESS
a) Next County Council Meetings: 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 12, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 26, 2016 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 10, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 28, 2017 4:00 p.m., Thursday, December 7, 2017 - Inaugural 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 19, 2017
CLOSED SESSION
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That the next portion of the meeting be closed to the public in order to consider a labour relations or employee negotiation pursuant to subsection 239 (2) (c) of the Municipal Act.
b) Strathmere Lodge Lands (to be handed out at the meeting) Power point presentation by Bill Rayburn, CAO
c) Personnel Verbal Report from Wayne Meagher, County Solicitor This item has been removed from the agenda and will be presented at the next meeting
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That County Council resume from its closed session
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS Page 7 of 7 Wednesday, June 14, 2017 – Middlesex Wardens Charity Golf Tournament
Saturday, November, 25, 2017 – Middlesex County Wardens Banquet
15. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by ______
Seconded by ______
That the meeting adjourn at p.m.
Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. Please contact Kathy Bunting, County Clerk to make a request. [email protected] June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 8 4 a - CC
MAY 23, 2017 - MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, County Building London, 1:00 pm, Tuesday, May 23, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND WARDEN’S REMARKS
Council met with all members present except Councillor Meyer. Warden Shipway presided.
2. PROVISION FOR DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF None.
3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None.
4. MINUTES
a) Minutes of the Middlesex County Council meeting held on April 25, 2017
Moved by Councillor Blackmore Seconded by Councillor Edmondson That the minutes of the Middlesex County Council meeting held on April 25, 2017 be approved as presented. Carried.
b) Closed Session Minutes of the Middlesex County Council meeting held on April 25, 2017. (paper copy handed out to members of council)
Moved by Councillor Maudsley Seconded by Councillor DeViet That the closed session minutes of the Middlesex County Council meeting held on April 25, 2017 be approved as presented. Carried.
5. DEPUTATIONS
a) VON Middlesex-Elgin Update • Presentation by Julie Simpson, Fund Development Coordinator Sarah Bongers also spoke with respect to both being a volunteer and recipient of VON services. June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 8 4 a - CC
6. ENQUIRIES OR NOTICES OF MOTION
Councillor Maudsley advised that he was providing Notice of Motion under Item #6 on the Middlesex County Council agenda as follows: Notice of Motion is hereby given to reconsider the following motion made at the March 8, 2016 – County Council Session as follows: “That no changes be made to Middlesex County governance” at the 1:00 p.m, Tuesday, June 13, 2017 Middlesex County Council meeting.
Councillor Maudsley noted that he will be requesting the CAO to prepare a report for the June 27, 2017 meeting on governance options for Middlesex County that focusses on the implementation of directly elected representatives for the County of Middlesex. The report should provide a number of options for potential implementation, pros and cons of direct election, legislative requirements and implementation timing and a decision making schedule.
The County Clerk was provided with the Notice of Motion in writing.
7. REPORTS
a) Middlesex County Library Board Minutes held on April 25, 2017, Fourth Report • Councillor Maudsley, presented the Fourth Report
Moved by Councillor Maudsley Seconded by Councillor Richards That the Fourth Report of the Middlesex County Library Board be received. Carried.
8. NEW BUSINESS
a) Request for Proposals: New Four Corners Garage Facility - Contract Eng- 2017-010 • Report from Chris Traini, County Engineer
Moved by Councillor Vanderheyden Seconded by Councillor Edmondson That the proposal by Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd for Contract ENG-2017-010 for the design and contract administration for the new Four Corners garage facility be approved. Carried.
June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 8 4 a - CC
b) Information Technology Purchasing Under the Ministry of Ontario Government and Consumer Services Vendor of Record Program • Report from Morgan Calvert, Director of Information Technology Systems
Moved by Councillor DeViet Seconded by Councillor Wilkins That given the equal opportunity, equal treatment, fair process, and the attach ability of the Ministry of Ontario Government and Consumer Services’ procurement processes under its Vendor of Record Program and the cost savings which can be realized by the County of Middlesex under said program, participation in the Ministry of Ontario Government and Consumer Services’ Vendor of Record co-operative purchase venture serves the best interest of the County of Middlesex; That the County of Middlesex’s participation in the Ministry of Ontario Government and Consumer Services’ Vendor of Record Program is hereby authorized; and That the Director of Information Technology Services is hereby authorized on behalf of the County of Middlesex in his or her discretion, to authorize, endorse and administer Information Technology purchase contracts on behalf of the County of Middlesex under the Ministry of Ontario Government and Consumer Services’ Vendor of Record Program where such purchases are within the pre- authorized annual budgets approved by Council. Carried.
c) Quotations for Concrete Curb and Gutter and Gutter Outlets – 2017 • Report from Jerry Rychlo, Engineering Supervisor
Moved by Councillor Maudsley Seconded by Councillor Smith That the quotation submitted by Hav-All Concrete and Construction in the amount of $104,430.00 before HST for concrete curb and gutter and gutter outlets be accepted. Carried.
9. COUNCILLOR'S COMMENTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
10. BY-LAWS
Moved by Councillor Maudsley Seconded by Councillor Ropp That first and second reading of the By-laws be given: Carried. June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 8 4 a - CC
#6856 - A BY-LAW to enter into an agreement with LEADS Employment Services London Inc., with respect to participation in Middlesex County’s Ontario Works program and to provide employment placement and/or the acquisition of life skills for Ontario Works recipients
#6857 - A By-Law to confirm proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex – May 23, 2017
Moved by Councillor Richards Seconded by Councillor Wilkins That third and final reading of the preceding By-laws be given. Carried.
11. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
A. DELEGATIONS / REPORTS OF COUNTY OFFICERS
1. Middlesex County Source Protection Plan Implementation • Power point presentation by Meghan Lippert and Pierre Chauvin of MHBC Planning
2. Middlesex County Resident Life Survey – Middlesex County Report, May 2017 • Report from Cara Finn, Director of Economic Development
B. ACTION ITEMS
None.
C. CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATION ITEMS
1. General Payables to April 27, 2017 totalling $435,043.24
2. Planning Payables to April 27, 2017 totalling $1,771.63
3. Electronic Payments for the month of April 2017 totalling $1,749,048.70
4. Social Services Payables to April 27, 2017 totalling $243,760.80
5. Strathmere Lodge Payables to April 27, 2017 totalling $155,146.08
6. Road Payables to April 27, 2017 totalling $532,707.14
7. MLEMS Payables to April 27, 2017 totalling $2,297,473.18
June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 8 4 a - CC
8. IT Payables to April 27, 2017 totalling $77,445.47
9. Economic Development Payables to April 27, 2017 totalling $15,807.89
Moved by Councillor Richards Seconded by Councillor Burghardt-Jesson That Items C.1 – CW through C.9 – CW, (Payables) be received for information. Carried.
10. Strathmere Lodge - Family, Friend and Responsible Party Newsletter – May 2017
11. Strathmere Lodge Medical Director’s Annual Report for 2016 – 2017 from Dr. Philip Vandewalle
12. Road Closures 2017 • Report from Jerry Rychlo, Engineering Supervisor
13. 2017 Annual Repayment Limited • Report from Cindy Howard, Treasurer
14. AMO Policy Update entitled “Province Announces Fair Housing Plan for Ontario” dated April 20, 2017
15. AMO Policy Update entitled “Waste Diversion – The Blue Box Today and Tomorrow” dated April 20, 2017
16. AMO Policy Update entitled “Federal Cannabis Legislation Tabled” dated April 20, 2017
17. AMO Update entitled “2017 Provincial Budget Delivered” dated April 27, 2017
18. AMO Update entitled “Province Announces Details of Basic Income Pilot” dated April 24, 2017
19. Middlesex-London Health Unit 2016 Annual Report
20. Letter from the City of London announcing the initiation of two major waste management projects and inquiring if there would be interest in a regional service area
21. Middlesex County Connect to Innovate Applications • Report from Morgan Calvert, Director of Information Technology Services
June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 8 4 a - CC
22. Middlesex County Fire Inspection – April 2017 • Report from John Elston, Fire Prevention Officer
23. 2016 Joint Annual Memorandum of Understanding Statement between the Province of Ontario and AMO
24. Notice of Proposed Change to an Approved Renewal Energy Project, Jericho Wind Energy Centre to allow for the installation of acoustic bat deterrent devices on three different turbines
25. Invitation to the Middlesex Hospital Alliance, Four Counties Health Services Site 50th Anniversary Celebration on June 9th and 10th, 2017
26. OGRA Board Highlights – April 2017
27. Strathmere Lodge Occupancy and Activity Report – April 2017 • Report from Brent Kerwin, Strathmere Lodge Administrator
28. Social Services Report – April 2017 • Report from Cindy Howard, General Manager of Finance & Community Services
29. Final Approval of 1571145 Ontario Ltd., Bella Lago Estates Plan of Condominium; File 39T-MC-CDM1301, Middlesex Centre • Report from Durk Vanderwerff, Director of Planning
30. Final Approval of Mill Road Reality Plan of Subdivision; File 39T-TC-1501, Thames Centre • Report from Durk Vanderwerff, Director of Planning
31. Notice from the Ontario Energy Board advising that Union Gas Limited has applied to dispose of certain account balances and for the approval of the amount of its earnings that it must share with customers
32. Information from the South West LHIN providing information of the integration of the South West CCAC and the South West LHIN on May 24, 2017
33 Letter from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation advising of changes to the Assessment Review Board – Rules of Practice and Procedure
34. Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Complaint Inspection • Report from Brent Kerwin, Strathmere Lodge Administrator
June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 8 4 a - CC
35. Letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs advising they will not be moving forward with the requirements requiring regular inspections, pumping, and record keeping for septic tanks
36. Community Paramedicine Funding Update • Report from Neal Roberts, Chief, MLEMS and Director of Emergency Services
Moved by Councillor Maudsley Seconded by Councillor Burghardt-Jesson That Items C.10 – CW through C.36 – CW be received for information. Carried.
12. INQUIRIES
13. NEW BUSINESS a) Next County Council Meetings: 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 12, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 26, 2016 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 10, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 28, 2017 4:00 p.m., Thursday, December 7, 2017 - Inaugural 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 19, 2017
CLOSED SESSION (2:40 p.m.)
Moved by Councillor Blackmore Seconded by Councillor Richards That the next portion of the meeting be closed to the public in order to consider a labour relations or employee negotiation, and a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board pursuant to subsection 239 (2) (c and d) of the Municipal Act with the MLEMS Chief, MLEMS Logistics Coordinator, County Solicitor, County Engineer and General Manager of Finance and Community Services, and County Clerk in attendance. Carried. June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 8 4 a - CC
b) Community Emergency Management Co-ordinator Employment Contract (Report was handed out at the meeting • Report from Chris Traini, County Engineer
c) Ambulance Station Replacement Update (Report was handed out at the meeting) • Report from Neal Roberts, Chief, MLEMS and Director of Emergency Services
The MLEMS Chief, MLEMS Logistics Coordinator, and County Engineer, have now left the meeting.
d) Personnel • Verbal Report from Warden Shipway and Wayne Meagher, County Solicitor
Moved by Councillor Maudsley Seconded by Councillor Wilkins That County Council resume from its closed session (3:15 p.m.) Carried.
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Wednesday, June 14, 2017 – Middlesex Wardens Charity Golf Tournament
Saturday, November, 25, 2017 – Middlesex County Wardens Banquet
15. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Councillor Ropp Seconded by Councillor Maudsley That the meeting adjourn at 3:16 p.m. Carried.
______Kathleen Bunting, County Clerk Don Shipway, Warden June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 3 7 a - CC
FIFTH REPORT MIDDLESEX COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 10:00 AM Middlesex County Building, CAO Board Room
Members: Councillor Jim Maudsley, Chair; Councillor Marigay Wilkins and Citizen Appointees: Ian Brebner and Dave Jones. Also present was Lindsay Brock, County Librarian.
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Provision for disclosure of pecuniary interest. None.
2. Minutes of the Library Board Meetings held on April 25, 2017
Moved by Councillor Wilkins Seconded by Dave Jones That the Minutes of the Middlesex County Library Board meeting held on April 25, 2017 be approved as presented Carried.
3. Visioning Topic: Glencoe Library Building Project Update
An update on the Glencoe Library building project was provided, including work done by the Building Committee to this point. The draft floorplan of the new library was examined and discussed – highlights included the program room, service partner offices, quiet study rooms, feature wall, and outdoor reading garden. A tentative ground-breaking ceremony has been scheduled for Saturday, July 22 – the County Librarian will confirm this date and provide the Board with a formal invitation.
B. ACTION ITEMS None.
C. CORRESPONDENCE AND INFORMATION ITEMS
1. System Circulation and System Internet Usage to April 2017 (with 2016 for comparison)
2. Information Services Usage Statistics – April 2017
3. Accounts Payable to May 12, 2017 totalling $96,367.11
4. Newspaper articles concerning Middlesex County libraries
June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 3 7 a - CC
5. County Librarian Update • Report from Lindsay Brock, County Librarian
6. Employment and Government Information Services Activity Report – April 2017 • Report from Lindsay Brock, County Librarian
7. Copy of a letter to the Estate of Murry Elliott thanking them for the generous bequest to the Thorndale Library
8. SOLS Signal Newsletter – May 5, 2017
9. HoOPLA Newsletter – May 2017
10. News article from the Toronto Star entitled “Ontario cuts funding for Toronto Public Library” dated May 2, 2017
11. Letter from the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, advising of enhanced investment in the culture sector
12. Information from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport providing an update on the Public Library funding review
Moved by Ian Brebner Seconded by Dave Jones That Items C.1 – LIB through C.12 – LIB be received for information. Carried.
D. INQUIRIES
Dave Jones requested that the Library board meeting time be adjusted allowing for a 10:30 am start time. This change will take effect at the June 27, 2017 meeting.
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Next Meetings 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 27, 2017 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 22, 2016 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, December 19, 2017
June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 3 7 a - CC
F. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Councillor Wilkins Seconded by Dave Jones That the meeting adjourn at 11:00 a.m. Carried.
Lindsay Brock, County Librarian Chair – Councillor Jim Maudsley
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 1 10 a - CC
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
BY-LAW #
A BY-LAW to enter into an employment agreement with Ms. Bettina Weber with respect to the position of Community Emergency Management Co-ordinator for the County of Middlesex for the period April 15, 2017 to April 15, 2019
WHEREAS Council adopted a recommendation on May 23, 2017 to enter into an employment agreement with Ms. Bettina Weber with respect to the position of Community Emergency Management Co-ordinator for the County of Middlesex for the period April 15, 2017 to April15, 2019
WHEREAS Subsection 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS Subsection 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law;
THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex enacts as follows:
1. That the Employment Agreement with Ms. Bettina Weber with respect to the position of Community Emergency Management Co-ordinator for the County of Middlesex, attached as schedule "A", be approved.
2. That By-law #6553 is hereby repealed effective April 15, 2017
3. That the Warden and the Clerk be hereby authorized and directed to execute the said Agreement.
PASSED IN COUNCIL this 13th day of June, 2017.
______Don Shipway, Warden
______Kathleen Bunting, County Clerk
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 1 10 b - CC
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
BY-LAW #
A BY-LAW to confirm proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex – JUNE 13, 2017.
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex at the JUNE 13, 2017, Session be confirmed and adopted by By-law.
WHEREAS section 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHERAS section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHERAS section 10 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that a municipality may pass by-laws respecting any service or thing that the municipality considers necessary or desirable for the public;
THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex enacts as follows:
1. That the action of the Council of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex in respect of all recommendations in reports of committees, all motions and resolutions and all other action passed and taken by the Council of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex, documents and transactions entered into during the JUNE 13, 2017, Session of Council, are hereby adopted and confirmed, as if the same were expressly included in this By-law.
2. That the Warden and proper officials of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex during the said JUNE 13, 2017, Session referred to in Section 1 of this By-law.
3. That the Warden and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to the action taken by this Council as described in Section 1 of this By-law and to affix the Corporate Seal of The Corporation of the County of Middlesex to all documents referred to in said Section 1.
PASSED IN COUNCIL this 13th day of June, 2017.
______Don Shipway, Warden
______Kathleen Bunting, County Clerk
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 18 A 1 - CW
Progress Report to Middlesex County Council on the MLEMS Multi-Use Facility Presentation To: Middlesex County Council Presentation Date: June 13, 2017 June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 18 A 1 - CW
Project Partners . Architects Tillmann, Ruth, Robinson – Scott Robinson . Trinity Planning & Consulting – Victor Cote . Norlon Builders – Maurice Demaiter June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 18 A 1 - CW
Progress to Date . Concrete foundation – 100% . Steel work – 100% . Electrical / HVAC / Plumbing rough-ins – 60% . Concrete floor – 70% . Interior wall framing – 90% . Window install – 70% . Roofing install – 100% . Concrete block wall install – 90% . Drywall install – 25% June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 18 A 1 - CW
Progress to Date Budget & Schedule
• The overall project build is tracking on schedule • The overall project budget is tracking on target June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 18 A 1 - CW
Lessons Learned . Change order management – Tracking all activities and approvals . Non scheduled events – Weather – Site inspections – orders . Design Development Stage – Client input is key to a successful design – Capture the details June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 18 A 1 - CW
Projected Work & Timelines June & July . June 2017 – Installation of exterior windows; – Insulating (spray foam) exterior of building; – Drywall work continues on both floors; – Rough-in electrical, mechanical and fire equipment; . July 2017 – Installation of exterior cladding; – Exterior door installation; – Electrical cable run; – Drywall completion; June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 18 A 1 - CW
Projected Work & Timelines August - November . Exterior cladding and brick work; . HVAC; . Electrical; . Plumbing; . Site works; . Interior glass work; . Interior finishes including paint & flooring; . Door installation; . Flooring installation; . Signage June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 18 A 1 - CW
Site Visit . A tour for interested County Councilors has been scheduled for June 27th following the Council meeting . Further information will follow by email June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 18 A 1 - CW
Images – January 2017 June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 18 A 1 - CW
Images – June 2017
Front Lobby Front Lobby – view from bridge June 13, 2017 Page 11 of 18 A 1 - CW
Images – Training Area
Training Room Training – SIM Lab June 13, 2017 Page 12 of 18 A 1 - CW
Images – 2nd Floor Administration
Administrative – open space Administrative - offices June 13, 2017 Page 13 of 18 A 1 - CW
Images – Garage Area
Garage area Decontamination area June 13, 2017 Page 14 of 18 A 1 - CW
Images – Warehouse Space
Warehouse – Oxygen & Linen rooms Warehouse - Supplies June 13, 2017 Page 15 of 18 A 1 - CW
Images – 2 Bay Station
2 Bay Station – garage bays 2 Bay Station – crew space June 13, 2017 Page 16 of 18 A 1 - CW
Building Features . Natural lighting throughout the facility . Large training space with SIM lab – Ambulance and Apartment Size Washroom . Garage space for 20 Ambulances . Decontamination Bay – isolated area . Wash bay . High efficiency LED lighting . Constructed for future expansion of 6,000 square feet (level 2) . Flexible change rooms – expand or contract based on demographics June 13, 2017 Page 17 of 18 A 1 - CW
May 2017 June 13, 2017 Page 18 of 18 A 1 - CW
November 2017 June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 12 A 2 - CW BARGAINING UPDATE
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL JUNE 13, 2017 June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 12 A 2 - CW BARGAINING GROUPS
CUPE 101.5 Inside Workers (Employees who work at the County Administration Building) CUPE 2018 Outside Workers (Transportation Department Employees) ONA 21 Registered Nurses (Strathmere Lodge) Unifor 302 Non-Registered and RPN Employees (Strathmere Lodge) OPSEU 147 Land Ambulance employees Not included in this list are non-union employees who generally are library and management employees. They do not bargain collectively but determine working conditions through periodic reporting to Council, the budget process and policy. June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 12 A 2 - CW TOTAL EMPLOYEE COUNT
FULL TIME PART TIME TOTAL EMPLOYEES (CASUAL) ONA 6 15 21 UNIFOR 72 130 202 2018 30 18 48 101.5 38 7 45 OPSEU 152 87 239 NON-UNION 72 61 133 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 370 318 688 June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 12 A 2 - CW CUPE 101.5
Collective Agreement was negotiated in 2016. Expiry date of December 31, 2019. Bargaining committee includes the General Manager, Infrastructure and County Engineer; the General Manager Finance and Community Services; and the Human Resource Manager June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 12 A 2 - CW
CUPE 2018 Collective Agreement expires June 30, 2017. Dates to begin negotiations are scheduled beginning June 13. Bargaining committee includes the General Manager Infrastructure and County Engineer; the General Road Superintendent; and the Human Resource Manager June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 12 A 2 - CW ONA 21
Collective Agreement expires March 31, 2018 Current Agreement was ratified in February, 2017 ONA uses the Central Hospital Agreement as a guide/template for bargaining with its Municipal Homes. This usually results in about a one year delay in our bargaining. Bargaining for this group will likely not begin until late 2018 or early to mid 2019. The Bargaining committee includes the Strathmere Lodge Administrator; the Director of Resident Care from the Lodge; and the Human Resource Manager June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 12 A 2 - CW
UNIFOR 302 Collective Agreement expires December 31, 2017 Bargaining for this group will begin in late 2017. The Bargaining committee includes the Administrator of Strathmere Lodge; the Director of Resident Care from the Lodge; and the Human Resource Manager June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 12 A 2 - CW OPSEU 147
Collective Agreement expired December 31, 2016 Bargaining will get underway this spring Bargaining Committee consists of the Chief, Deputy Chiefs of Operations and Professional Standards, Human Resource Coordinator and Administrative Assistant June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 12 A 2 - CW BARGAINING INFLUENCES
Prior to entering into bargaining we review: • Available salary surveys (Mercer; McDowall etc.) • Ontario Collective Bargaining Institute information • (they collect information on all collective bargaining in the province) • Other municipal settlements • Any labour relations concerns or language issues over the last period in the Agreement June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 12 A 2 - CW PROCESS
Review concerns or suggestions for improvement with Department Heads and Managers/Foremen Develop a tentative list of possible demands Review with DHs Put a package of demands together Monetary issues are dealt with during the ebb and flow of negotiations June 13, 2017 Page 11 of 12 A 2 - CW HUMAN RESOURCE COMMITTEE
The HR Committee is periodically briefed on what considerations are taken into account to develop a bargaining package as well as the bargaining environment The HR Committee is updated on bargaining process with a specific set of negotiations If the HR Committee meets before Council and a tentative Agreement has been reached, the Agreement will go the HR committee for approval and then to Council A Collective Agreement is ratified once it has been approved by both the Union involved and County Council June 13, 2017 Page 12 of 12 A 2 - CW QUESTIONS June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 10 A 3 - CW
Building Official Services JUNE, 2017 June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 10 A 3 - CW
Background • The topic of Building Services arose on several occasions during our local council visits • This is not our first look at this service • Some Counties across Ontario have provided Building Services to local municipalities and neighbouring Counties • A number of municipalities are currently examining their Building Services • We have a consistent formula for the provision of local services that has worked well • Building services is a tightly integrated service in local municipalities • This is generally not the type of service that you would put on the levy • The level of interest at the broader local level in examining the delivery of this service is exploratory at this point June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 10 A 3 - CW
Previous Reviews • We have examined this issue with Council once before • It is unclear whether the challenges that prevented this from moving forward have changed substantially since the last discussion • There were challenges associated with delivering this issue at the County during previous discussions: ◦ Not every municipality has an issue at the same time ◦ If a municipality has a CBO in place, the issue does not feel immediate ◦ The principles I have established for local services delivery were hard to achieve ◦ Some could be achieved, but not all ◦ Integration would hurt overall service delivery in each municipality ◦ There were higher priority local services to deliver that met all of the guiding principles and provided bigger “bang for the buck” June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 10 A 3 - CW
Local Service Delivery Guiding Principles • Before recommending the establishment of a local service offering from the County of Middlesex, I carefully examine whether I can achieve the following four program delivery outcomes:
◦ Create efficiencies for the common tax payer ◦ Create service delivery synergies at the County ◦ Provide a higher quality service ◦ Don’t displace municipal employees June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 10 A 3 - CW
The Local Issue • For some municipalities the following challenges exist….
◦ Attracting qualified Building Officials ◦ The high cost of obtaining a qualified Building Official ◦ Retaining a qualified Building Official ◦ The high cost of training a Chief Building Official ◦ Covering for a Chief Building Official during holidays or illness ◦ The cyclical nature of building services ◦ The ability to properly service one-time initiatives in municipalities where the type of building is uncommon • As a result, several local municipalities are currently reviewing their building services June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 10 A 3 - CW
Local Service Integration • Some municipalities across Ontario of a certain size struggle with the cyclical nature of building services • To respond to this challenge, there are generally three solutions:
◦ Utilize a part-time employee ◦ Purchase the service from a consultant or neighbouring municipality ◦ Integrate Building services into another service ◦ Drains ◦ By-law enforcement
• There are examples of each of these solutions in Middlesex County June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 10 A 3 - CW
Service Delivery Options • Status-quo ◦ Municipalities continue to use all of the various tools to address the challenges they face in the delivery of this service
• Local municipal inter-service agreements ◦ These exist in some municipalities now and they seem to have worked well ◦ This is most certainly a worthy option for municipalities that find themselves with various building services challenges ◦ It is unclear at this point what capacity there is for these agreements to solve all of the challenges that exist in Middlesex County
• Local service delivery provision at the County June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 10 A 3 - CW
Building Services at the County Level • How we would likely do it:
◦ Integrate the service with another service such as by-law enforcement ◦ Hire one Chief Building Official to manage and deliver the service, reporting to Mr. Traini ◦ Hire several Building Officials to deliver the service across the county ◦ Not a levy service ◦ Break the county into three zones for service delivery
• What we would need to be successful ◦ The ability to tie the service to another service that provides a county benefit such as by -law enforcement ◦ A human resources restart ◦ Commitment from at least two of the larger three municipalities ◦ The opportunity to review whether we could deliver the service outside of our boundaries as well June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 10 A 3 - CW
Risks • Many of the challenges from our previous review still exist
◦ While we clearly have more municipalities interested in this service than our last review, participation from our municipalities where the highest proportion of building services are delivered is still a question mark and will remain a question mark until we formally ask the question of the councils ◦ Do we have critical mass
◦ Very difficult to achieve all of the guiding principles
◦ Will we impact upon local delivery integration in smaller municipalities June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 10 A 3 - CW
Next Steps • Gain an understanding of the level of interest from the County Council perspective
• If there is initial interest: ◦ Prepare a report for local municipal consideration ◦ Provide an outline of the program deliverables and timelines ◦ Prepare a service agreement ◦ Cost estimates
• If there is not initial interest: ◦ Provide an overview of the issue in the quarterly report and the rationale for council’s decision June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 11 A 4 - CW
Finance Budgeting Software Update Middlesex County Council June 13, 2017 June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 11 A 4 - CW Current Budget Process Limitations
The County relies heavily on Microsoft Excel and Word to prepare its annual budget Decentralized spreadsheets can be difficult to share and lack the sophistication and comprehensive reporting capabilities organizations require in order to address budgeting needs Lots of opportunities for human error throughout budgeting cycle / process Manual process which results in a lot of time spent especially as changes are often made during the budget cycle and approval stage Lack of reporting functionality June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 11 A 4 - CW Great Plains (GP)
In 2014 the County partnered with Diamond Municipal Solutions and invested in additional financial software that enhanced the existing Microsoft Dynamics Great Plains (GP). Diamond is a Microsoft-certified partner and currently provides Middlesex with support for our financial software. Diamond has been working with Questica Inc., over the past few years and the two organizations have recently formed a partnership whereby Diamond is able to offer to its current Microsoft Dynamics GP clients a budgeting solution which previously didn’t exist in Microsoft Dynamics GP. June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 11 A 4 - CW Questica
Questica Inc., has grown into an industry-leading provider of Capital and Operating budget software. Questica Budget is:
a fully featured web based commercial off-the-shelf software budget preparation and budget management tool
designed specifically for the public sector
user friendly and flexible It includes both an Operating and Capital solution June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 11 A 4 - CW Questica
Questica Budget provides Municipalities the functions and features necessary to:
gain visibility into their financial information; and
control their Operating budgets The easy-to-use program ensures the budgeting cycle runs smoothly and securely for every stakeholder involved in the process. June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 11 A 4 - CW Benefits of Questica
Multi-year budgeting capabilities Seamless integration with Microsoft Dynamics GP Ability to track changes and audit Unlimited versioning Configurable security including varying levels of access within an organization Configurable workflow and approval systems June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 11 A 4 - CW Cost
Through its partnership with Questica, Diamond is currently able to offer a significant discount on this software: Capital costs: $36,000 (software and implementation costs) Framework (Includes 5 Users of all Modules) Operating costs: Annual fees of approximately $2,700 on above licensing Other: 15 Loaner Seats all modules (expiry is 12 months from contract signing)
No cost in Year 1 - 50% Discount on all users purchased within 12 months of contract signing (Capital and Operating Costs associated with adding additional users) June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 11 A 4 - CW Terms
Payment (Must be signed and invoiced prior to June 22, 2017): If implementation starts later in 2018, 50% of the implementation cost is due by March 2018 in order to secure the date, with the remaining to be paid upon the project kick off. If payment is made up front in 2017, then there is a fee reduction for implementation. Software license and annual fees are due on signing. June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 11 A 4 - CW Timing
Enter into the agreement by June 22, 2017 to obtain special pricing 2017 and 2018 - Planning and Implementation 2018 - Budget to include Operating budget costs 2019 - First budget to be completed with the new software and presented to County Council June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 11 A 4 - CW Budget Implications
Capital costs for this project would be taken from existing Capital accounts, therefore, there is no impact on budget. Annual Operating costs would be included in future budgets and therefore funded from taxation. June 13, 2017 Page 11 of 11 A 4 - CW Questions ? June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 15 A 5 - CW
Local Planning Service Update
Middlesex County Council June 13th 2017 June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 15 A 5 - CW
Overview
1. Prior to January 2017
2. Since January 2017
3. Trends and Emerging Issues June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 15 A 5 - CW
Prior to January 2017
A ‘planning team’ was established in 2012 to offer Local Planning Services to participating municipalities on a cost recovery basis.
Maintain existing decision making authority, responsibility, and governance.
Over time additional Municipalities utilized the Planning Service. June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 15 A 5 - CW
Prior to January 2017
Local Planning Service added to the County-levy for 2017 budget.
Planning Services Agreements in place to define Core Services, Planner Assignment, Responsibilities, etc.
Additional Planner hired in anticipation of four additional client municipalities utilizing the Service. June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 15 A 5 - CW
Since January 2017
• Marc Bancroft – Lucan Biddulph and Thames Centre • Ben Puzanov – Middlesex Centre • Jenn Huff – Strathroy-Caradoc and Newbury • Christie Kent (Basalle) – Adelaide Metcalfe, North Middlesex, and Southwest Middlesex
Supported by administrative and technical staff and reporting to Director of Planning and municipal CAO (or designate). June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 15 A 5 - CW
Since January 2017
Planner assigned to a municipality with regular on-site office days.
Planner also attends meetings (including Council) as needed.
Planners back-up each other during vacations and when dealing with areas of specialization. June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 15 A 5 - CW
Trends and Emerging Issues
A challenge to add new staff and additional municipalities while still completing day-to-day work.
‘Who does what’ is always a consideration, striking a balance between the division of ‘planning administration’ to be completed by a planner vs local administrative staff. Process guidelines for citizens and non-planning staff.
The technology works (mobile workstations, cell phones, digital files). June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 15 A 5 - CW
Trends and Emerging Issues
Planning Documents: consolidation of base information (including GIS zoning layers) for additional municipalities.
The Planners, Technicians, and local staff are proving themselves to be adaptable and resilient.
Development Tracking System being created with IT Department. June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 15 A 5 - CW
Trends and Emerging Issues
Urban infilling proposals can be more complex and garner greater public input.
Ontario Municipal Board Hearings (Middlesex Centre, Strathroy-Caradoc, and Thames Centre).
Surplus Dwelling consents continue across the County. June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 15 A 5 - CW
Trends and Emerging Issues June 13, 2017 Page 11 of 15 A 5 - CW
Trends and Emerging Issues
Development review work is as busy as it has been for years - a challenging year for County and local staff.
We have Final Approved seven plans of subdivision / condominium already this year and we anticipate six more yet this year - twice the normal volume.
Local Applications are exceeding recent volumes (50% increase). June 13, 2017 Page 12 of 15 A 5 - CW
Trends and Emerging Issues
Local Applications Local Applications January - May Projected for 2017* Adelaide Metcalfe 11 26 Lucan Biddulph 10 24 Middlesex Centre 45 108 Newbury 2 5 North Middlesex 9 22 Southwest Middlesex 12 29 Strathroy-Caradoc 43 103 Thames Centre 32 77 Total 164 394 *mathematical projection June 13, 2017 Page 13 of 15 A 5 - CW
Trends and Emerging Issues
Special Projects:
1. County Official Plan Update 2. Middlesex Centre Zoning By-law Update 3. Lucan Biddulph Zoning By-law Update 4. Thames Centre Zoning By-law Update 5. Newbury Official Plan / Zoning By-law 6. Middlesex Centre Official Plan Amendment 7. North Middlesex Official Plan Amendment 8. Adelaide Metcalfe (& Strathroy-Caradoc) Interim Control Study 9. Southwest Middlesex & Adelaide Metcalfe document consolidation June 13, 2017 Page 14 of 15 A 5 - CW
Trends and Emerging Issues
The Provincial ‘changing pace of change’:
• Smart Growth for our Communities Act • Clean Water Act (Drinking Source Water Protection) • Minimum Distance Separation Formulae Update • Permitted Uses in Prime Agricultural Areas Guideline • Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act • Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act (OMB Reform) June 13, 2017 Page 15 of 15 A 5 - CW
Questions June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 8 A 6 - CW
SWIFT Update June 2017 June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 8 A 6 - CW Overview
• Background
• A two step admin process
• Guiding Principles
• Board Direction
• Middlesex Options
• Next Steps June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 8 A 6 - CW Background
• SWIFT attempting to secure agreements in advance of a business plan with WOWC Counties
• Despite our efforts to obtain answers to the 5Ws before an agreement is presented to Council SWIFT has consistently maintained that it is imperative for provincial funding that the counties sign the agreement before a business plan is presented June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 8 A 6 - CW Two Steps
• Get an agreement in front of Council that meets Council's guiding principles
• This is the task that we are focussed on today
• Determine whether Council is going to participate or not June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 8 A 6 - CW Guiding Principles
• Want to see Business Plan before providing funding
• Need guarantee of 4:1 local investment in broadband service improvements
• improvements need to be in areas with little or no connectivity
• County Council is the sole determinant of whether the goals are met
• Need to know the providers to ensure that we are not creating a non- competitive marketplace June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 8 A 6 - CW
SWIFT Board Direction
• They provided some flexibility in that all agreements did not need to be the same
• This flexibility allowed for the continued pursuit of the Middlesex guiding principles goals
• At a recent meeting, further direction was provided in regard to our agreement and there was additional dialogue June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 8 A 6 - CW Middlesex Options
• Delay the agreement presentation for council review until after business plan is complete
• With the proper 4:1 language
• Present an agreement to council with several "out clauses for council" if they don't like the business plan that could be signed more immediately June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 8 A 6 - CW Next Steps
• SWIFT now seems amenable to putting an agreement in front of Council after mid- August
• before reviewing the agreement, Council will be provided with the following:
• the territory within the County with little or no fibre connectivity that will be addressed in the scope of a localized RFP;
• the expected participation rate of ISPs in the County
• the level of investment required to resolve County connectivity challenges; and
• a commitment to the represented ratio of return in the County’s geography in areas with little or no fibre connectivity. June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 3 B 1 - CW Action
Committee of the Whole
Meeting Date: June 13, 2017
Submitted by: Cindy Howard, General Manager of Finance and Community Services
SUBJECT: TREATMENT OF VACANT AND EXCESS LAND AND VACANT UNIT REBATES
BACKGROUND: Since 1998, the Vacant Unit Rebate and Vacant/Excess Land Subclasses have provided tax rebates and reductions to property owners who have vacancies in commercial and industrial buildings or land. Vacant Unit Rebates: • The Vacant Unit Rebate provides a tax rebate to property owners who have vacancies in commercial and industrial buildings. This application-based program is administered by municipalities. The current rebate is 30% of the property tax for vacant commercial space and 35% for vacant industrial space. Vacant and Excess Land Property Tax Subclass: • Commercial and industrial properties or portions of these properties in the Vacant and Excess Land Property Tax Subclasses are taxed at a fixed percentage rate below the tax rate of the broad class. These properties are discounted at 30% to 35% of the full Commercial and/or Industrial rate. Currently, upper- and single-tier municipalities may choose to apply the same percentage of relief (between 30% - 35%) to both the commercial and industrial property classes. The Province has reviewed the Vacant Unit Rebate and the Vacant/Excess Land Subclasses in consultation with municipal and business stakeholders. In response to municipal and other stakeholders’ requests, the Province is now moving forward with providing municipalities broad flexibility for 2017 and future years. This change, announced in November 2016, is intended to allow municipalities to tailor the vacant June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 3 B 1 - CW Action
rebate and reduction programs to reflect community needs and circumstances, while considering the interests of local businesses. In order to provide the most flexibility for municipalities, changes to the rebate and reduction programs will be implemented through regulation. Upper- and single-tier municipalities that have decided to change the programs can notify the Minister of their intent to utilize this flexibility and provide details of the proposed changes along with a council resolution. To support implementation of changes to the vacant rebate and reduction programs, municipalities should review the attached checklist prior to submitting a request for changes to the Minister. ANALYSIS The purpose of this report is to provide Council background information on the current program in place which provides annual property tax rebates to vacant commercial and industrial properties and new municipal flexibility for 2017 and future years. In a two-tiered municipality, any program changes to be implemented will be an upper- tier municipal decision, consistent with the flexibility currently available to upper-tier municipalities, to determine the rebate and reduction percentage between 30% and 35%. The County has begun to consult with the local municipal Treasurers, as they have been the ones working hands-on with this program since its inception in 2001.In discussions, it does not appear that the local municipalities process a lot of these rebates on a yearly basis. Administration will also be review changes being considered in neighbouring communities. The Province has indicated that submissions will be accepted after July 1st, but for 2018 taxation, not 2017. RECOMMENDATION That administration further consult with the Treasurers at the local municipalities to determine the need to pursue these vacancy reforms for the 2018 taxation year and develop a process to engage the business community. Administration will report back with recommendations for Council. Attachment June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 3 B 1 - CW Action June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 3 C 1 - CW Info
General Administration Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111785 Abell Pest Control Inc. Service C$203.40 111785 Abell Pest Control Inc. Service C$108.93 111792 Art Blake Refrigeration Limited Service Call C$604.08 111794 Belfor Restoration Services Storage and Return C$1,467.67 111807 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$24.05 111807 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$21.44 111810 The Canadian Payroll Association Membership C$259.90 111811 Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontari Membership C$1,084.80 111814 CHRISTOPHER SAXBY E.I Rebate 2016 C$41.39 111817 C.U.P.E. Local 2018 TK81 V08/17, TK81 V09/17 C$2,125.00 111817 C.U.P.E. Local 2018 Union Due Overpayment C$25.00 111818 C.U.P.E. Local 101.5 Mar-17 C$2,635.26 111827 Doug Spettigue Expense Refund C$279.26 111834 Family Services EAP EAP Jan-Jun/17 C$735.04 111840 Hyde Park Plumbing & Heating Ltd. Service C$470.08 111863 Manulife Financial TK81 V09/17 C$65.00 111868 Metropolitan Maintenance Services C$3,118.80 111870 Middlesex London Health Unit May/17 Payment C$96,746.75 111876 Ontario Nurses Association May for April/17 C$1,817.28 111879 Corporation of the City of Peterborough Conference C$100.00 111880 Pitney Works Postage C$4,621.45 111883 Purolator Inc. Courier C$17.96 111894 RWAM Insurance Administrators Group 100000 Div 2 C$51,337.83 111894 RWAM Insurance Administrators GROUP 100000 DIV 1 C$29,394.34 111894 RWAM Insurance Administrators GROUP 100000 DIV 4 C$22,373.44 111894 RWAM Insurance Administrators GROUP 100000 DIV 5 C$22,803.96 111896 Steven DeCandido Council Luncheon C$199.47 111908 TempWise Design and Maintenance Heat Pump C$10,560.98 111913 UNIFOR Local 302 May for Apr/17 Local 302 C$5,989.02 111922 WSIB FIRM 855989 Schedule 2 C$199.79 111934 Allstream Business Inc. Business Line C$708.84 111964 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$40.94 111985 Family Responsibility Office Professional Services C$98.16 112015 Kathy Bunting Mileage C$21.62 112017 Keytech Water Management Aquaplan Program C$241.45 112034 Manulife Financial TK82V0917 RRSP C$25.00 112047 MLEMS Staff Association V10/17 C$989.00 112058 Ontario Public Service Employees Union LOCAL 147 V10/17 C$8,065.14 112064 Pitney Works Postage Refill C$3,390.00 112100 Telus Communications Phone Service C$899.34 112101 TempWise Design and Maintenance Filters replacement C$691.90 112101 TempWise Design and Maintenance Heat Pump C$1,121.13
General Administration Payable June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 3 C 1 - CW Info
General Administration Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112123 WSIB FIRM 855989 Schedule 2 C$95.83 112123 WSIB FIRM 855989 Fees C$139.80 112129 Abell Pest Control Inc. Initial Service C$367.25 112132 Accurate Window and Floor Cleaners Window Cleaning C$2,486.00 112140 Mr. Brad Richards Parkinsons Golf C$175.00 112141 County of Bruce WOWC Membership C$5,000.00 112144 Carswell Office Supplies C$278.72 112144 Carswell Office Supplies C$530.72 112144 Carswell Office Supplies C$589.84 112146 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$23.03 112156 Garda Canada Security Corp. Patrols C$487.21 112162 Johnson Controls #T6067 Service C$382.28 112164 Katrina Kaczala Expense Refund C$22.42 112164 Katrina Kaczala Expense Refund C$29.76 112172 Manulife Financial TK81 V10/17 C$65.00 112186 Progressive Waste Solutions Basic Service, Shredding C$446.35 112187 Purolator Inc. Postage C$19.40 112187 Purolator Inc. Postage C$34.18 112190 Rochester Midland Canada Coroporation Service C$275.27 112192 RWAM Insurance Administrators Group 100000 Div 1 C$28,721.29 112192 RWAM Insurance Administrators Group 100000 Div 4 C$22,090.60 112192 RWAM Insurance Administrators Group 100000 Div 5 C$22,803.96 112200 Telus Mobility C$1,819.26 112202 TempWise Design and Maintenance Supplies C$3,477.74 112202 TempWise Design and Maintenance Supplies C$1,300.69 112202 TempWise Design and Maintenance Supplies C$390.10 112171 Twp. of Lucan Biddulph 2nd Quarter Payment C$6,777.56 112248 CSI International, Inc. Service Award C$466.89 112267 Family Responsibility Office Garnishment C$98.16 112298 Lovers At Work Office Furniture Office Furniture C$451.99 112302 Manulife Financial TK82 V10/17 RRSP C$25.00 112310 MLEMS Staff Association V11/17 C$1,003.00 112319 Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 147 V11/17 C$7,868.07 112325 Purolator Inc. Courier C$31.44 112368 1404448 Ontario Ltd. Catering C$778.01 112371 Strathroy Age Dispatch Subscription C$70.00 112382 Carswell Reference Book C$157.27 112382 Carswell Reference Books C$610.52 112388 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$124.75 112389 Frank Cowan Insurance Co Ltd. Professional Services C$4,061.46 112391 C.U.P.E. Local 2018 TK81 V10/17, V11/17 C$1,875.00 112392 C.U.P.E. Local 101.5 May-17 C$2,710.94
General Administration Payable June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 3 C 1 - CW Info
General Administration Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112393 CURE Foundation Proceeds C$235.00 112397 Deberah Fiddler Expense Refund C$35.44 112405 Elgin Fire Extinguishers Inspections C$231.63 112408 Evergreen Irrigation London Ltd Service C$968.16 112435 Manulife Financial TK81 V11/17 C$65.00 112450 Ontario Nurses Association June for May/17 ONA 21 C$1,918.24 112458 Purolator Inc. Courier C$17.72 112475 Staples Advantage Supplies C$565.85 112481 Tru Green Lawn Care C$339.00 112481 Tru Green Lawn Care C$452.00 112483 UNIFOR Local 302 June for May/17 Local 302 C$5,988.30 112488 WINMAR - LONDON Services C$1,525.50 112489 Wayne Meagher Expense Refund C$1,119.26 112492 WSIB Schedule 2 Invoice C$199.79 112453 Empire Life Insurance Company Payment 31 May/17 C$29,000.00
$437,546.54
General Administration Payable June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 1 C 2 - CW Info
Planning Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111828 Durk Vanderwerff Expense Refund C$352.64 112041 MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscape Archi Consulting Services C$4,351.29 112152 Erin Morton Expense Refund C$200.22 112216 Above & Beyond Promotions Office Supplies C$228.49 112306 Mark Brown Expense Refund C$1,136.46 112436 Marc Bancroft Expense Refund C$178.60
$ 5,311.24
Planning Payables June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 4 C 3 - CW Info
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS May 2017
ACCT # LOC. DESCRIPTION DATE AMOUNT PAYEE 200003260985 ROADS FLASHER May 09/17 24.36 HYDRO ONE 200003268564 ROADS STREET LIGHTS May 09/17 366.79 HYDRO ONE 200005754996 D8 HYDRO May 08/17 255.18 HYDRO ONE 200006369736 D2 HYDRO May 23/17 1,098.47 HYDRO ONE 200009349252 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 01/17 844.88 HYDRO ONE 200013224404 ROADS FLASHER May 23/17 37.52 HYDRO ONE 200013955237 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 29/17 62.19 HYDRO ONE 200016225744 D8 HYDRO May 01/17 938.28 HYDRO ONE 200016225744 D8 HYDRO May 30/17 535.79 HYDRO ONE 200017837055 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 09/17 189.10 HYDRO ONE 200017841095 ROADS FLASHER May 09/17 55.06 HYDRO ONE 200020679660 D9 HYDRO May 29/17 1,602.81 HYDRO ONE 200028997614 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 23/17 241.57 HYDRO ONE 200029979536 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 23/17 70.85 HYDRO ONE 200034570767 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 23/17 245.53 HYDRO ONE 200038538673 ROADS FLASHER May 08/17 38.10 HYDRO ONE 200039404296 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 01/17 43.58 HYDRO ONE 200039586475 ROADS STREET LIGHT May 17/17 113.04 HYDRO ONE 200041711381 D4 HYDRO May 24/17 1,155.70 HYDRO ONE 200045602802 ROADS FLASHER May 08/17 55.06 HYDRO ONE 200045604115 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 09/17 186.58 HYDRO ONE 200049091061 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 08/17 146.23 HYDRO ONE 200049305067 FIRE PARKHILL RENTAL May 23/17 146.92 HYDRO ONE 200051147562 ROADS STREET LIGHTS May 08/17 77.23 HYDRO ONE 200051883247 D1 HYDRO May 15/17 3,282.25 HYDRO ONE 200054876507 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 09/17 159.04 HYDRO ONE 200055079597 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 15/17 107.41 HYDRO ONE 200056250671 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 08/17 244.85 HYDRO ONE 200061663675 ROADS FLASHER May 23/17 52.54 HYDRO ONE 200061840093 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 08/17 232.07 HYDRO ONE 200072164331 ROADS FLASHER May 09/17 42.03 HYDRO ONE 200072265169 ROADS STREET LIGHTS May 09/17 55.06 HYDRO ONE 200072682673 D3 HYDRO May 15/17 1,326.40 HYDRO ONE 200078398805 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 08/17 39.00 HYDRO ONE 200082802908 ROADS FLASHER May 09/17 65.90 HYDRO ONE June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 4 C 3 - CW Info
ACCT # LOC. DESCRIPTION DATE AMOUNT PAYEE 200082995894 D4 HYDRO May 23/17 50.41 HYDRO ONE 200084256389 ROADS FLASHER May 08/17 38.75 HYDRO ONE 200089643933 ROADS STREET LIGHTS May 09/17 121.14 HYDRO ONE 200089788827 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 09/17 690.09 HYDRO ONE 200089799537 ROADS FLASHER May 09/17 46.08 HYDRO ONE 200092590915 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 01/17 122.77 HYDRO ONE 200092590915 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 30/17 100.64 HYDRO ONE 200094407037 ROADS HYDRO May 24/17 71.25 HYDRO ONE 200105098053 ROADS STREET LIGHTS May 09/17 65.90 HYDRO ONE 200106787368 ROADS STREET LIGHTS May 09/17 143.91 HYDRO ONE 200111248964 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 09/17 121.59 HYDRO ONE 200114251419 ROADS FLASHER May 09/17 43.13 HYDRO ONE 200114251722 ROADS TRAFFIC SIGNALS May 09/17 184.38 HYDRO ONE 200129103230 ROADS FLASHER May 09/17 61.06 HYDRO ONE 200139187994 ECON.DEV SIGN-FIVE PTS LINE May 01/17 42.95 HYDRO ONE 200139187994 ECON.DEV SIGN-FIVE PTS LINE May 30/17 41.93 HYDRO ONE 200197896842 ROADS STREET LIGHTS May 01/17 154.46 HYDRO ONE 1019943 Cty Bldg WATER May 23/17 409.80 LONDON HYDRO 1019951 50 King WATER May 23/17 708.97 LONDON HYDRO 7460017 Cty Bldg HYDRO May 09/17 10,153.60 LONDON HYDRO 7464671 50 King HYDRO May 09/17 9,854.05 LONDON HYDRO 802-40048000-00 ROADS HYDRO May 11/17 183.46 ENTEGRUS 803-40205228-01 ROADS HYDRO May 23/17 135.95 ENTEGRUS 804-40205170-00. LODGE WATER May 15/17 4,726.02 ENTEGRUS 805-40206689-00 ROADS HYDRO May 01/17 233.88 ENTEGRUS 807-40205195-00 LODGE HYDRO May 05/17 19,507.52 ENTEGRUS 807-40205195-00 ROADS HYDRO May 31/17 15,982.85 ENTEGRUS 172-3626 160-4549 CTY BLD 17236261604549 CTYBLDG May 08/17 227.59 UNION GAS 172-3627 160-4550 50 KING 17236271604550KINGHEAT May 25/17 1,771.81 UNION GAS 193-5130-246-9562 D3 R19351302469562D03 May 03/17 577.37 UNION GAS 208-8776-254-8323 SL SL20887762548323 May 08/17 10,992.92 UNION GAS 208-8973 191-0271 D8 R20889731910271 D08 May 31/17 109.07 UNION GAS 220-0587 200-4584 D1 R22005872004584D01 May 31/17 477.73 UNION GAS 220-0587 200-4584 D1 R22005872004584D01 May 08/17 2,034.46 UNION GAS 235-2382 213-2650 D6 R23523822132650 D06 May 15/17 150.87 UNION GAS 298-5108-246-9549 D4 R29851082469549D04 May 23/17 188.39 UNION GAS 310-1733-251-1761 D2 R31017332511761D02 May 17/17 518.54 UNION GAS June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 4 C 3 - CW Info
ACCT # LOC. DESCRIPTION DATE AMOUNT PAYEE 300334249 Ilderton Library Inte May 23/17 134.08 BELL 300334410 Wardsville Library Inter May 23/17 134.08 BELL 504625313 Mt. Brydges Library Inter May 29/17 129.21 BELL 514244656 Coldstream Library Inter May 23/17 183.96 BELL 5192451290 103 Strathroy Library Phone May 23/17 678.43 BELL 5192458237 224 Library Office Phone (Library) May 23/17 389.87 BELL 5192872735 452 Glencoe Library Phone May 18/17 79.31 BELL 5192933441 452 Ailsa Craig Library Phone May 18/17 80.22 BELL 5196661201 740 Coldstream Library Phone May 23/17 91.52 BELL 5196661599 882 Ilderton Library Phone May 23/17 80.22 BELL 5196934275 017 Newbury Library Phone May 18/17 80.22 BELL 5198505304(577) Trossacks EMS Phone May 18/17 1.70 BELL 5192946308(824) Parkhill EMS Phone May 18/17 83.34 BELL 5192875306(783) Glencoe EMS Phone May 18/17 83.34 BELL 5192274309(888) lucan EMS Phone May 18/17 84.07 BELL 5196799509(791) ADMIN LINES EMS Phone May 18/17 90.14 BELL 5192457307(796) Strathroy EMS Phone May 23/17 83.40 BELL 5192452520(284) Strathmere Lodge Phone May 23/17 446.58 BELL 5192455711(342) Strathmere Lodge Phone May 23/17 104.81 BELL 232-351910905 Delaware Library Internet May 23/17 119.67 ROGERS 232-364888105 Thorndale Library Internet May 23/17 97.12 ROGERS 232-405994702 Strathmere Lodge Internet May 01/17 45.14 ROGERS 232-405994800 Strathroy Library Internet May 01/17 97.12 ROGERS 6-4315-1681 Komoka Library Internet May 08/17 214.60 ROGERS 7-6122-3189 Dorchester Lib. Phone/Internet May 18/17 162.37 ROGERS CANADA REVENUE PAYROLL Payroll - Taxes May.17 866,562.44 GOV'T OMERS LODGE Pension May.17 83,822.18 STRATHMERE LODGE OMERS AMBULANCE Pension May.17 268,504.22 MIDDLESEX/LONDON OMERS GENERAL Pension May.17 139,759.28 COUNTY VISA AMBULANCE Card#1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 May.17 9,045.57 VISA VISA AMBULANCE Chief Office Card May.17 1,486.72 VISA VISA AMBULANCE Administrative Card May.17 1,964.32 VISA VISA AMBULANCE Training, MLEMS May.17 2,459.46 VISA VISA AMBULANCE Neal Roberts May.17 1,354.91 VISA VISA AMBULANCE Alan Hunt May.17 1,255.31 VISA VISA AMBULANCE John Prno May.17 1,223.70 VISA VISA Warden Don Shipway May.17 145.26 VISA June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 4 C 3 - CW Info
ACCT # LOC. DESCRIPTION DATE AMOUNT PAYEE VISA CAO Bill Rayburn May.17 2,836.84 VISA VISA Clerk Kathy Bunting May.17 1,249.14 VISA VISA Maintenance Steve DeCandido May.17 612.16 VISA VISA I.T. Morgan Calvert May.17 3,918.94 VISA VISA I.T. Chris Bailey May.17 132.90 VISA VISA Library Nadine Devin May.17 4,912.01 VISA VISA Library Lindsay Brock May.17 2,052.91 VISA VISA Legal Wayne Meagher May.17 444.21 VISA VISA Ontario Works Cindy Howard May.17 171.83 VISA VISA Roads Paul Moniz May.17 7.00 VISA VISA Roads Jaret Hoglund May.17 369.73 VISA VISA Roads Steve Gough May.17 530.01 VISA VISA Roads Dean Gough May.17 51.02 VISA VISA FPO John Elston May.17 238.40 VISA VISA Roads Martin Langdale May.17 592.77 VISA VISA Lodge Marcy Welch May.17 504.88 VISA VISA Lodge Brent Kerwin May.17 1,276.58 VISA VISA Lodge John Fournier May.17 1,227.47 VISA VISA Planning Cara Finn May.17 1,875.33 VISA TOTAL 1,499,544.68
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 3 C 4 - CW Info
Social Services Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111802 Crystal Austin Expenses to Apr 28/17 C$303.40 111822 Denise Halberda Expenses to Apr 27/17 C$95.66 111850 Keena Ewing OMSSA Meeting C$12.98 111850 Keena Ewing Expenses to Apr 28/17 C$669.06 111851 Kassandra Marriott Expenses to Apr 28/17 C$152.06 111855 LEADS Employment Services April/17 Skills That Work C$3,997.50 111861 Leanne Robinson Expense Refund C$433.47 111862 M&T Instaprint HKCC Program Supplies C$2,875.76 111862 M&T Instaprint HKCC Program Supplies C$7,150.54 111862 M&T Instaprint HKCC Program Supplies C$5,413.47 111862 M&T Instaprint HKCC Program Supplies C$1,682.49 111862 M&T Instaprint HKCC Program Supplies C$701.18 111873 Michelle Williams Expenses to April 27/17 C$176.50 111878 Pauline Andrew Expenses to Apr 27/17 C$85.79 111878 Pauline Andrew Employment Event C$10.00 111897 Sally De Meneses Expenses to Apr 28/17 C$237.60 111907 M.G. Mitchnick Professional Services C$2,822.90 111918 Chuck Weatherby's CHPI 2017-2018 007 C$211.88 111938 Arva's Little School House April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$3,612.00 111939 Bizzy Bees Day Care Centre April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$822.80 111943 London Bridge Childcare Serv. April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$4,187.56 111944 Bright Beginnings April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$63.80 111959 Chelsea Green Children's Centre Inc. April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$2,767.80 111971 Denise Gill Expenses to 24 Apr/17 C$213.87 111974 Dorchester Co-Op Nursery Schoo April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$311.76 111980 E.L.M. Children's Centre April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$518.89 112018 Kidzone Day Care April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$3,404.40 112020 La Ribambelle April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$1,744.20 112026 Little Lambs Christian Daycare April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$4,970.00 112027 Little Red School House April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$896.00 112061 Perth Care for Kids Support for Working Families C$2,808.00 112063 Perth Middlesex OEYC Support Child Development C$1,840.00 112085 Mt. Brydges Sonshine Day Care April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$1,288.00 112094 Strathroy Stor-All HKCC Storage Unit C$894.96 112163 Kilworth Children's Centre April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$558.40 112165 Lambton Rural Child Care April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$391.16 112169 London Children's Connection April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$7,524.12 112181 ParaMed Home Health Care Apr/17 Homemakers & Nurses C$621.60 112184 Perth Care for Kids Seats for Safety C$400.00 112189 Quest Centre Community Initiatives Rent May/17 Quest C$500.00 112194 Salvation Army Village Daynurs April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$900.00 112196 Simply Kids April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$10,764.61
Social Services Payables June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 3 C 4 - CW Info
Social Services Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112197 Sterling Marking Products Office Supplies C$137.59 112201 Sills Landing Co-Op Housing CHPI 2017-2018 008 C$500.00 112207 The Western Day Care Centre April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$770.40 112208 Whitehills Childcare Ass'n. April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$832.96 112211 YMCA of London April/17 Childcare Subsidy C$23,511.26 112213 4 Imprint Inc. HKCC Program Supplies C$3,142.51 112217 Ailsa Craig & District Co-Op Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$146.42 112217 Ailsa Craig & District Co-Op Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$559.95 112221 Arva's Little School House Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$1,617.63 112221 Arva's Little School House Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$2,730.00 112225 Bob Brooks Expenses to May 18/17 C$103.18 112228 Belvoir Co-op Nursery School Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$189.52 112228 Belvoir Co-op Nursery School Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$562.36 112229 Bizzy Bees Day Care Centre Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$2,242.77 112229 Bizzy Bees Day Care Centre Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$3,315.00 112250 Delaware Central Public School HKCC Program Supplies C$174.02 112254 Dorchester Co-Op Nursery Schoo Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$403.75 112254 Dorchester Co-Op Nursery Schoo Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$403.75 112259 E.L.M. Children's Centre Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$2,180.08 112259 E.L.M. Children's Centre Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$5,035.97 112260 Employment Sector Council ESC 2017/18 Membership Fee C$425.00 112283 Kilworth Children's Centre Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$6,602.85 112283 Kilworth Children's Centre Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$11,200.60 112288 Little Lambs Christian Daycare Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$4,439.63 112288 Little Lambs Christian Daycare Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$7,274.90 112291 London Children's Connection Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$1,419.31 112291 London Children's Connection Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$2,755.19 112300 Lucan & Dist. Co-op Nursery Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$119.20 112300 Lucan & Dist. Co-op Nursery Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$397.24 112317 OMSSA Zone 1 OMSSA 2017/18 Membership Fee C$211.00 112320 Parkhill Co-Op Playschool Inc. Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$96.60 112320 Parkhill Co-Op Playschool Inc. Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$390.00 112327 Quest Centre Community Initiatives Rent June/17 Quest C$625.00 112334 Shauna Dereniowski HKCC Program Supplies C$637.91 112336 Simply Kids Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$5,457.63 112336 Simply Kids Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$9,545.25 112338 Mt. Brydges Sonshine Day Care Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$3,794.25 112338 Mt. Brydges Sonshine Day Care Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$5,850.00 112343 Sterling Marking Products Office Supplies C$261.83 112343 Sterling Marking Products Office Supplies C$6.96 112349 Lori Beneteau Photography HKCC Purchase of Service C$73.45
Social Services Payables June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 3 C 4 - CW Info
Social Services Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112361 Whitehills Childcare Ass'n. Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$3,447.25 112361 Whitehills Childcare Ass'n. Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$10,595.58 112367 YMCA of London Jun/17 EDU-WEG C$9,568.76 112367 YMCA of London Jun/17 General Operating Grant C$10,863.13 112383 Crystal Austin Expenses to May 30, 2017 C$341.00 112398 Denise Gill Expenses to May 29/17 C$486.70 112399 Denise Halberda Expense to May 26/17 C$37.85 112425 Kassandra Marriott Expenses to May 31/17 C$192.95 112426 Kelly Smith MCSN Meeting C$37.64 112426 Kelly Smith Workshop Registration Fee C$43.60 112426 Kelly Smith Expenses to May 31/17 C$297.95 112434 M&T Instaprint HKCC Program Supplies C$2,152.91 112443 Michelle Williams Expenses to May 29/17 C$200.00
$227,444.41
Social Services Payables June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 2 C 5 - CW Info
Strathmere Lodge Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111798 Cathy Annett PETTY CASH C$95.00 111825 DAVID LARDEN PURCHASED SERVICES C$172.00 111867 Medical Mart INCONTINENCE PRODUCTS C$1,288.96 111867 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$1,931.67 111867 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$179.67 111885 VANDEWALLE MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORP. PHYSICIAN FEES C$1,945.86 111893 Russell Hendrix DIETARY-DISHES & CUTLERY C$140.82 111893 Russell Hendrix DIETARY-DISHES & CUTLERY C$587.69 111923 W.S.I.B. 856021 C$1,928.97 112066 PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS CANADA INC. GARBAGE COLLECTION C$1,716.40 112067 ProAble Hardware Specialties BUILDING & PROPERTY C$42.10 112072 VANDEWALLE MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORP. PHYSICICAN ON CALL FEES C$344.96 112080 Russell Hendrix DIETARY REPAIRS C$264.13 112080 Russell Hendrix DIETARY-CUTLERY C$249.73 112082 Sexauer Limited BUILDING & PROPERTY C$138.82 112084 Signmakers NAME TAGS C$30.17 112092 STRATHROY HHBC BUILDING & PROPERTY C$18.06 112096 STACEY WILSON EXPENSE REFUND C$160.00 112111 TSC Stores L.P. BUILDING & PROEPRTY C$58.23 112116 Vital Aire NURSING SUPPLIES C$55.00 112119 Westburn Ruddy Electric REPAIRS & BUILDING C$206.84 112124 W.S.I.B. 856021 C$1,740.90 112124 W.S.I.B. 856021 C$2,791.91 112126 Wood Wyant Inc. HOUSEKEEPING SUPPLIES C$1,201.73 112126 Wood Wyant Inc. HOUSEKEEING SUPPLIES C$5,225.50 112142 Cathy Annett PETTY CASH C$289.85 112143 CARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC. HOUSEKEEPING SUPPLIES C$368.47 112145 CRYSTAL BROOKS STAFF REFUND C$33.52 112153 TINA HUISMAN EXPENSE REFUND C$243.35 112160 Integrated Digital Solutions STATIONARY SUPPLIES C$656.53 112168 London Middlesex Health Providers Alliance NURSING-TRAINING C$25.00 112174 Medical Mart INCONTINENT PRODUCTS C$1,823.94 112174 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$1,642.03 112174 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$1,311.32 112174 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$1,169.44 112175 MIP Inc. HOUSEKEEPING SUPPLIES C$477.58 112195 Signmakers NAME TAGS C$9.83 112205 VELMA KAUL EXPENSE REFUND C$160.00 112209 W.S.I.B. 856021 C$635.40 112242 CAM DENOMME ENTERTAINMENT C$237.30 112261 TONY NOTHER ENTERTAINMENT C$85.00 112262 MIKE WITTICH ENTERTAINMENT C$100.00
Strathmere Lodge Payables June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 2 C 5 - CW Info
Strathmere Lodge Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112263 ESTATE OF ALMA VAN ALSTYNE ACCOMM. REFUND C$1,807.54 112264 ESTATE OF CATHERINE HOEFNAGELS ACCOMM. REFUND C$1,145.39 112279 JOANNE DOES ENTERTAINMENT C$366.12 112285 LENA HODGINS STAFF EDUCATOR FEES C$2,534.81 112290 LESLEIGH MORDEN EXPENSE REFUND C$15.00 112303 Marbolt SUPPLIES C$7.23 112308 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$229.39 112308 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$1,683.43 112314 NOVEXCO OFFICE SUPPLIES C$917.31 112318 Ontario Nurses Association ONA COLL. BOOKS C$31.42 112329 RANDY GREY ENTERTAINMENT C$100.00 112335 Signmakers NAME TAGS C$83.90 112341 Stand By Power PURCHASED SERVICE C$186.45 112358 VAL BRADLEY PAINTING CLASSES C$135.60 112358 VAL BRADLEY PAINTING CLASSES C$169.50 112360 WAYNE GAUDON ENTERTAINMENT C$150.00 112364 W.S.I.B. 856021 C$3,897.47 112366 Wood Wyant Inc. HOUSEKEEPING SUPPLIES C$1,347.80 112370 Abell Pest Control Inc. PURCHASED SERVICES C$294.60 112378 CARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC. HIN. SUPPLIES C$1,875.99 112378 CARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC. HOUSEKEEPING SUPPLIES C$546.01 112395 Dafco Filteration Group Corp. EQUIPMENT MNTCE. C$1,980.25 112402 DIVERSEY CANADA, INC. LAUNDRY SUPPLIES C$962.91 112403 DOWNTOWN SOUND AGAIN RECREATION C$12.42 112407 ESTATE OF DORIS CHARRON ACCOMM. REFUND C$142.56 112419 Inge Stahl CHAPEL SUPPLIES C$68.44 112438 Medical Mart INCONT. PRODUCTS C$1,482.93 112438 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$37.22 112438 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$23.73 112438 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$169.39 112438 Medical Mart NURSING SUPPLIES C$1,230.27 112449 Omni Telecommunications EQUIPMENT MNTCE. C$227.41 112457 Premium Uniforms UNIFORM REPLACEMENT C$155.06 112466 RON PIERCE ENTERTAINMENT C$150.00 112468 Russell Hendrix PURCHASED SERVICES C$50.29 112471 Shred-It International ULC PURCHASED SERVIES C$124.58 112472 Signmakers NAME TAGS C$80.12 112493 W.S.I.B. 856021 C$656.75 112494 Wood Wyant Inc. HOUSEKEEPING SUPPLIES C$81.63 112494 Wood Wyant Inc. HOUSEKEEPING SUPPLIES C$59.33
$174,996.97
Strathmere Lodge Payables June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 8 C 6 - CW Info
Roads Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111786 Absolutely Creative Training CERV Training C$96.05 111795 Bell Canada D2 Phone C$118.88 111800 Carquest Filter C$110.30 111804 Checkers Cleaning Supply Supplies C$55.54 111806 CN Non-Freight Maintenance C$3,969.50 111807 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$70.33 111807 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$220.06 111807 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$19.13 111807 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$33.26 111807 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$110.31 111809 Canadian Pacific (Non-Freight) Services C$692.50 111809 Canadian Pacific (Non-Freight) Service C$2,039.50 111813 Corey Saunders Expense Refund C$2,023.93 111815 Chris Traini Expense Refund C$496.73 111816 Culligan Water Cambridge D2 Water C$15.25 111823 Dillon Consulting Professional Services C$2,825.00 111836 Guillevin International Supplies C$242.95 111836 Guillevin International Supplies C$24.86 111836 Guillevin International Supplies C$216.96 111836 Guillevin International Supplies C$51.53 111836 Guillevin International Supplies C$461.04 111838 Hobbs Welding & Boiler Service Ltd. Service C$1,590.41 111839 E.S. Hubbell and Sons Ltd. Blade C$280.19 111841 Hyde Park Equipment Parts C$18.81 111845 John Elston Expense Refund C$692.31 111847 Johnson's Sanitation Service Rest Station C$186.45 111848 Jerry Rychlo Expense Refund C$104.99 111849 K & E Sand and Gravel Lightning C$1,708.56 111853 Laurie's Fasteners Fasteners C$1.06 111857 Lind Lumber Ltd. Lumber C$67.79 111858 Linde Canada Limited 15687 Mixer C$99.07 111859 London Factory Supply & Equip Padlock C$40.51 111860 London Tire Sales Service Call C$406.80 111866 McNaughton Family Shopping Centre Supplies C$199.40 111866 McNaughton Family Shopping Centre Supplies C$393.17 111866 McNaughton Family Shopping Centre Supplies C$32.48 111866 McNaughton Family Shopping Centre Supplies C$3,128.86 111872 Motion Industries, (CANADA) Inc. Paint C$152.37
Roads Payables June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 8 C 6 - CW Info
Roads Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111872 Motion Industries, (CANADA) Inc. Paint C$129.00 111874 Nortrax Canada Inc. Cylinder C$130.24 111877 Ontario Southland Railway Inc. Maintenance C$594.18 111882 Princess Auto Parts C$305.08 111887 Ryan Hillinger Expense Refund C$116.20 111891 Royal Fence Limited Oxbow Bridge Maintenance C$2,710.20 111892 Rick Tweddle Expense Refund C$33.90 111898 Steve Gough Expense Refund C$87.25 111905 Swish Maintenance Limited Supplies C$463.61 111906 Telus Communications Company Basic Rent C$183.78 111910 Traction London (287) Parts C$158.20 111910 Traction London (287) Parts C$31.46 111911 Trillium Municipal Supply Inc. Sensor C$423.75 111927 A. & M. Truck Parts Limited Filters C$9.01 111927 A. & M. Truck Parts Limited Parts C$439.57 111930 AECOM Canada Limited Professional Services C$11,432.05 111931 A.J. Braun Mfg. Ltd. Supplies C$2,368.71 111932 Alberts Generator Services Inc. Service C$192.10 111934 Allstream Business Inc. D1 Long Distance C$167.18 111935 APC Auto Parts Canada Parts C$119.72 111935 APC Auto Parts Canada Supplies C$67.17 111936 Applied Industrial Technologies Supplies C$446.80 111936 Applied Industrial Technologies Supplies C$166.28 111942 Brian Gregory Heating, Cooling & Air Quality Repairs C$125.43 111945 BS & B Radiator Service Limited Repairs C$333.35 111945 BS & B Radiator Service Limited Repairs C$536.75 111945 BS & B Radiator Service Limited Repairs C$1,045.25 111949 Carquest Parts C$106.40 111950 North Middlesex Auto & Rental Supplies C$169.39 111951 Carquest of London South # 6487 Supplies C$95.30 111952 Carrier Truck Centre Supplies C$55.27 111952 Carrier Truck Centre Supplies C$464.17 111952 Carrier Truck Centre Parts C$57.48 111952 Carrier Truck Centre Parts C$19.50 111957 Cedar Signs Supplies C$1,052.92 111960 Cintas Canada Ltd. Laundry Service C$30.11 111964 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$84.80 111964 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$5.14 111964 Copps Building Materials Ltd. Supplies C$207.50 111966 CRS Contractors Rental Supply Limited Partne Roller C$560.48
Roads Payables June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 8 C 6 - CW Info
Roads Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111967 Culligan Water Water C$24.84 111967 Culligan Water Water coolers rental C$4.98 111967 Culligan Water water C$21.46 111968 Culligan Water Water C$9.04 111975 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$3,804.17 111975 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$5,641.15 111975 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$1,987.85 111979 Electrozad Supply Supplies C$54.85 111981 Emco Corporation Supplies C$531.10 111982 ENNIS PAINT CANADA ULC Paint C$54,980.38 111986 Fastenal Canada, Ltd. Hardware C$133.40 111986 Fastenal Canada, Ltd. Hardware C$91.29 111986 Fastenal Canada, Ltd. Hardware C$142.37 111986 Fastenal Canada, Ltd. Hardware C$61.13 111990 Gary Falconer Transport Service C$423.75 111991 Guild Electric Ltd Signal Maintenance C$11,208.21 111992 Guillevin International Supplies C$290.21 111992 Guillevin International Hose connector C$14.29 111992 Guillevin International Supplies C$691.56 111993 Hamisco Industrial Sales Inc. Supplies C$84.11 111995 Hilti (Canada) Corp. Parts C$113.00 111998 Hose Technology Incorporated Hose C$99.40 111998 Hose Technology Incorporated Hose C$203.67 111999 E.S. Hubbell and Sons Ltd. U Channel Sign Post C$1,158.25 111999 E.S. Hubbell and Sons Ltd. Blade C$1,559.40 112000 Hurex Parts C$1,301.13 112001 Hyde Park Feed & Country Store Grass Seed C$558.22 112001 Hyde Park Feed & Country Store Grass Seed C$431.66 112001 Hyde Park Feed & Country Store Grass Seed C$305.10 112004 Innovative Surface Solutions CA Propatch C$2,890.92 112009 Joel Haggith Expense Refund C$15.00 112011 Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. Gravel C$8,289.08 112011 Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. Gravel C$8,787.41 112011 Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. Gravel C$8,394.44 112011 Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. Gravel C$7,827.62 112011 Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. Gravel C$7,806.13 112013 KARCHER Repairs C$85.41 112014 Kardtech Inc. Chip Keys C$1,183.63 112014 Kardtech Inc. Chip Keys C$876.68 112014 Kardtech Inc. Chip Keys C$2,923.45 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$70.44 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$49.72
Roads Payables June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 8 C 6 - CW Info
Roads Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$99.44 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$31.41 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$120.16 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$49.72 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$99.44 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$888.03 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$49.62 112016 Kenworth Truck Centres Parts C$224.94 112021 Lafarge Canada Inc. Concrete C$271.20 112028 LUCIEN JALBERT Expense refund C$148.32 112032 London Tarp Inc Repair mower cover C$203.40 112033 London Tire Sales Service C$350.30 112033 London Tire Sales Service C$282.50 112033 London Tire Sales Service C$339.00 112033 London Tire Sales Service C$350.30 112033 London Tire Sales Service C$395.50 112033 London Tire Sales Service C$45.20 112038 McNaughton Family Shopping Centre Supplies C$3,282.65 112038 McNaughton Family Shopping Centre Supplies C$92.45 112042 Michael Herbert Expense Refund C$921.24 112043 Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. Tires C$1,177.80 112046 Martin Langdale Expense Refund C$15.00 112050 Motion Industries, (CANADA) Inc. Paint C$6,807.67 112053 Nortrax Canada Inc. Supplies C$138.13 112053 Nortrax Canada Inc. Supplies C$49.12 112057 Ontario One Call Apr 2017 Service C$614.04 112059 Oxford Dodge Chrysler Parts C$97.98 112059 Oxford Dodge Chrysler Parts C$874.06 112059 Oxford Dodge Chrysler Parts C$128.71 112062 Perth Communications June 2017 billing C$244.93 112065 Paul Moniz Expense refund C$50.00 112068 Pryde Industrial Inc. Tools C$41.97 112071 Push Rod Garage Inc. Service C$245.78 112076 Ryan Hillinger Course fees C$2,034.00 112079 Royal Fence Limited Post C$900.61 112083 Steve Guay Expense Refund C$528.75 112086 SOUTHWESTERN TRUCK SERVICE Parts C$306.38 112086 SOUTHWESTERN TRUCK SERVICE Parts C$457.04 112088 Spectrum Communications Service C$112.98 112088 Spectrum Communications Service C$1,356.00 112088 Spectrum Communications Service C$56.49 112089 Stainton's Ltd.& Ecowater London Cartridge C$242.45
Roads Payables June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 8 C 6 - CW Info
Roads Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112091 Staub Equipment Inc. Service C$501.46 112095 Strongco Equipment Handle C$62.49 112095 Strongco Equipment Repair C$6,463.17 112095 Strongco Equipment Cap fuel C$30.79 112097 Syl Rumas Petroleum Maintenance Ltd. Supplies C$176.56 112098 Team Truck Centre Service C$559.89 112105 Thorndale Ace Hardware Supplies C$67.54 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$327.70 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$259.90 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$282.50 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$319.23 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$282.50 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$175.72 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$473.47 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$473.47 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$473.47 112106 Tirecraft, Pro Tire Inc. Service C$524.32 112107 Toromont Cat Parts C$796.50 112107 Toromont Cat Parts C$8.70 112108 Traction London (287) Parts C$146.07 112108 Traction London (287) Parts C$81.61 112108 Traction London (287) Parts C$114.81 112108 Traction London (287) Parts C$201.60 112108 Traction London (287) Parts C$97.16 112108 Traction London (287) Parts C$171.27 112108 Traction London (287) Parts C$224.86 112108 Traction London (287) Parts C$8.38 112111 TSC Stores L.P. Supplies C$112.99 112111 TSC Stores L.P. Supplies C$98.81 112112 Tubby's Tire Service Repairs C$273.46 112113 Tunks and Kosi Electric Limite Repairs C$3,725.85 112113 Tunks and Kosi Electric Limite Repairs C$1,122.65 112115 United Rotary Brush Corporation of Canada, I Parts C$783.74 112118 Wear Check Canada Inc. Supplies C$1,276.88 112121 Williams Form Hardware Parts C$551.38 112131 Absolutely Creative Training Workshop C$734.50 112135 AOK SERVICES Shingles C$638.45 112137 Bell Canada D4 Phone C$65.69 112139 Bobcat of London, Ltd. Parts C$331.50 112150 Dowler Karn Limited Oil C$3,503.81 112150 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$1,485.22 112150 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$4,150.02
Roads Payables June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 8 C 6 - CW Info
Roads Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112150 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$1,958.03 112150 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$4,559.01 112155 Fastenal Canada, Ltd. Hardware C$104.10 112161 John Elston Expense Refund C$720.72 112177 Mitchell's Limited Supplies C$17.81 112177 Mitchell's Limited Supplies C$12.42 112183 Miller Transfer Permit Refund C$450.00 112185 Polefab Inc. Traffic Bases C$9,076.16 112186 Progressive Waste Solutions Basic Service C$555.06 112198 Stratford Farm Equipment Parts C$288.15 112203 Traction London (287) Parts C$72.24 112203 Traction London (287) Parts C$103.94 112206 Waddick Fuels Fuel C$393.15 112212 407 ETR Travel C$17.43 112214 A & B Rental Centre Cleaner C$56.22 112215 A. & M. Truck Parts Limited Parts C$11.81 112215 A. & M. Truck Parts Limited Parts C$239.23 112220 Altra Construction Rentals Inc. Skyjack C$4,661.25 112224 Banner Publications Display Ad C$281.39 112226 Bell Canada Fire Dispatch C$114.45 112230 Bluewater Recycling Association - MARS Waste Removal C$56.50 112231 B.M. Ross Associates Limited Surveying C$8,037.35 112233 Brent - Reg Construction Equipment Rental C$4,931.32 112234 BS & B Radiator Service Limited Parts C$1,011.35 112235 BSM Technologies Ltd. Service C$925.47 112239 Carquest Parts C$429.49 112239 Carquest Parts C$15.03 112239 Carquest Parts C$15.03 112240 Carrier Truck Centre Handle C$419.00 112240 Carrier Truck Centre Parts C$88.96 112240 Carrier Truck Centre Cooler C$1,219.26 112240 Carrier Truck Centre Breaker C$26.46 112240 Carrier Truck Centre Insulator Kit C$120.85 112240 Carrier Truck Centre Mirror C$948.06 112240 Carrier Truck Centre Sensor C$80.84 112241 Case 'N' Drum Oil Oil C$538.25 112245 Cintas Canada Ltd. Laundry Service C$35.49 112247 Coldstream Concrete Limited Grate C$449.74 112251 Delta Power Equipment Ltd. Glass C$1,045.25 112255 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$4,498.11 112255 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$6,898.81 112255 Dowler Karn Limited Fuel C$3,890.86
Roads Payables June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 8 C 6 - CW Info
Roads Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112270 Gerry's Truck Centre Hose C$80.07 112273 Guillevin International Supplies C$183.06 112273 Guillevin International Supplies C$32.77 112274 Hamisco Industrial Sales Inc. Inspections C$376.83 112275 Hardy Service Service C$3,507.45 112275 Hardy Service Service C$310.16 112277 Hyde Park Feed & Country Store Grass Seed C$440.70 112280 Johnson's Sanitation Service Rest Station C$152.55 112281 Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. Stone C$2,315.73 112282 Kal Tire Ontario Parts C$24,295.48 112287 Linde Canada Limited 15687 Oxygen C$183.30 112289 LUCIEN JALBERT Expense Refund C$33.87 112294 London Reman Parts C$132.10 112295 London Verbatim Reporting Transcript C$2,934.89 112296 London Tire Sales Service C$73.45 112297 Looby Builders (Dublin) Limited Project M-D-16 PPC #6 C$181,812.40 112307 McNaughton Family Shopping Centre Supplies C$270.59 112312 Muncipality of North Middlesex Street Sweeping C$1,522.66 112330 Southwest Middlesex Utilities Longwoods Service C$62.54 112331 Southwestern Truck Service Ltd Service C$61.37 112331 Southwestern Truck Service Ltd Service C$53.90 112331 Southwestern Truck Service Ltd Parts C$49.04 112339 Spectrum Wireless-London Phone replacement C$1,356.00 112339 Spectrum Wireless-London Phone Case C$112.98 112339 Spectrum Wireless-London Phone Case C$56.49 112340 Speedy Glass - Head Office Windsheild C$552.01 112345 Strongco Equipment Element C$309.39 112345 Strongco Equipment Ignition C$59.34 112346 Summit Tree Service Bucket Truck C$1,025.48 112348 Team Truck Centre Clamp C$15.19 112353 Traction London (287) Parts C$94.36 112353 Traction London (287) Parts C$90.60 112353 Traction London (287) Parts C$30.50 112353 Traction London (287) Parts C$48.17 112353 Traction London (287) Parts C$55.14 112357 United Rotary Brush Corporation of Canada, I Wafer C$774.38 112369 A & B Rental Centre Equipment Rental C$718.68 112369 A & B Rental Centre Equipment Rental C$41.70 112376 Bell Canada D3 Phone C$97.02 112376 Bell Canada D2 Phone C$118.88 112380 Carquest of London South # 6487 Supplies C$67.75 112381 Carrier Truck Centre Service C$1,038.86
Roads Payables June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 8 C 6 - CW Info
Roads Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112386 Coco Paving Inc. Supplies C$6,180.57 112387 Comfort Zone Services Service C$757.10 112387 Comfort Zone Services Service C$417.23 112400 Dillon Consulting Professional Services C$5,932.50 112411 Guillevin International Supplies C$364.76 112411 Guillevin International Supplies C$21.19 112411 Guillevin International Supplies C$135.60 112413 Hayter Publications Inc. Weed Spraying Ad C$166.11 112414 Hilti (Canada) Corp. Tools C$986.72 112415 Hyde Park Equipment Parts C$2.54 112416 Hyde Park Feed & Country Store Grass Seed C$293.80 112420 John Elston Expense Refund C$541.91 112422 Johnson's Sanitation Service Rest Station C$197.75 112424 Just Stumps Stump Removal C$20,608.44 112430 Linde Canada Limited 15687 Electrodes C$51.40 112433 London Tarp Inc Tarp C$169.50 112437 McNaughton Family Shopping Centre Supplies C$36.08 112440 Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. Tires C$13,269.14 112441 Municipality of Middlesex Centre Portable Scene Light C$812.53 112441 Municipality of Middlesex Centre Littlewood Drain C$27.45 112451 Ontario Southland Railway Inc. Maintenance C$594.18 112454 Brenair Farms Inc. Refund Deposit E05/17, E06/17 C$800.00 112465 Roy's Diesel Injection Ser.Ltd Hose C$19.59 112467 Road Services International Service C$903.58 112470 Safety Kleen - Toronto Supplies C$1,051.74 112473 Spectrum Communications Parts C$59.33 112479 Telus Communications Company Basic Rent C$183.78 112480 Traction London (287) Parts C$199.08 112480 Traction London (287) Parts C$118.16 112482 TRY Recycling Inc. Disposal C$2,297.77 112487 Williams Form Hardware Hardware C$96.14
$582,786.59
Roads Payables June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 8 C 7 - CW Info
MLEMS Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111784 1966473 Ontario Inc. o/a Bin There Dump That Strathroy Service C$531.10 111788 All Seasons Maintenance & Landscaping Parkhill Service C$248.60 111789 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$98.31 111789 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$163.85 111789 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$8,923.76 111789 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$345.90 111789 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$1,808.00 111789 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$542.40 111789 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$3,593.40 111790 Adam Lund Meal Allowance C$12.00 111791 Aplus Building Maintenance Waterloo Service C$1,248.50 111793 Bam Internet Services Internet C$79.04 111796 BERRN Consulting Ltd. Life Pak C$2,396.90 111799 Carleton Uniforms Inc. Uniforms C$1,135.65 111804 Checkers Cleaning Supply Supplies C$697.02 111805 Clark's Food Mart Fuel C$1,480.62 111808 Frank Cowan Insurance Co Ltd. Insurance C$28,554.00 111812 Crestline Coach Ltd. Parts C$48.56 111812 Crestline Coach Ltd. Parts C$5,609.32 111819 Christopher Vanderydt Meal Allowance C$12.00 111824 Discount Drain Services Inc. Meg Service C$226.00 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Hyde Park Service C$666.70 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Trossacks Service C$47.46 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Byron Service C$41.81 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Trafalgar Service C$68.93 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Waterloo Service C$175.15 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Horizon Service C$423.75 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Meg Service C$158.20 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Trossacks Service C$197.75 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Waterloo Service C$158.20 111826 Doug's Snowplowing & Sanding Glencoe Service C$355.95 111831 Edwards Door Systems Limited Strathroy Service C$782.75 111831 Edwards Door Systems Limited Strathroy Service C$1,292.10 111831 Edwards Door Systems Limited Waterloo Service C$186.45 111833 Entegrus Strathroy Service C$516.71 111837 Haygarth Printing Limited Supplies C$717.55 111843 Interdev Technologies Inc. Platinum Service C$6,432.52 111846 Job-Site Custom Coach Limited Trailer Rental C$830.55 111864 Mike Bellamy Expense Claim C$43.49 111869 Matthew Hughes Meal Allowance C$12.00 111871 Morneau Shepell Ltd. EAP Expenses C$6,650.37 111881 PITNEYWORKS Postage C$22.54
MLEMS Payables June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 8 C 7 - CW Info
MLEMS Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111884 Purolator Inc. Courier C$14.27 111886 Robert Gordon Meal Allowance C$12.00 111889 Rogers Internet C$97.12 111889 Rogers Internet C$97.12 111890 Ross' Services Boost C$67.80 111895 RWAM Insurance Administrators GROUP 15724 Div 1 C$153,852.11 111901 Staples Advantage Supplies C$59.20 111901 Staples Advantage Supplies C$206.02 111902 Steam Canada Waterloo Service C$4,474.80 111903 Stericycle, ULC Clinical Services C$878.39 111904 Strathcraft Awards Uniforms C$16.95 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$372.90 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$282.50 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$1,260.83 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$375.63 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$332.64 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$271.20 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$322.05 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$468.24 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$165.42 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$260.41 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$231.65 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$485.14 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$402.36 111909 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$165.42 111912 Uline Canada Corporation Supplies C$2,942.00 111912 Uline Canada Corporation Supplies C$92.26 111914 Union Gas Hyde Park Service C$223.67 111914 Union Gas Horizon Service C$364.14 111914 Union Gas Lucan Service C$129.98 111914 Union Gas Meg Service C$419.87 111914 Union Gas Trossacks Service C$132.91 111915 Unique Communication Strathroy Service C$881.40 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$56.68 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$365.88 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$1,366.28 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$423.48 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$315.42 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$539.60 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$46.08 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$373.02 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$68.20
MLEMS Payables June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 8 C 7 - CW Info
MLEMS Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$97.46 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$372.10 111916 VITALAIRE Oxygen C$166.58 111917 Waddick Fuels Fuel C$1,230.67 111920 Work Authority Uniform C$150.00 111921 Wayne Renkema Expense Refund C$86.98 111926 2092058 Ontario Inc. Overflow Parking C$339.00 111933 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$4,719.44 111933 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$7,352.91 111933 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$1,159.38 111941 Breau Air Inc. Parkhill Service C$414.48 111946 Cadillac Industrial Cleaning Services Inc. Waterloo Service C$2,559.45 111946 Cadillac Industrial Cleaning Services Inc. Byron Service C$988.75 111946 Cadillac Industrial Cleaning Services Inc. Komoka Service C$988.75 111946 Cadillac Industrial Cleaning Services Inc. Glencoe Service C$988.75 111946 Cadillac Industrial Cleaning Services Inc. Horizon Service C$988.75 111948 Carleton Uniforms Inc. Uniforms C$1,101.86 111948 Carleton Uniforms Inc. Uniforms C$1,945.18 111953 Carswell Supplies C$427.09 111958 Checkers Cleaning Supply Supplies C$69.09 111961 Treasurer, City of London Fuel C$30,359.80 111962 Clark's Food Mart Fuel C$1,427.10 111965 Craftsman's Seal Painting Limited Byron Service C$1,299.50 111972 Discount Drain Services Inc. Meg Service C$226.00 111972 Discount Drain Services Inc. Meg Service C$593.25 111978 Edwards Door Systems Limited Glencoe Service C$886.71 111984 Execulink Telecom Internet C$254.25 111987 Ferno Canada Inc Parts C$772.42 111987 Ferno Canada Inc Medical Supplies C$858.80 111987 Ferno Canada Inc Inspectors/Repairs C$5,274.48 111988 Frank Labodi Expense Refund C$407.02 111994 Hicks Morely Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP Legal Fees C$8,984.07 111996 HMMS Medical Supplies C$2,545.88 112002 Hydro One Networks Inc. Glencoe Service C$704.14 112002 Hydro One Networks Inc. Lucan Service C$479.56 112002 Hydro One Networks Inc. Nilestown Service C$308.22 112005 Interdev Technologies Inc. Hardware C$429.40 112005 Interdev Technologies Inc. Hardware C$203.40 112012 Kal Tire Ontario Service C$344.42 112022 Lerners LLP Legal Fees C$1,155.32 112024 London Health Sciences Ctr Medication C$14,622.59 112029 Lynn McCreary Supplies C$196.10
MLEMS Payables June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 8 C 7 - CW Info
MLEMS Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112030 London Hospital Linen Service Inc. Linen Processing C$2,355.68 112031 London Hydro Horizon Service C$227.34 112036 Mark`s Commercial Uniforms C$257.62 112044 Municipality of Middlesex Centre Komoka Service C$115.20 112054 Novack's Uniform Solutions Uniforms C$23.32 112054 Novack's Uniform Solutions Uniforms C$9.27 112054 Novack's Uniform Solutions Uniforms C$4.63 112054 Novack's Uniform Solutions Uniforms C$4.63 112054 Novack's Uniform Solutions Uniforms C$4.63 112054 Novack's Uniform Solutions Uniforms C$23.17 112054 Novack's Uniform Solutions Uniforms C$9.27 112056 OE Canada Inc. Parts C$22.54 112069 Public Services Health & Safety Assoc. H&S Training C$992.14 112070 Purolator Inc. Courier C$56.78 112075 Reliance Home Comfort Meg Service C$51.64 112081 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning Strathroy Service C$567.49 112081 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning Meg Service C$378.32 112090 Staples Advantage Supplies C$465.92 112090 Staples Advantage Supplies C$255.23 112093 Strathroy-Caradoc Fire Department Supplies C$344.05 112100 Telus Communications Phone C$714.48 112102 Texmain Cleaners Alterations C$103.41 112102 Texmain Cleaners Dry Cleaning C$167.81 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$660.81 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$322.05 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$1,010.92 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$148.03 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$665.86 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$2,019.43 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$464.24 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$1,122.40 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$702.65 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$947.82 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$219.74 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$468.24 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$165.42 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$159.20 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$146.28 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$471.09 112103 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$322.05 112109 Trinity Planning & Projects Consulting Consultant Service C$889.88 112110 Trudell Medical Marketing Limited Medical Supplies C$3,492.34
MLEMS Payables June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 8 C 7 - CW Info
MLEMS Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112114 Union Gas Parkhill Service C$77.32 112114 Union Gas Waterloo Service C$914.52 112122 Work Authority Uniforms C$150.00 112125 WSIB Schedule 2 C$8,570.54 112125 WSIB Schedule 2 C$9,210.88 112125 WSIB Schedule 2 C$4,484.22 112125 WSIB Physician Fees C$12,071.88 112130 Absolute Destruction & Recycling Corp. Shredding Services C$209.05 112136 Artcal Graphic Imaging Supplies C$220.35 112137 Bell Canada Phone C$83.34 112137 Bell Canada Phone C$84.07 112137 Bell Canada Phone C$83.34 112137 Bell Canada Phone C$90.14 112138 Bell Canada Internet C$132.21 112138 Bell Canada Internet C$264.42 112138 Bell Canada Internet C$287.02 112138 Bell Canada Internet C$264.42 112138 Bell Canada Internet C$264.42 112138 Bell Canada Internet C$264.42 112138 Bell Canada Internet C$275.72 112148 Demers, Ambulance Manufacturers Inc. Parts C$315.38 112149 Discount Drain Services Inc. Meg Services C$226.00 112151 Edwards Door Systems Limited Trossacks Service C$316.40 112154 Excellent Signs and Displays Inc. Strathroy Service C$859.93 112157 Gencare Services Limited Waterloo Service C$485.90 112159 Hydro One Networks Inc. Komoka Service C$388.94 112170 London Hydro Waterloo Service C$712.47 112170 London Hydro Meg Service C$507.16 112170 London Hydro Trossacks Service C$420.68 112171 Twp. of Lucan Biddulph Lucan Station Taxes C$1,078.00 112173 Mark`s Commercial Uniforms C$244.07 112173 Mark`s Commercial Uniforms C$132.20 112176 Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. Tires C$521.16 112179 Norlon Builders Project 2228/15 PPC #7 C$840,449.34 112182 2425021 Ontario Inc. Parkhill Station Taxes C$885.00 112186 Progressive Waste Solutions Waste Removal C$914.96 112188 Purolator Inc. Courier C$21.64 112193 Southwest Middlesex Utilities Glencoe Service C$161.40 112199 Strathroy-Caradoc Fire Department Supplies C$344.05 112204 Union Gas Bryon Service C$19.80 112210 WSIB FIRM 856176 Schedule 2 C$11,396.76 112219 AGM Surveying . Engineering Land Survey C$2,671.89
MLEMS Payables June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 8 C 7 - CW Info
MLEMS Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112226 Bell Canada Phone C$1.70 112227 Bell Canada Internet C$220.21 112232 Breau Air Inc. Inspections C$4,111.22 112238 Carleton Uniforms Inc. Uniforms C$1,163.90 112238 Carleton Uniforms Inc. Uniforms C$1,759.41 112246 Clark Hassen Electric Inc. Strathroy Service C$2,121.62 112268 Ferno Canada Inc Medical Supplies C$966.15 112268 Ferno Canada Inc Medical Supplies C$107.35 112271 Gilpin Holdings Inc. Glencoe Station Taxes C$1,026.00 112272 Gordon Strategy Training C$3,390.00 112292 London Hydro Waterloo Service C$2,578.91 112293 London Mechanical Plumbing & Heating Horizon Service C$406.80 112293 London Mechanical Plumbing & Heating Waterloo Service C$135.60 112293 London Mechanical Plumbing & Heating Byron Service C$135.60 112301 The Corporation of the Township of Lucan Bid Retro May/17 Rent C$22.06 112321 2425021 Ontario Inc. Retro May/17 Rent C$17.11 112324 Physio-Control Canada Sales Ltd. C/O. T11076 Medical Supplies C$7,924.13 112326 Purolator Inc. Courier C$68.95 112328 Ray's Electric Inc. Trafalgar Service C$202.95 112328 Ray's Electric Inc. Horizon Service C$280.24 112344 1413055 Ontario Limited Strathroy Taxes Mar-Apr/17 C$1,068.16 112347 Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Medication C$12,000.00 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$327.05 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$212.49 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$639.77 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$468.24 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$141.25 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$628.76 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$468.24 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$141.25 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$110.61 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$1,207.88 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$1,041.09 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$1,110.50 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$165.33 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Preventative Maintenance C$166.65 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$322.05 112350 Thames OK Tire & Auto Service Service C$267.35 112356 Union Gas Glencoe Service C$82.34 112359 354039 Ontario Ltd. Retro May/17 Rent C$17.55 112362 Windsor Factory Supply Limited Supplies C$254.39 112363 Work Authority Uniforms C$150.00
MLEMS Payables June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 8 C 7 - CW Info
MLEMS Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112363 Work Authority Uniforms C$268.92 112365 WSIB Schedule 2 C$5,128.33 112237 Southside Group Jun/17 Rent C$8,175.15 112271 Gilpin Holdings Inc. Jun/17 Rent C$3,507.78 112276 ESAM Construction Limited Jun/17 Rent C$8,285.16 112284 Norquay Developments Ltd. aka Southmoor Deve Jun/17 Rent C$4,202.73 112301 The Corporation of the Township of Lucan Bid Jun/17 Rent C$2,228.90 112309 435935 Ontario Inc. Jun/17 Rent C$6,863.10 112313 1960735 Ontario Inc. Jun/17 Rent C$2,443.56 112321 2425021 Ontario Inc. Jun/17 Rent C$1,728.04 112354 City Treasurer, City of London Jun/17 Rent C$1,365.41 112355 John Brotzel Jun/17 Rent C$1,986.15 112359 354039 Ontario Ltd. Rent Jun/17 C$11,942.63 112372 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$1,628.67 112372 Allied Medical Instruments Inc. Medical Supplies C$7,076.80 112373 Aplus Building Maintenance Waterloo Service C$936.77 112374 Architects Tillmann Ruth Robinson Consultant Services C$6,939.75 112379 Carleton Uniforms Inc. Uniforms C$146.56 112379 Carleton Uniforms Inc. Uniforms C$96.05 112379 Carleton Uniforms Inc. Uniforms C$1,356.00 112390 Crestline Coach Ltd. Parts C$89.18 112396 Demers, Ambulance Manufacturers Inc. Parts C$25.14 112401 Discount Drain Services Inc. Meg Service C$226.00 112404 Edwards Door Systems Limited Nilestown Service C$265.55 112404 Edwards Door Systems Limited Lucan Service C$649.81 112406 Entegrus Parkhill Service C$303.92 112409 Ferno Canada Inc Ace Tech C$1,582.00 112412 Haygarth Printing Limited Supplies C$281.37 112412 Haygarth Printing Limited Supplies C$879.14 112421 Job-Site Custom Coach Limited Trailer Rental C$830.55 112423 John Prno Expense Refund C$116.09 112431 London Hospital Linen Service Inc. Linen Service C$4,540.58 112432 London Hydro Horizon Service C$611.83 112440 Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. Tires C$1,041.18 112440 Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. Tires C$1,041.18 112442 Monarch Office Supply Inc. Supplies C$242.52 112444 Natural Resource Gas Limited Nilestown Service C$140.43 112445 Unique Food Attitudes Limited Training Lunch C$216.96 112447 OE Canada Inc. Digital Office Solutions Copier C$1,150.70 112447 OE Canada Inc. Digital Office Solutions Copier C$187.86 112452 Oxford County Cross Border Calls C$24,024.00 112455 Canadian Red Cross Annual Renewal C$100.00
MLEMS Payables June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 8 C 7 - CW Info
MLEMS Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112456 Physio-Control Canada Sales Ltd. C/O. T11076 Medical Supplies C$8,348.78 112456 Physio-Control Canada Sales Ltd. C/O. T11076 Medical Supplies C$8,713.48 112459 Purolator Inc. Courier C$10.78 112460 Ray's Electric Inc. Waterloo Service C$328.71 112460 Ray's Electric Inc. Waterloo Service C$3,244.51 112460 Ray's Electric Inc. Lucan Service C$103.51 112461 Roche Diagnostics Medical Supplies C$2,030.00 112462 Rogers Internet C$97.12 112462 Rogers Internet C$97.12 112464 Rowland Emergency Vechile Produces Inc. Medical Supplies C$11,395.82 112469 RWAM Insurance Administrators Group 15724 C$157,151.07 112476 Staples Advantage Office Supplies C$315.01 112476 Staples Advantage Supplies C$104.82 112484 Union Gas Komoka Service C$51.96 112484 Union Gas Hyde Park Service C$180.90 112484 Union Gas Horizon Service C$260.26 112485 Unique Communication Fuel C$50.85 112486 Waddick Fuels Fuel C$1,230.67 112490 Work Authority Uniforms C$150.00 112490 Work Authority Uniforms C$914.69 112490 Work Authority Uniforms C$300.00 112495 XPERA Consultant Fees C$1,108.37
$ 2,223,928.79
MLEMS Payables June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 2 C 8 - CW Info
Information Technology Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017 recievable
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111844 Jacobs Business Software Inc. Software Renewal C$446.35 111954 Chris Bailey Expense Refund C$141.87 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Network Supplies C$854.85 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Hardware Maintenance C$810.50 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Supplies C$270.64 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$2,946.12 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Network Hardware C$844.94 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$52.48 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Supplies C$100.66 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$78.49 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$98.68 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Printer Supplies C$199.14 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Software C$969.64 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Software C$349.64 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Hardware Support Renewal C$712.11 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Network Support Renewal C$63.60 111956 CDW Canada Inc. Network Supplies C$8,925.62 111963 Command Services Ltd. Computer Supplies C$160.15 111963 Command Services Ltd. Computer Supplies C$211.04 111970 Dell Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$1,658.26 111989 Frontier Computing Computer Hardware C$175.14 112056 OE Canada Inc. Toshiba Printer Lease C$613.76 112077 Rogers Communication Partnership Connectivity C$1,288.20 112078 Rogers Wireless Cell Phone C$256.68 112078 Rogers Wireless Cell Phone C$256.68 112099 Telus Mobility C$1,538.58 112134 Aidan Luby Expense Refund C$105.20 112158 Greg Marles Expense Refund C$241.50 112191 Ryan Price Expense Refund C$30.00 112243 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$57.25 112243 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$2,184.20 112243 CDW Canada Inc. HP Server Hardware Support C$1,310.86 112243 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$270.64 112243 CDW Canada Inc. Printer Supplies C$2,241.36 112243 CDW Canada Inc. Printer Supplies C$282.55 112278 Insight Canada Inc. Computer Software C$408.38 112316 OE Canada Inc. Digital Office Solutions Toshiba Printer Meter Reading C$2,540.24 112384 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$117.61 112384 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$73.43 112384 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Hardware C$1,668.71 112384 CDW Canada Inc. Computer Software C$388.98 112384 CDW Canada Inc. Hardware Support Renewal C$172.72
IT Payables June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 2 C 8 - CW Info
Information Technology Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017 recievable
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 112410 Frontier Computing Assistive Technology C$2,150.39 112418 Insight Canada Inc. Computer Software C$1,220.40 112418 Insight Canada Inc. Computer Software C$610.20 112427 London Business Forms Business Cards C$128.82 112439 Mercury Blueprinting Inc. Large Format Printer Supplies C$311.03 112446 OE Canada Inc. Toshiba Printer Meter Read C$1,093.07 112463 Rogers Wireless Cell Phone C$402.98 112474 Spectrum Wireless-London New Cell Phone Plan C$169.49
$42,203.83
IT Payables June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 1 C 9 - CW Info
Economic Development Payables 3 May - 31 May 2017
Cheque Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Amount 111797 Blackburn Radio Inc. Tourism Advertising $271.20 111797 Blackburn Radio Inc. Tourism Advertising $452.00 111803 Cara Finn Expense Refund $230.77 111997 Horizon Travel Magazine Limited Editorial $3,390.00 112074 Rayna Abernethy Expense refund $37.60 112087 Steven Pearce Ec.Dev - Resident Attraction $3,000.00 112104 Teresa Hill Expense Refund $213.44 112104 Teresa Hill Expense Refund $111.06 112244 Cara Finn Expense Refund $271.19 112269 FireRock Golf Club Tourism Forum - Meetings $1,663.93 112322 Paula Morand Enterprises Tourism - Forum/Meeting $1,130.00 112342 The Steel Grill Catering Limited Special Event - CCPV Tour $292.11 112351 Teresa Hill Expense Refund $40.72 112377 Blackburn Radio Inc. Toruism Advertising $452.00 112377 Blackburn Radio Inc. Tourism Advertising $271.20 112491 WorkCabin Digital Advertising $254.25
$12,081.47
Economic Development Payables June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 4 C 10 - CW Info
Resident, Family, Friend and Responsible Party Newsletter – June ‘17
Dear Strathmere Lodge residents, family members, friends/responsible parties:
Ministry of Health and Long Term Care - Inspections
The provincial Ministry of Health and Long Term Care carries out inspections of the province’s 630 long term care homes to monitor adherence to provincial Long Term Care Homes legislation (i.e., Long Term Care Homes Act and Regulation 79/10). This legislation (200+ pages) is available on the province’s “E-laws” website or https://www.ontario.ca/laws.
The Ministry has “Compliance Inspectors” assigned to monitor/inspect for legislation adherence. Compliance Inspectors visit long term care homes unannounced, and will visit long term care homes for the following reasons:
a) To conduct the mandatory annual “Resident Quality Inspection (RQI)”. These inspections are comprehensive, involve multiple inspectors (e.g., 4), and can last for approximately two weeks. While on-site, Compliance Inspectors will: interview residents (40), including the Home’s Residents’ Council President; interview families, including the Home’s Family Council President; interview staff; review the Home for safety/security and cleanliness; review residents’ clinical documentation; and observe residents in their home areas; June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 4 C 10 - CW Info
b) To conduct a Complaint/Concern Investigation. Compliance Inspectors will investigate phone calls to the provincial “1-800 Concern/Complaint Line”; c) To investigate “Critical Incidents” following mandatory reports submitted by long term care homes to the Ministry. Long Term Care Homes legislation requires that we submit written reports to the Ministry on various matters, that include: a resident who may go missing for an extended time period; an outbreak of reportable/communicable disease; abuse/neglect; and a resident injury involving a hospital visit resulting in a significant health status change; and d) To conduct Follow-up Investigations, on matters where the Ministry wants to verify that action has been taken on previously identified deficiencies.
Ministry inspection reports are posted at the bulletin board next to the Home’s Chapel (near Reception). Copies of reports are provided to the Home’s Residents’ Council (RC) President and Family Council (FC) President, and discussed at RC and FC meetings.
Copies of Ministry reports on all individual provincial long term care homes are also posted on the Ministry’s Public Reporting Website or http://publicreporting.ltchomes.net/en-ca/default.aspx.
1. Recreation Calendar / Important Events
Please pick up and check out our monthly Recreation calendar (given to every individual resident, in addition to being available in each Resident Home Area, and on our website or at: https://www.middlesex.ca/departments/long- term-care/recreation for events that you may find of interest and would like to attend.
Our upcoming events for June (in the Rose Room):
a) Saturday, June 3rd, 1:30pm – Randy Grey entertains b) Monday, June 12th, 6:30pm – Strawberry Social with the Appin Busy Bees June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 4 C 10 - CW Info
c) Friday, June 16th, 2:00pm – Fathers’ Day Social with Blue Skies d) Wednesday, June 21st, 2:00pm – Entertainment by Rich & Wayne th e) Wednesday, June 28 , 2:00pm – Rhubarb Pie Social with
Special events in June (we hope to see everyone out):
a) Wednesday, June 7th, 6:30pm - For the very first time … Strathmere Lodge is proud to present … the “must see” … renowned … “Forest City Fire Choir” b) Saturday, June 24th, 2:00pm – Canada Day Garden Party with entertainment by the “Goldies”, and strawberry shortcake compliments of our Ladies’ Auxiliary
2. Family Council
This group of involved and caring friends and family members meets on a regular basis to share information and discuss common issues. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 12, 2017, at 1:30pm in the Conference Room (second floor).
All family and friends of residents of Strathmere Lodge are welcome to attend. No pre-registration is necessary.
Please contact Marcy Welch (ext. 226, or at [email protected]) for more information.
Minutes of the most recent meeting are posted on the family information board in the Rose Room (near the Chapel), and previous minutes are available for review at our Reception desk.
4. In Conclusion ….
Please let me know if you would like to see certain issues addressed in future newsletter editions (contact me at 519- 245-2520, ext. 222, or via email at: [email protected]).
June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 4 C 10 - CW Info
Please share a copy of this newsletter with other family members and friends, or direct them to our website or http://www.middlesex.ca/departments/long-term-care
Electronic back copies of our newsletter can be found on our website. Hard copies are compiled in binders at both our Reception desk and the staff lounge, and are available for your review.
You can find additional copies of this newsletter edition on our Public Information Board in the main lobby (near the Chapel).
Brent Kerwin, Administrator Distribution: Responsible Parties, Auxiliary, Information Board, Resident Home Areas (5), Website, County Council, Staff, Other Stakeholderst June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 22 C 11 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 11 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 12 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
News from the Centres for Learning, Research and Innovation in Long-Term Care June 13, 2017 Page 13 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 14 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 15 of 22 C 11 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 16 of 22 C 11 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 17 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 18 of 22 C 11 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 19 of 22 C 11 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 20 of 22 C 11 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 21 of 22 C 11 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 22 of 22 C 11 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 2 C 12 - CW Info
To: Health Service Provider Board Chairs, CEOs/Executive Directors, and System Partners
From: Michael Barrett, CEO, South West LHIN
Re: Transition day for the South West CCAC and South West LHIN
Date: May 24, 2017
I am pleased to announce that after many months of planning, and a tremendous amount of help from the Staff and Boards of both organizations, the South West CCAC and South West LHIN have come together as one organization. We are now the South West LHIN.
Effective today, all South West CCAC employees and assets have been transferred to the South West LHIN. CCAC contracts with service providers have been transferred to the LHIN, meaning home care services will continue to be provided by current service providers. All programs and services that the CCAC provided will continue, and the way in which individuals access care and how your teams refer to home and community care will not change.
LHIN staff are being provided new identification badges that include the LHIN’s visual identity. However, I would ask that you not to take down any signage or reference on how to find/contact our patient services and hospital team until other information is available. We will be transitioning all existing CCAC materials your organization may have to LHIN branding and visual identity over the coming weeks - more details will follow.
With respect to inquiries from LHIN-funded health service providers related to system design and integration, or quality, performance and accountability, unless advised otherwise, please continue to connect with the LHIN contact you have engaged with in the past. Any future changes to your point of contact for the LHIN will be communicated to you formally.
Work is also underway to implement our sub-region planning. You will be kept informed of any changes regarding how the LHIN interacts with its partners and health service providers.
While today marks a significant milestone for both the South West LHIN and the South West CCAC, we are aiming to ensure that patient care is not impacted. Patients will continue to receive care from familiar faces – from providers that know their stories, their preferences, and their needs.
June 13, 2017 TransitionPage 2day of for 2 the South West CCAC and SouthC West 12 LHIN- CW Info Page 2
Please do not hesitate to connect with your LHIN contact or a LHIN leader if you have any questions or concerns. I would also encourage you to refer to the Q&A document which was circulated to all health service providers and partners on May 10, 2017.
I would like to extend a special thank you to the members of the Executive Advisory Panel, a group of health system leaders, who have been providing the LHIN with advice and counsel on our Patients First work for the last several months. And thanks to all of you for your continued support and commitment to delivering the best possible experience for patients, clients, and residents in the South West LHIN.
There are tremendous opportunities ahead of us as we leverage the collective expertise in our expanded organization with all of you as system partners, to enhance the care for the patients and system we serve.
2
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 2 C 13 - CW Info
Communique 5 – May 31, 2017
Residential hospice planning in the South West LHIN – Update
The South West LHIN continues to work with the South West Hospice Palliative Care Leadership Committee, local collaboratives and other community partners to achieve its vision of a comprehensive, integrated and coordinated hospice palliative care system.
On January 17, 2017, the South West LHIN Board of Directors approved guiding, planning and development principles to support the establishment of new residential hospice resources throughout the LHIN. These principles will continue to inform planning and decision-making regarding residential hospice service delivery throughout our geography.
Our goal is to continue to foster collaboration among all partners involved, including members of the public, to facilitate shared ownership of solutions and actions. Maintaining our commitment to transparency is key to achieving this goal.
Sub-region updates
Grey Bruce The Residential Hospice of Grey Bruce continues to prepare for the move to its new residential hospice location. Chapman House celebrated its official opening on May 26, 2017, and is preparing for patients and families to move into the new hospice early in June 2017. Communities interested in residential hospice capacity in Grey Bruce have worked collaboratively in partnership with the Residential Hospice of Grey Bruce to produce a discussion document that focuses on building on the strengths of Chapman House to increase access for southern Grey Bruce through the establishment of additional residential hospice capacity. The discussion document was reviewed by the Grey Bruce Collaborative and it was recommended that the community groups continue to work with the Board of Directors of Chapman House and the South West LHIN staff to further develop a solution for residential hospice that will optimally meet the needs of Grey Bruce. A meeting took place on April 7, 2017, to further planning efforts. The South West LHIN continues to work with the Residential Hospice of Grey Bruce and representatives from the communities of Walkerton, Hanover and Kincardine to confirm a unified approach to Residential Hospice beds in Grey Bruce aligned with the LHIN’s residential hospice guiding principles. The Residential Hospice Guiding Document will be used to continue to support residential hospice planning and implementation in Grey Bruce and across the South West LHIN.
Huron Perth Development Committees for each of the two sites that are part of the Huron Perth unified residential hospice solution have been established to continue to plan and implement residential hospice beds in Huron Perth. A Board of Governors for the Huron Perth Hospice is being established and has been incorporated under Hospice Care Avon Maitland. The Board includes representatives from across the diverse geography of Huron and Perth.
June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 2 C 13 Page- CW 2 Info
The Stratford Perth hospice site will be built at 90 Greenwood Drive on vacant land behind the existing Greenwood Court complex owned by Tri-County Mennonite Homes. The Huron site committee is currently focused on formally securing the location for the new site. Fundraising efforts for the residential hospice sites are continuing.
Elgin The Residential Hospice Subcommittee includes members from East, West, and Central Elgin as well as representatives from hospice service providers, the Palliative Care Outreach Team, community health centres, physicians, funeral services, numerous community leaders, St. Joseph’s Health Care Society, and the South West LHIN. A news release was sent out on March 8, 2017, announcing a new formal partnership between the Residential Hospice Planning Subcommittee and St. Joseph’s Health Care Society. A Request for Proposals for a residential hospice business plan was issued, proposals were reviewed, and Lough Barnes Consulting Group has been selected to complete this work. The consultant began the planning work in mid-April with a projected completion date in July 2017. This work will be focused on drafting a proposal for a residential hospice model that will support Elgin County. Stakeholder engagement will be a crucial part of this planning work and will involve representatives throughout Elgin County.
Residential Hospice Planning Resources Communique 1 Communique 2 Communique 3 Communique 4
For additional information please contact: Lisa Penner South West Hospice Palliative Care Lead [email protected] 519-474-5657
For media inquiries please contact: Ashley Jackson Director, Communications South West Local Health Integration Network [email protected] 519-640-2604
Faadia Ghani Communications Advisor South West LHIN [email protected] 519-640-2594 June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 2 C 14 - CW Info
May 23, 2017
Members’ Update - Changing Workplaces Final Report Released
Ontario Minister of Labour Kevin Flynn today released the Changing Workplaces Review final report this morning. This report recommends substantial legislative changes to the province's Employment Standards Act (ESA) and Labour Relations Act (LRA).
The Final Report - The Changing Workplaces Review - An Agenda for Workplace Rights - authored by Special Advisors C. Michael Mitchell and John C. Murray is massive at 419 pages and contains 173 recommendations that could have significant impacts on the workplaces throughout Ontario.
A key focus of this review is the treatment of employees who do not work full-time and may be considered to have precarious employment. This includes part-time, temporary, self-employment, and multiple job employment that has grown almost twice as fast as standard employment since 1997. While private sector services account for more than half of employment in Ontario, the remainder work in the broader public service, including municipal government who are significant employers throughout the province.
Highlights of the Report’s recommendations that may be of interest to municipal employers includes:
• the Employment Standards Act, Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act be combined and streamlined into a Workplace Rights Act • part-time, casual, temporary, contract and seasonal employees be paid the same as comparable full-time employees • personal emergency leave and bereavement leave apply for all employees, not only to those employed in workplaces of 50 or more employees, and further o bereavement leave be an independent leave for up to 3 unpaid days o personal emergency leaves are an independent annual entitlement of 7 days
• employers be required to pay for doctor’s notes if request from an employee • vacation entitlement be increased to 3 weeks per year after 5 years of employmentwith the same employer • the current ESA exemption for interns and trainees be eliminated • the secret ballot vote process for union certification to continue with new remedies for employer misconduct • if a union has approximately 20% support of the potential bargaining unit then the organizing union can be provided with the personal contact information of the employees of the potential bargaining unit by the employer to enable organizing • increased enforcement and educational activities by the Ministry of Labour. June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 2 C 14 - CW Info
We understand that the provincial government has reviewed the Final Report’s numerous recommendations, and will be announcing their formal response within the next week.
In anticipation of the Changing Workplace Final Report, AMO has established a Task Force of members and HR experts who will assist in considering the Province’s formal response (once released) to these recommendations and providing advice to the AMO Board. AMO will continue to keep you updated on this significant employers’ issue.
The Changing Workplaces’ recommendations adopted by the Ontario government will be discussed at our upcoming September 22nd Labour Relations symposium.
AMO Contact: Monika Turner, AMO Director of Policy, [email protected]
PLEASE NOTE: AMO Breaking News will be broadcast to the member municipality’s council, administrator, and clerk. Recipients of the AMO broadcasts are free to redistribute the AMO broadcasts to other municipal staff as required. We have decided to not add other staff to these broadcast lists in order to ensure accuracy and efficiency in the management of our various broadcast lists.
DISCLAIMER: Any documents attached are final versions. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with this electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record.
OPT-OUT: If you wish to opt-out of these email communications from AMO please click here.
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 4 C 15 - CW Info
June 5, 2017
Province Announces Emergency Services Changes Including Dispatch and Fire-Medic Pilots
Today, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care announced proposed changes to emergency health services, including providing alternative options for medical treatment and paramedic services. We understand there will be a consultation process over the coming weeks with the intent to introduce legislative changes in the fall session.
Firstly, the Ministry is investing in a new medical dispatch system for land ambulance 911 calls expected to roll out across the province over a period of two years starting in March 2018. The purpose is to better prioritize calls based on patient need and re- directing low acuity patients from emergency rooms, where appropriate and safe to do so. This initiative is timely and welcome. AMO has long called for improvements to the dispatch system.
The government is also seeking to expand the scope of paramedics to provide alternate on-scene treatment and to refer patients to destinations other than hospitals as is currently required by law. Further information and analysis on the implications and benefits to patients, municipal governments, and District Social Service Administration Boards is needed.
The Minister also announced that once the Act is changed and a regulation is in place, that two pilot projects could test the use of firefighters certified as paramedics to respond to low-acuity calls Given the legislative process, it is likely these pilots will not occur until 2018 at the earliest and there are willing municipal governments. There is still time for municipal input into this proposal.
While the two pilots are to be voluntary, determined by the municipal employer, then interest arbitrators must be forbidden in law from replicating this idea. As happened with 24-hour shift pilots, interest arbitration settlements made it a practice, even in municipalities that did not adopt the policy. The government must address the labour relations concerns of municipal employers prior to the pilot’s introduction by amending the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, as it amends the Ambulance Act. If it is truly to be an elective option for municipal governments, then it cannot be imposed without the support of councils.
AMO and others in the paramedic service delivery have no evidence to show improved patient outcomes, yet municipal labour and risk management issues are significant. If the government proceeds with these pilots, there must be a commitment to conducting a third-party proof of concept evaluation. AMO will continue to engage the Province about the pilot’s implications and advocate on behalf of municipal governments. June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 4 C 15 - CW Info
For further information, please see the Ministry news release, Ontario Enhancing Emergency Services across the Province.
AMO Contact: Monika Turner, Director of Policy, [email protected], 416.971.9856 ext. 318.
PLEASE NOTE: AMO Breaking News will be broadcast to the member municipality’s council, administrator, and clerk. Recipients of the AMO broadcasts are free to redistribute the AMO broadcasts to other municipal staff as required. We have decided to not add other staff to these broadcast lists in order to ensure accuracy and efficiency in the management of our various broadcast lists.
DISCLAIMER: Any documents attached are final versions. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with this electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record.
OPT-OUT: If you wish to opt-out of these email communications from AMO please click here.
Attachment June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 4 C 15 - CW Info
NEWS Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Ontario Enhancing Emergency Services Across the Province Ensuring People Receive Faster Access to the Right Care June 5, 2017 2:00 P.M.
Ontario is enhancing and modernizing its emergency health services system to provide people with increased flexibility and more options for medical transportation and paramedic services, to ensure they are receiving the right care when they need it.
The province is investing in a new medical dispatch system that will help triage and prioritize 911 calls for ambulance services. This new system - which is expected to be in place in the first site by March 2018 - will better prioritize calls based on patient need and redirect low acuity patients to locations other than emergency departments, in instances where it would be safe and appropriate to do so.
The province also plans to update the Ambulance Act through a transparent and inclusive consultation process, to ensure patients continue to receive the right care at the right time. The proposed changes, if passed, would enable the government to:
▪ Expand the scope of paramedics to provide appropriate on-scene treatment and refer patients to non-hospital options, such as primary care and community-based care. Currently, paramedics are bound by law to transport patients to hospital facilities only. Providing more flexibility would allow patients to receive the most appropriate care while reducing unnecessary trips to emergency departments.
▪ Provide funding for two pilots in interested municipalities that will enable firefighters certified as paramedics to respond to low acuity calls to treat and release or treat and refer a patient, and provide symptom relief to high acuity calls.
Once implemented, people will experience less overcrowding, shorter wait times and faster movement through the emergency system.
Emergency 911 services will continue to provide immediate response to medical emergencies and may redirect, in a timely and convenient manner, those with non-urgent needs. June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 4 C 15 - CW Info Ontario is increasing access to care, reducing wait times and improving the patient experience through its Patients First Action Plan for Health Care and OHIP+: Children and Youth Pharmacare -- protecting health care today and into the future.
QUOTES " Our government is committed to improving and modernizing our emergency health services system. Over one million people in Ontario are transported via ambulance each year. By improving the system, we are delivering timely, high quality care across Ontario." - Dr. Eric Hoskins Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
QUICK FACTS
Full roll out to all of the Ambulance Communications Centres across the province will take approximately 24 months to complete. Ontario’s emergency health system provides around-the-clock services to 13.7 million people each year in more than 400 municipalities and Indigenous communities In 2015, over one million patients were transported via land and air ambulance. Of these, only 1 per cent were the most critically ill and required immediate emergency transportation. There are patients with varying degrees of severity of illness and injury whose needs could be met by accessing care outside of an emergency department or being transported with non-ambulance resources.
LEARN MORE
Patients First: Action Plan for Health Care
Media Line Toll-free: 1-888-414-4774 Available Online [email protected] Disponible en Français GTA: 416-314-6197 David Jensen Communications and Marketing Division-MOHLTC [email protected] 416-314-6197 For public inquiries call ServiceOntario, INFOline (Toll-free in Ontario only) ontario.ca/health-news 1-866-532-3161 Laura Gallant Minister’s Office 416-327-4450
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 10 C 16 - CW Info
May 16, 2017 Ontario Announces New Proposed Changes to the Land Use Planning and Appeal System
Ontario has announced it will introduce new legislation that would, if passed, overhaul the Province’s land use planning appeals system, giving communities a stronger voice and ensuring people have access to faster, fairer and more affordable hearings.
Legislation will be tabled before the current legislative session ends on June 1, 2017, with implementation targeted for 2018. If the legislation were passed, regulations would be developed to guide the transition and implementation.
The government listened very carefully to the advice of the AMO Board and members, and worked through the MOU process to develop these changes. The legislation will introduce positive changes in the following subject areas: Giving Communities a Stronger Voice
• A new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal would replace the Ontario Municipal Board. • "De novo" hearings would be eliminated for the majority of land use planning appeals, giving greater weight to the decisions of local communities. • For complex land use planning appeals, the tribunal would only be able to overturn a municipal decision if it does not follow provincial policies or municipal plans. This would depart from the current "standard of review" for land use planning appeals, where the Ontario Municipal Board is permitted to overturn a municipal decision whenever it finds that the municipality did not reach the "best" planning decision. • In these cases, the tribunal would be required to return the matter to the municipality with written reasons and the municipality would be provided with 90 days to make a new decision on an application under the proposed new law. The tribunal would retain the authority to make a final decision on these matters only when, on a second appeal, the municipality’s subsequent decision still fails to follow provincial policies or municipal plans. Faster, Fairer and More Affordable Planning Appeals June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 10 C 16 - CW Info
• Requiring the tribunal to conduct mandatory case management for the majority of cases in order to narrow the issues and encourage case settlement. The tribunal would also be provided with modern case management powers to ensure meaningful case conferences. • Creating statutory rules regarding the conduct of hearings, including setting strict presumptive timelines for oral hearings and limiting evidence to written materials in the majority of cases. • Providing the tribunal with modern hearing powers to promote active adjudication, provide for alternative hearing formats, and permit assignment of multi-member panels. • Giving elected officials greater control over local planning, resulting in fewer decisions being appealed, thereby making the decision-making process more efficient. Free Legal and Planning Support
• Create a Local Planning Appeal Support Centre, a new provincial agency mandated and funded to provide free and independent advice and representation to Ontarians on land use planning appeals. The centre would be modeled after the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and would provide planning and legal advice to people who want to participate in tribunal appeals. Exempting Major Planning Decisions from Appeal Major municipal land use planning decisions would not be appealable:
• provincial appeals of municipal official plans and official plan updates, including approvals of conformity exercises to provincial plans. • among other matters, would also restrict applications to amend new secondary (i.e. neighbourhood) plans for two years, unless permitted by municipal council • Municipal Local Appeal Bodies, if established, would be able to hear appeals on site plans, in addition to minor variances and consents • Minister’s Zoning Orders.
AMO will continue to monitor this issue as the legislation is introduced in the coming weeks.
June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 10 C 16 - CW Info
AMO Contacts: Jessica Schmidt, Policy Advisor, E-Mail: [email protected], 416-971-9856 ext. 367 Cathie Brown, Senior Advisor, E-Mail: [email protected], 416-971- 9856 ext. 342.
PLEASE NOTE: AMO Breaking News will be broadcast to the member municipality’s council, administrator, and clerk. Recipients of the AMO broadcasts are free to redistribute the AMO broadcasts to other municipal staff as required. We have decided to not add other staff to these broadcast lists in order to ensure accuracy and efficiency in the management of our various broadcast lists.
DISCLAIMER: Any documents attached are final versions. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with this electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record.
OPT-OUT: If you wish to opt-out of these email communications from AMO please click here.
June5/16/2017 13, 2017 Newsroom : GivingPage Communities 4 of a10 Stronger Voice In Development C 16 - CW Info
News Release Giving Communities a Stronger Voice In Development Ontario to Overhaul Land Use Planning Appeals System
May 16, 2017 9:15 A.M. Ministry of Municipal A airs
Ontario is taking action to overhaul the province's land use planning appeals system to give communities a stronger voice and ensure people have access to faster, fairer and more a ordable hearings.
In the coming weeks, legislation will be introduced to create the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which would, if passed, replace the Ontario Municipal Board. The new tribunal would be mandated to give greater weight to the decisions of local communities, while ensuring that development and growth occurs in a way that is good for Ontario and its future. This would be achieved by eliminating lengthy and costly "de novo" hearings for the majority of planning appeals. The term "de novo" has been used to describe how the Ontario Municipal Board deals with appeals of municipal land use planning decisions, by considering the same issue that was before the municipality as though no previous decision had been made.
Ontario would also make planning appeals more accessible to the public by creating the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre, a new agency that would provide free information and support, which may include representation at the tribunal for citizens who want to participate in the appeal process.
The new legislation would include additional measures to transform Ontario's land use planning appeals system, including:
Exempting a broader range of major land use planning decisions from appeal, including new O cial Plans, major O cial Plan updates and detailed plans to support growth in major transit areas.
Establishing a mandatory case conference for complex hearings to encourage early settlements, which would help reduce the time and cost of appeals and create a less adversarial system.
The proposed changes follow extensive public consultations, beginning with the release of a consultation paper in October 2016. The government received more than 1,100 written submissions and held 12 town hall meetings across the province that were attended by more than 700 people.
Improving the land use planning system is part of Ontario's plan to create jobs, grow our economy and help people in their everyday lives.
Quick Facts
The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal would be an independent tribunal that makes decisions at arms’ length from the government. If the legislation passes, it would replace the Ontario Municipal Board, which began in 1906 as the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board.
In 2015-2016 (the most recent year for which data is available), 1,460 matters were referred to the Ontario Municipal Board from across the province.
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2017/05/giving-communities-a-strongerBackground Information -voice-in-development.html 1/3 June5/16/2017 13, 2017 Newsroom : GivingPage Communities 5 of a10 Stronger Voice In Development C 16 - CW Info Background Information
Ontario's Proposed Changes to the Land Use Planning Appeal System
Quotes
“We want to ensure the land use planning system is working e ectively for everyone. Our proposals would empower communities and municipalities to better determine how their neighbourhoods develop in the future.”
Bill Mauro Minister of Municipal A airs
“Land use planning directly impacts Ontario families and their communities. And so, it is important that residents feel empowered and supported in the decision making process. We want to make sure that the voices of Ontarians are heard by all levels of government and that is why we will soon introduce reforms that would put people and communities rst.”
Yasir Naqvi Attorney General of Ontario
Media Contacts
Mark Cripps Conrad Spezowka Ministry of Municipal A airs, Minister’s O ce Ministry of Municipal A airs, Communications Branch [email protected] [email protected] 416-585-6842 416-585-7066
Clare Graham Emilie Smith Ministry of Attorney General, Minister’s O ce Ministry of Attorney General, Communications Branch [email protected] [email protected] 416-326-7071 416-326-2210
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2017/05/giving-communities-a-stronger-voice-in-development.html 2/3 June5/16/2017 13, 2017 Newsroom : GivingPage Communities 6 of a10 Stronger Voice In Development C 16 - CW Info
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2017/05/giving-communities-a-stronger-voice-in-development.html 3/3 June5/16/2017 13, 2017 Newsroom : Ontario's ProposedPage Changes 7 of to10 the Land Use Planning Appeal System C 16 - CW Info
Backgrounder Ontario's Proposed Changes to the Land Use Planning Appeal System
May 16, 2017 9:15 A.M. Ministry of Municipal A airs
Ontario will introduce new legislation that would, if passed, overhaul the province's land use planning appeals system, giving communities a stronger voice and ensuring people have access to faster, fairer and more a ordable hearings. Giving Communities a Stronger Voice
The new law would establish the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which would replace the Ontario Municipal Board. The Planning Act would be amended to eliminate "de novo" hearings for the majority of land use planning appeals. Instead, the tribunal would function as a true appeals body for major land use planning decisions.
The proposed law will include the following reforms aimed at giving communities a stronger voice in local land use planning decisions:
For complex land use planning appeals, the tribunal would only be able to overturn a municipal decision if it does not follow provincial policies or municipal plans. This would depart from the current "standard of review" for land use planning appeals, where the Ontario Municipal Board is permitted to overturn a municipal decision whenever it nds that the municipality did not reach the "best" planning decision.
In these cases, the tribunal would be required to return the matter to the municipality with written reasons when it overturns a decision, instead of replacing the municipality's decision with its own. The municipality would be provided with 90 days to make a new decision on an application under the proposed new law.
The tribunal would retain the authority to make a nal decision on these matters only when, on a second appeal, the municipality's subsequent decision still fails to follow provincial policies or municipal plans.
Under this new model, the tribunal would be required to give greater weight to the decisions of local communities, while ensuring that development occurs in a way that is good for Ontario and its future. Faster, Fairer and More A ordable Planning Appeals
The proposed new law would introduce major changes to the way land use planning appeals are conducted in order to reduce the length and cost of hearings and create a more level playing eld for all participants. Proposed reforms will include:
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2017/05/ontarios-proposed-changes-to-the-land-use-planning-appeal-system.html 1/3 June5/16/2017 13, 2017 Newsroom : Ontario's ProposedPage Changes 8 of to10 the Land Use Planning Appeal System C 16 - CW Info Requiring the tribunal to conduct mandatory case management for the majority of cases in order to narrow the issues and encourage case settlement. The tribunal would also be provided with modern case management powers to ensure meaningful case conferences.
Creating statutory rules regarding the conduct of hearings, including setting strict presumptive timelines for oral hearings and limiting evidence to written materials in the majority of cases.
Providing the tribunal with modern hearing powers to promote active adjudication, provide for alternative hearing formats and permit assignment of multi-member panels.
Giving elected o cials greater control over local planning, resulting in fewer decisions being appealed, thereby making the decision-making process more e cient. Free Legal and Planning Support
The province proposes to create the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre, a new provincial agency mandated to provide free and independent advice and representation to Ontarians on land use planning appeals. The centre would be modeled after the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and would provide planning and legal advice to people who want to participate in tribunal appeals. The centre would deliver the following services:
Providing Ontarians with general information on land use planning.
O ering guidance to citizens on the tribunal appeal and hearing process.
Providing legal and planning advice at di erent stages of the tribunal process, including representation in certain cases at case conferences and hearings. Sheltering Major Planning Decisions from Appeal
The proposed new legislation would also include measures to exempt a broader range of major municipal land use planning decisions from appeal, which would provide municipalities with greater certainty and timely implementation of major decisions. The following matters would no longer be appealable under the proposed law:
Provincial approvals of o cial plans and o cial plan updates, including approvals of conformity exercises to provincial plans.
Minister's Zoning Orders.
Local Appeal Bodies would also be given more authority. They would be able to hear appeals on site plans, in addition to their current scope of minor variances and consents.
The legislation would also restrict applications to amend new secondary (i.e. neighbourhood) plans for two years, unless permitted by municipal council, and limit the ability to appeal an interim control by-law when rst passed for a period of up to one year. The legislation would also protect municipal policies that support appropriate development around protected major transit station areas, such as GO Train stations and subway stops.
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2017/05/ontarios-proposed-changes-to-the-land-use-planning-appeal-system.html 2/3 June5/16/2017 13, 2017 Newsroom : Ontario's ProposedPage Changes 9 of to10 the Land Use Planning Appeal System C 16 - CW Info Media Contacts
Mark Cripps Conrad Spezowka Ministry of Municipal A airs, Minister’s O ce Ministry of Municipal A airs, Communications Branch [email protected] [email protected] 416-585-6842 416-585-7066
Clare Graham Emilie Smith Ministry of Attorney General, Minister's O ce Ministry of Attorney General, Communications Branch [email protected] [email protected] 416-326-7071 416-326-2210
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2017/05/ontarios-proposed-changes-to-the-land-use-planning-appeal-system.html 3/3 June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 10 C 16 - CW Info
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 79 C 17 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 79 C 17 - CW Info
FOCUS ON RURAL ONTARIO
2016 FACT SHEET SERIES June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 79 C 17 - CW Info
on Rural Ontario
The Rural Ontario Institute (ROI) is a non-profit organization committed to developing leaders and facilitating collaboration on issues and opportunities facing rural and northern Ontario.
This edition of Focus on Rural Ontario Fact Sheet Series is a collection of separate documents that includes an in-depth Census Update, as well as six employment-related Fact Sheets. Each of these documents, as well as related statistical charts and tables, can be separately downloaded from the Rural Ontario Institute website at: www.ruralontarioinstitute.ca/rural-reports/focus-on-rural-ontario.
We are pleased to share this compiled edition of Focus on Rural Ontario Fact Sheet Series – 2016 Edition. We encourage you to share the information with others who might find it of benefit.
Your feedback is important to us. Please keep us posted on how you are using these Fact Sheets by emailing us at [email protected]. We look forward to hearing from you. June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 79 C 17 - CW Info
on Rural Ontario
Author Acknowledgement
Ray Bollman
Former chief of Statistics Canada Rural Research Group Former editor of the Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletins
Other Contributors The data analysis for the Precarious Employment Fact Sheets was originally prepared for Dr. Al Lauzon at the University of Guelph with financial support from the provincial government through the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
The maps included in the Census Update section were provided by the Rural Policy Branch, in the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This information is included with the understanding that it is not guaranteed to be accurate, correct or complete and conclusions drawn from such information are the responsibility of the user.
The Rural Ontario Institute acknowledges the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs for their financial support of this project. June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 79 C 17 - CW Info
Summary of Contents
Rural Ontario’s Demography: Census Update 2016
Fact Sheets:
1 - Employment Trends
Non-metro population trends by age, Vol. 4, No. 1
Non-metro employment trends by age, Vol. 4. No. 2
Employment trends in economic regions, Vol. 4, No. 3
2 - Precarious Employment
Non-metro trends in fixed-term or contract jobs, Vol. 4, No. 4
Non-metro trends in involuntary part-time work, Vol. 4, No. 5
Non-metro trends in low-wage work, Vol. 4. No. 6 June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 79 C 17 - CW Info on Rural Ontario
Rural Ontario’s Demography: Census Update 2016 March, 2017
Highlights
• Non-metro Ontario had 2.5 million residents in 2016 – a larger population than in any of Canada’s six smaller provinces. • Non-metro areas grew by 2% from 2011 to 2016. In fact, non-metro Ontario has grown in every intercensal period since 1966. • Non-metro Ontario residents comprise 19% of Ontario’s population. • This share is declining slowly over time due to: o slower population growth in non-metro areas, compared to metro areas; and o the ongoing reclassification of some non-metro areas to metro areas. • In every census period, some non-metro residents are reclassified from a non-metro area to a metro area. o in some cases, a population centre reaches the threshold to be classified as a metro area (such as Belleville in 2016); and o in the other cases, a change in commuting patterns to a metro area will cause a locality to become delineated as part of the metro area when the percent of workers who commute surpasses the 50% threshold. For example, in the 2016 census, Kemptville was delineated as part of the Ottawa-Gatineau metro area. • In the 1981 to 2016 period, there was continuous population growth among regions (represented by census divisions) associated with: o the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area o the southern Georgian Bay region; and o the Ottawa-Kingston region. • Also, in the 1981 to 2016 period, there was continuous population growth (generally) in communities (represented by census consolidated subdivisions) associated with: o the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area; o the southern Georgian Bay; and o the Ottawa region. • There is considerable heterogeneity of community population trajectories within each region: o within growing regions, there are growing communities and there are declining communities; o within declining regions, there are growing communities and there are declining communities. • A higher share of communities within non-metro census divisions reported population decline from 2011 to 2016. And, over the longer period from 1981 to 2016, a higher share of communities in non-metro census divisions did not grow continuously in these 7 intercensal periods. June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 79 C 17 - CW Info
Definitions
The basic building block for all the definitions used in this report is the census subdivision.
A census subdivision (CSD) is an incorporated town or incorporated municipality (or equivalent, such as an Indian Reserve or local government district, etc.).
A census consolidated subdivision (CCS) is a group of adjacent CSDs within the same census division. Generally, a smaller, more densely populated CSD (town, village, etc.) is combined with the surrounding, larger, more rural CSD, in order to create a geographic level between the CSD and the CD.
A census division (CD) is a group of neighbouring municipalities (CSDs) joined together for the purposes of regional planning and managing common services (such as police or ambulance services). (See the rows in Table 2). In Ontario, they typically are counties or former counties. In the text, CDs are classified into three groups:
• (completely) metro CDs (where all component CSDs are part of a CMA (there is one exception)); • partially-non-metro CDs (where some CSDs are delineated as part of a CMA and some CSDs are not delineated as part of a CMA); and • (completely) non-metro CDs (where no CSDs are delineated as part of a CMA).
A metro area includes all the CSDs which are delineated as part of Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) (See the first column of Table 2.).
A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) is a grouping of CSDs which has a total population of 100,000 of which 50,000 or more must live in the built-up urban core. A CMA also includes any neighbouring CSD where more than 50% of those with jobs are commuting to the CMA.
A non-metro area includes only CSDs outside a CMA. (See the second column of Table 2.)
Within a non-metro area, there are Census Agglomerations and rural and small town areas, which, in turn, are disaggregated in Metropolitan Influenced Zones.
A Census Agglomeration (CA) has a total population of 10,000 to 99,999 and includes any neighbouring CSDs where more than 50% of those with jobs are commuting to the CA.
Rural and small town (RST) areas are comprised of CSDs outside CMAs and outside CAs (i.e., they are non-CMA/CA areas).
RST areas are disaggregated into Metropolitan Influenced Zones (MIZ) where each MIZ is composed of CSDs based on the percent of those employed who commute to a CMA or CA: Strong MIZ (30% or more commute to a CMA or CA); Moderate MIZ (5% to 29%); Weak MIZ (more than 0% up to 5%); and No MIZ (no commuting to a CMA or CA). June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 79 C 17 - CW Info
1. Introduction
Why an update on rural demography?
The size of the population of rural Ontario and the change in this population is an ongoing public policy concern – at both the provincial and at the local level.
The geographic distribution of a population influences the demand for human services and how these services are delivered. Further, this population distribution impacts the labour force supply, commuting patterns, private sector trade and investment and the need for public infrastructure. While large cities receive a lot of attention and analysis, it is important to consider the sizable population residing in smaller cities, small towns and in rural and remote areas.
Census data indicate that nearly one in five Ontario residents live in a rural context. The total population of rural Ontario is larger than the total population in any of Canada’s six smaller provinces, and rural Ontario’s 2.5 million residents is equivalent to the combined population living in the metropolitan regions of Hamilton, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, London, St. Catharines-Niagara and Oshawa. In other words, the population of rural Ontario is equivalent to the combined population of 5 of the 14 largest census metropolitan areas in the country. Moreover, rural Ontario and urban Ontario are interdependent because their energy systems, food systems, ecological systems and transportation systems are all interconnected. Hence, it is important that the conditions in all parts of society and the economy be monitored when considering whether changes in any one area require attention and what the policy implications may be for the other areas.
Demographic trends are the foundation for understanding this context. Rural Ontario continues to grow – not everywhere – but the rural Ontario population is growing. Nonetheless, the share of the rural population in Ontario, as a whole, has been slowly declining over time due to three factors:
• rural areas tend to grow more slowly than urban areas; • population growth in large rural centres over time results in some of them being reclassified as urban; and • the rural population near a metropolitan area may become delineated as part of the metro area if the share of rural workers who hold a job in the metro area surpasses 50%.
Ontario is diverse and not all northern and southern communities share identical trajectories of change. It is vitally important to examine the population dynamics at different regional scales. For example, in examining several maps included in this update, we note a pattern within several census divisions where the township population in the countryside is declining even while small towns in the region are growing – perhaps suggesting the relocation of an older population. While it is beyond the scope of this update to explore all these specific aspects, we do expect that the broad descriptive information presented will provide the back-drop for detailed local and/or regional analysis.
What is rural?
People have many ways of understanding what rural means to them. No statistical definition can capture all the aspects of what makes a place rural. June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Two of the most fundamental dimensions of rural places are:
a) a low population density; or b) a long distance to a centre with a higher population density1; or c) both (i.e., if you are living in both dimensions of rurality, you are really rural!).
Smaller communities near a metropolitan centre may have many features of being rural, such as a lack of daycare facilities, but both parents are able to access a metropolitan job. Centres that are distant from a metropolitan centre, even the larger regional service centres in non-metro areas, often lack a full range of higher-order services (e.g., specialized surgery) and have a narrower selection of employment opportunities. Thus, lower density and a longer distance to density are two dimensions of rurality. As noted above, truly rural people live in areas that are rural according to both dimensions.
Choosing the geographies for presenting rural statistics2
For detailed definitions of the various geographic grids for presenting rural statistics, see du Plessis et al.3.
Non-metro areas are those outside the commuting zone of Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs). CMAs have a core population of 50,000 or more and a total population of 100,000 and over that includes the residents in the commuting zone around these centres (where 50% or more of the employed workforce commute into the CMA).
Consequently, non-metro areas are characterized by:
• a population density criterion (i.e., size of locality) of less than 100,000 inhabitants; and • the distance to density criterion is “outside the commuting zone of a centre of 100,000+ inhabitants” (specifically, where less than 50% of the employed workforce commutes to the CMA).
CMAs have distinctly metro functions4. On the other hand, the population in smaller cities tends to have characteristics similar to small towns and rural areas5. And although one can always find an urban-to- rural gradient, many of the differences across non-metro areas are less pronounced than the metro vs. non-metro differences. Consequently, our choice for the geographic grid for Focus on Rural Ontario is to present statistics looking at the non-metro population, i.e., people in the smaller cities, small towns, and rural and remote areas outside the commuting zone of a metro (CMA) area.
Overview of the report
This Rural Ontario Demographic Update is organized in four sections with a discussion of:
1. the level and trends in the non-metro (non-CMA) population (i.e., the population residing outside a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) compared to the metro (CMA) population); 2. the population levels in three groups of census divisions. We have classified census divisions according to whether they are completely metro, partially-non-metro or completely-non-metro. The
1 See Reimer, Bill and Ray D. Bollman. (2010) “Understanding Rural Canada: Implications for Rural Development Policy and Rural Planning Policy.” Chapter 1 in David J.A. Douglas (ed.) Rural Planning and Development in Canada. (Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd.). 2 The definitions used in this report are summarized in Box 1: Definitions. 3 du Plessis, Valerie, Roland Beshiri, Ray D. Bollman and Heather Clemenson. (2001) “Definitions of Rural.” Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin Vol. 3, No. 3 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue. no. 21-006-XIE) (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=21-006- X&CHROPG=1&lang=eng). 4 Mendelson, Robert and Janet Lefebvre. (2003) Reviewing Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA) and Census Agglomerations (CA) in Canada According to Metropolitan Functionality (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Geography Working Paper Series No. 2003-001, Catalogue no. 92F0138MIE) (www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/listpub.cgi?catno=92F0138MIE). 5 The charts in most of Statistics Canada’s Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletins show that the population of non-metro smaller cities have characteristics similar to the population of smaller towns and rural areas. June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 79 C 17 - CW Info census divisions generally are established by the boundaries of the regions, counties and districts in Ontario (some of which have become single-tier such as Chatham-Kent or the City of Kawartha Lakes). 3. the patterns of growth across census divisions by highlighting the recent 2011 to 2016 experience and also the patterns of growth over the 1981 to 2016 period; and 4. the patterns of growth across census consolidated subdivisions by, again, highlighting the recent 2011 to 2016 experience and the patterns of growth over the 1981 to 2016 period. Census consolidated subdivisions combine the population of the town and the surrounding townships, each of which are census subdivisions (i.e., an incorporated town or an incorporated municipality).
Readers will also find two appendices:
A. Appendix A summarizes the historical trajectory of the number of individuals residing in population centres (of 1,000 or more residents) and in census rural areas (outside population centres of 1,000 or more) which is a different classification than the one used in the main body of text; and B. Appendix B summarizes the level and trend of the population in non-metro areas disaggregated into Census Agglomerations (CAs) and rural and small town (non-CMA/CA areas) which, in turn are disaggregated into Metropolitan Influenced Zones. June 13, 2017 Page 11 of 79 C 17 - CW Info 2. Non-metro population: level and trends since 1966
In 2016, 2.5 million Ontario residents were living in a non-metro area, which represented 19% of Ontario’s population (Figure 1 and Appendix B Tables B1 and B4).
Non-metro Ontario represents a large number of people in absolute terms. The number is larger than the population than in any one of Canada’s six smaller provinces.
The long-run trend in Ontario’s non-metro population appears to show little change since 1966 – with 2.6 million residents in 1966 and with 2.5 million residents in 2016 (Figure 1).
Figure 1 In 2016, 2.5 million individuals were living in non-metro Ontario Population 12 (millions) 11 METRO: 10 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 9 8 7 6 NON-METRO: 5 outside Census Metropolitan Areas 4 (non-CMA) 3 2 1 0 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
Note: A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more and includes surrounding towns and municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the CMA. The two data points visible for some years show the adjusted population count (due to reclassification) in order to make comparisons over time within constant boundaries (i.e. within a "constant classification"). Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1966 to 2016.
Importantly, Ontario’s non-metro population has grown in every intercensal period since 1966 (Figure 2 and Appendix B Tables B1 and B4). The non-metro population grew by 2% in the most-recent period, 2011 to 2016. Since 1966, the rate of growth has varied between a high of 8.8% in the 1986 to 1991 period to a low of 0.5% in the 2006 to 2011 period. June 13, 2017 Page 12 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 2 Continuous growth in non-metro population, Ontario, 1966 to 2016
16 Percent change in population within constant boundaries1
14 Metro: Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) Non-metro: Non-CMA areas
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 1966 to 1971 to 1976 to 1981 to 1986 to 1991 to 1996 to 2001 to 2006 to 2011 to 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
1 Each 5-year change is tabulated within the boundaries applicable to the census at the end of the 5-year period. Note: A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more and includes surrounding towns and municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the CMA. Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1971 to 2016.
How is it possible that the non-metro population is always growing (Figure 2) and the number of non- metro residents has not changed (much) since 1966 (Figure 1)?
The answer is that during most intercensal periods, some non-metro areas become reclassified as metro. This may happen in one of two circumstances:
1. Commuting patterns may change such that more than 50% of the employed residents of a census subdivision (i.e., an incorporated town or municipality) are now commuting to a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). When this change takes place, the complete population of the census subdivision becomes reclassified as “metro.” 2. Alternatively, a population centre may grow and reach the threshold to be delineated as a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) and the complete population of the new CMA is reclassified from non- metro to metro.
The important bottom lines are:
A. The non-metro population is growing (not as fast as metro but, taken together, the non-metro population has always been growing); and B. Due to the growth of non-metro areas, some areas are reclassified from non-metro to metro in every intercensal period. C. Thus, the share of Ontario’s population classified as non-metro is declining over time due to: a. Slower growth than metro; and due to b. Reclassification of some non-metro areas to metro areas in each intercensal period. June 13, 2017 Page 13 of 79 C 17 - CW Info
To show the impact of reclassification of population from metro to non-metro, we present Figure 3 where we re-scale the black line of the non-metro population in Figure 1.
Note that the black line is increasing (i.e., has a positive slope) in every intercensal period due to non- metro population growth in every intercensal period.
The size of the gap (i.e., the orange arrow) in each census period shows the number of non-metro residents that are reclassified. For example, between 2011 and 2016, Belleville became classified as a CMA. In Figure 3, we see the 2011 non-metro population was 2.58 million before reclassification and was 2.44 million after reclassification6.
Between 1971 and 2016, 1.2 million non-metro residents in Ontario have been reclassified from non- metro to metro (Figure 3 and Appendix B Table B5). This is not an exodus. The people have not moved. Rather, their locality has been reclassified.
Another way of thinking about these numbers is to consider urbanization over time – particularly in the periphery of the Greater Golden Horseshoe or rural Ottawa. As our larger cities expand and development of housing occurs in the smaller communities in the urban fringe, the outlying places become larger and more integrated with the metro area.
6 Belleville, itself, contributed 102 thousand to the reclassification of population from non-metro to metro in 2011. The remainder of the reclassification of population from non-metro to metro was contributed by changes in commuting patterns causing individual census subdivision to be delineated as part of a Census Metropolitan Area. For example, the census subdivision of North Grenville (which includes Kemptville) (with a 2011 population of 15 thousand) became delineated as part of the Ottawa-Gatineau Census Metropolitan Area and the census subdivision of Markstay-Warren (with a 2011 population of 2 thousand) became delineated as part of the Sudbury Census Metropolitan Area. June 13, 2017 Page 14 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 3 Ontario's non-metro population has grown in each intercensal period (see slope of black lines) (but reclassification (see orange arrows) from non-metro to metro means there are fewer non-metro residents in 2016 than in 1966)
3.3 Non-metro population (millions) outside Census Metropolitan Areas (non-CMA) 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 Each orange arrow indicates 2.6 the size of the population that was reclassified from 2.5 non-metro (non-CMA) to metro (CMA) in each time 2.4 period. 2.3 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Note: A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more and includes surrounding towns and municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the CMA. The two data points visible for some years show the adjusted population count (due to reclassification) in order to make comparisons over time within constant boundaries (i.e. within a "constant classification"). Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1966 to 2016.
Thus, reclassification of population from non-metro to metro is one factor explaining the impression of a flat non-metro population trajectory (the black line) in Figure 1.
Figures 1 and 3 show Ontario’s population in non-metro (non-CMA) was 2.5 million (19%) in 2016. Interestingly, this non-metro share was the smallest non-metro share across all provinces – the province with the next-smallest non-metro share was Quebec (29%) (Table 1). However, as noted above, Ontario’s non-metro population is large in absolute terms – equal to 24% of Canada’s non-metro population. Quebec’s non-metro population also represents 24% of Canadian non-metro population. June 13, 2017 Page 15 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 1 Metro and non-metro population by province / territory, 2016 Non-metro (non-CMA) (outside CMAs) (CAs plus RST) Rural and small town (RST) areas Metro Non- Ce nsus All rural and Total (CMA) metro agglomerations Moderate RST small town Strong MIZ Weak MIZ No MIZ population (CAs) MIZ Territories (non-CMA) (RST) areas
Total population, 2016 Newfoundland and Labrador 205,955 313,761 70,405 243,356 36,172 121,079 60,285 25,820 n.a. 519,716 Prince Edward Island 0 142,907 85,912 56,995 25,323 30,395 460 817 n.a. 142,907 Nova Scotia 403,390 520,208 205,184 315,024 71,638 117,933 124,264 1,189 n.a. 923,598 New Brunswick 271,012 476,089 197,031 279,058 74,455 128,374 73,315 2,914 n.a. 747,101 Quebec 5,760,407 2,403,954 864,450 1,539,504 635,631 653,473 218,326 32,074 n.a. 8,164,361 Ontario 10,956,264 2,492,230 1,106,057 1,386,173 708,869 451,442 189,085 36,777 n.a. 13,448,494 Manitoba 778,489 499,876 131,111 368,765 86,189 127,464 129,490 25,622 n.a. 1,278,365 Saskatchewan 531,576 566,776 175,700 391,076 44,468 145,602 140,600 60,406 n.a. 1,098,352 Alberta 2,831,429 1,235,746 502,663 733,083 174,320 308,929 220,275 29,559 n.a. 4,067,175 British Columbia 3,206,601 1,441,454 901,527 539,927 136,640 227,912 151,751 23,624 n.a. 4,648,055 Yukon 0 35,874 28,225 7,649 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 7,649 35,874 Northwest Territories 0 41,786 19,569 22,217 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 22,217 41,786 Nunavut 0 35,944 0 35,944 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 35,944 35,944 CANADA 24,945,123 10,206,605 4,287,834 5,918,771 1,993,705 2,312,603 1,307,851 238,802 65,810 35,151,728 Percent distribution of population within each province (row percent) Newfoundland and Labrador 40 60 14 47 7 23 12 5 n.a. 100 Prince Edward Island 0 100 60 40 18 21 0 1 n.a. 100 Nova Scotia 44 56 22 34 8 13 13 0 n.a. 100 New Brunswick 36 64 26 37 10 17 10 0 n.a. 100 Quebec 71 29 11 19 8 8 3 0 n.a. 100 Ontario 81 19 8 10 5 3 1 0 n.a. 100 Manitoba 61 39 10 29 7 10 10 2 n.a. 100 Saskatchewan 48 52 16 36 4 13 13 5 n.a. 100 Alberta 70 30 12 18 4 8 5 1 n.a. 100 British Columbia 69 31 19 12 3 5 3 1 n.a. 100 Yukon 0 100 79 21 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 21 100 Northwest Territories 0 100 47 53 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 53 100 Nunavut 0 100 0 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 100 100 CANADA 71 29 12 17 6 7 4 1 0 100 Percent distribution of population within each geographic class (column percent) Newfoundland and Labrador 1 3 2 4 2 5 5 11 n.a. 1 Prince Edward Island 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 n.a. 0 Nova Scotia 2 5 5 5 4 5 10 0 n.a. 3 New Brunswick 1 5 5 5 4 6 6 1 n.a. 2 Quebec 23 24 20 26 32 28 17 13 n.a. 23 Ontario 44 24 26 23 36 20 14 15 n.a. 38 Manitoba 3 5 3 6 4 6 10 11 n.a. 4 Saskatchewan 2 6 4 7 2 6 11 25 n.a. 3 Alberta 11 12 12 12 9 13 17 12 n.a. 12 British Columbia 13 14 21 9 7 10 12 10 n.a. 13 Yukon 0 0 1 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 12 0 Northwest Territories 0 0 0 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 34 0 Nunavut 0 0 0 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 55 0 CANADA 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more and includes surrounding towns and municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the CMA. A Census Agglomeration (CA) has a total population of 10,000 to 99,999 and includes surrounding towns and municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the CA Rural and small town (RST) areas are outside CMAs and outside CAs (i.e. they are non-CMA/CA areas). Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2016. June 13, 2017 Page 16 of 79 C 17 - CW Info 3. Population in metro census divisions, partially-non-metro census divisions and non-metro census divisions
As noted in the introduction, some annual data for Ontario are published at the census division level7. To summarize these statistics, selected Focus on Rural Ontario Fact Sheets have grouped census divisions as:
Metro census divisions - where all of the component census subdivisions (i.e., incorporated towns or incorporated municipalities) within a census division are delineated as part of a metro area (i.e., part of a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA); Partially-non-metro census divisions - where some component census subdivisions within a census division are delineated as part of a CMA and some are delineated as part of a non-CMA (non-metro) area; and Non-metro census divisions - where all the component census subdivisions within a census division are delineated outside a CMA.
When we apply this criterion to the results of the 2016 Census of Population, we find:
• metro census divisions have 7.5 million residents; • partially-non-metro census divisions have 4.2 million residents; and • non-metro census divisions have 1.7 million residents (Table 2).
We need to carefully distinguish between metro areas and metro census divisions.
Metro areas refer to all residents (11 million) in Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) (first column of Table 2) but 7.5 million live in metro census divisions (top panel of Table 2) and 3.4 million live in partially-non- metro census divisions (middle panel of Table 2). Thus, the population in the group of metro census divisions are only residents of metro (CMA) areas8.
Similarly, we need to distinguish between non-metro areas and non-metro census divisions.
Non-metro areas refer to all residents (2.5 million) outside CMAs (second column of Table 2) but 1.7 live in an entirely non-metro census divisions (bottom panel of Table 2) and 0.7 million live in partially-non- metro census divisions (middle panel of Table 2). Thus, the population in the group of non-metro census divisions are only residents of non-metro (non-CMA) areas.
Hence, the residents of “partially-non-metro” census divisions are comprised of some residents living in metro areas and some residents living in non-metro areas.
For example, the Simcoe census division is a “partially-non-metro” census division. Within this census division, there are 267,000 residents living in census subdivisions delineated as a metro (CMA) area:
• 197,000 in the Barrie CMA, comprised of: o 141,000 in the census subdivision of the City of Barrie; o 37,000 in the census subdivision of Innisfil; o 10,000 in the census subdivision of Springwater;
7 See, for example, Statistics Canada. (Annual) Annual Demographic Estimates: Subprovincial Areas (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 91-214). 8 There is one exception. The CD of Brant is classified as a metro census division although there is one CSD with a population of 605 that is not delineated as part of a CMA. June 13, 2017 Page 17 of 79 C 17 - CW Info • 79,000 in the Toronto CMA, comprised of: o 35,000 in the census subdivision of Bradford West Gwillimbury; and o 34,000 in the census subdivision of New Tecumseh. In addition, there are 213,000 residents in the Simcoe census division who are residing in non-metro (non-CMA) areas. This includes the towns and smaller cities (Census Agglomerations) of Collingwood, Orillia, Midland and Wasaga Beach (summing to about 109, 000) and another approximately 104,000 living in rural and other small town areas within the Simcoe census division.
Thus, ov erall, the Simcoe census division is “partially-non-metro” – for this census division as a whole, the population is residing in a “partially-non-metro” milieu. However, it is important to remember that for province-level tabulations of “metro” and “non-metro” populations, the 267,000 CMA residents in this CD are classified as residing in a metro area and the 213,000 non-CMA residents are classified as residing in a non-metro area.
In Table 2, the breakdown of the population within each census division is shown in the rows. The population residing in metro areas is shown in the first column and the population residing in non-metro areas is shown in the second column (which is a subtotal of the subsequent columns).
Moving to Table 3, we show the distribution of CSDs in terms of whether or not they are delineated as either part of a CMA or part of a non-CMA area. In 2016, there were 575 CSDs in Ontario (see the second column from the right in Table 3) with:
• 26 CSDs in metro census divisions; • 200 CSDs in partially-non-metro census divisions; and • 349 CSDs in non-metro census divisions (Table 3). June 13, 2017 Page 18 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 2 Population by type of area within each census division, Ontario, 2016 Metro Non-metro (outside Census Metropolitan Areas ) (non-CMA) (i.e. CAs + rural and small town) (Ce nsus Census Agglomerations (CAs) Rural and small town areas (non-CMA, non-CA) Metro- All (10,000 to 99,999) (by Metropolitan Influenced Zone (MIZ)) Total Percent politan All Ce nsus Ce nsus population, non- Areas) Non- All Rural Census Name of Census Division, Ce nsus Agglom- Agglom- 1 (100,000 and small Strong Moderate Weak 2016 me tro Division ranked by percent non- metro Agglom- erations erations No MIZ and over) (non-CMA) town MIZ MIZ MIZ ID erations (CAs) (50,000 (CAs) (10,000 me tro (CMAs) areas (CAs) to 99,999) to 49,999) Metro census divisions 3506 Ottawa 934,243 - - - 934,243 0 3519 York 1,109,909 - - - 1,109,909 0 3520 Toronto 2,731,571 - - - 2,731,571 0 3521 Peel 1,381,739 - - - 1,381,739 0 3524 Halton 548,435 - - - 548,435 0 3525 Hamilton 536,917 - - - 536,917 0 3553 Greater Sudbury 161,647 - - - 161,647 0 3529 Brant 134,203 605 - 605 605 134,808 0 Subtotal: Metro census divisions 7,538,664 605 - - - 605 - 605 - - 7,539,269 0 Partially-non-metro census divisions 3530 Waterloo 523,894 11,260 - 11,260 11,260 535,154 2 3526 Niagara 433,388 14,500 - 14,500 14,500 447,888 3 3539 Middlesex 438,132 17,394 - 17,394 16,775 466 153 455,526 4 3510 Frontenac 144,204 6,271 - 6,271 4,373 1,898 150,475 4 3518 Durham 612,472 33,390 - 33,390 33,259 131 645,862 5 3515 Peterborough 121,721 16,515 - 16,515 14,036 2,479 138,236 12 3558 Thunder Bay 121,621 24,427 - 24,427 6,188 4,148 11,290 2,801 146,048 17 3537 Essex 329,144 69,809 49,147 49,147 20,662 20,427 235 398,953 17 3512 Hastings 103,472 32,973 - 32,973 22,749 10,224 136,445 24 3523 Wellington 151,984 70,742 28,191 28,191 42,551 11,439 31,112 222,726 32 3534 Elgin 55,937 33,041 - 33,041 33,041 88,978 37 3522 Dufferin 37,509 24,226 - 24,226 24,226 61,735 39 3543 Simcoe 266,626 213,024 109,493 109,493 103,531 101,997 1,492 42 479,650 44 3502 Prescott and Russell 41,032 48,301 10,263 10,263 38,038 38,038 89,333 54 3511 Lennox & Addington 16,971 25,917 - 25,917 23,594 2,323 42,888 60 3507 Leeds and Grenville 16,451 84,095 38,553 38,553 45,542 34,626 10,916 100,546 84 3552 Sudbury 3,042 18,504 - 18,504 7,028 11,370 106 21,546 86 Subtotal: Partially-non-metro CDs 3,417,600 744,389 235,647 - 235,647 508,742 417,556 76,428 11,290 3,468 4,161,989 18 Non-metro census divisions 3501 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 113,429 59,699 59,699 53,730 31,301 20,942 1,487 113,429 100 3509 Lanark 68,698 31,451 31,451 37,247 16,872 20,375 68,698 100 3513 Prince Edward 24,735 - 24,735 24,735 24,735 100 3514 Northumberland 85,598 36,193 36,193 49,405 36,010 13,395 85,598 100 3516 Kawartha Lakes 75,423 75,423 75,423 - 75,423 100 3528 Haldimand-Norfolk 109,787 64,044 64,044 45,743 45,608 135 109,787 100 3531 Perth 76,796 31,465 31,465 45,331 23,336 21,995 76,796 100 3532 Oxford 110,862 69,531 69,531 41,331 41,331 110,862 100 3536 Chatham-Kent 102,042 102,042 102,042 - 102,042 100 3538 Lambton 126,638 96,151 96,151 30,487 14,845 14,053 1,589 126,638 100 3540 Huron 59,297 - 59,297 46,737 12,560 59,297 100 3541 Bruce 68,147 - 68,147 33,548 34,599 - 68,147 100 3542 Grey 93,830 31,820 31,820 62,010 24,646 37,364 93,830 100 3544 Muskoka 60,599 - 60,599 40,575 20,024 60,599 100 3546 Haliburton 18,062 - 18,062 18,062 18,062 100 3547 Renfrew 102,394 56,429 56,429 45,965 18,290 27,675 102,394 100 3548 Nipissing 83,150 61,353 61,353 21,797 3,125 18,416 256 83,150 100 3549 Parry Sound 42,824 9,025 9,025 33,799 22,560 10,290 949 42,824 100 3551 Manitoulin 13,255 - 13,255 1,013 10,612 1,630 13,255 100 3554 Timiskaming 32,251 - 32,251 609 5,829 22,563 3,250 32,251 100 3556 Cochrane 79,682 41,788 41,788 37,894 10,322 22,779 4,793 79,682 100 3557 Algoma 114,094 88,900 78,159 10,741 25,194 10,271 12,847 1,704 372 114,094 100 3559 Rainy River 20,110 - 20,110 969 17,244 1,897 20,110 100 3560 Kenora 65,533 15,096 15,096 50,437 334 7,732 25,420 16,951 65,533 100 Subtotal: Non-metro census divisions - 1,747,236 870,410 244,688 625,722 876,826 291,313 374,409 177,795 33,309 1,747,236 100 Ontario 10,956,264 2,492,230 1,106,057 244,688 861,369 1,386,173 708,869 451,442 189,085 36,777 13,448,494 19 1. The "percent non-metro" is the percent of the population in a census division that resides in a census subdivision (an incorporated town or municipality) that is "not" delineated as part of a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). Note: A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more. A Census Agglomeration (CA) has a core population ot 10,000 or more and a total population of 10,000 to 99,999. Both include the population in nearby census subdivisions (incorporated towns or incorporated municipalties) where 50% or more of the employed population commutes to the CMA or CA. The entire census subdivision ('community') is delineated as part of a CMA or CA or non-CMA/CA area. Source: Statistics Canada. (2017) GeoSuite: 2016 Census (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 92-150) (http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=92-150-X&chropg=1&lang=eng). June 13, 2017 Page 19 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 3 Number of communities (census subdivisions) within each census division, Ontario, 2016 Number of communities (i.e. number of census subdivisions: incorporated towns or incorporated municipalities) Metro Non-metro (outside Census Metropolitan Areas ) (non-CMA) (Ce nsus Census Agglomerations (CAs) Rural and small town areas (non-CMA/CA) Census Total number Metro- (10,000 to 99,999) (by Metropolitan Influenced Zone (MIZ)) Percent Division Non- Name of Census Division politan of census ID Ce nsus Ce nsus Ce nsus Rural and non- Areas) metro Agglom- Agglom- Agglom- small subdivisions, 1 (100,000 (non-CMA) Strong Moderate Weak me tro erations erations erations town No MIZ 2016 and over) (subtotal) MIZ MIZ MIZ (CAs) (CAs) 50,000 (CAs) 10,000 areas (CMAs) (subtotal) to 99,999 to 49,999 (subtotal) Metro census divisions 3506 Ottawa 1 0 0 0 1 0 3519 York 10 0 0 0 10 0 3520 Toronto 1 0 0 0 1 0 3521 Peel 3 0 0 0 3 0 3524 Halton 4 0 0 0 4 0 3525 Hamilton 1 0 0 0 1 0 3529 Brant 3 1 0 1 1 4 25 3553 Greater Sudbury 2 0 0 0 2 0 Subtotal: Metro census divisions 25 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 26 4 Partially-non-metro census divisions 3502 Prescott and Russell 2 6 1 1 5 5 8 75 3507 Leeds and Grenville 1 12 3 3 9 7 2 13 92 3510 Frontenac 3 2 0 2 1 1 5 40 3511 Lennox & Addington 1 3 0 3 2 1 4 75 3512 Hastings 4 13 0 13 9 4 17 76 3515 Peterborough 7 4 0 4 3 1 11 36 3518 Durham 6 3 0 3 2 1 9 33 3522 Dufferin 2 6 0 6 6 8 75 3523 Wellington 3 5 1 1 4 1 3 8 63 3526 Niagara 11 1 0 1 1 12 8 3530 Waterloo 6 1 0 1 1 7 14 3534 Elgin 3 5 0 5 5 8 63 3537 Essex 5 4 2 2 2 1 1 9 44 3539 Middlesex 5 7 0 7 5 1 1 12 58 3543 Simcoe 5 16 6 6 10 7 2 1 21 76 3552 Sudbury 2 13 0 13 4 6 3 15 87 3558 Thunder Bay 8 25 0 25 2 3 5 15 33 76 Subtotal: Partially-non-metro CDs 74 126 13 0 13 113 62 24 5 22 200 63 Non-metro census divisions 3501 Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 8 2 2 6 3 2 1 8 100 3509 Lanark 9 3 3 6 3 3 9 100 3513 Prince Edward 1 0 1 1 1 100 3514 Northumberland 8 2 2 6 4 2 8 100 3516 Kawartha Lakes 1 1 1 0 1 100 3528 Haldimand-Norfolk 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 100 3531 Perth 6 1 1 5 3 2 6 100 3532 Oxford 8 3 3 5 5 8 100 3536 Chatham-Kent 2 2 2 0 2 100 3538 Lambton 14 5 5 9 5 3 1 14 100 3540 Huron 9 0 9 7 2 9 100 3541 Bruce 11 0 11 5 5 1 11 100 3542 Grey 9 2 2 7 3 4 9 100 3544 Muskoka 8 0 8 5 2 1 8 100 3546 Haliburton 4 0 4 4 4 100 3547 Renfrew 19 5 5 14 5 9 19 100 3548 Nipissing 15 5 5 10 3 5 2 15 100 3549 Parry Sound 30 3 3 27 19 4 4 30 100 3551 Manitoulin 17 0 17 1 9 7 17 100 3554 Timiskaming 26 0 26 1 6 8 11 26 100 3556 Cochrane 23 1 1 22 5 5 12 23 100 3557 Algoma 32 7 6 1 25 8 9 3 5 32 100 3559 Rainy River 26 0 26 1 12 13 26 100 3560 Kenora 59 1 1 58 2 2 15 39 59 100 Subtotal: Non-metro census divisions 0 349 44 19 25 305 47 95 65 98 349 100 Ontario 99 476 57 19 38 419 109 120 70 120 575 83 1. The "percent non-metro" is the percent of census subdivisions (i.e. incorporated towns or municipalities) in a census division that is "not" delineated as part of a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). Note: A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has a core population of 50,000 or more with a total population ot 100,000 or more. A Census Agglomeration (CA) has a core population ot 10,000 or more and a total population of 10,000 to 99,999. Both include the population in nearby census subdivisions (incorporated towns or incorporated municipalties) where 50% or more of the employed population commutes to the CMA or CA. The entire census subdivision ('community') is delineated as part of a CMA or CA or non-CMA/CA area. Source: Statistics Canada. (2017) GeoSuite: 2016 Census (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 92-150) (http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=92-150-X&chropg=1&lang=eng). June 13, 2017 Page 20 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Due to population growth and due to reclassification, we note some differences in our classification for 2016 (Table 2) compared to the classification based on the 2011 Census of Population (Table 4).
In 2016, compared to 2011, we see:
• The Hastings census division has been reclassified from a non-metro census division to a partially- non-metro census division because Belleville was reclassified from a Census Agglomeration to a Census Metropolitan Area (i.e., a metro area). This changed the calculated percent non-metro population for the Hastings census division from 100% in 2011 (Table 4) to 24% in 2016 (Table 2). • The Leeds and Grenville census division has been reclassified from a non-metro census division to a partially-non-metro census division because the census subdivision of North Grenville (which includes Kemptville), which is adjacent to the Ottawa-Gatineau CMA, has had an increase in the share of their workforce commuting to the Ottawa-Gatineau CMA. This share has surpassed the 50% commuting threshold which has caused North Grenville to be delineated as part of the Ottawa- Gatineau CMA. Hence, the percent non-metro in the Leeds and Grenville census division declined from 100% in 2011 to 84% in 2016. • The Sudbury census division9 has been reclassified from a non-metro census division in 2011 to a partially-non-metro census division in 2016 because the census subdivision of Markstay-Warren, which is adjacent to the Sudbury CMA, has had an increase in the share of their workforce commuting to the Sudbury CMA and since this share has surpassed the 50% commuting threshold, this census subdivision has been delineated as part of the Sudbury CMA. Note that the smaller census subdivision of Whitefish Lake 6 was delineated as part of the Sudbury CMA in 2011. Hence, the percent non-metro in the Sudbury census division declined from 98% in 2011 to 86% in 2016.
A discussion of the population change patterns at the census division level is presented in the next section.
9 The Sudbury census division is the census division that which surrounds, but does not include, the Greater Sudbury census division. June 13, 2017 Page 21 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 4 Population1 by type of area within each census division, Ontario, 2011 Non-metro (non-CMA) (CA + RST) Total Percent Ce nsus Name of Census Division Metro Non- Census Rural and small town (RST) areas Division agglomer- population, non- ranked by percent non-metro (CMA) metro Rural and ID Moderate 2011 me tro2 (non-CMA) ations small town Strong MIZ Weak MIZ No MIZ MIZ (subtotal) (C As) (subtotal) Metro census divisions 3506 Ottawa 883,391 - - 883,391 0 3519 York 1,032,524 - - 1,032,524 0 3520 Toronto 2,615,060 - - 2,615,060 0 3521 Peel 1,296,814 - - 1,296,814 0 3524 Halton 501,669 - - 501,669 0 3525 Hamilton 519,949 - - 519,949 0 3553 Greater Sudbury 160,376 - - 160,376 0 3529 Brant 135,501 534 534 534 136,035 0 Subtotal: Metro census divisions 7,145,284 534 - 534 - 534 - - 7,145,818 0 Partially-non-metro census divisions 3526 Niagara 417,509 13,837 13,837 13,837 431,346 3 3510 Frontenac 143,340 6,398 6,398 6,398 149,738 4 3539 Middlesex 419,644 19,507 19,507 16,856 1,369 1,282 439,151 4 3518 Durham 575,121 33,003 33,003 32,910 93 608,124 5 3530 Waterloo 477,160 29,936 29,936 29,936 507,096 6 3515 Peterborough 118,975 15,958 15,958 9,146 6,812 134,933 12 3558 Thunder Bay 121,596 24,461 24,461 5,909 3,145 13,906 1,501 146,057 17 3537 Essex 319,246 69,536 49,765 19,771 19,600 171 388,782 18 3523 Wellington 141,097 67,263 26,693 40,570 10,770 29,800 208,360 32 3534 Elgin 55,142 32,319 32,319 27,162 5,157 87,461 37 3522 Dufferin 35,521 21,360 21,360 21,360 56,881 38 3543 Simcoe 245,324 200,739 95,391 105,348 104,066 1,249 33 446,063 45 3502 Prescott and Russell 38,432 46,949 10,551 36,398 36,398 85,381 55 3511 Lennox and Addington 16,221 25,603 25,603 7,560 18,043 41,824 61 Subtotal: Partially-non-metro census division 3,124,328 606,869 182,400 424,469 335,510 72,144 13,906 2,909 3,731,197 16 Non-metro census divisions 3552 Sudbury 394 20,802 20,802 5,885 12,414 2,309 194 21,196 98 3501 Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry 111,164 58,957 52,207 31,162 21,045 111,164 100 3507 Leeds and Grenville 99,306 39,024 60,282 30,160 30,122 99,306 100 3509 Lanark 65,667 65,667 29,180 36,487 65,667 100 3512 Hastings 134,934 92,540 42,394 26,223 8,317 5,348 2,506 134,934 100 3513 Prince Edward 25,258 25,258 25,258 25,258 100 3514 Northumberland 82,126 34,733 47,393 23,392 24,001 82,126 100 3516 Kawartha Lakes 73,214 73,214 - 73,214 100 3528 Haldimand-Norfolk 109,118 63,175 45,943 44,876 1,067 109,118 100 3531 Perth 75,112 30,886 44,226 16,021 28,205 75,112 100 3532 Oxford 105,719 65,201 40,518 40,518 105,719 100 3536 Chatham-Kent 104,075 104,075 - 104,075 100 3538 Lambton 126,199 89,555 36,644 18,083 18,561 126,199 100 3540 Huron 59,100 59,100 30,109 28,991 59,100 100 3541 Bruce 66,102 66,102 31,628 34,474 66,102 100 3542 Grey 92,568 32,092 60,476 17,537 42,939 92,568 100 3544 Muskoka 58,047 58,047 23,372 34,465 210 58,047 100 3546 Haliburton 17,026 17,026 17,026 17,026 100 3547 Renfrew 101,326 40,005 61,321 5,684 53,979 1,658 101,326 100 3548 Nipissing 84,736 60,179 24,557 4,728 19,749 80 84,736 100 3549 Parry Sound 42,162 3,864 38,298 5,082 20,581 12,377 258 42,162 100 3551 Manitoulin 13,048 13,048 406 11,847 795 13,048 100 3554 Timiskaming 32,634 13,566 19,068 1,549 8,456 8,728 335 32,634 100 3556 Cochrane 81,122 43,165 37,957 10,599 24,909 2,449 81,122 100 3557 Algoma 115,870 91,148 24,722 7,758 10,095 6,058 811 115,870 100 3559 Rainy River 20,370 20,370 563 17,566 2,241 20,370 100 3560 Kenora 57,607 15,348 42,259 951 9,341 22,481 9,486 57,607 100 Subtotal: Non-metro census divisions 394 1,974,412 950,727 1,023,685 308,789 483,253 211,291 20,352 1,974,806 100 Ontario 10,270,006 2,581,815 1,133,127 1,448,688 644,299 555,931 225,197 23,261 12,851,821 20 1. This Table was published as Table 1 in “Overview of Ontario’s rural geography” Focus on Rural Ontario (June, 2013)). 2. The "percent non-metro" is the percent of the population in a census division that resides in a census subdivision (an incorporated town or municipality) that is "not" delineated as part of a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). Note: A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more. A Census Agglomeration (CA) has a core population ot 10,000 or more and a total population of 10,000 to 99,999. Both include the population in nearby census subdivisions (incorporated towns or incorporated municipalties) where 50% or more of the employed population commutes to the CMA or CA. The entire census subdivision ('community') is delineated as part of a CMA or CA or non-CMA/CA area. Source: Statistics Canada. (2012) GeoSuite: 2011 Census (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 92-150) (http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=92-150-X&chropg=1&lang=eng). June 13, 2017 Page 22 of 79 C 17 - CW Info 4. Census division population change patterns since 1981
We first review the pattern of population change among census divisions in the most recent period – 2011 to 2016.
As a point of reference, Ontario’s population growth rate over the 2011 to 2016 period was 4.6% (below the national average of 5%). Partially because of this lower population growth rate, the gap between the Ontario non-metro population growth rate and the metro growth rate narrowed to about 2.6 percentage points, the smallest difference we have witnessed for 20 years (Figure 2).
Among non-metro census divisions (as defined in Table 2), most reported population growth. One census division (Kenora) grew by more than 10% over this five-year period and one census division grew between 5% and 10% (Haliburton) (Figure 4 and Map 1). While the percentage change is high, the total population in these two census divisions in 2016 was 65,000 and 18,000 respectively and therefore the absolute change in the number of people we are observing in those fast-growing areas is not contributing to substantive change in the overall non-metro population.
Fifteen of the non-metro census divisions grew more slowly (0% to 5%). Seven non-metro census divisions experienced a population loss from 2011 to 2016: Prince Edward; Chatham-Kent; Nipissing; Cochrane; Algoma; Rainy River and Timiskaming. Five of the declining census divisions were in northern Ontario and four of these in the north-east. The two southern census divisions which declined are widely separated in the south-eastern and south-western parts of the province.
Canada-wide research has shown that the more dependent a region is on a single primary economic sector (fishing, mining, forestry or agriculture), the more vulnerable it is to population declines10. This may be an explanatory factor in the case of the four northern CDs which have mining and forestry based communities and the south-western census division of Chatham-Kent which is now more dependent on agriculture after experiencing significant loss of manufacturing employment in the last decade or so. Prince Edward County has a significant tourism sector as well as many seasonal dwellings and it may be that more seasonal, part-time residents are, in effect, displacing permanent residents. This type of cause and effect analysis at a regional level is beyond the scope and purpose of this Demographic Update but a few of the differences in the declining census divisions are noted here to illustrate that, despite the common outcome of population decline, the causes of decline are specific to each place.
Five partially-non-metro census divisions grew by more than 5% from 2011 to 2016 (Waterloo, Durham, Wellington, Simcoe and Dufferin) and these relatively populous areas therefore contributed substantively to overall population growth of partially-non-metro census divisions. By comparison, four metro census divisions grew by more than 5% (Ottawa, Peel, York and Halton).
The seven non-metro census divisions with declining population are noted above. In addition, there was a decline in population from 2011 to 2016 in one partially-non-metro census division (Thunder Bay) and in one metro census division (Brant).
Map 1 shows the pattern of 2011 to 2016 population change by census division.
10 Among (many) others, see Alasia, Alessandro, Ray D. Bollman, John Parkins and Bill Reimer. (2008) An Index of Community Vulnerability: Conceptual Framework and an Application to Population and Employment Change. (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Agriculture and Rural Working Paper no. 88, Catalogue no. 21-601-MIE) and Alasia, Alessandro. (2010) “Population Change Across Canadian Communities: The Role of Sector Restructuring, Agglomeration, Diversification and Human Capital.” Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin Vol. 8, No. 4 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 21-006-XIE). (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=21-006-X&CHROPG=1&lang=eng). June 13, 2017 Page 23 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 4 From 2011 to 2016, 17 non-metro census divisions experienced population growth (1 with >10% growth, 1 with 5-10% growth and 15 with 0-5% growth)
16 Number of census divisions by percent change in population from 2011 to 2016 14 Size of population change, 2011 to 2016 12 -5% to 0 0 to 5% 5% to 10% >10%
10
8
6
4
2
0 Metro census divisions Partially-non-metro Non-metro census census divisions divisions Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 2011 to 2016 June 13, 2017 Page 24 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Map 1: Percent change in population by census division, Ontario, 2011 to 2016
We now move to a discussion of the pattern of population change across census divisions11 over the 1981 to 2016 period.
There are 7 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016. Among the 24 non-metro census divisions (as classified in 2016, see Table 2), 6 experienced population growth in each of the 7 intercensal periods and another 7 census divisions experienced population growth in 6 of the 7 intercensal periods (Table 5 and Map 2). Thus, over one-half (54%: 25% grew in 7 of 7 periods; 29% grew in 6 of 7 periods) of the non-metro census divisions have experienced a consistent pattern of population growth since 1981. At the other end of the spectrum, 2 census divisions had no population growth in any of the 7 intercensal periods.
As noted, over the 7 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016:
• 54% of non-metro census divisions grew in 6 or 7 of the 7 intercensal periods. However, • 88% of metro census divisions grew in 6 or 7 periods; and • 88% of partially-non-metro census division grew in 6 or 7 periods.
11 The data for the 1981 to 2016 period have been tabulated within the census division boundaries used in the 1996 Census of Population. Hence, we use the 1996 census division names when discussing the 1981 to 2016 population patterns. June 13, 2017 Page 25 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 5 Number of Ontario census divisions by number of intercensal periods with population growth, 1981 to 2016 Population growth pattern: All Number of intercensal periods with census population growth, divisions 1981 to 2016 Type of census division 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of census divisions with each population growth pattern Metro census divisions 1 1 6 8 Partially-non-metro census divisions 2 2 13 17 Non-metro census divisions 2 1 1 2 4 1 7 6 24 All census divisions 2 1 3 2 4 2 10 25 49 Percent distribution of number of census divisions with each population growth pattern Metro CDs 13 13 75 100 Partially-non-metro CDs 12 12 76 100 Non-metro CDs 8 4 4 8 17 4 29 25 100 All census divisions 4 2 6 4 8 4 20 51 100 Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1981 to 2016.
At the other end of the spectrum, 24% of Ontario census divisions grew in less than 5 intercensal periods.
Among these 12 CDs, two were partially-non-metro census divisions (Thunder Bay District and Sudbury District). Ten were non-metro census divisions (Algoma District, Cochrane District, Huron County, Kenora District, Kent County, Lambton County, Nipissing District, Perth County, Rainy River District and Timiskaming District).
The 25 census divisions with continuous growth from 1981 to 2016 (i.e., growth in each of the 7 intercensal periods) are shown in dark brown in Map 2. They are strongly connected with:
• the Greater Golden Horseshoe; • the southern Georgian Bay region; and • the Ottawa-Kingston region. June 13, 2017 Page 26 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Map 2. Population growth pattern from 1981 to 2016 by census division
(Note that the census data from 1981 to 2016 have been tabulated within the census division boundaries used in the 1996 Census of Population and thus this map and the related discussion uses the boundaries and census division names used in 1996.) June 13, 2017 Page 27 of 79 C 17 - CW Info 5. Census consolidated subdivision population (CCS) change patterns since 1981
A census consolidated subdivision (CCS) generally consists of an incorporated town (which is itself a census subdivision) and the surrounding incorporated rural municipality/township (which is also a census subdivision).
For some analysts, a CCS presents a better definition of a “community” because residents in the countryside surrounding the incorporated town typically use many of the services in the town, such as retail stores, schools, medical services, hockey rinks, churches, etc. In this sense, residents of a CCS may be considered a “community”.
Also, for the purpose of mapping population patterns, each CCS is large enough to be viewed on a map whereas many incorporated towns (that are census subdivisions) are too small for the colour of the characteristics being mapped (e.g., population change) to be discerned.
Before moving to the population growth patterns in CCSs over the 1981 to 2016 period, we present the pattern of population change in the most recent period (2011 to 2016) for the 518 CCSs in Ontario.
In the 2011 to 2016 period, the typical CCS (“community”) grew by 0% to 5% over the five-year period (194 CCSs) (Figure 5 and Table 6). The pattern of population change across the province from 2011 to 2016 is portrayed in Map 3.
About an equal number of CCSs had a population change on either side of this modal group (0% to 5% population change):
• 108 CCSs reported a population decline of -5% to 0%; and • 111 CCSs reported a population increase of 5% to 10% over the five-year period. June 13, 2017 Page 28 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 5 From 2011 to 2016, 353 census consolidated subdivisions experienced population growth, Ontario (48 with >10% growth, 111 with 5-10% growth and 194 with 0-5% growth)
250 Number of census consolidated subdivisions by percent change in population from 2011 to 2016
200
150
100
50
0 <-10% -10% to -5% -5% to 0% 0% to 5% 5% to 10% >10% Size of population change from 2011 to 2016 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 2011 to 2016
Interestingly, within each type of census division, the modal group of CCSs in terms of 2011 to 2016 population change was the group with small(er) population growth (0% to 5%) (see Figure 6 and Table 6 for the number of CCSs). June 13, 2017 Page 29 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 6 Within each type of census division, the modal group (or largest group) of census consolidated subdivisions is the group with smaller growth (0 to 5%) from 2011 to 2016, Ontario
Number of census consolidated subdivisions 150 within each type of census division (CD) by percent change in population from 2011 to 2016
125 Metro CDs Partially-non-metro CDs Non-metro CDs
100
75
50
25
0 <-10% -10% to -5% -5% to 0% 0% to 5% 5% to 10% >10% Size of population change from 2011 to 2016 for census consolidated subdivisions Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 2011 to 2016
Within each type of census division, 37%-38% of the CCSs reported smaller growth (i.e., in the modal group of 0% to 5% growth over this five-year period) (see Figure 7 and Table 7 for the percent distribution of CCSs).
However, the distribution of CCSs by size of 2011-2016 population growth differs among the other size classes of census division population change. Within metro census divisions, 33% of the CCSs grew by 5% to 10% but only 17% of the non-metro CCSs grew by 5% to 10% over this five-year period (Figure 7). Within non-metro census divisions, 24% of the CCSs reported a small population decline (-5% to 0%) but only 14% of the CCSs in metro census division reported this small population decline.
Thus, a higher share of CCSs in non-metro census divisions reported a population decline in the 2011 to 2016 period. June 13, 2017 Page 30 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 7 Within each type of census division, the modal group (or largest group) of census consolidated subdivisions is those with smaller growth (0 to 5%) from 2011 to 2016, Ontario
Percent distribution of number of census consolidated subdivisions 55 within each type of census division (CD) by percent change in population from 2011 to 2016 50 45 Metro CDs Partially-non-metro CDs Non-metro CDs 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 <-10% -10% to -5% -5% to 0% 0% to 5% 5% to 10% >10% Size of population change from 2011 to 2016 for census consolidated subdivisions Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 2011 to 2016
Perhaps obviously, within a census division with higher population growth, we will find a higher share of CCSs with population growth. For example, among all census divisions with 5% to 10% population growth (row 16 in Table 7), 41% of the CCSs grew by 5% to 10% (and another 17% grew by 10+%). Among all census divisions that declined (-5% to 0%) over the 2011 to 2016 period (row 14 in Table 7), 30% of the CCS declined by -5% to 0% (and another 21% (9% + 12%) reported a population change of less than -5%). Thus, community growth and regional growth are (again perhaps obviously) inter-related.
However, equally important, not every CCS within a census division displays the same population change pattern as we see for the overall census division. Specifically, within growing census divisions, there are CCSs that are declining and within declining census divisions, there are growing CCSs. Figures 6 and 7 and Tables 6 and 7 illustrate the heterogeneity of CCS population change within each type of census division. Within any group of census divisions, there are places that are growing as well as places that are declining. This reinforces the point made in the Introduction – both the local and the regional dynamics matter.
These points are illustrated by comparing the diversity of population change at the CCS level portrayed in Map 3 and the census division level of population change portrayed in Map 1. June 13, 2017 Page 31 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 6 Number of census consolidated subdivisions by size of population change from 2011 to 2016 - - within census divisions classified by size of population change from 2011 to 2016, Ontario Size of change of population of census consolidated subdivisions from 2011 to 2016 Size of census division Row All census population change from -10% -5% to 0% to 5% to No # <-10% >10% consolidated to -5% 0% 5% 10% data 2011 to 2016 subdivisions
Number of census consolidated subdivisions Metro census divisions 1 -5% to 0% 1 2 3 6 2 0% to 5% 5 7 5 1 18 3 5% to 10% 8 11 6 25 4 Metro: Total 1 7 18 16 7 49 Partially-non-metro census divisions 5 -5% to 0% 3 1 3 7 6 0% to 5% 7 8 24 44 24 10 117 7 5% to 10% 1 2 21 18 6 48 8 Partially-non-metro: Total 8 8 29 66 45 16 172 Non-metro census divisions 9 -5% to 0% 7 10 21 19 7 7 2 73 10 0% to 5% 8 11 51 90 38 15 1 214 11 5% to 10% 1 1 5 2 9 12 >10% 1 1 13 Non-metro: Total 15 22 72 110 50 25 3 297 All census divisions 14 -5% to 0% 8 10 26 23 10 7 2 86 15 0% to 5% 15 19 80 141 67 26 1 349 16 5% to 10% 1 1 2 30 34 14 0 82 17 >10% 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 18 All census divisions: Total 24 30 108 194 111 48 3 518 Note: Data are tabulated according to the boundaries of census divisions and census consolidated subdivisions used in the 1996 Census of Population. Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 2011 and 2016, special tabulation. June 13, 2017 Page 32 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 7 Percent distribution of number of census consolidated subdivisions by size of population change from 2011 to 2016 - within census divisions classified by size of population change from 2011 to 2016, Ontario Size of change of population of census consolidated subdivisions from 2011 to 2016 All census Size of census division -10% to -5% 0% to 5% to No Row <-10% >10% consolidated population change from -5% to 0% 5% 10% data # subdivisions 2011 to 2016 Percent distribution of census consolidated subdivisions within each size class of census division population change (row percent) Metro census divisions 1 -5% to 0% 17 0 33 50 0 0 0 100 2 0% to 5% 0 0 28 39 28 6 0 100 3 5% to 10% 0 0 0 32 44 24 0 100 4 Metro: Total 2 0 14 37 33 14 0 100 Partially-non-metro census divisions 5 -5% to 0% 0 0 43 14 43 0 0 100 6 0% to 5% 6 7 21 38 21 9 0 100 7 5% to 10% 2 0 4 44 38 13 0 100 8 Partially-non-metro: Total 5 5 17 38 26 9 0 100 Non-metro census divisions 9 -5% to 0% 10 14 29 26 10 10 3 100 10 0% to 5% 4 5 24 42 18 7 0 100 11 5% to 10% 0 11 0 11 56 22 0 100 12 >10% 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 13 Non-metro: Total 5 7 24 37 17 8 1 100 All census divisions 14 -5% to 0% 9 12 30 27 12 8 2 100 15 0% to 5% 4 5 23 40 19 7 0 100 16 5% to 10% 1 1 2 37 41 17 0 100 17 >10% 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 18 All census divisions: Total 5 6 21 37 21 9 1 100 Note: Data are tabulated according to the boundaries of census divisions and census consolidated subdivisions used in the 1996 Census of Population. Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 2011 and 2016, special tabulation. June 13, 2017 Page 33 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Map 3. Percent change in population by census consolidated subdivision, Ontario, 2011 to 2016
Having looked at the changes in the recent 2011 to 2016 period, we now move to a discussion of the pattern of population growth of CCSs12 (“communities”) over a more extended period from 1981 to 2016 period.
For Ontario as a whole, 22% of census consolidated subdivisions (numbering 114 CCSs) had population growth in each of the 7 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016 (Figure 8 and Tables 9 and 10). Another 18% grew in 6 of 7 periods and another 22% grew in 5 of 7 periods. Thus, across Ontario, 62% of CCSs grew in five or more of the 7 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016.
12 The data for the 1981 to 2016 period have been tabulated within the census consolidated subdivision boundaries used in the 1996 Census of Population. Hence, we use the 1996 census consolidated subdivision names when discussing the 1981 to 2016 population patterns. June 13, 2017 Page 34 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 8 22% of Ontario's census consolidated subivisions1 experienced a population growth pattern of population growth in all 7 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016
1 25 Percentof census consolidated subdivisions (CCSs) reporting each pattern of population growth, all Ontario CCSs, 1981 to 2016 20
15
10
5
- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pattern of population growth: Number of intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016 where there was population growth
1. A census consolidated subdivision (CCS) is a group of census subdivisions -- typically, an incorporated town and the surrounding rural municipality is "consolidated" to delineate a CCS. Data are tabulated within the CCS boundaries used in 1996. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1981 to 2016, special tabulation.
This pattern differed considerably within the different types of census divisions. Within non-metro census divisions, only 8% of the CCSs grew in 7 of the 7 periods, compared to 61% of the CCSs in metro census divisions (Figure 9). June 13, 2017 Page 35 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 9 Within Ontario's metro census divisions (CDs), 61% of the census consolidated subivisions1 experienced a population growth pattern with population growth in all 7 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016
1 70 Percentof census consolidated subdivisions (CCSs) reporting each pattern of population growth, within each type of census division (CD), 1981 to 2016 60
50
40 Metro CDs Partially-non-metro CDs Non-metro CDs
30
20
10
- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pattern of population growth: Number of intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016 where there was population growth
1. A census consolidated subdivision (CCS) is a group of census subdivisions -- typically, an incorporated town and the surrounding rural municipality is "consolidated" to delineate a CCS. Data are tabulated within the CCS boundaries used in 1996. Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1981 to 2016, special tabulation.
Among all non-metro census divisions, 8% of the CCSs grew in 7 of 7 periods (second line from the bottom of Table 10). However, there were 3 non-metro census divisions where one-third or more of their CCSs grew in 7 of 7 periods (the census divisions of Muskoka, Northumberland and Oxford) (Table 10). Similarly, within the group of metro census divisions where, overall, 61% of CCSs reported population growth in 7 of 7 intercensal periods, there were two census divisions with only 33% of their CCSs reporting continuous population growth (the census divisions of Brant and Toronto) (Table 10).
Again, we observe considerable heterogeneity of CCS population change within each type of census division. Within any group of census divisions, there are places that are growing continuously (or nearly continuously) as well as places that are growing only occasionally. This again reinforces the point made in the Introduction – both the local and the regional dynamics matter.
The pattern of CCS population dynamics is portrayed in Map 4. June 13, 2017 Page 36 of 79 C 17 - CW Info As noted in the equivalent map for census divisions (i.e., Map 2), the CCS pattern of strong population dynamics (in Map 4) (i.e., the dark brown showing population growth in each of the 7 intercensal periods) is associated with:
• the Greater Golden Horseshoe (generally, but we see only a patchwork of dark brown in Map 4 for the Golden Horseshoe); • the southern Georgian Bay region (again, generally, but again we see a patchwork of dark brown in Map 4); and • the Ottawa region.
Map 4. Population growth pattern from 1981 to 2016 by census consolidated subdivision
(Note that the census data from 1981 to 2016 have been tabulated within the census consolidated subdivision boundaries used in the 1996 Census of Population and thus this map and the related discussion uses the boundaries and census consolidated subdivision names used in 1996.)
Within each CD, the number of CCSs with each population growth pattern is shown in Table 9. There were 24 CCSs13 with growth in only zero or one of the 7 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016. Among these 24 CCSs, 23 were in non-metro census divisions. The percent distribution of these CCSs within each census division is show in Table 10.
13 Five CCSs with 0 periods of growth and 19 CCSs with one period of growth. June 13, 2017 Page 37 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Within metro CDs, the 20 CCSs with the highest population growth had an average five-year population growth averaging from 7.6% to 39.1% from 1996 to 2016 (Table 11, top panel). Among these 20 CCS, 18 grew in each of the 7 intercensal periods. Among metro CDs, the 20 CCSs with the lowest population growth, the range of average five-year change was from 5.2% to -3.7% (Table 11, bottom panel). Six of these 20 CCSs actually grew their population in 7 or 7 intercensal periods. However, five of these 20 CCSs in metro CDs grew in less than 4 of the 7 intercensal periods.
Within partially-non-metro CDs, the CCSs with the highest population growth had five-year population growth rates, on average over the 1996 to 2016 period, ranging from 8.7% to 24.6% (Table 12, top panel). All of the 20 CCSs with the lowest growth actually experienced a decline in population over the 1996 to 2016 period (a population change of -0.9% to -7.4%) (Table 12, bottom panel).
Within non-metro CDs, the CCSs with the highest growth rates, on average in each five-year period, had growth rates from 5.7% to 14% during the 1996 to 2016 period (Table 13, top panel). These 20 CCSs reported population growth in 4 or more of the 7 intercensal periods. And, the 20 CCSs with a declining population reported a population change of -3.6% to -11.8% in the average five-year period from 1996 to 2016 (Table 13, bottom panel). Most reported population growth in less than 3 of the 7 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016.
Thus, as noted earlier, there is a wide range of population trajectories among CCSs within each of metro, partially-non-metro and non-metro CDs. June 13, 2017 Page 38 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 9 Number of census consolidated divisions by population growth pattern, Ontario, 1981 to 2016
Population growth pattern: All census consolidated Number of intercensal periods with population subdivisions Name of census division growth, 1981 to 2016 (name used in 1996) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of census consolidated subdivisions with each population growth pattern Metro census divisions Brant County 1 1 2 2 6 Halton Regional Municipality 1 3 4 Hamilton-Wentworth Reg. Mun. 1 1 3 5 Ottawa-Carleton Reg. Mun. 1 8 9 Peel Regional Municipality 3 3 Sudbury Regional Municipality 1 2 1 1 2 7 Toronto Metropolitan Mun. 2 2 2 6 York Regional Municipality 9 9 Metro (subtotal) 1 2 2 3 7 4 30 49 Partially-non-metro census divisions Dufferin County 1 1 4 6 Durham Regional Municipality 1 7 8 Elgin County 1 1 1 2 2 7 Essex County 1 4 4 2 4 15 Frontenac County 3 2 5 2 3 15 Leeds & Grenville U.C. 2 8 5 1 16 Hastings County 3 6 2 5 2 18 Lennox and Addington County 1 1 5 1 2 10 Middlesex County 3 1 2 2 5 2 15 Niagara Regional Municipality 1 1 2 2 6 12 Peterborough County 2 4 6 3 15 Prescott & Russell U.C. 1 1 1 3 4 10 Simcoe County 1 3 11 15 Sudbury District 2 4 6 Thunder Bay District 1 3 3 7 Waterloo Regional Municipality 1 6 7 Wellington County 1 2 4 5 12 Partially-non-metro (subtotal) 10 16 25 42 39 62 194 Non-metro census divisions Algoma District 2 2 1 5 3 1 14 Bruce County 3 5 4 5 17 Cochrane District 3 1 1 5 Grey County 1 2 1 3 4 4 15 Haldimand-Norfolk Reg. Mun. 1 1 3 1 6 Haliburton County 1 3 4 1 9 Huron County 1 4 2 5 3 1 16 Kenora District 1 1 Kent County 2 3 3 2 10 Lambton County 1 2 2 2 4 11 Lanark County 2 1 7 2 12 Manitoulin District 2 2 3 4 2 13 Muskoka District Municipality 2 1 1 2 6 Nipissing District 2 2 2 3 1 10 Northumberland County 2 3 4 9 Oxford County 1 1 1 2 5 Parry Sound District 1 5 10 5 21 Perth County 1 1 3 4 2 11 Prince Edward County 2 3 2 7 Rainy River District 1 1 4 1 3 1 11 Renfrew County 4 6 9 4 2 25 Stormont,Dundas & Glengarry U.C. 1 1 1 5 3 2 13 Timiskaming District 5 6 3 2 16 Victoria County 6 6 12 Non-metro (subtotal) 5 18 32 30 53 63 52 22 275 All census consolidated subdivisions 5 19 44 48 81 112 95 114 518 Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1981 to 2016, special tabulation. June 13, 2017 Page 39 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 10 Percent distribution of number of census consolidated divisions by population growth pattern, Ontario, 1981 to 2016
Population growth pattern: All census consolidated Number of intercensal periods with population growth, subdivisions Name of census division 1981 to 2016 (name used in 1996) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percent distribution of number of census consolidated subdivisions with each population growth pattern Metro census divisions Brant County 17 17 33 33 100 Halton Regional Municipality 25 75 100 Hamilton-Wentworth Reg. Mun. 20 20 60 100 Ottawa-Carleton Reg. Mun. 11 89 100 Peel Regional Municipality 100 100 Sudbury Regional Municipality 14 29 14 14 29 100 Toronto Metropolitan Mun. 33 33 33 100 York Regional Municipality 100 100 Metro (subtotal) 2 4 4 6 14 8 61 100 Partially-non-metro census divisions Dufferin County 17 17 67 100 Durham Regional Municipality 13 88 100 Elgin County 14 14 14 29 29 100 Essex County 7 27 27 13 27 100 Frontenac County 20 13 33 13 20 100 Leeds & Grenville U.C. 0 13 50 31 6 100 Hastings County 17 33 11 28 11 100 Lennox and Addington County 10 10 50 10 20 100 Middlesex County 20 7 13 13 33 13 100 Niagara Regional Municipality 8 8 17 17 50 100 Peterborough County 13 27 40 20 100 Prescott & Russell U.C. 10 10 10 30 0 40 100 Simcoe County 7 20 73 100 Sudbury District 33 67 100 Thunder Bay District 14 43 43 100 Waterloo Regional Municipality 14 86 100 Wellington County 8 17 33 42 100 Partially-non-metro (subtotal) 5 8 13 22 20 32 100 Non-metro census divisions Algoma District 14 14 7 36 21 7 100 Bruce County 18 29 24 29 100 Cochrane District 60 20 0 20 100 Grey County 7 13 7 20 27 27 100 Haldimand-Norfolk Reg. Mun. 17 17 0 50 17 100 Haliburton County 11 33 44 11 100 Huron County 6 25 13 31 19 6 100 Kenora District 100 100 Kent County 20 30 30 0 20 100 Lambton County 9 18 18 18 36 100 Lanark County 17 8 58 17 100 Manitoulin District 15 15 23 31 15 100 Muskoka District Municipality 33 17 17 33 100 Nipissing District 20 20 20 30 10 100 Northumberland County 22 33 44 100 Oxford County 20 20 20 40 100 Parry Sound District 5 24 48 24 100 Perth County 9 27 36 18 100 Prince Edward County 29 43 29 100 Rainy River District 9 36 9 27 9 100 Renfrew County 16 24 36 16 8 100 Stormont,Dundas & Glengarry U.C. 8 8 8 38 23 15 100 Timiskaming District 31 38 19 13 100 Victoria County 50 50 100 Non-metro (subtotal) 2 7 12 11 19 23 19 8 100 All census consolidated subdivisions 1 4 8 9 16 22 18 22 100 Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1981 to 2016, special tabulation. June 13, 2017 Page 40 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 11 Within METRO census divisions, ranking of census consolidated subdivisions by the 5-year average percent change in population, 1996 to 2016 Number of Number of Population (with 1996 boundaries) 5-year percent change Name of Census periods with periods with CCS ID Name of Census Division Consolidated Subdivision population population (1996) (1996) 1996 to (1996) 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2011 to 2016 2016 growth, 1981 growth, 1996 (average) to 2016 to 2016 20 census consolidated subdivisions with the HIGHEST average 5-year percent change in population, 1996 to 2016: METRO census divisions 3524009 Halton Regional Municipality Milton 32,104 31,470 53,939 84,402 110,183 30.5 39.1 5 3 3525009 Hamilton-Wentworth Reg. Mun. Glanbrook 10,564 12,150 15,293 22,701 29,861 31.5 30.2 6 4 3519044 York Regional Municipality Whitchurch-Stouffville 19,835 22,005 24,390 37,552 45,837 22.1 24.5 7 4 3519028 York Regional Municipality Vaughan 132,549 182,020 238,866 288,301 306,233 6.2 23.9 7 4 3521010 Peel Regional Municipality Brampton 268,251 325,425 433,745 523,911 593,643 13.3 22.2 7 4 3506027 Ottawa-Carleton Reg. Mun. Goulbourn 19,267 23,595 28,583 36,320 39,420 8.5 19.8 7 4 3519038 York Regional Municipality Richmond Hill 101,725 132,030 162,704 185,541 195,022 5.1 18.0 7 4 3506030 Ottawa-Carleton Reg. Mun. Kanata 47,909 58,635 70,078 80,781 91,396 13.1 17.6 7 4 3519036 York Regional Municipality Markham 173,383 208,615 261,573 301,785 328,966 9.0 17.5 7 4 3525014 Hamilton-Wentworth Reg. Mun. Ancaster 23,403 27,490 33,232 36,911 40,557 9.9 14.8 7 4 3506004 Ottawa-Carleton Reg. Mun. Cumberland 47,367 52,420 62,689 74,644 81,141 8.7 14.5 7 4 3521024 Peel Regional Municipality Caledon 39,893 50,595 57,063 59,445 66,497 11.9 13.9 7 4 3519046 York Regional Municipality Aurora 34,857 40,170 47,629 53,203 55,445 4.2 12.4 7 4 3524001 Halton Regional Municipality Oakville 128,405 144,735 165,613 182,746 193,832 6.1 10.9 7 4 3506012 Ottawa-Carleton Reg. Mun. Nepean 115,100 124,880 138,441 156,121 170,765 9.4 10.4 7 4 3519048 York Regional Municipality Newmarket 57,125 65,785 74,295 79,978 84,224 5.3 10.3 7 4 3506001 Ottawa-Carleton Reg. Mun. Osgoode 15,904 17,610 20,336 22,239 23,285 4.7 10.1 7 4 3524015 Halton Regional Municipality Halton Hills 42,390 48,185 55,289 59,008 61,151 3.6 9.7 7 4 3519049 York Regional Municipality King 18,223 18,535 19,472 19,894 24,512 23.2 8.0 7 4 3524002 Halton Regional Municipality Burlington 136,976 150,835 164,415 175,553 183,314 4.4 7.6 7 4 20 census consolidated subdivisions with the LOWEST average 5-year percent change in population, 1996 to 2016: METRO census divisions 3520004 Toronto Metropolitan Mun. Toronto 653,734 676,365 681,029 730,885 797,729 9.1 5.2 7 4 3519054 York Regional Municipality East Gwillimbury 19,770 20,555 21,069 22,473 23,991 6.8 5.0 7 4 3525030 Hamilton-Wentworth Reg. Mun. Flamborough 57,162 62,175 63,922 64,999 66,941 3.0 4.1 7 4 3529004 Brant County Brantford 91,251 92,950 97,342 101,087 105,690 4.6 3.7 7 4 3520008 Toronto Metropolitan Mun. North York 589,653 608,275 624,624 650,508 673,172 3.5 3.4 6 4 3529001 Brant County Onondaga 1,650 1,755 1,865 1,849 1,869 1.1 3.2 5 3 3520001 Toronto Metropolitan Mun. Scarborough 558,960 593,295 607,876 626,518 632,098 0.9 3.1 7 4 3520019 Toronto Metropolitan Mun. Etobicoke 328,718 338,120 335,363 348,829 366,491 5.1 2.8 6 3 3520006 Toronto Metropolitan Mun. East York 107,822 115,195 112,144 115,303 117,927 2.3 2.3 5 3 3506018 Ottawa-Carleton Reg. Mun. Rideau 12,444 12,700 12,960 13,171 13,175 0.0 1.4 7 4 3529011 Brant County Burford 5,858 5,975 6,065 6,354 6,188 -2.6 1.4 5 3 3506014 Ottawa-Carleton Reg. Mun. Ottawa 342,582 356,705 346,961 355,762 360,231 1.3 1.3 6 3 3553028 Sudbury Regional Municipality Valley East 23,537 22,370 22,640 23,978 24,432 1.9 1.0 5 3 3553012 Sudbury Regional Municipality Walden 10,292 10,100 10,158 10,564 10,698 1.3 1.0 5 3 3525018 Hamilton-Wentworth Reg. Mun. Hamilton 322,352 331,135 329,835 330,228 330,105 0.0 0.6 4 2 3553001 Sudbury Regional Municipality Nickel Centre 13,017 12,680 12,629 13,232 13,177 -0.4 0.3 3 1 3520014 Toronto Metropolitan Mun. York 146,534 150,255 143,117 143,898 145,502 1.1 -0.1 5 3 3553024 Sudbury Regional Municipality Rayside-Balfour 16,050 15,040 14,359 14,557 15,703 7.9 -0.4 4 2 3553007 Sudbury Regional Municipality Sudbury 92,059 85,355 88,708 88,508 88,181 -0.4 -1.0 2 1 3529009 Brant County Oakland 1,377 1,335 1,369 1,374 1,316 -4.2 -1.1 3 2 3553019 Sudbury Regional Municipality Onaping Falls 5,277 4,890 4,742 4,874 4,751 -2.5 -2.5 1 1 3553035 Sudbury Regional Municipality Capreol 3,817 3,485 3,433 3,286 3,281 -0.2 -3.7 2 0 Note: Data are tabulated within the boundaries used in the 1996 Census of Population Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1981 - 2016, special tabulation. June 13, 2017 Page 41 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 12 Within PARTIALLY-NON-METRO census divisions, ranking of census consolidated subdivisions by the 5-year average percent change in population, 1996 to 2016 Number of Number of Population (with 1996 boundaries) 5-year percent change Name of Census periods with periods with CCS ID Name of Census Division Consolidated Subdivision population population (1996) (1996) 1996 to (1996) 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2011 to 2016 2016 growth, 1981 growth, 1996 (average) to 2016 to 2016 20 census consolidated subdivisions with the HIGHEST average 5-year percent change in population, 1996 to 2016: PARTIALLY-NON-METRO census divisions 3543064 Simcoe County Wasaga Beach 8,698 12,415 15,029 17,478 20,675 18.3 24.6 7 4 3515046 Peterborough County Galway and Cavendish 765 665 1,179 1,217 1,308 7.5 18.7 6 3 3518005 Durham Regional Municipality Ajax 64,430 73,755 90,167 109,600 119,677 9.2 16.9 7 4 3543042 Simcoe County Barrie 79,191 103,710 128,383 135,370 141,123 4.2 16.1 7 4 3543014 Simcoe County Bradford West Gwillimbury 20,213 22,230 24,054 28,082 35,325 25.8 15.2 7 4 3518009 Durham Regional Municipality Whitby 73,794 87,415 111,184 122,022 128,377 5.2 15.2 7 4 3522019 Dufferin County Melancthon 6,397 6,915 8,044 8,652 11,101 28.3 15.1 7 4 3512001 Hastings County Tyendinaga 5,360 5,565 5,894 8,491 8,595 1.2 13.8 6 4 3512071 Hastings County Carlow 430 395 486 364 570 56.6 11.6 4 2 3537031 Essex County Anderdon 5,730 6,335 7,759 8,050 8,650 7.5 11.1 7 4 3518017 Durham Regional Municipality Clarington 60,615 69,835 77,874 84,600 92,013 8.8 11.0 7 4 3543007 Simcoe County New Tecumseth 22,902 26,145 27,701 30,234 34,242 13.3 10.6 7 4 3543017 Simcoe County Innisfil 24,711 28,665 31,175 33,183 36,877 11.1 10.6 7 4 3530020 Waterloo Regional Municipality Wilmot 13,831 14,865 17,097 19,223 20,545 6.9 10.5 7 4 3537034 Essex County LaSalle 20,566 25,285 27,600 28,643 30,180 5.4 10.3 7 4 3537051 Essex County Maidstone 22,260 24,730 28,333 30,023 32,409 7.9 9.9 7 4 3530035 Waterloo Regional Municipality Woolwich 17,325 18,200 19,658 23,140 25,006 8.1 9.7 6 4 3539034 Middlesex County London 4,996 5,640 6,483 7,073 7,170 1.4 9.6 6 4 3510029 Frontenac County Bedford 1,112 1,225 1,644 1,473 1,516 2.9 9.2 6 3 3543068 Simcoe County Tiny 8,688 9,070 10,868 11,302 12,058 6.7 8.7 6 4 20 census consolidated subdivisions with the LOWEST average 5-year percent change in population, 1996 to 2016: PARTIALLY-NON-METRO census divisions 3539049 Middlesex County West Williams 2,707 2,705 2,597 2,747 2,601 -5.3 -0.9 4 1 3534024 Elgin County Southwold 6,781 6,880 7,188 6,728 6,484 -3.6 -1.0 4 2 3507006 Leeds & Grenville U.C. Augusta 12,106 11,865 11,690 11,714 11,575 -1.2 -1.1 4 1 3558004 Thunder Bay District Thunder Bay 113,662 109,020 109,130 108,339 107,924 -0.4 -1.3 2 1 3539006 Middlesex County Ekfrid 4,496 4,455 4,310 4,237 4,212 -0.6 -1.6 2 0 3558024 Thunder Bay District Oliver 2,711 2,670 2,541 2,537 2,535 -0.1 -1.6 3 0 3537062 Essex County Tilbury West 1,777 1,845 1,732 1,680 1,631 -2.9 -2.1 3 1 3539001 Middlesex County Mosa 2,138 2,115 2,019 2,070 1,962 -5.2 -2.1 2 1 3511011 Lennox and Addington County South Fredericksburgh 1,197 1,215 1,278 1,143 1,092 -4.5 -2.1 4 2 3502012 Prescott & Russell U.C. Caledonia 1,474 1,425 1,411 1,416 1,329 -6.1 -2.5 2 1 3558016 Thunder Bay District O'Connor 739 725 720 685 663 -3.2 -2.7 3 0 3534040 Elgin County Aldborough 5,573 5,465 5,349 5,157 4,995 -3.1 -2.7 2 0 3552093 Sudbury District Sudbury, Unorganized, North Part 17,114 16,590 15,575 15,234 15,275 0.3 -2.8 2 1 3552020 Sudbury District The Spanish River 3,332 2,945 2,845 2,911 2,932 0.7 -3.0 3 2 3510032 Frontenac County Oso 1,413 1,460 1,345 1,335 1,237 -7.3 -3.2 3 1 3512032 Hastings County Elzevir and Grimsthorpe 1,550 1,370 1,369 1,316 1,303 -1.0 -4.1 3 0 3512058 Hastings County Faraday 4,192 4,130 3,240 3,162 3,423 8.3 -4.3 3 1 3558090 Thunder Bay District Thunder Bay, Unorganized 34,900 32,880 30,639 28,666 28,685 0.1 -4.7 3 1 3511038 Lennox and Addington County Denbigh, Abinger and Ashby 717 715 658 588 527 -10.4 -7.3 2 0 3539054 Middlesex County McGillivray 2,905 2,855 2,738 2,320 2,126 -8.4 -7.4 2 0 Note: Data are tabulated within the boundaries used in the 1996 Census of Population Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1981 - 2016, special tabulation. June 13, 2017 Page 42 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 13 Within NON-METRO census divisions, ranking of census consolidated subdivisions by the 5-year average percent change in population, 1996 to 2016
Number of Number of Population (with 1996 boundaries) 5-year percent change Name of Census periods with periods with CCS ID Name of Census Division Consolidated Subdivision population population (1996) (1996) 1996 to (1996) 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2011 to 2016 2016 growth, 1981 growth, 1996 (average) to 2016 to 2016 20 census consolidated subdivisions with the HIGHEST average 5-year percent change in population, 1996 to 2016: NON-METRO census divisions 3549009 Parry Sound District Christie 537 605 817 818 884 8.1 14.0 6 4 3546034 Haliburton County Sherborne and Others 487 540 599 662 700 5.7 9.5 5 4 3509014 Lanark County South Sherbrooke 732 840 945 859 1,018 18.5 9.2 6 3 3551094 Manitoulin District Manitoulin, Unorg., West Part 270 325 381 333 361 8.4 8.4 4 3 3514001 Northumberland County Murray 7,355 8,155 9,218 10,230 10,063 -1.6 8.3 6 3 3547006 Renfrew County Bagot and Blythfield 1,371 1,630 2,052 1,719 1,787 4.0 8.1 6 3 3546021 Haliburton County Stanhope 1,200 1,285 1,377 1,509 1,621 7.4 7.8 6 4 3531006 Perth County North Easthope 2,169 2,190 2,509 2,725 2,868 5.2 7.3 6 4 3514006 Northumberland County Brighton 9,022 9,450 10,258 10,928 11,844 8.4 7.1 7 4 3507056 Leeds & Grenville U.C. Oxford-on-Rideau 10,148 10,845 11,192 11,911 13,302 11.7 7.0 7 4 3509024 Lanark County Beckwith 13,945 15,130 15,840 16,704 18,288 9.5 7.0 7 4 3509011 Lanark County North Burgess 1,269 1,370 1,586 1,568 1,649 5.2 6.9 6 3 3549096 Parry Sound District Parry Sound, Unorg., Centre Part 3,760 4,135 4,994 4,749 4,823 1.6 6.8 5 3 3549039 Parry Sound District Hagerman 489 535 690 547 595 8.8 6.6 4 3 3541062 Bruce County Eastnor 1,993 2,015 2,139 2,063 2,529 22.6 6.6 5 3 3557014 Algoma District Tarbutt and Tarbutt Additional 442 470 388 396 534 34.8 6.4 6 3 3514016 Northumberland County Haldimand 4,450 4,765 5,198 5,409 5,636 4.2 6.1 7 4 3516036 Victoria County Carden 887 890 1,040 898 1,079 20.2 5.9 5 3 3546014 Haliburton County Lutterworth 927 980 1,114 937 1,125 20.1 5.9 6 3 3542042 Grey County Collingwood 5,667 6,115 6,840 6,453 7,025 8.9 5.7 6 3 20 census consolidated subdivisions with the LOWEST average 5-year percent change in population, 1996 to 2016: NON-METRO census divisions 3536021 Kent County (Ontario) Howard 5,903 5,605 5,283 5,089 5,087 0.0 -3.6 2 0 3547019 Renfrew County Brudenell and Lyndoch 791 745 786 853 659 -22.7 -3.6 4 2 3531018 Perth County Fullarton 1,662 1,660 1,529 1,499 1,420 -5.3 -3.8 2 0 3536011 Kent County (Ontario) Raleigh 5,566 5,085 5,114 4,676 4,730 1.2 -3.9 3 2 3554036 Timiskaming District Armstrong 1,530 1,345 1,277 1,354 1,278 -5.6 -4.2 2 1 3556092 Cochrane District Cochrane, Unorg., North Part 36,776 33,440 32,133 30,937 30,909 -0.1 -4.2 0 0 3540034 Huron County Hullett 1,878 1,795 1,701 1,618 1,576 -2.6 -4.3 2 0 3557095 Algoma District Algoma, Unorganized, North Part 33,960 32,000 30,139 28,754 28,420 -1.2 -4.3 1 0 3531021 Perth County Hibbert 1,348 1,305 1,268 1,200 1,124 -6.3 -4.4 0 0 3538012 Lambton County Brooke 2,894 2,785 2,661 2,548 2,411 -5.4 -4.5 3 0 3536031 Kent County (Ontario) Zone 2,029 1,985 1,968 1,840 1,684 -8.5 -4.5 1 0 3559016 Rainy River District La Vallee 1,130 1,070 1,067 988 938 -5.1 -4.5 2 0 3540042 Huron County Grey 2,036 1,945 1,825 1,785 1,662 -6.9 -4.9 2 0 3559024 Rainy River District Chapple 1,170 1,145 1,117 1,094 946 -13.5 -5.0 2 0 3556031 Cochrane District Iroquois Falls 5,714 5,220 4,729 4,600 4,527 -1.6 -5.6 0 0 3559041 Rainy River District Atwood 1,281 1,260 1,184 1,085 998 -8.0 -6.0 2 0 3554012 Timiskaming District Haileybury 4,875 4,540 4,083 3,856 3,766 -2.3 -6.2 1 0 3556014 Cochrane District Black River-Matheson 3,249 2,905 2,644 2,420 2,458 1.6 -6.6 2 1 3538006 Lambton County Dawn 1,595 1,435 1,294 1,177 1,090 -7.4 -9.1 2 0 3554058 Timiskaming District McGarry 1,015 790 674 595 609 2.4 -11.6 1 1 Note: Data are tabulated within the boundaries used in the 1996 Census of Population Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1981 - 2016, special tabulation. June 13, 2017 Page 43 of 79 C 17 - CW Info 6. A note on Northern Ontario
The purpose of this section is to review the discussion above with an eye (or a “lens”) on Northern Ontario.
Northern Ontario, as designated by the Government of Ontario, is comprised of the 10 census divisions14 noted in Table 14.
From Table 2, we see that 7 of the 10 northern census divisions (CDs) are classified (in 2016) as non- metro CDs, two are partially-non-metro CDs (Thunder Bay and Sudbury District) and one is a metro CD (named “Sudbury Regional Municipality” in 1996 (Table 14) and now named “Greater Sudbury” (Table 2)).
From Map 2, we see that the Kenora CD was the only CD with a population growth greater than 10% in the 2011 to 2016 period.
From Table 5, we note that 12 Ontario CDs grew in less than 5 of the 7 intercensal periods. Among these 12 CDs, 8 are northern Ontario CDs (Thunder Bay District, Sudbury District, Algoma District, Cochrane District, Kenora District, Nipissing District, Rainy River District and Timiskaming District) (Table 14). Thus, only 2 northern CDs (Manitoulin and Sudbury Regional Municipality) grew in 5 or 6 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016 and none grew in 7 of 7 intercensal periods (Map 2).
Table 14 Population trends for census divisions (CDs) in northern Ontario, 1981 to 2016 CD 5-year percent change in Number of ID Census Division name (1996) Total population intercensal (1996) total population 1996 to periods 2016 Average with percent 1996 2001 2006 2011 5-year population change in 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 to to to to change, growth, population 2001 2006 2011 2016 1996 to 1981 to 2016 2016 Census divisions sorted by number of intercensal periods with population growth 3551 Manitoulin District 11,413 12,570 12,935 13,353 13,537 10 3 3 1 4 6 19 3553 Sudbury Regional Municipality 164,049 153,920 156,669 158,999 160,223 -6 2 1 1 -1 5 -2 3560 Kenora District 63,335 61,770 64,429 57,527 65,533 -2 4 -11 14 1 4 3 3548 Nipissing District 84,832 82,905 84,688 84,736 83,160 -2 2 0 -2 0 4 -2 3559 Rainy River District 23,163 22,145 21,554 20,450 20,110 -4 -3 -5 -2 -3 3 -13 3558 Thunder Bay District 157,619 150,860 149,063 146,057 146,048 -4 -1 -2 0 -2 2 -7 3552 Sudbury District 25,457 24,310 22,685 22,263 22,546 -5 -7 -2 1 -3 2 -11 3556 Cochrane District 93,240 85,245 82,503 81,122 79,682 -9 -3 -2 -2 -4 1 -15 3557 Algoma District 125,455 118,565 117,461 115,870 114,206 -5 -1 -1 -1 -2 0 -9 3554 Timiskaming District 37,807 34,440 33,283 32,634 32,251 -9 -3 -2 -1 -4 0 -15 Total 786,370 746,730 745,270 733,011 737,296 -5 0 -2 1 -2 -6 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1981 to 2016.
Similarly, none of the census consolidated subdivisions (CCS) in northern Ontario grew in 7 of 7 intercensal periods (Map 4). Over the 1981 to 2016 period:
• among the 5 CCSs in Ontario with continuous decline from 1981 to 2016 (i.e., grew in 0 of 7 intercensal periods), 4 were in northern Ontario (Tables 9 and 15);
14 As noted earlier, the data for census divisions and census consolidated subdivisions have been tabulated within the boundaries used in the 1996 Census of Population and thus we use the names used in the 1996 Census of Population. June 13, 2017 Page 44 of 79 C 17 - CW Info • within metro CDs, among the 20 CCSs with the smallest population growth (or greatest decline) from 1996 to 2016, 7 of the 20 were in northern Ontario (Tables 11 and 15); • within partially-non-metro CDs, among the 20 CCSs with the largest population decline, 6 of the 20 were in northern Ontario (Tables 12 and 15); and • within non-metro CDs, among the 20 CDs with the largest population decline, 10 of the 20 were located in northern Ontario (Tables 13 and 15)
The distribution of the population within each CD by CCS pattern of population change shows that 50% of the population in northern Ontario in 2016 was residing in a CCS with only 2 periods of population growth during the 7 intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016 (Table 16). An additional 15% of northern Ontario’s population resides in CCS that grew in fewer intercensal periods (7% in CCSs with 0 of 7 periods of growth and 8% in CCSs with 1 of 7 periods of population growth).
Thus, CCSs (“communities”) in northern Ontario are less likely to grow than southern CCSs. June 13, 2017 Page 45 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 15 Distribution of communities (census consolidated subdivisions) in each census division by number of intercensal periods with population growth, Northern Ontario, 1981 to 2016 Number of intercensal periods with population growth All census CD ID Name of census division 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No data consolidated (1996) (1996) Number of census consolidated subdivisions subdivisions within each census division 3548 Nipissing District 2 2 2 3 1 10 3551 Manitoulin District 1 2 3 4 2 1 13 3552 Sudbury District 2 4 6 3553 Sudbury Regional Municipality 1 2 1 1 2 7 3554 Timiskaming District 5 5 3 2 1 16 3556 Cochrane District 3 1 1 5 3557 Algoma District 2 2 1 5 3 1 14 3558 Thunder Bay District 1 3 3 7 3559 Rainy River District 1 1 4 1 3 1 11 3560 Kenora District 1 1 Total 4 12 19 15 18 16 4 0 2 90 Percent distribution of census consolidated subdivisions within each census division 3548 Nipissing District 20 20 20 30 10 100 3551 Manitoulin District 8 15 23 31 15 8 100 3552 Sudbury District 33 67 100 3553 Sudbury Regional Municipality 0 14 29 14 14 29 100 3554 Timiskaming District 0 31 31 19 13 6 100 3556 Cochrane District 60 20 20 100 3557 Algoma District 14 14 7 36 21 7 100 3558 Thunder Bay District 14 43 0 43 100 3559 Rainy River District 9 9 36 9 27 9 100 3560 Kenora District 100 100 Total 4 13 21 17 20 18 4 0 2 100 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1981 to 2016. June 13, 2017 Page 46 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 16 Distribution of communities (census consolidated subdivisions) in each census division by number of intercensal periods with population growth, Northern Ontario, 1981 to 2016 Number of intercensal periods with population growth All census CD ID Name of census division 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No data consolidated (1996) (1996) 2016 Population in census consolidated subdivisions with each subdivisions population growth pattern
3548 Nipissing District 3,353 60,575 2,496 15,445 1,291 83,160 3551 Manitoulin District 35 809 2,129 6,090 4,474 13,537 3552 Sudbury District 16,415 6,131 22,546 3553 Sudbury Regional Municipality 4,751 91,462 13,177 15,703 35,130 160,223 3554 Timiskaming District 21,959 7,998 1,100 1,189 32,251 3556 Cochrane District 35,436 2,458 41,788 79,682 3557 Algoma District 29,310 76,429 1,609 2,717 3,607 534 114,206 3558 Thunder Bay District 107,924 31,883 6,241 146,048 3559 Rainy River District 14,183 45 3,297 51 1,565 969 20,110 3560 Kenora District 65,533 65,533 Total population 49,619 59,453 366,558 54,760 133,120 67,482 6,299 - - 737,296 Percent distribution of 2016 population in census consolidated subdivisions by population growth pattern 3548 Nipissing District 4 73 3 19 2 100 3551 Manitoulin District 0 6 16 45 33 100 3552 Sudbury District 73 27 100 3553 Sudbury Regional Municipality 3 57 8 10 22 0 100 3554 Timiskaming District 68 25 3 4 100 3556 Cochrane District 44 3 52 100 3557 Algoma District 26 67 1 2 3 100 3558 Thunder Bay District 74 22 4 100 3559 Rainy River District 71 16 8 5 100 3560 Kenora District 100 100 Total 7 8 50 7 18 9 1 0 0 100 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1981 to 2016.
One feature of northern Ontario is that the two Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) have not exhibited strong population growth compared to the population growth of (most but not all) CMAs in southern Ontario. The Thunder Bay CMA has varied between 120,000 and 125,000 inhabitants over the 1981 to 2016 period (Figure 10). The Greater Sudbury CMA has varied between 155,000 and 165,000 residents over the 1981 to 2016 period (Figure 11).
As noted earlier, regions with a heavier reliance on natural resources (agriculture, forestry, mining, etc.) are challenged because:
• Over time, labour-saving technological change means more and more production (of agriculture, lumber/paper or minerals) is generated with less and less labour; and • Communities relatively reliant on these sectors are challenged to find alternative goods (e.g., manufactured products) or alternative services (e.g., tourism services, web-design services, accounting services, etc.) to export from the north in order to maintain employment levels. June 13, 2017 Page 47 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 10 Population of the Thunder Bay CMA
130,000 Population
Reclassification
125,000
120,000
115,000
110,000
105,000
100,000 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1976 - 2016.
Figure 11 Population of the Greater Sudbury CMA
170,000 Population
165,000 Reclassification
160,000
155,000
150,000
145,000
140,000 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1976 - 2016. June 13, 2017 Page 48 of 79 C 17 - CW Info 7. Summary
Ontario has a large non-metro population. In 2016, there were 2.5 million inhabitants in Ontario who resided non-metro areas (i.e., outside the commuting zone of Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)). This population is larger than any of the 6 smallest provinces of Canada. This population is equivalent to the combined size of 5 of the top 14 metropolitan areas in Canada
Ontario’s non-metro population has grown in every intercensal period since 1966. The rate of growth from 2011 to 2016 was 2%.
In 2016, the non-metro population of Ontario comprised 19% of Ontario’s total population.
Importantly, in every census period, some non-metro residents are reclassified from a non-metro area to a metro area. This happens in two different ways. In some cases, a population centre reaches the threshold to be classified as a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) (such as Belleville in 2016) and the complete population of this centre is reclassified from non-metro to metro. In the other cases, a change in commuting patterns will increase the share of the workers in a census subdivision (i.e., an incorporated town or municipality) who are employed in a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). When this share surpasses 50%, the entire population of the census subdivision becomes delineated as part of the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). That is, the entire population of the census subdivision is reclassified from non-metro to metro.
Thus, over time, the share of Ontario’s population residing in non-metro areas has slowly declined because:
• the non-metro population is growing more slowly than the metro population; and • there is ongoing reclassification of population from non-metro to metro due to the growth of non- metro centres causing them to be reclassified a metro areas and due to the changing commuting patterns causing neighbouring towns and municipalities becoming delineated as part of a metro area.
Ontario residents live, work and play in regions in the sense that many commute long(er) distances to access jobs or services. We use data at the census division level to portray the regional patterns of population dynamics. We find that residents of census divisions in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the southern Georgian Bay region and the Ottawa-Kingston region have experienced continuous population growth in the 1981 to 2016 period. This population dynamic will drive, and is driven by, the changes in the labour market and changes in the provision of services.
Ontario residents also live, work and play in local communities in the sense that much of daily life is local – such as attending school or places of worship, shopping for groceries, etc. Generally, the population dynamics of community population change (as represented by census consolidated subdivisions) show the same pattern of a higher likelihood of continuous community population growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the southern Georgian Bay region and the Ottawa region.
However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the community-level population dynamics. We find dynamic community population trajectories in growing regions and in declining regions. Similarly, we find declining communities in both growing regions and in declining regions.
Nonetheless, a higher share of communities within non-metro census divisions reported population decline from 2011 to 2016 and, over the longer period from 1981 to 2016, a higher share of communities in non-metro census divisions did not grow continuously in these 7 intercensal periods. June 13, 2017 Page 49 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Appendix A Historical trends: rural residents outside population centres since 1851
To see the long-run demographic structure in Ontario, we present the trend in the inhabitants living in population centres (defined as a settlement with 1,000 or more inhabitants) and in census rural areas (outside population centres).
In 1851, 86% of Ontario’s population was rural (outside population centres of 1,000 or more) (Figure A1 and Table A1).
The rural population remained a majority within Ontario until 1911.
In 2016, the rural population outside population centres of 1,000 or more numbered 1.8 million (14% of Ontario’s population)
Figure A1 Population trends: Rural minority in Ontario in 1911
12,000,000 Population
10,000,000 Population centres (1,000+ inhabitants)
Census rural areas 8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 19912001 2011 ` Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1851 - 2016.
Since 1991, there have been small changes in the level of the census rural population (both increases and decreases have been recorded) (Figure A2). June 13, 2017 Page 50 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure A2 Small change in census rural population since 1991: Ontario
Five-year percent change in population 40
Census rural areas 30 Population centres (1,000+ inhabitants) 20
10
0
-10
-20 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 to to to to to to to to to to to to to 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1951 - 2016.
• Census rural population residing on a census-farm
A census-farm is any agricultural holding with agricultural products for sale. Over one-half of these holdings are part-time or hobby enterprises that are too small to support a family without one or more family members working off the farm.
Within the census rural population of Ontario (i.e., outside population centres of 1,000 or more), the population residing on a census-farm in 1931 was 786,000 (Figure A3 and Table A1) which was larger than the number of census rural residents who were not residing on a census-farm (133,000).
• Rural non-farm population
However, in 1961, we see a sharp divergence where the rural non-farm population (i.e., the population in census rural areas who do not live in the household of a census-farm operator) started to increase and the census rural population residing on a census-farm started to decrease.
Over the years, rural residents would have noticed a smaller and smaller share of students, church members, municipal councilors, etc., who are living on a farm. June 13, 2017 Page 51 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure 3 Rural population: Farmer minority in rural Ontario since 1956
1,800,000 Population
1,600,000 Rural non-farm population 1,400,000
1,200,000 Rural farm population
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0 1931 1941 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 19962001 2006 2011 2016 Note: "Rural" refers to residents outside population centres of 1,000 or more. Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1931 - 2011. June 13, 2017 Page 52 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Appendix Table A1 Farm versus Non-farm and Census Rural Population versus Population in Population Centres, Ontario, 1851 - 2016
Rural farm Five-year percent Percent of Census Total farm population Total non-farm population Total population population change in total farm rural as a population population population percent of that as a total Population Population Population resides in percent of Population Census census Census centres centres Census centres Census population the total centres rural Total Total Total rural rural (1,000+ (1,000+ rural areas (1,000+ rural areas centres population (1,000+ areas population areas inhabitants) inhabitants) inhabitants) inhabitants)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) =(1)+(2) =(4)+(5) =(3)+(6) =(1)+(4) (2)+(5) =((2)/(9))*100 =((1)/(3))*100 =((9)/(7))*100
1851 952,004 133,463 818,541 86
1861 1,396,091 258,192 1,137,899 82 47 20
1871 1,620,851 355,997 1,264,854 78 19 6
1881 1,926,922 575,848 1,351,074 70 31 3
1891 2,114,321 818,998 1,295,323 61 21 -2
1901 2,182,947 935,978 1,246,969 57 7 -2
1911 2,527,292 1,328,489 1,198,803 47 21 -2
1921 2,933,662 1,706,632 1,227,030 42 14 1
1931 15,410 785,550 800,960 2,080,582 550,141 2,630,723 3,431,683 2,095,992 1,335,691 59 2 39 11 4
1941 9,736 694,684 704,420 2,328,897 754,338 3,083,235 3,787,655 2,338,633 1,449,022 48 1 38 6 4
1951 24,735 678,043 702,778 3,226,364 668,400 3,894,764 4,597,542 3,251,099 1,346,443 50 4 29 20 -4 1956 50,995 632,153 683,148 4,051,924 669,861 4,721,785 5,404,933 4,102,919 1,302,014 49 7 24 26 -3 1961 18,791 505,699 524,490 4,804,738 906,864 5,711,602 6,236,092 4,823,529 1,412,563 36 4 23 18 8 1966 16,330 481,695 498,025 5,577,110 885,735 6,462,845 6,960,870 5,593,440 1,367,430 35 3 20 16 -3 1971 28,073 363,640 391,713 6,315,557 995,840 7,311,397 7,703,105 6,343,630 1,359,480 27 7 18 13 -1 1976 9,600 331,510 341,110 6,698,920 1,224,435 7,923,355 8,264,465 6,708,520 1,555,945 21 3 19 6 14 1981 8,917 279,826 288,743 7,038,115 1,298,249 8,336,364 8,625,107 7,047,032 1,578,075 18 3 18 5 1 1986 7,940 232,790 240,730 7,461,480 1,399,485 8,860,965 9,101,695 7,469,420 1,632,275 14 3 18 6 3 1991 6,175 220,505 226,680 8,247,667 1,610,538 9,858,205 10,084,885 8,253,842 1,831,043 12 3 18 11 12 1996 5,755 215,475 221,230 8,952,986 1,579,357 10,532,343 10,753,573 8,958,741 1,794,832 12 3 17 9 -2 2001 5,180 180,905 186,085 9,657,367 1,566,594 11,223,961 11,410,046 9,662,547 1,747,499 10 3 15 8 -3 2006 7,165 171,410 178,575 10,343,970 1,637,737 11,981,707 12,160,282 10,351,135 1,809,147 9 4 15 7 4 2011 11,465 163,435 174,900 11,034,320 1,642,601 12,676,921 12,851,821 11,045,785 1,806,036 9 7 14 7 0 2016 13,448,494 11,590,513 1,857,981 14 5 3 Source: Canada. Statistics Canada. Censuses of Population, 1851 - 2016. Since 1981, the "census rural" population refers to persons living outside population centres w ith 1,000 population AND outside areas w ith 400 persons per square kilometre. Previous to 1981, the definitions differed slightly but consistently referred to populations outside population centres of 1,000 population. Note that in order to be consistent w ith the other data, the 1976 farm population is presented for all agricultural holdings w ith gross sales of $50 or more in the previous year. Published data for the 1976 farm population refer to the population on agricultural holdings w ith sales of $1,200 or more in the previous year. June 13, 2017 Page 53 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Appendix B
Charts and tables showing the level and trends in population for “Rural and Small Town Areas”
Most of the discussion in the report has focused on the non-metro population and on the population change patterns since 1981.
The objective of this appendix is to briefly describe some the changes within non-metro areas – specifically for smaller cities (Census Agglomerations) and for each Metropolitan Influenced Zone within rural and small town areas (i.e., in areas outside centres of 10,000 or more)
In 2016, the population in metro areas (Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)) was 2.5 million; the population of Census Agglomerations (CAs) was 1.1 million and the “rural and small town” population (outside CMAs and CAs) was 1.4 million (Figure B1 and Table B1).
Figure B1 In 2016, 1.4 million individuals were living in rural and small town areas in Ontario Population 12 (millions) 11 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
3 Rural and small town (non-CMA/CA) 2 1 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 0 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Note: Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) have 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more and Census Agglomerations (CAs) have 10,000 or more in the urban core. Both CMAs and CAs include surrounding towns and municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the urban core. Rural and small town (RST) refers to the population outside Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and outside Census Agglomerations (CAs). The two data points visible for some years show the adjusted population count (due to reclassification) in order to make comparisons over time within constant boundaries. Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1966 to 2016. June 13, 2017 Page 54 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Within RST areas, the largest MIZ zone is the Strong MIZ zone (Figure B2 and Table B1).
Figure B2 In 2016, Ontario's rural and small town population was 1.4 million
14 Population (millions)
12
10 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 8
6
4
2
0 All LUCs CMAs CAs All RST Strong MIZ Moderate Weak MIZ No MIZ RST areas MIZ Territories Larger urban centres (LUCs) Rural and small town (RST) areas
Note: Data are tabulated within boundaries applicable at the time of the given census. A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more. Census Agglomerations (CAs) have a population of 10,000 to 99,999. Both CMAs and CAs include surrounding towns and municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the CMA or CA. Metropolitan Influenced Zones (MIZ) are assigned on the basis of the share of the workforce that commutes to any CMA or CA (Strong metropolitan influenced zone: 30% or more; Moderate metropolitan influenced zone: 5 to 29%; Weak metropolitan influenced zone: 1 to 5%; No metropolitan influenced zone: no commuters). Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1991 to 2016. June 13, 2017 Page 55 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table B1 Population structure and change in metro and non-metro areas (disaggregated into Census Agglomerations and Rural and Small Town areas, by Metropolitan Influenced Zone) Ontario, 1986 to 2016 Population Percent distribution of population Percent change
within 1991 within 1996 within 2001 within 2006 within 2011 within 2016 within 1991 within 1996 within 2001 within 2006 within 2011 within 2016 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries to to to to to to 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 1986 1991 1991 1996 1996 2001 2001 2006 2006 2011 2011 2016 1986 1991 1991 1996 1996 2001 2001 2006 2006 2011 2011 2016
Metro areas (CMAs) 6,333,439 7,073,420 7,100,762 7,639,013 7,804,030 8,403,738 8,901,673 9,584,840 9,591,529 10,270,006 10,408,279 10,956,264 70 70 70 71 73 74 78 79 79 80 81 81 11.7 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.1 5.3
Non-metro areas 2,768,255 3,011,465 2,984,123 3,114,560 2,949,543 3,006,308 2,508,373 2,575,442 2,568,753 2,581,815 2,443,542 2,492,230 30 30 30 29 27 26 22 21 21 20 19 19 8.8 4.4 1.9 2.7 0.5 2.0 (non-CMAs)
. Census agglomerations 1,314,637 1,422,183 1,458,964 1,518,422 1,487,301 1,522,211 1,094,168 1,127,437 1,128,614 1,133,127 1,094,874 1,106,057 14 14 14 14 14 13 10 9 9 9 9 8 8.2 4.1 2.3 3.0 0.4 1.0 . Rural and small town 1,453,618 1,589,282 1,525,159 1,596,138 1,462,242 1,484,097 1,414,205 1,448,005 1,440,139 1,448,688 1,348,668 1,386,173 16 16 15 15 14 13 12 12 12 11 10 10 9.3 4.7 1.5 2.4 0.6 2.8 (RST) . Strong MIZ 670,192 756,056 710,094 756,992 668,346 695,979 594,823 615,909 631,410 644,299 689,439 708,869 777766555555 12.8 6.6 4.1 3.5 2.0 2.8 . Moderate MIZ 545,276 587,096 520,565 539,257 489,985 489,378 526,565 535,477 554,062 555,931 446,688 451,442 665554545433 7.7 3.6 -0.1 1.7 0.3 1.1 . Weak MIZ 205,430 218,108 266,562 269,132 278,623 270,527 266,116 263,137 232,107 225,197 188,269 189,085 223332222211 6.2 1.0 -2.9 -1.1 -3.0 0.4 . No MIZ 32,720 28,022 27,938 30,757 25,288 28,213 26,701 33,482 22,560 23,261 24,272 36,777 000000000000 -14.4 10.1 11.6 25.4 3.1 51.5
Total 9,101,694 10,084,885 10,084,885 10,753,573 10,753,573 11,410,046 11,410,046 12,160,282 12,160,282 12,851,821 12,851,821 13,448,494 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10.8 6.6 6.1 6.6 5.7 4.6 Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1986 to 2016. Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) have 50,000 or more in the built-up core (100,000 or more prior to 2006) and includes all neighbouring tow ns and municipalities w here 50% or more of the w orkforce commutes to the built-up core. Census Agglomerations (CAs) in 2006 and 2011 have a built-up core of 10,000 or more w ith a total population of less than 100,000 and includes all neighbouring tow ns and municipalities w here 50% or more of the w orkforce commutes to the built-up core (prior to 2006, a few CAs had a total population over 100,000 if they had less than 100,000 in the built-up core – due to the different definition of a CMA prior to 2006). Metropolitan Influenced Zones (MIZ) are assigned on the basis of the share of the w orkforce that commutes to any CMA or CA (Strong MIZ: 30-49%; Moderate MIZ: 5-29%; Weak MIZ: 1-5%; No MIZ: no commuters). The data for the 1991 and 1996 MIZ have been adjusted to be consistent w ith the 2001 protocol w hereby non-CMA/CA tow ns and municipalities in the Territories w ere not allocated to a MIZ classification. The designation of MIZ for 1991 and 1996 w ere obtained from Sheila Rambeau and Kathleen Todd. (2000) Census Metropolitan Area and Census Agglomeration Influenced Zones (MIZ) with census data (Ottaw a: Statistics Canada, Geography Working Paper Series No. 2000-1, Catalogue No. 92F0138MIE) (w w w .statcan.ca/cgi-bin/dow npub/listpub.cgi?catno=92F0138MIE). Note that the Rambeau and Todd designation of MIZ for 1991 used the preliminary 1996 CMA/CA delineations, but still using 1991 boundaries. For this table, w e have re-imposed the 1991 CMA/CA delineation and w e have assigned "strong MIZ" in 1991 for tow ns or municipalities that had been coded into a CMA/CA for 1996. The designation of MIZ for 2001 w as obtained from Statistics Canada, GeoSuite, 2001 Census (Ottaw a: Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 92F0085XCB). June 13, 2017 Page 56 of 79 C 17 - CW Info As shown in Figure B3 (with detail in Table B1), in each five-year period since 1966, there has been continuous population growth in each of:
• Metro areas (Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)); • Non-metro areas (outside Census Metropolitan Areas (non-CMA areas)); and in each of the components of non-metro areas: o Census Agglomerations; o Rural and small town areas; and the components of: . Strong Metropolitan Influenced Zones (MIZ); . Moderate MIZ (except 1996 to 2001); . Weak MIZ (except the 3 intercensal periods from 1996 to 2011); and . No MIZ (except in 1986 to 1991 period).
Figure B3 Continuous growth in rural and small town population, Ontario
Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) Census Agglomerations (CAs) Rural and Small Town (RST) areas
14 Percent change in population within constant boundaries1
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 1966 to 1971 to 1976 to 1981 to 1986 to 1991 to 1996 to 2001 to 2006 to 2011 to 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
1 Each five-year change is tabulated within the boundaries applicable to the census at the end of the five-year period. Note: A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more. Census Agglomerations (CAs) have a population of 10,000 to 99,999. Both CMAs and CAs include surrounding towns and municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the CMA or . CA RST areas are outside the commuting zones of CMAs and CAs. Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1971 to 2016.
The Canadian context of population growth in the CMA, CA and RST areas of each province is shown in Table B2. June 13, 2017 Page 57 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table B2 Percent change in population with constant boundaries for CMAs, CAs and RST areas, Canada, 1966 to 2016 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 to to to to to to to to to to 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Canada Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 11.0 6.8 5.8 5.9 10.0 6.4 6.2 6.9 7.4 6.2 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 7.2 6.7 4.5 2.1 7.1 5.3 1.5 4.0 4.2 3.3 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas 3.3 6.3 6.7 0.6 3.0 3.9 -0.4 1.0 1.7 1.4 Newfoundland Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 12.2 8.8 6.5 4.6 6.2 1.3 -0.7 4.7 8.8 4.6 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 0.0 13.2 -1.5 -5.4 0.0 -3.0 -7.3 1.3 1.1 2.5 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas 3.8 5.1 0.5 -0.3 -3.0 -5.1 -10.6 -5.6 -2.7 -2.2 Prince Edward Island Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 10.1 -0.7 5.5 5.3 4.7 4.8 1.8 1.8 7.3 4.8 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas 0.9 9.5 1.9 1.2 -0.2 2.4 -1.0 -1.3 -1.9 -2.1 Nova Scotia Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 6.1 6.9 3.6 6.6 8.3 3.7 4.7 3.8 4.7 3.3 Census Agglomerations (CAs) -0.4 1.6 1.1 -1.1 0.2 -0.2 -4.3 -1.0 -1.7 -2.1 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas 4.9 5.4 1.9 2.7 0.5 -0.6 -2.3 -1.8 -1.7 -2.1 New Brunswick Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 2.4 5.8 1.0 0.2 3.1 -0.1 -2.4 3.1 7.1 1.0 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 9.5 1.0 2.7 3.0 4.7 4.0 1.6 0.5 3.2 0.4 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas 1.4 9.2 3.5 1.7 -0.2 1.3 -2.7 -2.5 -0.8 -2.6 Quebec Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 7.2 4.1 1.9 2.5 7.1 3.8 2.5 5.1 5.5 4.1 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 2.5 2.0 4.5 0.3 5.2 1.8 -0.7 3.3 3.7 2.6 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas -0.3 2.8 5.9 -0.6 1.6 3.5 -0.8 2.2 2.7 0.7 Ontario Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 12.7 7.2 5.2 7.3 11.7 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.1 5.3 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 8.0 12.9 2.5 2.4 8.2 4.1 2.3 3.0 0.4 1.0 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas 7.1 5.4 3.0 0.9 9.3 4.7 1.5 2.4 0.6 2.8 Manitoba Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 6.2 5.2 1.1 5.6 4.3 1.0 0.6 2.7 5.1 6.6 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 0.0 -8.1 -5.9 2.7 0.0 -0.7 -0.6 2.7 8.3 8.3 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas -1.4 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 4.4 0.5 2.4 4.7 3.2 Saskatchewan Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 7.6 6.6 11.8 11.2 3.8 2.5 1.5 2.4 9.9 12.2 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 0.0 2.8 6.0 5.5 -2.1 -0.1 -1.7 -1.1 5.8 4.0 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas -6.8 -4.0 1.3 -1.0 -6.9 -2.0 -3.5 -4.7 3.7 0.1 Alberta Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 18.9 13.9 21.6 6.6 10.3 5.6 12.2 11.9 12.3 14.1 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 3.8 21.3 19.8 9.3 3.9 4.0 10.8 15.7 13.4 9.9 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas 3.0 11.2 22.0 2.5 3.1 7.8 5.5 3.8 4.1 3.7 British Columbia Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) 15.3 8.3 8.5 8.4 15.6 13.0 7.6 6.7 8.7 6.6 Census Agglomerations (CAs) 25.5 12.4 11.9 1.8 14.2 14.9 1.7 3.5 5.3 4.4 Rural and Small Town (RST) areas 16.3 20.8 17.0 -0.4 7.2 12.8 -1.1 0.8 0.8 2.2 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1976 to 2016.
Interestingly, for one-half (5 of 10) intercensal periods shown for Ontario in Figure B3 (and Table B2), Ontario’s rural and small town population actually grew faster than the population in the smaller cities (Census Agglomerations).
However, in all periods but one (1971 to 1976), the population growth in each of Census Agglomerations and in rural and small town areas was less than the growth in metro (CMA) areas in Ontario.
This slower growth in RST areas compared to larger urban centres is one factor causing the slow decline in the share of the population in Ontario’s population that resides in rural and small town areas – down from 16% in 1986 to 10% in 2016 (Figure B5 and Table B1). June 13, 2017 Page 58 of 79 C 17 - CW Info The other factor is the reclassification of rural and small town (RST) areas into Census Agglomerations or metro (CMA) areas (Figure B4). In Table B1, compare, for example, the 2011 RST population using 2011 boundaries (1.4 million) with the 2011 RST population in 2016 boundaries (1.3 million). Ontario’s RST population declined by 100,000 in 2011 due to reclassification (as discussed in the main text of this report).
Figure B4 Rural and Small Town Population,
Population Ontario, 1966 to 2016 2.2 (millions) The slope of each line shows the growth of the rural and 2.1 small town population during each intercensal period. 2.0 In most census years, there is a gap that indicates the size of the rural and small town (RST) population that 1.9 was reclassified from RST to residing in a "larger urban centre" (Census Metropolitan Area or Census 1.8 Agglomeration).
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1966 to 2016. Rural and small town refers to the population outside Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and outside Census Agglomerations (CAs). June 13, 2017 Page 59 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure B5 In 2016, 10 percent of Ontario's population lived in rural and small town areas 100 Percent of total population 90 80 70 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All LUCs CMAs CAs All RST Strong Moderate Weak MIZ No MIZ RST areas MIZ MIZ Territories Larger urban centres (LUCs) Rural and small town (RST) areas
Note: Data are tabulated within boundaries applicable at the time of the given census. A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has 50,000 or more inhabitants in the urban core with a total population of 100,000 or more. Census Agglomerations (CAs) have a population of 10,000 to 99,999. Both CMAs and CAs include surrounding towns and municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the CMA or CA. Metropolitan Influenced Zones (MIZ) are assigned on the basis of the share of the workforce that commutes to any CMA or CA (Strong metropolitan influenced zone: 30% or more; Moderate metropolitan influenced zone: 5 to 29%; Weak metropolitan influenced zone: 1 to 5%; No metropolitan influenced zone: no commuters). Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1991 to 2016.
The provinces in Figure B6 are ranked in terms of the share of their population residing in RST areas in 2016 (data are in Table B3). Ontario has the smallest share (10%) compared to each of the other provinces.
Note that the length of bars becomes shorter for each census period from 1971 to 2016 – the share of the rural and small town population has been declining over time, even though the absolute number of people living in these areas has been increasing (in most provinces). June 13, 2017 Page 60 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Figure B6 The share of Canada's population residing in RST areas declined from 36% in 1971 to 17% in 2016 Nunavut 1971 Northwest Territories Newfoundland 1976
Prince Edward Island 1981 New Brunswick 1986 Saskatchewan Nova Scotia 1991 Manitoba 1996 Yukon Quebec 2001 Alberta 2006 CANADA 2011 British Columbia Ontario 2016
0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of total population residing in rural and small town (non-CMA/CA) Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1971 to 2016.
Table B3 Percent of population living in rural and small town areas, Canada and Provinces, 1971 to 2016
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
Newfoundland 74.8 64.1 59.6 54.9 55.4 55.6 53.5 54.1 51.7 46.8 Prince Edward Island 77.4 67.0 51.1 45.1 44.0 45.6 44.9 45.0 42.2 39.9 Nova Scotia 55.9 45.0 40.9 43.2 39.6 38.7 36.7 35.8 34.9 34.1 New Brunswick 66.0 61.4 49.4 49.0 48.0 48.5 47.7 41.5 38.9 37.4 Quebec 30.5 27.5 26.7 23.3 22.7 22.4 21.5 20.1 19.6 18.9 Ontario 27.4 24.8 21.2 16.3 15.8 14.8 13.0 11.9 11.3 10.3 Manitoba 45.3 42.6 38.8 33.3 33.2 33.3 33.4 32.3 31.9 28.8 Saskatchewan 71.2 63.3 55.6 47.8 43.6 43.3 42.3 40.4 39.1 35.6 Alberta 43.0 41.9 41.9 27.3 25.3 25.8 24.6 21.2 19.4 18.0 British Columbia 31.0 36.9 26.6 15.6 15.4 15.5 13.8 12.8 12.4 11.6 Yukon 100.0 100.0 100.0 35.3 35.5 29.1 25.4 24.6 23.2 21.3 Northwest Territories 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 73.7 73.2 55.7 54.9 53.6 53.2 Nunavut n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
CANADA 36.3 33.7 30.1 24.1 22.8 22.2 20.6 18.9 18.0 16.8
Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1971 to 2016. Note: Rural and small town refers to the population outside Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and outside Census Agglomerations (CAs). June 13, 2017 Page 61 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table B4 – Part One (1966-1981) Population Level and Change in Metro areas (Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)) and in Non-metro areas (outside CMA areas), and showing the population in Census Agglomerations (CAs) and in Rural and Small Town (RST) areas, Ontario and Canada, 1966-1981 Five-year percent Five-year percent change Five-year percent change change 1966 1971 1966-1971 1971 1971 1976 1971-1976 1971-1976 1976 1976 1981 1976-1981 1976-1981 constant current constant current constant 1971 1971 1971 1976 1976 1976 1981 1981 bound- bound- bound- bound- bound- boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries aries aries aries aries aries Ontario Metro (CMA) 4,360,223 4,912,367 12.7 4,912,367 4,998,210 5,357,336 9.1 7.2 5,357,336 5,357,336 5,635,892 5.2 5.2 Non-metro (non-CMA) 2,600,647 2,790,739 7.3 2,790,739 2,704,896 2,907,129 4.2 7.5 2,907,129 2,907,129 2,989,215 2.8 2.8 . . CA 630,121 680,682 8.0 680,682 758,865 856,551 25.8 12.9 856,551 1,128,209 1,156,916 35.1 2.5 . . RST 1,970,526 2,110,057 7.1 2,110,057 1,946,031 2,050,578 -2.8 5.4 2,050,578 1,778,920 1,832,299 -10.6 3.0 Total 6,960,870 7,703,106 10.7 7,703,106 7,703,106 8,264,465 7.3 7.3 8,264,465 8,264,465 8,625,107 4.4 4.4 Canada Metro (CMA) 10,684,482 11,864,823 11.0 11,864,823 11,984,519 12,798,879 7.9 6.8 12,798,879 12,910,493 13,658,944 6.7 5.8 Non-metro (non-CMA) 9,330,398 9,703,488 4.0 9,703,488 9,583,792 10,193,726 5.1 6.4 10,193,726 10,082,112 10,684,233 4.8 6.0 . . CA 1,755,738 1,881,801 7.2 1,881,801 2,285,778 2,438,937 29.6 6.7 2,438,937 3,219,383 3,363,598 37.9 4.5 . . RST 7,574,660 7,821,687 3.3 7,821,687 7,298,014 7,754,789 -0.9 6.3 7,754,789 6,862,729 7,320,635 -5.6 6.7 Total 20,014,880 21,568,311 7.8 21,568,311 21,568,311 22,992,605 6.6 6.6 22,992,605 22,992,605 24,343,177 5.9 5.9 Source: Statistics Canada. Censuses of Population, 1971 to 2016. Since 2006, Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) have an a built-up core of 50,000 or more people and a total population of 100,000 or more and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the built-up core. Census Agglomerations (CAs) have a built-up core of 10,000 or more people and a total population of 10,000 - 99,999 and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the urban core. Rural and Small Town (RST) areas refer to the non-CMA and the non-CA population. It is the population outside the commuting zone of larger urban centres.
Table B4 – Part Two (1981-1991) Population Level and Change in Metro areas (Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)) and in Non-metro areas (outside CMA areas), and showing the population in Census Agglomerations (CAs) and in Rural and Small Town (RST) areas, Ontario and Canada, 1981-1991 Five-year percent Five-year percent change change 1981 1981 1986 1981-1986 1981-1986 1986 1986 1991 1986-1991 1986-1991 current constant current constant 1981 1986 1986 1986 1991 1991 bound- bound- bound- bound- boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries aries aries aries aries Ontario Metro (CMA) 5,635,892 5,896,478 6,328,626 12.3 7.3 6,328,626 6,333,439 7,073,420 11.8 11.7 Non-metro (non-CMA) 2,989,215 2,728,629 2,773,069 -7.2 1.6 2,773,069 2,768,256 3,011,465 8.6 8.8 . . CA 1,156,916 1,258,974 1,289,659 11.5 2.4 1,289,659 1,314,637 1,422,183 10.3 8.2 . . RST 1,832,299 1,469,655 1,483,410 -19.0 0.9 1,483,410 1,453,619 1,589,282 7.1 9.3 Total 8,625,107 8,625,107 9,101,695 5.5 5.5 9,101,695 9,101,695 10,084,885 10.8 10.8 Canada Metro (CMA) 13,658,944 14,308,232 15,155,493 11.0 5.9 15,155,493 15,148,604 16,665,360 10.0 10.0 Non-metro (non-CMA) 10,684,233 10,034,945 10,153,836 -5.0 1.2 10,153,836 10,160,725 10,631,499 4.7 4.6 . . CA 3,342,653 3,977,248 4,059,618 21.4 2.1 4,059,618 4,110,176 4,401,854 8.4 7.1 . . RST 7,341,580 6,057,697 6,094,218 -17.0 0.6 6,094,218 6,050,549 6,229,645 2.2 3.0 Total 24,343,177 24,343,177 25,309,329 4.0 4.0 25,309,329 25,309,329 27,296,859 7.9 7.9 Source: Statistics Canada. Censuses of Population, 1971 to 2016. Since 2006, Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) have an a built-up core of 50,000 or more people and a total population of 100,000 or more and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the built-up core. Census Agglomerations (CAs) have a built-up core of 10,000 or more people and a total population of 10,000 - 99,999 and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the urban core. Rural and Small Town (RST) areas refer to the non-CMA and the non-CA population. It is the population outside the commuting zone of larger urban centres. June 13, 2017 Page 62 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table B4 – Part Three (1991-2001) Population Level and Change in Metro areas (Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)) and in Non-metro areas (outside CMA areas), and showing the population in Census Agglomerations (CAs) and in Rural and Small Town (RST) areas, Ontario and Canada, 1991-2001 Five-year percent Five-year percent change change 1991 1991 1996 1991-1996 1991-1996 1996 1996 2001 1996-2001 1996-2001 current constant current constant 1991 1996 1996 1996 2001 2001 bound- bound- bound- bound- boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries aries aries aries aries Ontario Metro (CMA) 7,073,420 7,100,762 7,639,013 8.0 7.6 7,639,013 7,804,030 8,403,738 10.0 7.7 Non-metro (non-CMA) 3,011,465 2,984,123 3,114,560 3.4 4.4 3,114,560 2,949,543 3,006,308 -3.5 1.9 . . CA 1,422,183 1,458,964 1,518,422 6.8 4.1 1,518,422 1,487,301 1,522,211 0.2 2.3 . . RST 1,589,282 1,525,159 1,596,138 0.4 4.7 1,596,138 1,462,242 1,484,097 -7.0 1.5 Total 10,084,885 10,084,885 10,753,573 6.6 6.6 10,753,573 10,753,573 11,410,046 6.1 6.1 Canada Metro (CMA) 16,665,360 16,787,118 17,864,646 7.2 6.4 17,864,646 18,178,597 19,296,926 8.0 6.2 Non-metro (non-CMA) 10,631,499 10,509,741 10,982,115 3.3 4.5 10,982,119 10,668,164 10,710,168 -2.5 0.4 . . CA 4,401,854 4,353,038 4,585,209 4.2 5.3 4,585,213 4,476,095 4,542,160 -0.9 1.5 . . RST 6,229,645 6,156,703 6,396,906 2.7 3.9 6,396,906 6,192,069 6,168,008 -3.6 -0.4 Total 27,296,859 27,296,859 28,846,761 5.7 5.7 28,846,765 28,846,761 30,007,094 4.0 4.0 Source: Statistics Canada. Censuses of Population, 1971 to 2016. Since 2006, Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) have an a built-up core of 50,000 or more people and a total population of 100,000 or more and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the built-up core. Census Agglomerations (CAs) have a built-up core of 10,000 or more people and a total population of 10,000 - 99,999 and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the urban core. Rural and Small Town (RST) areas refer to the non-CMA and the non-CA population. It is the population outside the commuting zone of larger urban centres.
Table B4 – Part Four (2001-2011) Population Level and Change in Metro areas (Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)) and in Non-metro areas (outside CMA areas), and showing the population in Census Agglomerations (CAs) and in Rural and Small Town (RST) areas, Ontario and Canada, 2001-2011 Five-year percent Five-year percent change change 2001 2001 2006 2001-2006 2001-2006 2006 2006 2011 2006-2011 2006-2011 current constant current constant 2001 2006 2006 2006 2011 2011 bound- bound- bound- bound- boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries boundaries aries aries aries aries Ontario Metro (CMA) 8,403,738 8,901,673 9,584,840 14.1 7.7 9,584,840 9,591,529 10,270,006 7.1 7.1 Non-metro (non-CMA) 3,006,308 2,508,373 2,575,442 -14.3 2.7 2,575,442 2,568,753 2,581,815 0.2 0.5 . . CA 1,522,211 1,094,168 1,127,437 -25.9 3.0 1,127,437 1,128,614 1,133,127 0.5 0.4 . . RST 1,484,097 1,414,205 1,448,005 -2.4 2.4 1,448,005 1,440,139 1,448,688 0.0 0.6 Total 11,410,046 11,410,046 12,160,282 6.6 6.6 12,160,282 12,160,282 12,851,821 5.7 5.7 Canada Metro (CMA) 19,296,926 20,121,461 21,508,575 11.5 6.9 21,508,575 21,534,063 23,123,441 7.5 7.4 Non-metro (non-CMA) 10,710,168 9,885,633 10,104,322 -5.7 2.2 10,104,322 10,078,834 10,353,247 2.5 2.7 . . CA 4,542,160 3,963,237 4,122,982 -9.2 4.0 4,122,982 4,136,342 4,311,524 4.6 4.2 . . RST 6,168,008 5,922,396 5,981,340 -3.0 1.0 5,981,340 5,942,492 6,041,723 1.0 1.7 Total 30,007,094 30,007,094 31,612,897 5.4 5.4 31,612,897 31,612,897 33,476,688 5.9 5.9 Source: Statistics Canada. Censuses of Population, 1971 to 2016. Since 2006, Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) have an a built-up core of 50,000 or more people and a total population of 100,000 or more and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the built-up core. Census Agglomerations (CAs) have a built-up core of 10,000 or more people and a total population of 10,000 - 99,999 and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the urban core. Rural and Small Town (RST) areas refer to the non-CMA and the non-CA population. It is the population outside the commuting zone of larger urban centres. June 13, 2017 Page 63 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table B4 – Part Five (2001-2011) Population Level and Change in Metro areas (Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)) and in Non-metro areas (outside CMA areas), and showing the population in Census Agglomerations (CAs) and in Rural and Small Town (RST) areas, Ontario and Canada, 2011-2016
Five-year percent change
2011 2011 2016 2011-2016 2011-2016
2011 2016 2016 current constant boundaries boundaries boundaries bound-aries bound-aries
Ontario Metro (CMA) 10,270,006 10,408,279 10,956,264 6.7 5.3 Non-metro (non-CMA) 2,581,815 2,443,542 2,492,230 -3.5 2.0 . . CA 1,133,127 1,094,874 1,106,057 -2.4 1.0 . . RST 1,448,688 1,348,668 1,386,173 -4.3 2.8 Total 12,851,821 12,851,821 13,448,494 4.6 4.6 Canada Metro (CMA) 23,123,441 23,488,393 24,945,123 7.9 6.2 Non-metro (non-CMA) 10,353,247 9,988,295 10,206,605 -1.4 2.2 . . CA 4,311,524 4,150,389 4,287,834 -0.5 3.3 . . RST 6,041,723 5,837,906 5,918,771 -2.0 1.4 Total 33,476,688 33,476,688 35,151,728 5.0 5.0 Source: Statistics Canada. Censuses of Population, 1971 to 2016. Since 2006, Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) have an a built-up core of 50,000 or more people and a total population of 100,000 or more and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the built-up core. Census Agglomerations (CAs) have a built-up core of 10,000 or more people and a total population of 10,000 - 99,999 and includes all neighbouring municipalities where 50% or more of the workforce commutes to the urban core.
Rural and Small Town (RST) areas refer to the non-CMA and the non-CA population. It is the population outside the commuting zone of larger urban centres. June 13, 2017 Page 64 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table B5 Impact of CMA/CA boundary changes on rural and small town (non-CMA/CA) population, 1971 to 2016 Change to non-CMA/CA population in In the period from 1991 to 2016, the total impact on Canada's Rural and Small 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Town population (the non-CMA/CA population) due boundary changes / changes due to boundary changes made in in delineation was a transfer of 796 thousand residents from RST to CMA/CA 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total (1976 to (1981 to 1986 to (1991 to (1996 to (2001 to (2006 to (2011 to 2016) 2016) 2016) 2016) 2016) 2016) 2016) 2016)
Newfoundland -50,319 -20,675 -25,618 13,082 8,489 0 15,596 -571 -16,886 -76,902 -26,583 -5,908 19,710 6,628 -1,861 -1,861 -17,457 Prince Edward Island -14,004 -17,843 -6,051 24 2,824 0 1,124 -700 -1,036 -35,662 -21,658 -3,815 2,236 2,212 -612 -612 -1,736 Nova Scotia -87,858 -32,282 20,920 -22,589 -2,692 -10,448 0 0 0 -134,949 -47,091 -14,809 -35,729 -13,140 -10,448 0 0 New Brunswick -37,583 -83,694 -2,062 0 6,067 -4 -37,368 -8,275 -5,878 -168,797 -131,214 -47,520 -45,458 -45,458 -51,525 -51,521 -14,153 Quebec -167,339 -89,507 -190,898 21,810 -26,373 -26,582 -68,512 -12,725 -19,610 -579,736 -412,397 -322,890 -131,992 -153,802 -127,429 -100,847 -32,335 Ontario -164,026 -271,658 -362,644 -29,791 -64,123 -133,896 -69,892 -7,866 -100,020 -1,203,916 -1,039,890 -768,232 -405,588 -375,797 -311,674 -177,778 -107,886 Manitoba -18,419 -37,397 -45,953 7,243 -7,353 116 -10,561 -3,153 -28,446 -143,923 -125,504 -88,107 -42,154 -49,397 -42,044 -42,160 -31,599 Saskatchewan -51,680 -52,295 -50,932 -19,616 6,339 0 -3,268 -1,064 -13,703 -186,219 -134,539 -82,244 -31,312 -11,696 -18,035 -18,035 -14,767 Alberta -7,507 -1,332 -307,228 -22,565 519 -2,289 -58,181 -18,103 -668 -417,354 -409,847 -408,515 -101,287 -78,722 -79,241 -76,952 -18,771 British Columbia 75,062 -285,377 -298,603 20,486 5,511 -31,734 -14,550 13,609 -17,570 -533,166 -608,228 -322,851 -24,248 -44,734 -50,245 -18,511 -3,961 Canada -523,673 -892,060 -1,269,069 -31,916 -70,792 -204,837 -245,612 -38,848 -203,817 -3,480,624 -2,956,951 -2,064,891 -795,822 -763,906 -693,114 -488,277 -242,665 Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1976 to 2016. Note: Population gain or loss due to boundary changes is calculated by subtracting population based on the follow ing year's census boundaries from the population based on the current year's census boundaries. For example, the impact of the boundary change in 1976 on the rural and small tow n population is calculated by subtracting the 1976 population based on 1981 boundaries from the 1976 population based on 1976 boundaries. June 13, 2017 Page 65 of 79 C 17 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 66 of 79 C 17 - CW Info on Rural Ontario
Non-metro population trends by age Vol. 4, No. 1, 2017
Highlights • The population in the non-metro potential labour force (15 years of age and over) did not grow in 2014 and 2015. • There is an ongoing structural shift towards older individuals in the non-metro potential labour force. • The share of the population in the core-age workforce (25-54 yr.) is declining and the share of the population 55 years of age and over is increasing. • This shift in the age structure of the potential labour force will be accompanied by a change in the overall employment rate because the employment rate is different for individuals in different age groups.
Why look at population trends by age? there have been significant changes in the structure An appreciation of the population numbers and the by age group. population trends by age is important for understanding the level and trends of employment. Perhaps the most important change in the age Specifically, the employment rate (i.e. the proportion structure of the population in the potential labour holding a job) is different for individuals in different force (15 years and over) has been the increasing age groups. share that is 65 years and over. In non-metro Ontario, the share 65+ yr. has increased from 18% in The objective of this Fact Sheet is to show the level 1996 to 24% in 2015 (Figure 4). and trends of the population by age to provide context for the accompanying FactSheets on non- Figure 1 metro employment. Ontario's non-metro population was 2.77 million in 2001, Findings increased to 2.83 million by 2006 and was 2.82 million in 2015 1 The population in non-metro has remained (almost) 12,000,000 Total population unchanged at 2.8 million since 2006 (Figure 1). 10,000,000
The year-to-year percent change in non-metro 8,000,000 population has been (almost) zero since 2006 Metro (Figure 2). 6,000,000 Non-metro
4,000,000 For discussions on job levels and job growth, the focus is on the potential labour force – which has 2,000,000 traditionally been defined as the population 15 years 0 of age and over. * 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2000 2008 2009
* Data for 1996 to 2000 are classified according to the 2006 grid for CMA boundaries and data since 2001 are classified according to the 2011 grid for CMA boundaries. Ontario’s non-metro potential labour force (i.e. the Source: Statistics Canada. Annual Demographic Statistics. CANSIM Table 051-0001 and 051-0056. population 15+ yr.) was growing up to 2013 but has remained essentially unchanged in 2014 and 2015 Within non-metro Ontario, the specific changes in (Figure 3). shares of the other age groups are: • the share of the so-called core-age workforce Within the potential labor force in non-metro Ontario, (25-54 yr.) has declined from 54% in 1996 to 43% in 2015 (Figure 5). Individuals in this age group have the highest employment rates and 1 Recall that “non-metro” refers to the population outside a thus a shift in the age structure away from this Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). See “Overview of Ontario’s age group will reduce the reported employment rural geography” (June, 2013). June 13, 2017 Page 67 of 79 C 17 - CW Info rate in the 15+ potential labour force. • the share of youth (15-24 yr.) in the non-metro Figure 4 2 potential labour force has declined slightly from In non-metro Ontario in 2015, 24% of the potential labour force 17% in 1996 to 14% in 2015; while (15 years of age and over) was 65 years of age or older
• 30 Within the population 15 years of age and over the share of non-metro individuals 55 to 64 years (i.e. potential labour force), of age has increased from 12% in 1996 to 19% in the percent that is 65 years of age and over 2015. 25
20
Figure 2 15 Ontario's non-metro population has shown no growth since 2006 10 Non-metro 3.5 Year-to-year percent change in total population Metro 3.0 5 Metro Non-metro 2.5 0 *
2.0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 * Data for 1996 to 2000 are classified according to the 2006 grid for CMA boundaries and data since 2001 are classified according to the 1.5 2011 grid for CMA boundaries. Source: Statistics Canada. Annual Demographic Statistics. CANSIM Table 051-0001 and 051-0056.
1.0 0.5 Figure 5 0.0 In the non-metro potential labour force (i.e. population 15+ yr.), the share in the core-age workforce (25-54 yr.) has declined to 43% -0.5 1996 1997 1998 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 and the populaton 55-64 yr. has increased to 19% to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 70 Within the NON-METRO population15 years of age and over (i.e. potential labour force), * Data for 1996 to 2000 are classified according to the 2006 grid for CMA boundaries and data since 2001 are classified according to the the percent of the population in each age group 2011 grid for CMA boundaries. 60 Source: Statistics Canada. Annual Demographic Statistics. CANSIM Table 051-0001 and 051-0056.
50 25-54 yr: non-metro Figure 3 40 65+ yr: non-metro 55-64 yr: non-metro Ontario's non-metro potential labour force (15+ yr.) 30 grew from 2.23 million in 2001 to 2.39 million in 2013 15-24 yr: non-metro and remained at this level for 2014 and 2015 20 10,000,000 Population of potentiallabour force, 15 years of age and over 10 9,000,000 0
8,000,000 * 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 7,000,000 2002 2003 2004 Metro * Data for 1996 to 2000 are classified according to the 2006 grid for CMA boundaries and data since 2001 are classified according to the 6,000,000 2011 grid for CMA boundaries. Source: Statistics Canada. Annual Demographic Statistics. CANSIM Table 051-0001 and 051-0056. 5,000,000 Non-metro 4,000,000 This shift in the age structure of the potential labour 3,000,000
2,000,000 force will cause a change in the reported
1,000,000 employment rate for the population 15 years of age
0 and over because the employment rates are different *
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 for individuals in different age groups. In non-metro * Data for 1996 to 2000 are classified according to the 2006 grid for CMA boundaries and data since 2001 are classified according to the 2011 grid for CMA boundaries. areas, within the core-age workforce (25-54 yr.), 80% Source: Statistics Canada. Annual Demographic Statistics. CANSIM Table 051-0001 and 051-0056. of the population is employed compared to 55% for those 55-64 yr. and 12% for those 65 years of age Summary and over3. Thus, this structural shift in the age The non-metro population has not grown in recent structure of the population will reduce the reported years.The population in the non-metro potential employment rate of the total potential labour force. labour force (i.e. the population 15 years of age and over) did not grow in 2014 and 2015. Rural Ontario Institute gratefully acknowledges the work of Ray Bollman in preparing this edition of Focus on Rural Ontario. Questions on data sources can be directed to [email protected]. Any comments Within the non-metro potential labour force, there is or discussions can be directed to [email protected]. an ongoing structural shift towards older workers. The share of the population in the core-age workforce (25-54 yr.) is declining and the share of the population 55 years of age and over is increasing.
2 The decline is due, in part, to fewer births 15 years previous 3 Details are presented in the accompanying “Non-metro and more mobility from non-metro to metro areas. employment trends by age.” June 13, 2017 Page 68 of 79 C 17 - CW Info on Rural Ontario
Non-metro employment trends by age Vol. 4, No. 2, 2017
Highlights • Non-metro employment has decreased in recent years. There was both a decline in the population 15+ years of age and a decline in the percent of the population that was employed. • Among individuals 25 to 54 years of age, non-metro employment has been declining since 2005 due to two components: a declining population since 2004 and an employment rate (per cent employed) that is lower than pre-recession levels. • Non- metro employment among individuals 15 to 24 years of age has declined since 2005. One component was the decline in population since 2012. The larger component was a decline in the percent employed from 2004 to 2010. However, in 2015 and 2016, their employment rate has increased to pre-recession levels. • As the population shifts into older age groups, the increase in employment coming from these age groups is relatively smaller because of their lower employment rate. Their increase in the number employed has not compensated for the decline in employment among individuals 25 to 54 years of age.
Why look at employment trends by age? For the non-metro 15+ potential labour force, the As noted in an accompanying Fact Sheet1, the share employment rate has declined from 60% before the of older individuals is increasing in Ontario’s non- 2008-2009 recession to 55% in mid-2016. metro potential labour force population (i.e., the population 15 years of age and over). This Fact For most of the period since 1997, the metro<>non- Sheet documents the non-metro employment trends metro difference4 in the employment rate for the 15+ by age in the context of a shift in the workforce to an population was about 4 to 5 percentage points – with older age structure. non-metro being lower. In 2016, this gap has widened to 7 percentage points due to a 3 Findings percentage point decline in the employment rate in Population 15 years of age and over (i.e. the 2016 (Slide 6). potential labour force) In non-metro Ontario, the overall potential labour For both males and females, non-metro employment force (i.e. the population 15 years of age and over) 1 rates are below the respective employment rates in has not increased since 2013 . metro areas (Slide 10). Also, the recent decline in the 2 non-metro employment was reported by both males Employment in non-metro Ontario has been 3 and females (Slide 9) declining slowly since the fall of 2008 (Slide 4). One component of the decline isk the o lac f growth in the population (Slide 3) but the major component is the Population 15 to 24 years of age The non-metro population of youth (including decline in the employment rate (i.e., the percent students), 15 to 24 years of age, has declined since employed) (Slides 5 and 6). 2012 (Slide 12).
The level of employment of non-metro youth (including students) has declined since 2005 (Slide 1 “Non-metro population by age.” 13). The decline in the employment rate from 2004 to 2 “Non-metro” refers to the population outside a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). See “Overview of Ontario’s rural geography” (June, 2013). 4 Our discussion focusses on the 12-month averages but note 3 All slides referenced in this Fact Sheet are available in an the high level of employment experienced by non-metro males in accompanying document: “Charts: Non-metro number employed the summer months – approaching the level of metro males and employment rates (i.e. percent employed) by age”. (Slide 7). June 13, 2017 Page 69 of 79 C 17 - CW Info 2010 was the major component of the decline in percentage point shift in the age structure of the employment. However, in 2016, the employment rate potential labour force is a major contributor to the 5 for non-metro youth was back up to the 2005 percentage point decline in the employment rate for employment rate5 (60%). Non-metro youth, both the 15+ population over this period. The reason is males and females have higher employment rates6 that the 65+ population has a much lower than their counter-parts in metro areas (Slide 19). employment rate (12% in 2016)
Population 25 to 54 years of age (the core-age The increase in the 65+ population has facilitated the workforce) (relatively small in absolute terms) increase in The non-metro population in the core-age workforce employment among seniors that is reinforced by an has been declining (slowly) since 2004 (Slide 21). As increase in the employment rate – up from under a result, the level of employment has been declining 11% after the recession to nearly 15% in non-metro – almost solely due to the decline in population in this areas in 2016 (Slide 42). age group. From 2010 to 2016, non-metro employment declined The percent employed (i.e., the employment rate) fell (-53K) even though, in this period, employment rates by 3 percentage points during the recession of 2008- increased in every age group (Table 1). The large 2009 – from 82% to 79% but this has increased to decline in 25-54 yr. employment (-82K) (associated over 80% since the recession (Slide 24). with the large decline in population) was greater than the increase in 55+ yr. employment (48K). The Metro and non-metro employment rates have been changing age structure of the population and the very similar over time – for both males and females resulting change in employment age structure are the (Slide 24). In non-metro areas, the employment rate major components of the decline in employment. of males and females both recovered (largely, but not Employment rates increased in each age group. completely) after the recession (Slide 27). Thus, the shift of population and employment to age groups with lower employment rates are the Population 55 to 64 years of age components of the decline in overall non-metro In non-metro Ontario, the population 55 to 64 years employment in this period. of age has been growing continuously over the last Table 1 two decades – and, similarly, the level of Change in population, employment and employment rates by age group, employment has been growing (Slide 30). In addition, Ontario non-metro areas the employment rate has grown over this period – Employment rate (i.e. Population (,000) 12- Employment (,000) 12- percent employed) with no setback during the 2008-2009 recession month moving average month moving average (,000) 12-month Age group (Slide 31). moving average Oct., Oct., Oct., Oct., Oct., Oct., Change Change Change 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 The strongest growth in the employment rate has 15-24 years 334 277 -57 186 165 -20 56 60 4 been among females – from 35% in the late 1990s to 25-54 years 1,019 902 -117 807 725 -82 79 80 1 55-64 years 365 394 29 197 224 26 54 57 3 55% in 2016 (Slide 36). For non-metro males, their 65+ years 424 556 132 43 66 22 10 12 2 employment rate was about 50% in the late 1990s 15+ years 2,142 2,130 -12 1,233 1,180 -53 58 55 -2 and this has grown to 60% in 2016. Source: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey, CANSIM Tables 282-0001 and 282-0128. Summary However, for both sexes, the employment rate in Non-metro population is not growing and thus is not non-metro areas remains below the employment rate providing a driver for employment growth. The overall in metro areas (Slide 37). employment is declining as the population shifts to older age groups with a lower employment rate. Population 65 years of age and over The population of seniors, 65 years of age and over, Perhaps obviously, our focus has been on the has grown more sharply since 2012 when the early- change in the supply of labour due the change of the th wave of baby-boomers reached their 65 birthday age structure of the population. Interestingly, the (Slide 39). demand for labour has generated an increase in the employment rate for each group in the 2010 to 2016 The 65+ population increased from 20% of the 15+ period. population in 2008 to 24% in 20151. This 4
5 Slide 15 which shows the average over a 12 month period. Rural Ontario Institute gratefully acknowledges the work of Ray Bollman Note the high variability across months within a year (Slide 14). in preparing this edition of Focus on Rural Ontario. Questions on data 6 Note again the high rates of non-metro employment in the sources can be directed to [email protected]. Any comments or discussions can be directed to [email protected]. summer months (Slides 14, 16 and 17). June 13, 2017 Page 70 of 79 C 17 - CW Info on Rural Ontario
Employment trends in economic regions Vol. 4, No. 3, 2017
Highlights • Non-metro economic regions have a declining population of the core working age adults 25- 54 years of age. This is the age group that provides the bulk of the workers. • Consequently, total employment (15+ yr.) is declining in non-metro economic regions. • There is also a decline in the 15+ employment rate (i.e. percent working) due to the shift in the population to 65+ age groups which have lower employment rates.
Why look at employment trends in economic As one example, we look at the Stratford-Bruce regions? Peninsula ER which is classified as a 100% non- Employment trends differ markedly across the metro3 area. This ER has experienced a decline in Economic Regions1 (ERs) of Ontario. The objective their population 25-54 years of age. As a of this FactSheet is to summarize the differences in consequence, overall employment (for 15+ employment trajectories across the ERs with a focus individuals) has declined from 164K in February, on regions with a higher share of non-metro 2005 to 143K in November, 2016. This level is back population. down to the level of employment in March, 1999. As recently as 2005, the employment rate (i.e. percent Findings of the 15+ population that was employed) was 68% Our results are summarized in Table 1 and in a set of but it has declined to 58% (November, 2016). Recall2 background charts1. that non-metro employment rates are generally increasing in each age group. Thus, the decline in Only two Ontario ERs, Kitchener-Waterloo and the overall employment rate is generally due to the Toronto, have increasing population in the 25-54 age shift in employment to older age groups with lower group over the 1988 to 2016 period. The bulk of the employment rates. workforce comes from this age group2. Similarly, in the Northeast and Northwest ERs (71% Among the ERs that are 45+% non-metro (see the and 46% non-metro respectively), we see a declining top 6 rows in Table 1), all are reporting a flat or population (for both the 15+ and 25-54 age groups) declining trajectory of overall employment (i.e., and, in recent years, declining overall employment among all individuals 15+ years of age). levels and declining employment rates. Summary Among the 15+ population, all ERs reported an Non-metro economic regions have a declining increase in the share represented by seniors (65+ population 25-54 years of age (i.e. their core-age years of age). Seniors have a lower employment workforce). In each of these regions, the overall rate (i.e., percent employed) and the structural shift number employed (15+ years of age) is now to an older workforce is lowering the employment decreasing. All of these ERs have experienced a rate for the 15+ population. All ERs (except decline in employment rates for their 15+ yr. Kitchener-Waterloo) reported a decline in the 15+ yr. population due, generally, to the increasing share of employment rate between 2001 and 2015. the population that is 65+ years of age. The decline in the population 25-54 years of age (i.e., the core-age workforce) is the major component Rural Ontario Institute gratefully acknowledges the work of Ray Bollman in preparing this edition of Focus on Rural Ontario. Questions on data of the decline in total employment in non-metro ERs. sources can be directed to [email protected]. Any comments or discussions can be directed to [email protected].
1 Economic Regions are groupings of census divisions, as listed 3 in Slide 4 in “Charts: Ontario Economic Regions: Population, Recall that “non-metro” refers to the population outside a Number Employed and Employment Rates” Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). See “Overview of Ontario’s 2 See “Non-metropolitan employment trends by age.” rural geography” (June, 2013). June 13, 2017 Page 71 of 79 C 17 - CW Info Table 1. Summary of employment trends in economic regions, Ontario, 1988 to 2016. Percent of the Trend in population, Percent potential labour force Percentage comparing the trend for the 15+ yr. residing in a (15 years and over) Employment point population and the trend for the 25- Economic non-metro that is 65 years and rate, change in 54 yr. population over Nov/2016 (12- (15 Region area (i.e. the employ- Trend in level of employment Trend in employment rate outside a month (sorted by percent ment rate years and over) (i.e. percent employed) (15 years and over) Census moving Population 15 Population 25- non-metro) from 2001 Metropolitan average) years and over 54 years of 2001 2015 Change to 2015 Area) (potential labour age (core-age force) workforce)
Stratford-Bruce Employment level in Nov/2016 (143K) is Employment rate was 68% in late 1989 and again in Flat trajectory Continuous Peninsula (ER 100 20 25 5 -4 58 down from the peak of 164K (Feb/2005) and early 2005 but has declined to 58% (Nov/2016). since 2007. decline. 3580) is now back to the level of Mar/1999. Generally flat Employment decline from 260K before 2008- Northeast (ER Employment rate has ranged between 54% and 57% trajectory with Continuous 71 18 23 6 -1 54 2009 recession to 248K (Nov/2016), which is 3590) since 2000 and it is now 54% (Nov/2016). slight decline decline. back to the level in 2002. since 2010. Muskoka- Since mid-2003, employment has varied Employment rate peaked at 65% in mid-2004 and is Continuous Decline since Kawarthas (ER 67 22 28 6 -2 50 between 160K and 192K and is back to now 50% (Nov/2016) but has varied between 50% and increase. 2005. 3520) 165K (Nov/2016). 60% for most months over 3 decades. Kingston- Employment rate declined from 60% in 2008-2009 to Since 2000, employment has varied between Continuous Decline since Pembroke (ER 65 19 24 5 -2 55 55% (Nov/2016) but has varied between 50% and 60% 200K and 220K and is now 208K (Nov/2016). increase. 2004. 3515) for three decades.
Employment level in Nov/2016 (298K) is Windsor-Sarnia Employment rate was 62% in late 2006 and declined Flat trajectory Decline since 48 17 22 5 -4 57 down from the peak of 324K (Dec/2006) and (ER 3570) to 56% in 2010 and is now 57% (Nov/2016). since 2005. 2004. is now down to the level of Aug/2000.
Generally flat Employment decline from about 110K before Employment rate peaked at 66% in the fall of 2003 and Northwest (ER trajectory with Continuous 46 16 20 4 -3 58 2008-2009 recession to about 100K after the declined to 58% in the summer of 2006 and is now 3595) slight decline decline. recession. 58% (Nov/2016). since 2007.
Ottawa (and area) Employment peaked at 697K (Spring/2015) Employment rate declined from 67% in 2008 to 62% Continuous Decline since 26 16 20 5 -2 62 (ER 3510) and is now 690K (Nov/2016). (Nov/2016). increase. 2012.
Employment rate dropped from 69% in early 2007 to Kitchener-Waterloo Employment level reached new peak of Continuous Continuous 26 15 18 4 0 65 64% in early 2010 and is now 65% (Nov/2016) and has (ER 3540) (about) 710K throughout 2016. increase. increase. varied between 63% and 69% since 1991. Employment level of 332K (Nov/2016) is Employment rate was 67% in early 2005 and declined London (and area) Continuous Decline since 25 16 20 4 -4 60 (almost) up to the pre-recession level of to 60% in 2010 and the present level is 60% (ER 3560) increase. 2006. 337K (fall of 2007). (Nov/2016).
Province of Employment rate was 61% from 2009 to Nov/2016, a Continuous Continuous 20 15 19 4 -2 61 Increase in employment levels since 2010. Ontario decline from 64% in the early 2000s increase. increase. Hamilton-Niagara Employment rate was 63% (in 2001 and in Dec/2003 Employment reached new peak of (about) Continuous Decline since Peninsula (ER 10 18 21 3 -2 59 and in early 2005) and has declined slowly to present 720K throughout 2016. increase. 2006. 3550) level of 60% (Nov/2016). Employment rate dropped from 64% in 2008 to 61% in Toronto (and area) Employment level reached new peak of Continuous Continuous 1 14 17 3 -3 62 2010 and is now 62% (Nov/2016) but has ranged (ER 3530) 3,370K in fall of 2016. increase. increase. between 60% and 65% for 26 years. June 13, 2017 Page 72 of 79 C 17 - CW Info on Rural Ontario
Non-metro trends in fixed-term or contract jobs Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017
Highlights • Among non-student paid employees in non-metro census divisions, 8% had a fixed-term or contract job in 2016, up from 6% at the end of the 1990s. • In non-metro census divisions, the percent with a fixed-term or contract job is slightly higher among women, among younger paid employees (15-24 years of age) and among paid employees with a university degree as their highest level of educational attainment.
Why look at paid employees with fixed-term or Within non-metro CDs, there were 51 thousand term contract jobs? or contract employees in September, 2016 (Table 1, Precarious employment is becoming an area of Row 4). There has been a small increase since 2001 public interest in Ontario1. Contract or fixed-term jobs (0.4 thousand per year or 0.8% per year) but the represent one aspect of precarious employment. This numbers declined at -1.4 thousand per year (-2.6% Fact Sheet documents the level and trend in paid per year) in the 2010 to 2016 period. employees with a fixed term or contract job in non- metro census divisions (CDs)2 in Ontario. Note that In non-metro census division, the percent with a term our analysis focusses solely on non-student paid or contract job in 2016 (8%) was the same as Ontario employees 15 years of age and over. as a whole4 (Table 1, Row 5). This percent has fluctuated over time but the non-metro incidence is Findings now the same as before the 2008-2009 recession The number of fixed-term or contract paid employees (see Slide 123). in Ontario is now 433 thousand (Table 1, Row 4). This number has been increasing over time, although In each type of region, females were slightly more there were lower levels for a few years following the 3 likely to have a term or contract job, compared to 2008-09 recession . males (8% and 7%, respectively) in non-metro CDs (Table 1, Rows 10 and 11). At the Ontario level, the At the Ontario level, the number of term or contract incidence of term or contract work is highest (17%) paid employees increased by 10.5 thousand paid among younger (non-student) employees (15 to 24 employees per year, on average, from 2001 to 2016 years of age) (Table 1, Row 18). In non-metro CDs, (Table 1, Row 4). The pace of increase was slower at the incidence was 12% for younger workers but in 5.7 thousand employees per year in the more recent metro CDs, the share was nearly double (21%) for period, 2010 to 2016. The rate of increase was 3% younger paid employees. per year from 2001 to 2016 which slowed to 1.4% per year from 2010 to 2016. The age group with the next highest share with a term or contract job was among 65+ yr. employees In 2016, 8% of Ontario employees were term or (14% at the Ontario level) (Table 1, Row 21). The contract employees (Table 1, Row 5). This percent is 3 proportion of 65+ individuals who are employed is up from 6% at the end of the 1990s . However, the small. In 2016, 17% of non-metro 65+ employees percent has remained at 8% since 2010. had a term or contract job.
1 For example, see Noack, Andrea M. and Leah F. Vosko. (2011) In non-metro CDs, employees with a university Precarious Jobs in Ontario: Mapping Dimensions of Labour degree were most likely to have a term or contract Market Insecurity by Workers’ Social Location and Context (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario) (http://www.lco- cdo.org/vulnerable-workers-call-for-papers-noack-vosko.pdf). 2 Non-metro census divisions have all of their component census subdivisions being outside a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). 4 Table 1 is reporting the 12 MMA (12 month moving average) for See “Overview of Ontario’s rural geography” (June, 2013). the 12 months up to September, 2016. However, note the month- 3 See the accompanying “Charts: Non-metro trends in term or to-month variability in Slide 10 in the accompany charts. In Slide contract employment.” 11, the 36MMA is 7% in September, 2016. June 13, 2017 Page 73 of 79 C 17 - CW Info job (11% for Bachelor’s and 13% with a degree The Rural Ontario Institute gratefully acknowledges the work of Ray Bollman in preparing this edition of Focus on Rural Ontario. The data above a Bachelor’s) (Table 1, Rows 42 & 43). analysis for this fact sheet was originally prepared for Dr. Al Lauzon at the University of Guelph with financial support from the provincial Summary government through OMAFRA. Inquiries about that research can be Having a fixed-term or contract job is one feature of directed to Dr. Lauzon at [email protected]. Questions on data precarious employment. sources can be directed to [email protected]. Any comments or discussions can be directed to [email protected]. Since 2012, the incidence of term or contract work has remained unchanged at the Ontario level (8%). In non-metro census divisions, the incidence has shown large month-to-month variations but the present share is similar to the share before the 2008- 2009 recession. The incidence of term or contract work is higher among women, among younger workers and among individuals with a university degree.
Table 1
Level and change in number of non-student paid employees with a fixed-term or contract job in Ontario, September, 2016 Non-metro census Partially- All census divisions Non- divisions All Metro non- metro Average Average Average Average Selected items census census metro census annual annual rate annual annual rate (Students are not included in these tabulations.) divisions divisions census Row divisions change1 of change2 change1 of change2 (Data refer to the average for the 12 months up divisions (,000) (percent) (,000) (percent) to and including September, 2016.) Number (,000) 2001 2010 2001 2010 2001 2010 2001 2010 (Data refer to the average for the 12 months up to to to to to to to to to and including September, 2016.) 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016
1 Population of non-students, 15+ years of age (,000) 10,090 5,727 2,862 1,501 128.0 144.6 1.4 1.5 6.0 2.5 0.4 0.2 2 Number of paid employees, 15+ years of age (,000) 5,316 3,101 1,548 668 51.8 67.0 1.1 1.3 -0.4 -7.7 -0.1 -1.1 3 Paid employees as a percent of population (15+ yr.) 53 54 54 44 -0.2 -0.1 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.6 -0.5 -1.3 4 NUMBER with a term or contract job (,000) 433 277 105 51 10.5 5.7 3.0 1.4 0.4 -1.4 0.8 -2.6 5 . . as percent of number of paid employees 8 9 7 8 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.9 -1.5 6 NUMBER with a term or contract job: by sex (,000) 7 . . Males 194 124 47 23 4.9 2.5 3.1 1.3 0.2 -0.9 0.8 -3.9 8 . . Females 239 153 58 28 5.6 3.2 2.8 1.4 0.2 -0.4 0.8 -1.5 9 If employed, PERCENT of employees with a term or contract job: by sex 10 . . Males 7 8 6 7 0.1 0.0 2.2 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 1.2 -2.8 11 . . Females 9 10 7 8 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.0 -0.1 0.6 -0.9 12 NUMBER with a term or contract job: by age (,000) 13 . . 15 to 24 years of age 81 53 20 8 1.8 1.1 2.6 1.4 -0.1 -0.5 -0.7 -5.3 14 . . 25 to 54 years of age 269 178 63 28 5.5 1.3 2.4 0.5 0.0 -1.2 0.0 -4.0 15 . . 55 to 64 years of age 57 34 13 10 1.9 1.4 5.0 2.7 0.2 0.0 2.8 -0.5 16 . . 65 years of age and over 26 13 9 5 1.2 1.9 9.0 9.5 ...... 11.1 17 If employed, PERCENT of employees with a term or contract job: by age 18 . . 15 to 24 years of age 17 21 14 12 0.4 -0.1 2.3 -0.3 0.0 -0.6 -0.2 -4.4 19 . . 25 to 54 years of age 7 8 6 6 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 1.2 -1.7 20 . . 55 to 64 years of age 6 7 5 8 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -1.1 -0.2 -0.1 -2.1 -1.8 21 . . 65 years of age and over 14 12 16 17 -0.2 0.0 -1.1 0.3 ...... -0.2 22 NUMBER with a term or contract job: by highest level of educational attainment (,000) 23 . . Less than Grade 9 6 4 . . . . -0.1 -0.4 -1.3 -6.4 ...... 24 . . Grade 9 - 10 9 5 2 1 -0.3 -0.2 -3.0 -1.8 -0.1 -0.2 -3.7 -9.7 25 . . Grade 11 - 13, no diploma 11 6 3 2 -0.4 -0.5 -2.8 -4.1 0.0 -0.1 -1.9 -5.7 26 . . Grade 11 - 13, with high school diploma 73 42 21 9 1.3 0.1 2.0 0.2 0.0 -0.6 0.0 -5.3 27 . . Some post-secondary, no certificate 29 18 7 3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.1 -0.3 -4.3 -10.5 28 . . Trade certificate or diploma 18 7 6 5 0.1 -1.3 0.6 -6.0 0.0 -0.4 0.3 -6.6 29 . . Community college diploma 103 58 27 17 3.1 1.8 3.7 1.8 0.3 0.0 2.3 0.1 30 . . University certificate or diploma, below bachelor's degree 11 7 . . . . 0.4 0.5 4.6 4.8 ...... 31 . . Bachelor's degree 111 82 20 9 3.7 3.1 4.7 3.1 0.2 0.3 3.7 4.4 32 . . University degree above bachelor 63 47 14 3 2.8 2.6 6.4 4.4 0.1 0.0 4.2 0.7 33 If employed, PERCENT of employees with a term or contract job: by highest level of educational attainment 34 . . Less than Grade 9 10 ...... 35 . . Grade 9 - 10 8 9 6 7 0.1 0.1 1.8 1.8 0.1 -0.2 0.9 -3.9 36 . . Grade 11 - 13, no diploma 8 9 6 8 0.0 -0.2 0.4 -2.2 0.1 -0.2 0.8 -3.2 37 . . Grade 11 - 13, with high school diploma 7 9 6 5 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.7 0.0 -0.2 0.0 -4.0 38 . . Some post-secondary, no certificate 11 14 8 9 0.2 0.2 2.3 2.0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -5.4 39 . . Trade certificate or diploma 7 8 6 7 0.1 -0.2 3.5 -1.0 0.2 -0.1 0.8 -3.5 40 . . Community college diploma 6 7 5 7 0.1 0.0 1.3 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.5 41 . . University certificate or diploma, below bachelor's degree 9 9 . . . . 0.2 0.0 3.1 0.6 ...... 42 . . Bachelor's degree 9 9 8 11 0.1 -0.1 1.0 -1.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.4 43 . . University degree above bachelor 10 10 11 13 0.2 0.1 2.4 0.5 0.4 0.0 3.6 0.7 1. Calculated as the slope of a linear line of annual observations where each annual observation is the average for the 12 months up to and including September of each year, up to September, 2016. 2. Calculated as the slope of a linear line of the logarithm of annual observations (using the annual observations defined in Footnote #1). Source: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey, special tabulation. June 13, 2017 Page 74 of 79 C 17 - CW Info on Rural Ontario
Non-metro trends in involuntary part-time work Vol. 4, No. 5, 2017
Highlights • In 2016 in non-metro census divisions, 7% of paid employees were working in a part-time job but preferred to be working full-time (i.e. involuntary part-time work). • The percent of employees with involuntary part-time work increased after the 2008-2009 recessions but the percent has been decreasing in recent years. • Females are twice as likely as males and younger employees are twice as likely as other age groups to have an involuntary part-time job. • Interestingly, the percent of males with involuntary part-time work is the same (4%) in each type of census division whereas the percent for females ranges from 7% in metro census divisions to 11% in non-metro census divisions.
Why look at involuntary part-time work? In non-metro census divisions (CDs), there were 50 Precarious employment is becoming an area of thousand employees with an involuntary part-time job public interest in Ontario1. Involuntary part-time work in 2016, down from 60 thousand in the years (i.e., working a part-time job but preferring full-time2) following the 2008-2009 recession5. The present is a contributor to a precarious livelihood. level is now the same as during the first half of the 2000s. The objective of this Fact Sheet is to document the level and trend in involuntary part-time work in non- In September 2016 in non-metro CDs, 7% of metro census divisions3 in Ontario. Note that our employees had an involuntary part-time job (Table 1, analysis focusses solely on non-student employees Row 5). This percent has declined from the 8% to 9% and excludes self-employed workers. range experienced after the 2008-2009 recession6. Findings For Ontario as a whole, females are twice as likely to In all census divisions of Ontario in 2016, 327 have an involuntary part-time job (8%) compared to thousand workers were employed part-time but who 4 males (4%) (Table 1, Rows 10 & 11). This difference preferred to work full-time (Table 1, Row 4) . This is more pronounced in non-metro CDs with 11% of represents 6% of all Ontario non-student employees. females compared to 4% of males with involuntary part-time work. Both males and females in each type Over the longer term from 2001 to 2016, the number of CD show the same pattern of growth (over the of employees in Ontario with involuntary part-time 2001 to 2016 period) and a decline in the more jobs increased 10.3 thousand per year on average recent 2010 to 2016 period (Table 1, Rows 7 & 8). (an average 3.5% increase per year). However, in the shorter term of 2010 to 2016, the numbers have Younger employees (15 to 24 years of age) are most been declining – a 3.4 thousand annual average likely to have an involuntary part-time job – 14% for decline (-1% per year on average). all CDs and also for non-metro CDs (Table 1, Row 18). Each age group experienced the same pattern
1 of an overall growth from 2001 to 2016, but a decline For example, see Noack, Andrea M. and Leah F. Vosko. (2011) from 2010 to 2016. Precarious Jobs in Ontario: Mapping Dimensions of Labour Market Insecurity by Workers’ Social Location and Context (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario) (http://www.lco- For Ontario as a whole, the incidence of involuntary cdo.org/vulnerable-workers-call-for-papers-noack-vosko.pdf). part-time work is slightly higher among employees 2 See the detailed definition in the footnote to Table 1. 3 with their highest level of educational attainment Non-metro census divisions have none of their component being less than a university education. census subdivisions being delineated as part of a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). See “Overview of Ontario’s rural geography” (June, 2013). 5 See Slides 5, 6 and 7 in the accompanying Charts. 4 See “Charts: Non-metro trends in involuntary part-time work.” 6 See Slides 11, 12, 13 and 14 in the accompanying Charts. June 13, 2017 Page 75 of 79 C 17 - CW Info The accompanying charts3 show that the differences The percent with involuntary part-time work is twice among the types of CDs in the percent with the level for females compared to males and is twice involuntary part-time work has narrowed, but the the level for younger employees compared to female-male gap has persisted for two decades. employees in other age groups. Summary The Rural Ontario Institute gratefully acknowledges the work of Ray Bollman in preparing this edition of Focus on Rural Ontario. The data Having a part-time job when a full-time job is analysis for this Fact Sheet was originally prepared for Dr. Al Lauzon at preferred contributes to a precarious livelihood. the University of Guelph with financial support from the provincial government through OMAFRA. Inquiries about that research can be directed to Dr. Lauzon at [email protected]. Questions on data In 2016, 7% of employees in non-metro CDs were sources can be directed to [email protected]. Any comments working in a part-time job but preferred to be working or discussions can be directed to [email protected]. full-time. This is down slightly from 2010.
Table 1 Level and change in number of non-student paid employees with an involuntary1 part-time job in Ontario, September, 2016 All census divisions Non-metro census divisions Partially- Selected items Non- Average annual Average annual All Metro non- Average annual Average annual (Students are not included in these tabulations.) metro rate of change3 rate of change3 Row census census metro change2 (,000) change2 (,000) (Data refer to the average for the 12 months up to census (percent) (percent) divisions divisions census and including September, 2016.) divisions divisions 2001 to 2010 to 2001 to 2010 to 2001 to 2010 to 2001 to 2010 to 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016
1 Population of non-students, 15+ years of age (,000) 10,090 5,727 2,862 1,501 128.0 144.6 1.4 1.5 6.0 2.5 0.4 0.2 2 Number of paid employees, 15+ years of age (,000) 5,316 3,101 1,548 668 51.8 67.0 1.1 1.3 -0.4 -7.7 -0.1 -1.1 3 Paid employees as a percent of population (15+ yr.) 53 54 54 44 -0.2 -0.1 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.6 -0.5 -1.3 1 4 NUMBER with an involuntary part-time job (,000) 327 182 96 50 10.3 -3.4 3.5 -1.0 0.5 -2.0 0.8 -3.5 5 . . as percent of number paid employees 6 6 6 7 0.1 -0.2 2.4 -2.3 0.1 -0.2 0.9 -2.4 6 NUMBER with an involuntary part-time job: by sex (,000) 7 . . Males 113 68 31 14 4.1 -1.4 4.1 -1.2 0.3 -0.5 2.3 -3.4 8 . . Females 214 113 65 36 6.3 -2.0 3.1 -0.9 0.1 -1.4 0.4 -3.5 9 If employed, PERCENT of employees with an involuntary part-time job: by sex 10 . . Males 4 4 4 4 0.1 -0.1 3.4 -2.8 0.1 -0.1 2.6 -2.2 11 . . Females 8 7 8 11 0.1 -0.2 1.8 -1.9 0.0 -0.3 0.1 -2.5 12 NUMBER with an involuntary part-time job: by age (,000) 13 . . 15 to 24 years of age 64 32 23 9 2.4 -1.1 3.8 -1.6 0.1 -0.5 1.4 -4.3 14 . . 25 to 54 years of age 200 116 54 30 4.7 -3.3 2.5 -1.5 -0.2 -1.4 -0.5 -4.1 15 . . 55 to 64 years of age 51 27 15 9 2.4 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.4 -0.1 6.1 -1.2 16 . . 65 years of age and over 12 7 4 . . . . 1.0 . . 8.9 ...... 17 If employed, PERCENT of employees with an involuntary part-time job: by age 18 . . 15 to 24 years of age 14 13 16 14 0.5 -0.5 3.5 -3.4 0.3 -0.5 1.9 -3.4 19 . . 25 to 54 years of age 5 5 5 7 0.1 -0.1 2.2 -1.9 0.0 -0.1 0.7 -1.8 20 . . 55 to 64 years of age 6 5 5 8 0.1 -0.2 1.9 -3.8 0.1 -0.2 1.3 -2.5 21 . . 65 years of age and over 6 7 7 . . . . 0.0 . . -0.3 ...... 22 NUMBER with an involuntary part-time job: by highest level of educational attainment (,000) 23 . . Less than Grade 9 ...... 24 . . Grade 9 - 10 8 4 2 2 -0.5 -0.8 -3.6 -7.4 -0.1 -0.1 -4.2 -5.6 25 . . Grade 11 - 13, no diploma 12 7 4 2 -0.2 -0.7 -1.7 -5.2 -0.1 -0.1 -3.6 -6.7 26 . . Grade 11 - 13, with high school diploma 68 32 24 12 2.0 -2.4 2.8 -3.0 0.1 -0.8 0.9 -5.1 27 . . Some post-secondary, no certificate 23 12 9 3 0.3 -0.8 1.1 -3.1 -0.1 -0.4 -3.4 -9.4 28 . . Trade certificate or diploma 13 5 6 2 0.0 -1.7 -0.3 -9.7 -0.1 -0.5 -2.6 -15.4 29 . . Community college diploma 102 51 31 20 3.9 0.8 4.9 0.8 0.4 -0.4 2.4 -2.2 30 . . University certificate or diploma, below bachelor's degree 7 ...... 0.3 0.1 5.2 1.8 ...... 31 . . Bachelor's degree 59 40 12 6 3.1 1.4 7.4 2.3 0.3 0.4 7.0 8.0 32 . . University degree above bachelor 32 24 6 2 1.5 1.2 7.8 4.2 0.1 0.1 7.9 4.8 33 If employed, PERCENT of employees with an involuntary part-time job: by highest level of educational attainment 34 . . Less than Grade 9 ...... 35 . . Grade 9 - 10 7 7 6 10 0.1 -0.3 1.1 -3.9 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 36 . . Grade 11 - 13, no diploma 9 10 8 7 0.1 -0.3 1.5 -3.4 -0.1 -0.3 -0.9 -3.8 37 . . Grade 11 - 13, with high school diploma 7 7 7 7 0.2 -0.2 2.9 -2.6 0.1 -0.3 0.8 -3.9 38 . . Some post-secondary, no certificate 9 9 9 9 0.3 -0.1 3.7 0.6 0.1 -0.4 1.0 -4.0 39 . . Trade certificate or diploma 5 4 6 4 0.1 -0.3 3.5 -1.0 0.0 -0.5 0.8 -3.5 40 . . Community college diploma 7 7 6 8 0.2 -0.1 2.5 -1.3 0.0 -0.2 0.5 -2.8 41 . . University certificate or diploma, below bachelor's degree 5 ...... 0.2 -0.1 3.6 -2.4 ...... 42 . . Bachelor's degree 5 4 5 8 0.2 -0.1 3.6 -1.7 0.2 0.4 4.2 5.7 43 . . University degree above bachelor 5 5 5 8 0.2 0.0 3.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 7.3 4.6 1. When a respondent to Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey indicates that their major job is part-time (less than 30 hours per week), they are then asked for the reason. Those who state “business conditions” or “could not find work with 30 or more hours be week” are classified as “involuntary” part-time employees. 2. Calculated as the slope of a linear line of annual observations where each annual observation is the average for the 12 months up to and including September of each year, up to September, 2016. 3. Calculated as the slope of a linear line of the logarithm of annual observations (using the annual observations defined in Footnote #1). Source: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey, special tabulation. June 13, 2017 Page 76 of 79 C 17 - CW Info on Rural Ontario
Non-metro trends in low-wage work Vol. 4, No. 6, 2017
Highlights • Among employees in non-metro census divisions in 2016, 30% held a low wage job – slightly higher than the 27% for all employees in Ontario. • Females were more likely to have a low-wage job in each type of census division. In non- metro census divisions, the percent was 35% for females and 24% for males. • Younger employees (15 to 24 years of age) were more likely to have a low-wage job (68%) in non-metro census divisions compared to 23% for employees 25 to 54 years of age. • In non-metro census divisions, one-half of 65+ yr. employees held a low-wage position. • The percent with a low-wage job was higher among employees with lower levels of educational attainment in each type of census division. Why look at low wage work? In non-metro CDs, females had a higher incidence of Precarious employment is becoming an area of 1 low-wage jobs (35%) compared to males (24%) public interest in Ontario . Low wage employment is (Table 2, Rows 10 & 11). a contributor to a precarious livelihood. In each type of CD, the share of younger employees The objective of this Fact Sheet is to document the (15 to 24 yr., excluding students) with a low wage is level of low-wage work in non-metro census 2 about three times the rate for employees in the core- divisions (CDs) in Ontario. Note that this analysis age workforce (25 to 54 yr.) (Table 2, Row 18). For focusses solely on non-student employees and example, in non-metro CDs, 68% of younger excludes self-employed workers. employees reported a low wage compared to 23% of 3 the employees in the core-age workforce. Note that As proposed by Noack and Vosko , we define “low 50% of employees who are 65+ years of age wage” as a wage less than 1.5 times the minimum reported a low wage in non-metro CDs. wage. In Ontario, the minimum wage was $6.85 per hour from 1997 to 2003 (Table 1) which implied a low In each type of CD, employees with a higher level of wage was $10.28 per hour. In 2016, the minimum educational attainment were less likely to report a wage was $11.25 per hour and a low wage would low wage (between 9% and 19% for those with a thus be $16.88 per hour. university diploma or degree). Among employees Findings with less than a post-secondary diploma or In all CDs in Ontario in 2016, 1,456 thousand certificate, over 40% reported a low wage. employees had a “low wage” job (Table 2, Row 4). This represented 27% of all employees in Ontario. In this Fact Sheet, we have not presented the trends This share was slightly higher (30%) among over time because these trends are driven by the employees in non-metro CDs. changes in the level of the minimum wage4.
1 For example, see Noack, Andrea M. and Leah F. Vosko. (2011) Precarious Jobs in Ontario: Mapping Dimensions of Labour 4 Market Insecurity by Workers’ Social Location and Context We note there are alternative ways to define “low wage.” For (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario) (http://www.lco- example, Eurostat (2016) Earnings Statistics cdo.org/vulnerable-workers-call-for-papers-noack-vosko.pdf). (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- 2 Non-metro CDs have none of their component census explained/index.php/Earnings_statistics) defines low wage as 2/3 of subdivisions being delineated as part of a Census Metropolitan the median wage. When using our low wage definition for Area. See “Overview of Ontario’s rural geography” (June, 2013). Ontario, we note our low wage was over 2/3 of the median wage 3 Noack, Andrea M. and Leah F. Vosko. (2011) Precarious Jobs (69%) at the end of the 1990s but as wages increased in the in Ontario: Mapping Dimensions of Labour Market Insecurity early 2000s with no increase in the minimum wage, our low wage by Workers’ Social Location and Context (Toronto: Law declined to 60% of the median wage (Table 1). In the last 10 Commission of Ontario) (http://www.lco-cdo.org/vulnerable-workers- years, the minimum wage has increased 8 times and in 2016 call-for-papers-noack-vosko.pdf). was 74% of the median wage. June 13, 2017 Page 77 of 79 C 17 - CW Info However, these trends are shown in the In non-metro census divisions, females were more accompanying charts5. We note: likely to have a low wage (35%) compared to 24% for a. over time, the percent of low-wage employees in males – about the same differential as for all non-metro CDs has been 3 to 4 percentage employees in Ontario. points higher than in other types of CDs; b. the large male<>female difference in the share Younger employees (15 to 24 yr.) were more likely to with a low wage has persisted over time – but have a low wage job (68%) similar to the level for all has narrowed somewhat since 1997; young employees in Ontario (70%). c. the percentage point gap for younger (non- student) employees (15 to 24 yr.) compared to In non-metro census divisions, over 40% of core-age employees (25-54 yr.) has remained at employees had a low-wage job if their highest level about 40 percentage points since 1997; and of educational attainment was less than a post- d. the percentage point gap in the incidence of low secondary diploma or certificate. wage between those with some university and those with no post-secondary has been wide The Rural Ontario Institute gratefully acknowledges the work of Ray Bollman in preparing this edition of Focus on Rural Ontario. The data since 1997 but has appeared wider since the analysis for this fact sheet was originally prepared for Dr. Al Lauzon at 2008-2009 recession. the University of Guelph with financial support from the provincial government through OMAFRA. Inquiries about that research can be Summary directed to Dr. Lauzon at [email protected]. Questions on data In 2016, 30% of employees in non-metro census sources can be directed to [email protected]. Any comments or discussions can be directed to [email protected]. divisions had a low-wage job – slightly higher than the 27% for all employees in Ontario.
Table 1: Minimum wage in Ontario, 1997 to 2016 Table 2. Number of non-student employees with a low wage1 job in Ontario, September, 2016 Ontario Low Wage Ontario "Low" wage Partially- Minimum Median as a percent Selected items Non- Cut-off All Metro non- 1 2 (Students are not included in these tabulations.) metro Year Wage (1.5 times Wage of Median Row census census metro (Data refer to the average for the 12 months up to census (current minimum on Jan Wage on divisions divisions census and including September, 2016.) divisions dollars) wage) 1st Jan 1st divisions 1 Population of non-students, 15+ years of age (,000) 10,090 5,727 2,862 1,501 1997 $6.85 $10.28 $15.00 69 2 Number of paid employees, 15+ years of age (,000) 5,316 3,101 1,548 668 1998 $6.85 $10.28 $15.00 69 3 Paid employees as a percent of population (15+ yr.) 53 54 54 44 1 1999 $6.85 $10.28 $15.00 69 4 NUMBER fo employees with a low wage job (,000) 1,456 830 429 197 5 . . as percent of number of employees 27 27 28 30 2000 $6.85 $10.28 $15.70 65 6 NUMBER of employees with a low wage1 job: by sex (,000) 2001 $6.85 $10.28 $16.00 64 7 . . Males 619 361 177 80 2002 $6.85 $10.28 $16.83 61 8 . . Females 838 469 252 117 9 If employed, PERCENT with a low wage1 job: by sex 2003 $6.85 $10.28 $16.83 61 10 . . Males 23 23 23 24 2004 Jan $6.85 $10.28 $17.25 60 11 . . Females 32 31 33 35 1 2004 Feb-Dec $7.15 $10.73 12 NUMBER of employees with a low wage job: by age (,000) 13 . . 15 to 24 years of age 44 0 349 188 2005 Jan $7.15 $10.73 $18.00 60 14 . . 25 to 54 years of age 67 0 869 508 2005 Feb-Dec $7.45 $11.18 15 . . 55 to 64 years of age 23 0 245 145 2006 Jan $7.45 $11.18 $18.00 62 16 . . 65 years of age and over 28 0 78 38 17 If employed, PERCENT with a low wage1 job: by age 2006 Feb-Dec $7.75 $11.63 18 . . 15 to 24 years of age 46 0 71 72 2007 Jan $7.75 $11.63 $18.03 64 19 . . 25 to 54 years of age 109 0 23 23 2007 Feb-Dec $8.00 $12.00 20 . . 55 to 64 years of age 35 0 26 26 21 . . 65 years of age and over 13 0 42 37 2008 Jan-Mar $8.00 $12.00 $19.23 62 22 NUMBER of employees with a low wage1 job: by highest level of educational attainment (,000) 2008 Apr-Dec $8.75 $13.13 23 . . Less than Grade 9 31 21 6 4 2009 Jan-Mar $8.75 $13.13 $20.00 66 24 . . Grade 9 - 10 54 27 17 10 25 . . Grade 11 - 13, no diploma 72 33 26 13 2009 Apr-Dec $9.50 $14.25 26 . . Grade 11 - 13, with high school diploma 433 222 139 71 2010 Jan-Mar $9.50 $14.25 $20.00 71 27 . . Some post-secondary, no certificate 109 55 41 13 2010 Apr-Dec $10.25 $15.38 28 . . Trade certificate or diploma 61 28 24 9 29 . . Community college diploma 392 213 117 61 2011 $10.25 $15.38 $20.36 76 30 . . University certificate or diploma, below bachelor's degree 22 13 6 3 2012 $10.25 $15.38 $20.50 75 31 . . Bachelor's degree 214 162 40 11 2013 $10.25 $15.38 $21.00 73 32 . . University degree above bachelor 69 55 11 3 33 If employed, PERCENT with a low wage1 job: by highest level of educational attainment 2014 Jan-May $10.25 $15.38 $21.23 72 34 . . Less than Grade 9 51 52 44 59 2014 June-Dec $11.00 $16.50 35 . . Grade 9 - 10 45 44 46 44 2015 Jan-Sept $11.00 $16.50 $21.63 76 36 . . Grade 11 - 13, no diploma 51 50 51 51 2015 Oct-Dec $11.25 $16.88 37 . . Grade 11 - 13, with high school diploma 43 46 41 42 38 . . Some post-secondary, no certificate 42 42 44 41 2016 Jan-Sept $11.25 $16.88 $22.70 74 39 . . Trade certificate or diploma 22 25 23 17 2016 Oct-Dec $11.40 $17.10 40 . . Community college diploma 26 28 24 25 1. See "Hourly Minimum Wages in CANADA for Adult Workers" 41 . . University certificate or diploma, below bachelor's degree 18 17 19 18 (http://srv116.services.gc.ca/dimt-w id/sm-mw /rpt2.aspx). 42 . . Bachelor's degree 17 18 15 15 2. Ontario Median Wage from Statistics Canada. Labour Force Survey, 43 . . University degree above bachelor 11 12 9 12 CANSIM Table 282-0071. 1. A low wage is a wage less than 1.5 times the minimum wage. Source: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey, special tabulation. 5 See “Charts: Non-metro trends in involuntary part-time work.” June 13, 2017 Page 78 of 79 C 17 - CW Info June 13, 2017 Page 79 of 79 C 17 - CW Info
Connect with Rural Ontario Institute
Rural Ontario Institute @ROInstitute
Become a subscriber: www.RuralOntarioInstitute.ca/newsletter
Contact us Rural Ontario Institute 7382 Wellington Rd. 30, R.R. #5 Guelph, ON N1H 6J2
Phone 519-826-4204 Email [email protected] June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 2 C 18 - CW Info
Committee of the Whole
Meeting Date: June 13, 2017 Submitted by: Durk Vanderwerff, Director of Planning Subject: FINAL APPROVAL OF PEMIC KOMOKA (PRINCE STREET) PHASE IV PLAN OF SUBDIVISION; FILE 39T-97004, MIDDLESEX CENTRE
BACKGROUND: The Pemic Komoka (Prince Street) Plan of Subdivision is located in Middlesex Centre (see attached). The plan was draft plan approved June 1, 2007 and is being developed in four phases. The final phase has 24 lots for single-detached dwellings. ANALYSIS: This report is to advise the Committee of the Whole that final approval was given to the Pemic Komoka (Prince Street) Plan of Subdivision. All conditions to the approval have been cleared and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre has entered into a subdivision agreement with the developer. The plans were signed by the Director of Planning on April 24, 2017 and forwarded to the Land Registrar for registration. Attachment
June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 2 C 18 - CW Info KOMOKA
FIELDSTONE CRES S
SIMCOE AVE
KOMOKA RD
OXBOW DR
ARTHUR ST
CAVERHILL CRES DUKE ST PRINCE ST
HAMILTON ST
LOCATION MAP LEGEND ± Description: SUBJECT LANDS PRINCE STREET (PEMIC) FINAL PLAN OF SUBDIVISION MUNICIPALITY OF MIDDLESEX CENTRE
File Number: 39T-97004 1:4,000 0 100 200 Prepared by: Planning Department The County of Middlesex, May 15, 2017. Meters June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 2 C 19 - CW Info
Committee of the Whole
Meeting Date: June 13, 2017 Submitted by: Durk Vanderwerff, Director of Planning Subject: FINAL APPROVAL OF PROSPERITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM; FILE 39T-AM-CDM1501, ADELAIDE METCALFE
BACKGROUND: The Prosperity Development Inc. Plan of Condominium is located in the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe (see attached). The plan was draft plan approved May 26, 2015. The plan includes five (5) vacant land commercial condominium units (Units 1 to 5) and one (1) block for common elements. ANALYSIS: This report is to advise the Committee of the Whole that final approval was given to the Prosperity Development Inc. Plan of Condominium. All conditions to the approval have been cleared and the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe has entered into a subdivision agreement with the developer. The plans were signed by the Director of Planning on April 19, 2017 and forwarded to the Land Registrar for registration. Attachment
June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 2 C 19 - CW Info ADELAIDE METCALFE
WRIGHT ST
33 SECOND ST
CENTRERD
HARRISCIR
DARCY DR
81
LOCATION MAP LEGEND ± Description: SUBJECT LANDS PROSPERITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM TOWNSHIP OF ADELAIDE METCALFE
File Number: 39T-AM-CDM1501 1:3,000 0 60 120 Prepared by: Planning Department The County of Middlesex, May 26, 2017. Meters June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 2 C 20 - CW Info
Ministry of Ministère des Municipal Affairs Affaires municipales
Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M5G 2E5 Toronto ON M5G 2E5 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Tél. : 416 585-7000 Fax: 416 585-6470 Téléc. : 416 585-6470
Ministry of the Ministère du Attorney General Procureur général
Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor 720, rue Bay, 11e étage Toronto ON M7A 2S9 Toronto ON M7A 2S9 Tel. 416-326-2220 Tél. 416-326-2220 Fax 416-326-4016 Téléc. 416-326-4016
17-73913
May 30, 2017
RE: The Proposed Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act
We are pleased to announce that the government introduced the proposed Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 in the legislature. These proposed changes follow extensive public consultations.
Ontario is taking this action in order to overhaul the provincial land use planning appeal system to give communities a stronger voice and ensure people have access to faster, fairer and more affordable hearings.
For more information and background on the bill you may visit: www.ontario.ca/OMBReview
For a copy of the proposed Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, and to monitor the status of the bill through the legislative process, please visit the Legislative Assembly of Ontario website: www.ontla.on.ca
Comments on the proposed bill can be made through the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry at www.ebr.gov.on.ca (EBR Posting Number: 013-0590) or by email to [email protected]. In addition, the bill proposes amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act which the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is leading – please visit EBR Posting Number: 013-0561.
...2
June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 2 C 20 - CW Info
-2-
We look forward to working with you as we move forward on this initiative.
Sincerely,
Bill Mauro Yasir Naqvi Minister of Municipal Affairs Attorney General of Ontario
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 1 C 21 - CW Info
Committee of the Whole
Meeting Date: June 13, 2017
Submitted by: John Elston, Fire Prevention Officer
SUBJECT: MIDDLESEX COUNTY FIRE INSPECTION ACTIVITY - MAY 2017
Routine Admin & Complaints Inspections Inspections Recalls Miscellaneous & Requests Monthly Total Adelaide Metcalfe 0 Lucan Biddulph 4 4 Middlesex Centre 8 5 13 Newbury 1 1 Southwest Middlesex 1 1 1 3 Thames Centre 8 7 15 Strathroy Caradoc 9 17 26 North Middlesex 9 9 1 19 Middlesex County 12 12
Monthly Total 35 40 13 5 93
Year to Date 316 260 99 13 688
Fire Demos & Enforce- Fire Meetings & Monthly Other Activities Investigations Lectures ment Drills Consulting Total Adelaide Metcalfe 0 Lucan Biddulph 2 2 4 Middlesex Centre 3 3 Newbury 0 Southwest Middlesex 0 Thames Centre 1 1 Strathroy Caradoc 11 3 14 North Middlesex 6 2 8 Middlesex County 1 7 8 Monthly Total 0 20 0 0 18 38
Year to Date 16 31 0 0 102 149 Year-To-Date Grand Total: 837 June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 11 C 22 - CW Info
NEWS Ministry of Labour
Proposed Changes to Ontario's Employment and Labour Laws May 30, 2017 10:04 A.M.
The Ontario government has announced its intention to introduce proposed legislation, The Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017. The legislative proposals include broad ranging amendments to Ontario's Employment Standards Act and Labour Relations Act.
While the province's economy is strong and growing, the nature of work has changed, leaving many workers struggling to support their families on part-time, contract or minimum-wage work. Workers in Ontario have the right to strong protections at work. Fairness and decency must continue to be the defining values of our workplaces. These legislative changes seek to create more opportunity and security for workers across Ontario.
Minimum Wage Increases
Ontario is increasing its minimum wage rates - generally, the lowest rate that can be paid by employers to employees.
If passed, the government is proposing to increase the general minimum wage to:
14 per hour on January 1, 2018 $15 per hour on January 1, 2019
The special minimum wage rates for liquor servers, students under 18, hunting and fishing guides, and homeworkers will be maintained, and will increase by the same percentage as the general minimum wage.
Oct. 1, Jan. 1, Jan 1 2019 Current to Sept. 30, 2017 to 2018 to Minimum Wage Categories to Sept. 2017 Dec. 31, Dec 31, 30, 2019 2017 2018
General Minimum Wage $11.40 per hour $11.60 $14.00 $15.00
Students under 18 who work not $10.70 per hour $10.90 $13.15 $14.10 more than 28 hours per weekwhen school is in session, June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 11 C 22 - CW Info
or work during a school break or summer holidays
Liquor Servers $9.90 per hour $10.10 $12.20 $13.05
Hunting and Fishing Guides $56.95: Rate for working $58.00 $70.00 $75.00 less than five consecutive hours in a day
$113.95: Rate for $116.00 $140.00 $150.00 working five or more hours in a day whether or not the hours are consecutive
Homeworkers (employees doing $12.55 per hour $12.80 $15.40 $16.50 paid work in their own home for an employer)
Proposed Changes to Employment Standards
Equal Pay for Equal Work Provisions: Casual, Part-time, Temporary & Seasonal Employees
The proposed legislation would ensure that casual, part-time, temporary and seasonal employees are paid equally to full-time employees when performing the same job for the same employer.
The proposed amendments would enable employees to request a review of their wages if they believe that they are not receiving equal wages to full-time employees. The employer would have to respond to the request with either an adjustment in pay or a written explanation.
There would be exceptions to the requirement for equal wages where a wage difference is based on:
Seniority system Merit system June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 11 C 22 - CW Info Systems that determine pay by quantity or quality of production Other factors (sex and employment status do not qualify as exceptions to this requirement)
The proposed legislation would also protect casual, part-time, temporary and seasonal employees against repercussions for inquiring about their wage rate or asking another employee about their wage rate.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on April 1, 2018.
Equal Pay for Equal Work Provisions: Temporary Help Agency Employees
The proposed legislation would ensure Temporary Help Agency (THA) employees (assignment workers) are paid equally to permanent employees of the THA client when performing the same job.
The proposed changes would protect assignment employees from repercussions for inquiring about their wage rate or the wage rate of an employee of the client.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on April 1, 2018.
Termination of Assignment
The legislation would require a THA to provide an assignment employee with at least one week's notice when an assignment scheduled to last longer than three months will be terminated early.
If less than one week's notice is given, the assignment employee must be paid for the difference, unless the assignment employee is offered at least one week's worth of reasonable work during the notice period.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Scheduling
The proposed legislation would set out new scheduling rules:
Employees would have the right to request schedule or location changes after having been employed for three months, without fear of reprisal. June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 11 C 22 - CW Info Employees who regularly work more than three hours per day, but upon reporting to work are given less than three hours, must be paid three hours at their regular rate of pay. Employees can refuse to accept shifts without repercussion if their employer asks them to work with less than four days' notice. If a shift is cancelled within 48 hours of its start, employees must be paid three hours at their regular rate of pay. When employees are "on-call" and not called in to work, they must be paid three hours at their regular rate of pay. This would be required for each 24 hour period that employees are on-call. If a collective agreement is made between an employer and a union, the agreement would prevail in place of some of these new rules.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2019.
Overtime Pay
Under the proposed legislation, employees who hold more than one position with an employer and who are working overtime must be paid at the rate for the position they are working during the overtime period.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018
Employee Misclassification
The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from misclassifying employees as "independent contractors." This is intended to address cases where employers improperly treat their employees as if they are self-employed and not entitled to the protections of the ESA.
Employers that misclassify their employees could be subject to penalties including prosecution, public disclosure of a conviction and monetary penalties.
In the event of a dispute, the employer would be responsible for proving that the individual is not an employee.
There will be no change to the definition of "employee" to include a "dependent contractor." The current ESA definition is already quite broad, and changes to the definition are likely to have unintended consequences. The real issue is the misclassification of the employees.
As well, the Law Commission of Ontario, which recently studied this issue, specifically advised against a "dependent contractor" provision as its scope would be very difficult to define without June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 11 C 22 - CW Info inadvertently capturing true "independent contractors". This would create significant legal and potentially economic uncertainties.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on Royal Assent.
Joint Liability
The proposed legislation would remove the provision that requires proof of "intent or effect" to defeat the purpose of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 when determining whether related businesses can be treated as one employer and held jointly and severally liable for monies owing under the Act.
The current language has limited the effectiveness of the joint liability provisions. This change would restore the original intention.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Paid Vacation
The proposed legislation would ensure that employees are entitled to three weeks of paid vacation after five years of service with the same employer.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Public Holiday Pay
The proposed changes would simplify the formula for calculating public holiday pay so that employees are entitled to their average regular daily wage.
Other elements of the public holiday provisions would also be simplified.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Paid Emergency Leave
Personal emergency leave (PEL) currently applies only in workplaces with 50 or more employees. Under the proposed amendments, this threshold would be eliminated.
The proposed legislation would also ensure all employees are entitled to 10 PEL days per year, including two paid PEL days. June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 11 C 22 - CW Info The reasons for taking PEL would also be expanded so that employees experiencing domestic or sexual violence or the threat of sexual or domestic violence could take the leave.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Leave for the Death of a Child and for Crime-Related Disappearance
The proposed legislation would create a new, separate leave for child death from any cause for a period of up to 104 weeks.
The proposed amendments would also establish a separate leave for crime-related child disappearance for a period of up to 104 weeks.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Family Medical Leave
The proposed legislation would increase Family Medical Leave from up to 8 weeks in a 26-week period to up to 27 weeks in a 52-week period.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Physician Notes for Absences
The proposed changes would prohibit employers from requesting a sick note from an employee taking Personal Emergency Leave.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Paying Employees
The proposals would create the authority to prescribe additional methods of payment.
The proposals would also allow for an Employment Standards Officer to order money to be paid directly to an employee when an employer or Temporary Help Agency client owes money to that employee.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018. June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 11 C 22 - CW Info
Employee Contact
The proposed legislation would no longer require employees to contact their employer before filing claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).
Under the proposed changes, the Director of Employment Standards could no longer refuse to assign an Employment Standards Officer to investigate an ESA claim due to insufficient information from the claimant.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Penalties for Non-Compliance of the ESA
The proposed legislation would increase flexibility around the administrative monetary penalties that Employments Standards Officers can give out to employers that do not comply with the ESA.
The government also intends to amend a regulation under the ESA to increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties for non-compliant employers from $250, $500, and $1000 to $350, $700, and $1500, respectively.
The proposed changes would allow the Director of Employment Standards to publish (including online) the names of individuals who have been issued a penalty, a description of the contravention, the date of the contravention and the amount of the penalty.
If the proposed legislation passes, the legislative proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Interest on Unpaid Wages
The proposed legislation would enable Employment Standards Officers to award interest on employees' unpaid wages and on fees that were unlawfully charged to employees.
The Director of Employment Standards would be allowed, with the Minister's approval, to determine rates of interest for amounts owing under different provisions of the ESA. June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 11 C 22 - CW Info If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Collections
The proposed changes would improve wage collections by the government or an authorized collector, including:
Allowing a collector authorized by the Director of Employment Standards to issue warrants, place liens on real and personal property and to hold a security while a payment plan is underway Enabling government and the authorized collector to collect and share personal information
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Electronic Agreements
The proposed changes would make clear that electronic agreements between employers and employees, such as an agreement to work excess hours, can serve as an agreement in writing.
If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018.
Exclusions
The proposed legislation would:
Ensure that almost all existing ESA requirements and entitlements would apply to Crown employees. If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018. Ensure that all ESA requirements and entitlements would apply to people receiving training for work through their employer. However, individuals working as part of an experiential learning program run by a university, community college, private career college or high school would be excluded from the requirements and entitlements under the ESA. If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2018. Ensure that students who are employed and regularly work more than three hours are paid for at least three hours even if they work less than three hours. If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2019. Ensure that all ESA requirements and entitlements would apply to employees working in a simulated job or working environment for their rehabilitation (commonly known as a June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 11 C 22 - CW Info "sheltered workshop"). If the proposed legislation passes, this proposal would come into force on January 1, 2019. Beginning in fall 2017, the Ministry of Labour will conduct a review of ESA exemptions and special industry rules, including consultation with affected stakeholders. This review would include exemptions in place for managers and supervisors.
Proposed Changes to the Labour Relations Act
Union Certification
The proposed legislation would:
Establish card-based union certification for the temporary help agency industry, the building services sector and home care and community services industry. Make the following changes to the union certification process: Eliminating certain conditions for remedial union certification, allowing unions to more easily get certified when an employer engages in misconduct that contravenes the LRA Making access to first contract arbitration easier, and also adding an intensive mediation component to the process.
Requiring the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to address first contract mediation-arbitration applications before dealing with displacement and decertification applications
Allow unions to access employee lists and certain contact information, provided the union can demonstrate that it has already achieved the support of 20 per cent of employees involved
Expressly empower the OLRB to conduct votes outside the workplace, including electronically and by telephone Empower the OLRB to authorize Labour Relations Officers to give directions relating to the voting process and voting arrangements in order to help assure the neutrality of the voting process
Successor Rights
The proposals would extend successor rights to the retendering of building services contracts.
The proposed legislation would also enable the government to apply this expanded notion of successor rights, by regulation, to the retendering of other publicly funded contracted services.
Structure of Bargaining Units June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 11 C 22 - CW Info The proposed legislation would allow the OLRB to change the structure of bargaining units within a single employer, where the existing bargaining units are no longer appropriate for collective bargaining.
The proposed changes would also allow the OLRB to consolidate newly certified bargaining units with other existing bargaining units under a single employer, where those units are represented by the same bargaining agent.
Return-to-Work Rights and Procedures
Currently, the LRA gives employees the right, under certain conditions, to return to work within six months of the commencement of a lawful strike. The proposed changes would remove the six-month limitation.
The proposed legislation would require an employer to reinstate an employee at the conclusion of a legal strike or lock-out (subject to certain conditions), and to provide access to grievance arbitration for the enforcement of that obligation.
Just Cause Protection
The proposed legislation would protect employees from being disciplined or discharged without just cause by their employer in the period between certification and conclusion of a first contract, and during the period between the date the employees are in a legal strike or lock-out position and the new collective agreement.
Fines
The proposals would increase maximum fines under the Labour Relations Act to $5,000 for individuals and $100,000 for organizations (from the current $2,000 for individuals and $25,000 for organizations).
Coming Into Force
If the proposed legislation is passed, all labour relations proposals would be in effect six months after the Act comes into force.
Exemptions June 13, 2017 Page 11 of 11 C 22 - CW Info The Ministry of Labour will work with affected ministries to consult with stakeholders to review the Special Advisors' recommendation to remove the exclusions under the LRA taking into account ongoing litigation.
Enhancing Employment Standards Enforcement
The province plans to hire up to 175 more employment standards officers and launch a program to educate both employees and small and medium-sized businesses about their rights and obligations under the Employment Standards Act. Education will help employers understand their obligations.
Once the new employment standards officers are hired by 2020-2021, the Employment Standards program will resolve all claims filed within 90 days and inspect 1 in 10 Ontario workplaces. Additionally, the program will provide compliance assistance to new employers specifically focusing on medium and small business. This will help good employers understand their obligations.
Enforcement will focus on employers who compete unfairly by breaking the law, and will level the playing field for the majority of employers that follow the rules.
Increased enforcement will aim to motivate compliance and deter non-compliance. This requires resources in enforcement and in education to impact employer behaviour and deter potential violators.
These new resources will help to ensure that the proposed changes under the ESA are fully and effectively implemented.
Available Online Disponible en Français
June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 1 C 23 - CW Info
Message from the Minister of Labour Submitting information about PTSD plans
Ontario passed legislation last year that created a presumption that PTSD diagnosed in first responders, and certain other workers covered by the legislation, is work-related. On April 14, 2016, pursuant to the authority granted in subsection 9.1(1) of the Ministry of Labour Act, the Minister of Labour directed all employers who employ workers to whom section 14 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 applies to provide him with information relating to their plans to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder arising out of and in the course of employment at the employer’s workplace, which may include a workplace prevention plan.
That direction required those employers to provide the information on their workplace post-traumatic stress disorder prevention plans no later than April 23, 2017.
Ministry of Labour Act: Powers of Minister as to obtaining information, posttraumatic stress disorder 9.1 (1) The Minister may direct employers who employ workers to whom section 14 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 applies, to provide information to the Minister relating to the employer’s plans to prevent posttraumatic stress disorder arising out of and in the course of employment at the employer’s workplace. 2016, c. 4, s. 3.
Same, employer to provide information (2)If the Minister directs an employer to provide information under subsection (1), the employer shall provide the information on or before the date specified by the Minister and in the form specified by the Minister. 2016, c. 4, s. 3.
I would like to encourage employers who have not yet sent information about their plans to prevent PTSD to do so. A toolkit to assist with complying can be found at or www.firstrespondersfirst.ca. I would also like to thank those employers who have submitted information about their PTSD plans. I am publicly providing links to all submissions. They can be viewed on the Ministry of Labour’s website here.
We know that PTSD can be serious and debilitating, and that first responders are at least twice as likely as the general population to suffer from it. Let’s continue to move forward to prevent PTSD.
Sincerely,
[Original signed by]
Kevin Flynn Minister of Labour
June 13, 2017 ONTARIO ENERGYPage 1 ofBOARD 37 NOTICE C 24 - CW Info TO CUSTOMERS OF HYDRO ONE NETWORKS INC.
Hydro One Networks Inc. has applied to raise its electricity distribution rates and other charges. Learn more. Have your say.
Hydro One Networks Inc. has applied to the Ontario Energy Board to raise its electricity distribution rates effective January 1, 2018 and continuing each year for another 4 years, until December 31, 2022. If the application is approved, a typical residential customer of Hydro One Networks Inc., using 750 kWh per month, would see increases as set out in the table below: 2018 an increase of $2.79 per month 2020 an increase of $2.31 per month 2022 an increase of $2.23 per month 2019 an increase of $2.47 per month 2021 an increase of $1.95 per month Other customers, including businesses, may be affected as well. Hydro One Networks Inc. has also acquired the electricity distribution assets of Norfolk Power, Haldimand County Hydro and Woodstock Hydro. The distribution rates for the former customers of these distributors will remain frozen at current levels until December 31, 2020. As part of this application, on January 1, 2021, and January 1, 2022, the distribution rates for these customers will also be increasing. If the application is approved, a typical former residential customer of these three distributors, using 750 kWh per month, would see increases as set out in the table below: Former Utility Increase 2021 2022 Norfolk Power $3.18 per month $1.09 per month Haldimand County Hydro $4.52 per month $1.09 per month Woodstock Hydro $1.08 per month $0.84 per month Other former customers of these distributors, including businesses, may be affected as well. Hydro One Networks Inc. has also applied for new service charges and for adjustments to many of its specific service charges, including increases to charges for the collection of accounts, for disconnection, reconnection and removal of load control devices and for access to Hydro One Networks Inc. power poles. You are encouraged to review the application carefully to determine whether you may be affected by these changes. The Ontario government has introduced the Fair Hydro Act, 2017 that, if passed, would implement electricity rate reductions starting in the summer of 2017. The amounts set out above are provided before the application of any credits that would be implemented under the Fair Hydro Act, 2017. THE ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD IS HOLDING COMMUNITY MEETINGS The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) will be hosting several regional community meetings. Please check the Ontario Energy Board website at www.oeb.ca under the EB-2017-0049 case number for specific details of the meetings in your area. The community meetings are designed to allow customers to: • Learn more about Hydro One’s costs and rate application. • Find out how the OEB will review the application. • Get involved and provide your comments about the application to the OEB. THE ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD IS HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING The OEB will hold a public hearing to consider the application filed by Hydro One. During the hearing, we will question Hydro One on its case for the rate increases. We will also hear questions and arguments from individual customers and from groups that represent Hydro One’s customers. At the end of this hearing, the OEB will decide what, if any, rate increase will be allowed. Hydro One has applied for approval of rates for 5 years. You may not get notice of future rate changes during this 5 year period. The OEB is an independent and impartial public agency. We make decisions that serve the public interest. Our goal is to promote a financially viable and efficient energy sector that provides you with reliable energy services at a reasonable cost. BE INFORMED AND HAVE YOUR SAY You have the right to information regarding this application and to be involved in the process. • You can review Hydro One’s application on the OEB’s website now. • You can attend the OEB’s community meeting where you can ask questions, make comments and voice your concerns. • You can file a letter with your comments, which will be considered during the hearing. • You can become an active participant (called an intervenor). Apply by June 14, 2017 or the hearing will go ahead without you and you will not receive any further notice of the proceeding. • At the end of the process, you can review the OEB’s decision and its reasons on our website. LEARN MORE These proposed charges relate to Hydro One’s distribution services. They make up part of the Delivery line - one of the five line items on your bill. Our file number for this case is EB-2017-0049. To learn more about this hearing, find instructions on how to file letters or become an intervenor, or to access any document related to this case, please select the file number EB-2017-0049 from the list on the OEB website: www.oeb.ca/notice. You can also phone our Consumer Relations Centre at 1-877-632-2727 with any questions. ORAL VS. WRITTEN HEARINGS There are two types of OEB hearings – oral and written. Hydro One has applied for an oral hearing. The OEB is considering this request. If you think an oral hearing is needed, you can write to the OEB to explain why by June 14, 2017. PRIVACY If you write a letter of comment, your name and the content of your letter will be put on the public record and the OEB website. However, your personal telephone number, home address and email address will be removed. If you are a business, all your information will remain public. If you apply to become an intervenor, all information will be public. This rate hearing will be held under section 78 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998 c.15 (Schedule B).
Ontario Energy Commission de l’énergie Board de l’Ontario
Body copy reduced to fit
Job#: QOE-NHO-164.indd Version: 5 Date: May 24, 2017 2:08 PM Operator: Jessica Size: 10" X 161 ag Lines: SET Page: 1 June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 1 of 36
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
3 This Exhibit describes the scope of Hydro One’s Application and its proposed Custom IR
4 approach to setting Distribution Rates for the period 2018 to 2022. It also provides an
5 overview of Hydro One’s Distribution business and explains how Hydro One developed
6 the business plan that underpins this Application, in consideration of customer needs and
7 preferences, the condition of the Distribution System, and resulting bill impacts.
8
9 Also included in this Exhibit is a Summary of the Application. The Exhibit addresses the
10 requirements of Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.5 in Chapter 2 of the Ontario Energy Board’s (the
11 “OEB”) Filing Requirements for Electricity Distribution Rate Applications, issued on
12 July 14, 2016.
13
14 1. SCOPE AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS APPLICATION
15
16 Hydro One Networks Inc. (“Hydro One”) is applying for an Order approving its
17 Distribution revenue requirement, cost allocation and rates as determined by its Custom
18 IR approach for the period 2018 to 2022 (in this Exhibit, the “Term”) under the assigned
19 docket number EB-2017-0049.
20
21 In this Application, Hydro One is requesting the OEB’s approval of the following:
22 23 The rates revenue requirement of $1,452.1 million for 2018, the underlying 24 calculation of which is provided in Section 5.1 of this Exhibit; 25 The proposed Custom IR rate model to determine the revenue requirements for each 26 subsequent year of the Term, as described in Section 2 of this Exhibit, and further 27 described in Exhibit A, Tab 3, Schedule 2; 28 The OEB’s mandatory scorecard for electricity distributors (the “Electricity 29 Distributor Scorecard”) and the proposed supplemental scorecard (the “Distribution
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 2 of 36
1 OEB Scorecard”), as set out in Exhibit A, Tab 5, Schedule 1 and Section 1.4 of 2 Exhibit B1, Tab 1, Schedule 1, respectively; 3 The continuation or creation of the various regulatory accounts discussed in Section 4 10 of this Exhibit; 5 The disposition of regulatory accounts with a forecast net debit balance of $115.3 6 million effective January 1, 2018, to be collected over a five-year period, at $23.1 7 million per year; 8 The proposed specific service charges detailed in Exhibit H1, Tab 2, Schedule 3; 9 The creation of new customer classes discussed in Section 9 of this Exhibit; and 10 2018 rate schedules, including terms and conditions of service, effective January 1, 11 2018, as set out in Exhibit H1, Tab 2, Schedule 1, which incorporate Hydro One 12 Distribution’s proposed retail transmission service charge. 13
14 The requested 2018 revenue requirement reflects an increase of 3.5% over 2017 OEB-
15 approved levels. The increase is largely attributable to rate base growth including
16 associated increases in depreciation, return on capital and income tax expenses as
17 described in Exhibit E1, Tab 1, Schedule 1. The increase is partially offset by a lower
18 cost of debt and lower OM&A expense. After adjustment for a reduced load forecast
19 (3.0%), the resulting average impact on distribution rates is an increase of 6.5% in 2018,
20 and an average of 3.7% per annum over the Term.
21
22 In preparing this Application, Hydro One was acutely aware of the impact on customer
23 rates arising from investments in the electricity system, an impact that is further
24 exacerbated by a reduced load forecast, and of the clear preference of its customers for
25 low electricity costs. As a result, the Application reflects the level of capital investment
26 required to avoid degradation in overall system asset condition, to meet regulatory
27 requirements and maintain current reliability levels. Further, OM&A reflects efficiency
28 improvements and cost reductions to control the extent to which OM&A contributes to
29 the increase in customer rates. The proposed level of 2018 OM&A reflects a small
30 decline from 2017 OEB-approved levels. The planning process followed by Hydro One
31 also resulted in significant reductions in investments in 2018, to mitigate customer rate
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 3 of 36
1 impacts in that year. As a result, the Application is responsive to Hydro One’s
2 customers’ needs and preferences.
3
4 Investments during the Term include:
5 maintenance of the population of poles and distribution stations at materially the same 6 condition level, without significant improvement in overall condition; 7 investments in lines sustainment and lifecycle optimization; 8 investments to comply with regulatory requirements such as PCB line equipment 9 replacements; 10 investment in an Integrated System Operations Centre, which replaces the existing 11 backup power system control and telecommunication centres; and 12 later in the term, some investments to begin replacement of smart meters that are 13 reaching end-of-life. 14 15 The components of the increased revenue requirement, and their individual contributions,
16 are noted in Table 1 below. These components comprise certain factors that impact 2018
17 rates, but which were outside of Hydro One’s immediate control in developing its 2018-
18 2022 distribution business plan (the "Dx Business Plan"). They include legacy rate base
19 (resulting from necessary prior-year in-service additions), the need to clear regulatory
20 deferral and variance accounts, and planned 2018 in-service additions that are to a large
21 extent non-discretionary (e.g., accommodating the connection of load and generation
22 customers, responding to storms damage and trouble calls, and complying with
23 regulations and other requirements). As a result, to mitigate these effects, Hydro One
24 has planned very few incremental system improvement or end-of-life capital investments
25 in 2018.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 4 of 36
1 Table 1: Impact of Individual Components on Revenue Requirement 2018 vs. 2017 2018 vs. 2017 Description OEB-approved OEB-approved (M$) (%) OM&A (1.0) -0.1 Rate Base Growth 33.2 2.3 Cost of debt (4.4) -0.3 Tax 9.3 0.7 External Revenue 0.1 0 Regulatory Deferral and Variance Accounts Disposition 12.0 0.8 Total Change 49.2 3.5 2 Exhibit Reference: E1-1-1. 3
4 In a formal Customer Engagement that it conducted in the summer of 2016, Hydro One
5 received customer feedback that Hydro One must control costs better and demonstrate
6 greater fiscal management and operational efficiency before considering rate increases.
7 Customers also stated that electricity costs are their primary concern, with system
8 reliability being a second priority.
9
10 This Application reflects these views, concerns and customers’ needs and preferences
11 regarding rates and reliability. In developing the Dx Business Plan, following the
12 Customer Engagement, Hydro One studied three alternative investment plans,
13 differentiated by varying outcomes, spending profiles, and rate impacts. The plan that
14 informs this Application is a modified version of one of those three original investment
15 plans. It is designed to limit rate impacts while still addressing minimum system needs
16 by focusing investment on deteriorated infrastructure and by managing and controlling
17 costs through investments that maintain reliability, but are insufficient to improve the
18 overall reliability of the aging distribution system.
19
20 This Application reflects a reduction in 2018 capital expenditures from OEB-approved
21 2017 levels, and 2018 OM&A that is slightly lower than the OEB-approved level for
22 2017. Specifically, Hydro One’s capital expenditures are reduced by approximately
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 5 of 36
1 4.2%, and OM&A expenditures are lower by approximately 0.2%. This is due to
2 investment pacing decisions and productivity stretch targets that management has
3 adopted. Hydro One has developed several approaches and initiatives to manage costs
4 within its control. This includes greater use of benchmarking studies to inform the
5 Distribution System Plan (“DSP”) and to help manage resources and costs incurred
6 throughout the Term. (See Section 1.6 of the DSP for further discussion.) The
7 Application also describes Hydro One’s focus on performance management and the
8 measures that the Company is adopting to ensure that targets are met over the Term. A
9 detailed discussion of performance management and measures is found in Section 1.4 of
10 the DSP.
11
12 In developing the revenue requirement for the period beyond 2018, Hydro One has
13 adopted the highest stretch factor applicable under the OEB’s existing incentive
14 regulation regime. Hydro One did so after reviewing the results of a total cost
15 benchmarking study (completed by Power Systems Engineering Inc.) for the period 2013
16 to 2015. The study will be refreshed once 2016 audited actuals become available. Based
17 on the results, Hydro One will update its proposed stretch factor, if appropriate.
18
19 The estimated increase in the total bill for Hydro One General Service Energy customers
20 consuming 2000 kWh/month is 1.9% in 2018, and the average annual estimated total bill
21 increase over the Term is 1.2%. For Hydro One medium density residential customers
22 consuming 750 kWh/month, the estimated increase is 2.9% in 2018 and the average
23 annual estimated total bill increase over the Term is 1.6%. Bill impacts are addressed in
24 greater detail in Section 11 of this Exhibit.
25
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 6 of 36
1 2. THE CUSTOM IR PROPOSAL
2
3 Hydro One’s Application is based on a Custom Incentive Rate-Setting approach for a
4 five-year period. The revenue requirement for the first year (2018) is determined using a
5 cost of service, forward test year approach. To establish the annual revenue requirements
6 from 2019 to 2022, Hydro One is proposing a Revenue Cap IR, whereby the revenue for
7 the test year t+1 is equal to the revenue in year t adjusted annually by the revenue cap
8 index (RCI).
9
10 The custom RCI is expressed as:
11 RCI = I – X + C
12 Where:
13 “I” is the inflation factor, as determined annually by the OEB. 14 “X” is the productivity factor that is equal to the sum of Hydro One’s 15 Custom Industry Total Factor Productivity measure and Hydro One’s 16 Custom Productivity Stretch Factor. 17 “C” is Hydro One’s Custom Capital Factor, determined to recover the 18 incremental revenue in each test year necessary to support Hydro One’s 19 proposed Distribution System Plan, beyond the amount of revenue 20 recovered in rates. 21
22 A detailed discussion of these components is found in Exhibit A, Tab 3, Schedule 2.
23
24 The proposed Revenue Cap IR model has several advantages over a Price Cap IR model.
25 Specifically, the Revenue Cap IR:
26
27 provides the needed flexibility to introduce new rate classes in 2021 to fully integrate 28 Norfolk Power Distribution Inc., Haldimand County Hydro Inc., and Woodstock 29 Hydro Services Inc. (together the “Acquired Utilities”), as described in Exhibit A, 30 Tab 7, Schedule 1;
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 7 of 36
1 permits the continued transition to fully-fixed rates for residential customers (EB- 2 2014-0416); 3 provides adequate flexibility to reset customer rates should the OEB proceed with the 4 elimination of the seasonal rate class over the Term (EB-2013-0416/EB-2016-0315); 5 provides adequate flexibility to reset customer rates as the OEB advances its initiative 6 relating to rate design for commercial and industrial electricity customers (EB-2015- 7 0043); and 8 allows Hydro One to update its billing determinants and cost of capital parameters in 9 2021 to reflect estimated changes in the industry and load forecast over the Term, 10 consistent with its proposal to integrate the Acquired Utilities. 11
12 A summary of the capital- and OM&A-related revenue requirement components is set out
13 in Table 2.
14
15 Table 2: Summary of Revenue Requirement Components ($ Million)
Line Reference 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 1 Rate Base D1-1-1 7,672.3 8,049.1 8,476.8 9,035.4 9,434.7
2 Return on Debt E1-1-1 190.9 200.3 211.0 224.9 234.8 3 Return on Equity E1-1-1 269.5 282.7 297.7 317.3 331.3 4 Depreciation C1-6-2 394.4 414.4 428.7 448.1 464.7 5 Income Taxes C1-7-2 58.0 61.3 62.6 68.7 69.6 6 Capital Related Revenue Requirement 912.8 958.7 1,000.0 1,059.0 1,100.5 7 Less Productivity Factor (0.60%) (5.8) (6.0) (6.4) (6.6) 8 Total Capital Related Revenue Requirement 912.8 953.0 994.0 1,052.6 1,093.9 9 OM&A C1-1-1 591.9 599.6 607.4 615.3 634.2 10 Integration of Acquired Utilities A-7-1 10.7 11 Total Revenue Requirement 1,504.7 1,552.6 1,601.4 1,678.7 1,728.1
12 Increase in Capital Related Revenue Requirement 40.2 41.0 58.6 41.3 Increase in Capital Related Revenue Requirement as a percentage of Previous Year Total Revenue 13 Requirement 2.67% 2.64% 3.66% 2.46% 14 Less Capital Related Revenue Requirement in I-X 0.79% 0.80% 0.81% 0.82% 16 15 Capital Factor 1.88% 1.84% 2.86% 1.64% 17 Exhibit Reference: A-3-2
18
19 To align Hydro One’s business interests with those of customers and provide an
20 additional element of protection for customers, Hydro One is also proposing the
21 following features:
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 8 of 36
1 An earnings sharing mechanism that will permit customers to share 50% of any 2 earnings that exceed the regulatory ROE by more than 100 basis points in any year of 3 the Term; 4 A capital in-service variance account to track the cumulative difference over the Term 5 between: (a) the revenue requirement associated with actual in-service capital 6 additions during a rate year; and (b) the revenue requirement associated with the 7 OEB-approved forecast for in-service capital additions for that year; for any capital 8 in-service additions that are 98% or lower than the OEB- approved level; and 9 Z-factor and off-ramp mechanisms that apply OEB-approved criteria. 10
11 Hydro One’s proposed custom IR components, therefore, contain both OEB-approved
12 components and other mechanisms that are designed to align the utility’s and the
13 customers’ interests.
14
15 The other rate adjustment during the Term will address the integration of the Acquired
16 Utilities. As outlined in Exhibit A, Tab 7, Schedule 1, Hydro One proposes to integrate
17 the Acquired Utilities effective January 1, 2021. As set out in Exhibit G1, Tab 2,
18 Schedule 1, Hydro One will introduce six new rate classes at that time. The OM&A costs
19 associated with the Acquired Utilities will be incorporated into the revenue requirement
20 for 2021, and the capital costs associated with the Acquired Utilities will also be
21 incorporated into the Custom Capital Factor at that time.
22
23 3. OVERVIEW OF THE HYDRO ONE DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS
24
25 Hydro One serves approximately 1.3 million distribution customers across a vast service
26 area that is 99% rural and through a system that is largely radial in design. This design is
27 cost-effective for Hydro One’s service area, where the average customer density is fewer
28 than three customers per square kilometre, although the lack of redundancy does have
29 reliability impacts on customers. Most of Hydro One’s distribution system was built in
30 the 1950s and the 1960s, and many assets are approaching or are beyond their expected
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 9 of 36
1 service lives, resulting in an ongoing need to replace or refurbish assets at an increasing
2 rate if system reliability and safety are to be maintained. Any material improvement in
3 reliability or system condition requires significantly more investment, which would
4 impact customer bills in a manner inconsistent with the feedback that Hydro One
5 received in its customer engagement process. An overview of Hydro One’s distribution
6 system and a detailed discussion of its key components are provided in Sections 2.2 and
7 2.3 of the DSP in Exhibit B1, Tab 1, Schedule 1.
8
9 Hydro One was established in 1999 as a company wholly-owned by the Province of
10 Ontario. In 2015, Hydro One’s parent company transitioned from being solely
11 government-owned to being publicly-traded, and a new Board of Directors was appointed
12 to enhance the customer-centric, commercial orientation of the organization.
13 Specifically, management and the new Board of Directors intend to increase Hydro One’s
14 focus on customers, create greater corporate accountability for performance outcomes
15 and drive continuous company-wide improvements in efficiency and productivity.
16
17 4. DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRO ONE’S DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS PLAN
18
19 This Section provides an overview of the development of the Dx Business Plan, which
20 underpins Hydro One’s Application and especially the Distribution System Plan, which is
21 set out in Exhibit B1, Tab 1, Schedule 1 of this Application.
22
23 The Dx Business Plan reflects Hydro One’s core values and business objectives and
24 attempts to align three competing but equally important factors: (i) customer needs and
25 preferences; (ii) responsible stewardship of the distribution system; and (iii) customer bill
26 impacts. The Dx Business Plan has been shaped by: (i) Hydro One’s commitment to
27 reduce costs and increase productivity and efficiency before asking customers to pay
28 more; (ii) directing investment to address specifically identified customer needs and
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 11 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 10 of 36
1 preferences; (iii) reducing or deferring investment where trade-offs with respect to
2 reliability can reasonably be justified by lower rates; and (iv) evaluating the resulting
3 rates profile for the Term in the context of the customer feedback referred to in Section
4 1.3 of the DSP.
5
6 The Dx Business Plan seeks to meet customers’ needs regarding reliability and power
7 quality and responsible asset management in a manner that controls costs, recognizing the
8 sensitivities that customers have to the total price of power. The Dx Business Plan
9 includes significant productivity initiatives, cost reduction initiatives, and the minimum
10 level of capital required to responsibly manage the electricity distribution system.
11
12 The Dx Business Plan is provided as Attachment 1 to this Exhibit, and excerpts from
13 Hydro One’s consolidated business plan on strategy, customer, and common corporate
14 costs are provided in Attachment 2.
15
16 4.1 CORE VALUES AND BUSINESS OBJECTIVES
17
18 Management expects Hydro One to be a best-in-class, customer-centric commercial
19 utility that is easy to do business with, has a presence in the communities it serves, and
20 consistently meets the needs and preferences of its customers.
21
22 Hydro One’s core values are:
23 caring for customers; 24 maintaining a safe workplace; 25 operating as one company; 26 being people-powered; and 27 executing with excellence. 28 Hydro One’s executive leadership and Board of Directors are focused on delivering the
29 service expected by customers while managing costs and improving operational
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 12 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 11 of 36
1 efficiencies. The ability to measure and track Hydro One’s performance is essential to
2 this vision.
3
4 Table 3 describes Hydro One's business objectives and the metrics that Hydro One uses
5 to measure its progress, and shows how these business objectives align with the OEB’s
6 Renewed Regulatory Framework (“RRF”).
7
8 Table 3: Alignment of RRF Outcomes with Hydro One’s Business Objectives and
9 Performance Measures
RRF Outcomes Hydro One Business Performance Measures Objectives Customer Focus Consistently improve Handling Unplanned Outages Satisfaction % Services are provided in customer satisfaction Call Centre Customer Satisfaction % a manner that responds My Account Customer Satisfaction % to identified customer New Residential/Small Business Services preferences Connected on Time
Scheduled Appointments Met On Time Telephone Calls Answered On Time First Contact Resolution Billing Accuracy Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
Engage with our Used to inform outcomes customers consistently and proactively Ensure our investment Used to inform outcomes plan reflects our customers’ needs and desired outcomes
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 13 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 12 of 36
RRF Outcomes Hydro One Business Performance Measures Objectives Operational Total Cost per Customer Effectiveness Actively control and lower costs through Total Cost per km Continuous OM&A and capital OM&A per Customer improvement in efficiencies OM&A per km of Line productivity and cost Pole Replacement –Cost per Unit performance is achieved; Vegetation Management – Cost per km Line and distributors deliver Clearing on system reliability and Station Refurbishments – Cost per MVA quality objectives Achieve and maintain Drives company culture leading to improved employee engagement Operational Effectiveness
Drive towards Drives company culture leading to improved achieving an injury - Operational Effectiveness free workplace for Level of Public Awareness employees and the Level of Compliance with Reg. 22/04 public Number of General Public Incidents
Provide reliability Average Number of Times that Power to a consistent with Customer is Interrupted customer requirements Average Number of Hours that Power to a Customer is Interrupted. Rural and Urban SAIFI Rural and Urban SAIDI Large Customer Interruption Frequency Number of Substation Caused Interruptions Number of Vegetation Caused Interruptions Number of Line Equipment Caused Interruptions In-Service Additions (Capital Work Program Completion) Public Policy Ensure compliance Monitored by the applicable business unit(s) Responsiveness with all codes, Distributors deliver on standards, and obligations mandated by regulations government (e.g., in Partner in the legislation and in Monitored by the applicable business unit(s) economic success of regulatory requirements Ontario
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 14 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 13 of 36
RRF Outcomes Hydro One Business Performance Measures Objectives imposed further to Sustainably manage Net cumulative energy savings Ministerial directives to our environmental the Board). Renewable CIAs completed on time footprint Micro embedded facilities connected on time Financial Performance Achieve the ROE Current Ratio (Current Assets/Current Liabilities) Financial viability is allowed by the OEB Return on Equity (deemed) maintained; and savings Return on Equity (achieved) from operational Total Debt to Equity effectiveness are sustainable. 1 Exhibit Reference: B1-1-1
2
3 4.2 CUSTOMER NEEDS AND PREFERENCES
4
5 In June and July of 2016, Hydro One undertook a formal customer engagement initiative
6 to obtain customer feedback to inform its planning decisions. The initiative was designed
7 to reach as many customers as possible. Hydro One adopted a comprehensive
8 consultation methodology, which included both qualitative approaches (such as focus
9 groups and workshops) and quantitative approaches (such as surveys and online
10 workbooks). The methodology and process are detailed in Section 1.3 of the DSP.
11
12 Customers were presented with three illustrative investment scenarios. Each scenario
13 was differentiated by varying OM&A and capital investment levels, the corresponding
14 directional impacts on distribution system reliability and customer service, and rate
15 impacts. The engagement materials were tailored for each of Hydro One’s five customer
16 segments, namely, Residential and Small Business, Commercial and Industrial, Large
17 Distribution Accounts, Local Distribution Companies, and Distribution-connected
18 Generators.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 15 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 14 of 36
1 Based on the results of this formal initiative, and consistent with the customer feedback
2 that Hydro One receives in its day-to-day operations, Hydro One believes that keeping
3 costs as low as possible is the top priority of its customers. Specifically, the results 1 4 indicated that:
5
6 controlling cost is the top priority for customers; 7 customers want to see Hydro One demonstrate greater fiscal management and 8 operational efficiency before considering rate increases; 9 maintaining reliable electricity service is consistently second, after cost control, in 10 terms of priority; 11 large customers are more concerned than other customers are with reliability and 12 capacity; and 13 customers are generally unwilling to accept a rate increase, except in the context of 14 potentially degrading reliability. 15
16 4.3 ADDRESSING CUSTOMER FEEDBACK AND STRIKING THE RIGHT
17 BALANCE: “PLAN B MODIFIED”
18
19 Following the formal customer engagement initiative, Hydro One developed three
20 alternative candidate investment plans for consideration by its senior leadership team and
21 were reviewed by the Board of Directors. In developing these alternative investment
22 plans, Hydro One assessed the reliability impacts of varying investment levels for rights-
23 of-way (vegetation management), pole replacement and stations. Based on Hydro One’s
24 data, these three investment areas are the most significant, predictable drivers of
25 reliability. The alternative investment plans and their estimated projected rate impacts
26 are discussed below:
1 Attachment 1 of DSP, Ipsos, Distribution Customer Engagement Report: Development of Distribution Investment Plan August 2016, pp. 146-147 (Section 1.3).
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 16 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 15 of 36
1 Plan A, recommended by the Company’s asset managers, would improve reliability 2 and the overall condition of the system, and would result in a 7.1% rate increase in 3 2018 over 2017 and an average annual rate increase of 3.8% over the Term. 4 Plan B, prepared to reflect an option that offered a smaller reliability improvement 5 and marginal improvements in the overall asset condition of the system, would have 6 resulted in a 6.2% rate increase in 2018 over 2017 and an average annual rate 7 increase of 3.5% over the Term. 8 Plan C would achieve the lowest possible 2018 rate increase while ensuring continued 9 compliance with Hydro One’s regulatory obligations, but would likely result in 10 significantly reduced reliability and further deterioration in the overall condition of 11 the system. Plan C would have resulted in a 5.0% rate increase in 2018 over 2017, 12 and an average annual rate increase of 2.8% over the Term, and was not supported by 13 the Company’s asset managers because of the risk to the system. 14
15 More detail on Plans A, B, and C is provided in Section 2.4 of the DSP and in Tables 4
16 and 5 of this Exhibit.
17
18 The 2018 rate increases associated with all three of these investment plans reflects some
19 factors that were not entirely within the company’s immediate control in developing
20 those plans. Approximately half of the rate increase is caused by changes in the load
21 forecast (due to external factors such as conservation and demand management, and
22 economic conditions) and the settlement of existing regulatory accounts. The large non-
23 controllable component of the rate increase required Hydro One to consider aggressive
24 deferrals of certain investments and significant efficiency initiatives in order to prepare
25 investment plans that are consistent with the outcome of the customer engagement
26 process, which highlighted the importance to customers of keeping cost increases to a
27 minimum.
28
29 Hydro One’s management, in discussion with the Board of Directors, determined that
30 Plan B would still result in bill impacts that were too high for customers, particularly in
31 2018 and with the effects of the reduced load forecast. Senior management therefore
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 17 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 16 of 36
1 challenged planners to continue to investigate a plan that would further mitigate cost
2 increases but still reflect responsible stewardship of the assets and no degradation in
3 reliability over the full Term. In particular, managers were challenged to consider how to
4 mitigate the significant rate increase in 2018.
5
6 As a result, an adjusted investment portfolio with a forecasted 2018 rate impact of 5.4%,
7 “Plan B – Modified”, was developed that would maintain overall forecasted system
8 reliability at current levels, while continuing to offer discrete power quality and reliability
9 improvements for certain segments of the network. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the
10 assumptions that defined Plans A, B, C and B - Modified.
11
12 Table 4: SAIDI Projection for Investment Plan Options
SAIDI1: Avg. 2013-15: 7.3 hours/year Average Number of Hours that a Customer is Interrupted Assumptions Forecasted Impact on SAIDI 2 Failure Rate/Impact Contribution SAIDI Plan Plan Plan Plan B- to SAIDI Contribution A B C M (based on 2013-15) Poles 345 outages/year 180 customers/outage 3% 0.2 20% 15% (15)% 7% 10 hours/outage Stations 16 failures (outages) /year 1200 customers/outage 4% 0.2 14% 5% (4)% 0% 24 hours/outage Other Line 2070 outages/year Components 180 customers/outage 23% 1.5 10% 0% (10)% (5%) 4 hours/outage Vegetation 15,530 outages/year 27% 1.8 8% 8% 4% 8% Estimated Impact to SAIDI 6% 3% (2)% 0% Forecasted SAIDI (hours) 6.9 7.1 7.4 7.3 13 Exhibit Reference: B1-1-1 14 1- Excludes force majeure and loss of supply events 15 2 – These columns reflect the forecasted impact on SAIDI by the end of 2022. Estimated performance improvement is 16 expressed as a positive value; performance deterioration is expressed as a negative value.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 18 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 17 of 36
1 Table 5: SAIFI Projection for Investment Plan Options
SAIFI 1: Avg. 2013-15: 2.6 outages/year Average Number of Times a Customer is Interrupted Assumptions Forecasted Impact on SAIFI2 Failure Rate/Impact Contribution SAIFI Plan Plan Plan Plan B- to SAIFI Contribution A B C M (based on 2013-15) Poles 345 outages/year 180 customers/outage 2% 0.1 20% 15% (15)% 7% 10 hours/outage Stations 16 failures (outages) /year 1200 customers/outage 3% 0.1 14% 5% (4)% 0% 24 hours/outage Other Line 2070 outages/year Components 180 customers/outage 18% 0.5 10% 0% (10)% (5%) 4 hours/outage Vegetation 15,530 outages/year 16% 0.4 8% 8% 4% 8% Estimated Impact to SAIFI 4% 2% (2)% 0% Forecasted SAIFI (instances) 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 Exhibit Reference: B1-1-1 3 1-Excludes force majeure and loss of supply events 4 2 – These columns reflect the forecasted impact on SAIFI by the end of 2022. Estimated performance improvement is 5 expressed as a positive value; performance deterioration is expressed as a negative value. 6
7 Plan B - Modified included the following adjustments compared to original Plan B:
8
9 A deferral of some 2018 capital spending on wood pole replacements, station 10 refurbishments, component replacements, system capability reinforcement, 11 information technology and facilities and real estate to minimize rate impacts and 12 offset the effects of a reduced load forecast, accepting short-term, small-scale 13 reliability impacts where appropriate; 14 The acceleration of productivity initiatives to reduce unit and operational costs and 15 associated rate impacts, which are described in Section 1.5 of the DSP and 16 summarized in Table 6 of this Exhibit; 17 To sustain reliability, continued investment in certain System Renewal projects and 18 programs based on asset condition and poor performance; and 19 The establishment of OM&A and capital programs to investigate power quality 20 issues, install power quality meters and surge arresters, and improve grounding where 21 needed. 22
23 These initiatives reduced the total Term projected capital expenditures by $51 million or
24 approximately 7.5% when compared to original Plan B.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 19 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 18 of 36
1 Plan B - Modified reflects an optimized investment portfolio that is designed to maintain 2 current reliability within the proposed envelope for the period 2018 to 2022 by: 3 4 implementing a vegetation management plan that is expected to result in improved 5 reliability, at a spending level consistent with past OEB-approved levels, by using 6 lower cost temporary workers to complete low-skilled work and by better aligning 7 clearing frequency with reliability performance; 8 outsourcing cable location work at lower cost; 9 replacing poles at a rate that will maintain or slightly reduce by 2022 the population 10 of poles that are in poor condition; 11 refurbishing stations at a rate where station condition and reliability will remain stable 12 over the forecast period; 13 implementing a worst performing feeder initiative, which will deploy enhanced 14 communication and automation capability to targeted lines to improve reliability by 15 reducing outage duration; 16 improved targeting of lines sustainment investments based on performance and 17 focused on the root causes of poor performance; 18 targeting OM&A and capital investments to address industrial customer power 19 quality and reliability outliers; and 20 ensuring continued compliance with regulatory, environmental and reliability 21 standards. 22
23 The investments are described in more detail in Sections 3.1 to 3.8 of the DSP and in
24 Exhibit C1, Tab 1, Schedules 1 to 10.
25
26 Hydro One believes that Plan B-Modified is the investment plan that most effectively
27 aligns customer needs and preferences, responsible asset management, and bill impacts.
28 Plan B-Modified maintains system health and reliability at current levels without further
29 degradation, albeit without material improvement to the overall system.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 20 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 19 of 36
1 4.4 EXECUTING THE BUSINESS PLAN
2
3 Hydro One is focused on delivering service expected by customers while managing costs
4 and improving operational efficiencies, all within the revenue requirement envelope set
5 by the Custom IR approach described in Section 2 of this Exhibit. To ensure Hydro One
6 meets the Dx Business Plan’s objectives within the OEB-approved envelope, Hydro One
7 is cultivating a performance management culture that tracks and motivates the desired
8 behaviours and adopting productivity incentives.
9
10 4.4.1 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
11
12 4.4.1.1 SCORECARDS
13
14 As illustrated in Figure 1 below, Hydro One is tracking its performance through (i) the
15 (mandatory) Electricity Distributor Scorecard; (ii) Hydro One’s proposed Distribution
16 OEB Scorecard, which is intended to provide greater transparency on outcome measures
17 and areas targeted for improvement; and (iii) its Team Scorecard which is used to award
18 annual short-term incentive payments to management employees.
19 20 Exhibit Reference: B1-1-1 21 Figure 1: Performance Reporting Tools
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 21 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 20 of 36
1 The metrics contained in these scorecards align with the RRF objectives and are expected
2 to drive continuous improvement in asset management, work execution and in customer-
3 oriented performance in support of Hydro One’s business objectives. Managers
4 throughout the business are required to include these measures where appropriate in their
5 personal performance goals. As part of Hydro One’s performance management system,
6 they are intended to provide transparency to Hydro One’s Board of Directors,
7 management, customers, and the OEB, and provide business drivers to ensure that
8 targeted work is completed in an efficient manner, while delivering the stated outcomes
9 for Hydro One’s customers.
10
11 Exhibit A, Tab 5, Schedule 1 contains a discussion of Hydro One Distribution’s
12 performance and targets for the Electricity Distributor Scorecard. Section 1.4 of the DSP
13 addresses the Distribution OEB Scorecard and the targets that Hydro One is proposing
14 for the additional performance metrics described therein. Hydro One’s Team Scorecard
15 for 2016 is provided as Attachment 4 to Exhibit C1, Tab 2, Schedule 1.
16
17 4.4.1.2 BENCHMARKING
18
19 Since its last distribution rates application (EB-2013-0416), Hydro One has
20 commissioned several benchmarking studies as directed by the OEB. The benchmarking
21 reports are included in this Application and discussed in Section 1.6 of the DSP, Exhibit
22 A, Tab 3, Schedule 2, and Exhibit C1, Tab 2, Schedule 1. These studies are focused on:
23 (a) Hydro One Distribution’s larger work programs, specifically, its pole replacement,
24 station refurbishment, and vegetation management programs; (b) total compensation
25 costs; and (c) total factor productivity and total cost performance. Hydro One also
26 commissioned an additional benchmarking study focused on information technology
27 spending.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 22 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 21 of 36
1 The results of these studies have informed Hydro One’s Custom IR approach and its
2 investments and execution strategies. Based on these results, Hydro One continues to
3 evaluate opportunities to further improve its operational efficiency to ensure that it can
4 achieve its RRF-consistent business objectives. For example, Hydro One is investigating
5 the feasibility and cost-benefit analysis of pole refurbishment recommendations, and the
6 development of key performance indicators for station projects related to cost and system
7 impact. More detail on Hydro One’s responses to the benchmarking study results and
8 recommendations is provided in Section 1.6 of the DSP.
9
10 4.4.2 PRODUCTIVITY INCENTIVES
11
12 In its proposed Custom IR model, Hydro One includes an external productivity incentive
13 in the form of a stretch factor of 0.6%. This is the highest stretch factor applicable under
14 the OEB’s existing incentive regulation regime, which will apply to the entirety of the
15 Hydro One Distribution revenue requirement over the Term. This stretch factor is meant
16 to mitigate the impact of Hydro One’s below-average total cost performance relative to
17 its peer group, as evidenced by a total cost benchmarking study performed by Power
18 System Engineering Inc., which is discussed in Exhibit A, Tab 5, Schedule 2. When
19 Hydro One Distribution’s audited 2016 actual financial results are available, Hydro One
20 will update its total cost performance forecast in a Blue Page Update and change its
21 proposed stretch factor, if warranted.
22
23 To ensure that Hydro One executes the Dx Business Plan within the allowed envelope,
24 management has reflected significant efficiency savings targets in the DX Business Plan.
25 These efficiencies are realized in both the capital and OM&A work programs as set out in
26 Table 6. The values in Table 6 are stretch targets that reflect management’s commitment
27 to ensuring that all possible efficiencies and cost reductions are achieved before Hydro
28 One asks customers for a rate increase, as expressed by customers during the engagement
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 23 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 22 of 36
1 process. Specifically, the Company has taken targeted actions to implement productivity
2 improvements as early as 2018, the rebasing year, and intends to achieve further
3 efficiencies over the subsequent four years. While the OEB’s RRF provides an incentive
4 for utilities to achieve productivity gains during the Term, such efficiencies ultimately
5 accrue to the benefit of ratepayers at the time of the next rebasing.
6
7 Table 6: Detailed Productivity Savings Forecast $Millions 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Capital 25.5 26.8 32.2 33.7 34.6 OM&A 34.5 40.5 43.2 45.5 49.8 Corporate Common 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 Total Savings 63.2 70.5 78.7 82.5 87.6 8 Exhibit Reference: B1-1-1 9
10 There are additional features of the Custom IR model which align Hydro One’s interests
11 with those of its customers in reducing its costs and executing effectively against plan.
12 Two features that provide customers with a measure of protection against excessive
13 utility earnings are the proposed earnings sharing mechanism and asymmetrical capital
14 in-service variance account. These mechanisms are discussed in Section 2 of this
15 Exhibit.
16
17 5. SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION
18
19 5.1 REVENUE REQUIREMENT
20
21 Table 7 provides a comparative profile of the annual rates revenue requirement build-up
22 from 2017, the last OEB-approved rate year, to 2018, along with references to the
23 Exhibits in the Application that discuss each cost component.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 24 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 23 of 36
1 Table 7: Revenue Requirement ($ Millions) Components 20171 2018 Reference OM&A 593.0 591.9 Exhibit C1, Tab 1, Schedule1 Depreciation and Amortization 390.2 394.4 Exhibit C1, Tab 6, Schedule 1 Income Taxes 48.7 58.0 Exhibit C1, Tab 7, Schedule 1 Return on Capital 435.8 460.4 Exhibit D1, Tab 2, Schedule 1 Total Revenue Requirement 1,467.6 1,504.7 Exhibit E2, Tab 1, Schedule 1 Deduct External Revenues and Other (52.7) (52.6) Exhibit E1, Tab 1, Schedule 2 Rates Revenue Requirement 1,414.9 1,452.1 Regulatory Deferral and Variance Accounts Exhibit F1, Tab 2 , Schedule 1, Disposition 11.1 23.1 Attachment 1 Rates Revenue Requirement (with Deferral and Variance Accounts) 1,426.0 1,475.2 Exhibit Reference: E1-1-1 Note 1: The 2017 revenue requirement is from the OEB approved Hydro One Distribution's 2015 to 2017 rate application in EB-2013-0416 2
3 The increase in revenue requirement is largely attributable to the impact of rate base
4 growth, as reflected in the increase in depreciation, return on capital, income tax expenses
5 and lower external revenue forecast as described in Exhibit E1, Tab 1, Schedule 2. These
6 are partially offset by a lower cost of debt and lower OM&A costs.
7
8 5.1.1 BUDGETING ASSUMPTIONS
9
10 For 2018, Hydro One assumed 2.0% annual inflation and cost escalators for construction
11 and OM&A expense growth of 2.5% and 2.2%, respectively. These assumptions are
12 explained in further detail in Section 2.1.2 of the DSP. Hydro One adopted the US
13 GAAP accounting standard for regulatory purposes, based on the OEB’s Decision with
14 Reasons in EB-2011-0268.
15
16 5.1.2 LOAD FORECAST SUMMARY
17 18 Table 8 sets out Hydro One’s 2018-2022 distribution system load forecast, which
19 includes the impact of conservation and demand management and embedded generation.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 25 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 24 of 36
1 Table 8: Forecast Energy Deliveries and Customer Count Year Energy Delivery Forecast Change (%) Distribution Customer Count Change (%) (GWh) 2018 36,019 -0.6 1,300,516 0.7 2019 35,680 -0.9 1,309,216 0.7 2020 35,673 0.0 1,317,967 0.7 2021* 36,363 1.9 1,386,522 5.2 2022* 36,373 0.0 1,395,578 0.7 2 Exhibit Reference: E1-2-1 3 * The figures include the impact of integrating Acquired Utilities into Hydro One Distribution. Without 4 this, the GWh delivered would have changed by -0.3% in 2021 and 0% in 2022, and the number of 5 customers would have changed by 0.7% in both 2021 and 2022 6
7 The changes in the energy delivery forecast are distinct from the load impact on rates.
8 The load impact on revenue requirement is a function of peak demand, energy delivery
9 and customer count forecasts by rate class. It reflects changes since the last OEB-
10 approved forecast. As set out in Section 1 of this Exhibit, the reduced load forecast
11 contributes 3.0% of the resulting average increase in distribution rates of 6.5%.
12
13 The forecast was developed using the econometric and end-use approaches described in
14 Exhibit E1, Tab 3, Schedule 1. The forecast base year was corrected for abnormal
15 weather conditions, and growth rates were applied to the normalized base year value.
16 Consistent with the IESO’s approach, normal weather data is based on the average
17 weather conditions experienced over the last 31 years.
18
19 Relative to 2017 figures, Hydro One forecasts a decrease of 0.6% in its load forecast and
20 an increase of 0.7% over the customer count forecast for 2018. The small decrease in
21 load is mainly due to the impact of conservation and demand management and economic
22 factors.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 26 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 25 of 36
1 6. THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PLAN
2
3 The basis of Plan B – Modified is Hydro One’s DSP, which is provided as Exhibit B1,
4 Tab 1, Schedule 1. The DSP capital expenditure forecast for the Term and for historical
5 years dating back to 2013 is set out in Table 9. A summary line for OM&A expenditures
6 is also provided.
7
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 27 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 26 of 36
1
2 Table 9: Summary of Distribution Capital and OM&A Expenditures ($ Millions) Historical (previous plan and actual) Forecast (planned) 2013 1 2014 1 2015 2016 2017 Bridge 2 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Plan Plan Plan Actual Var Plan Actual Var Plan Actual Var Test Test Test Test Test CATEGORY $M $M $M % $M % $M % $M $M $M $M $M System Access 159.5 199.4 183.3 188.1 2.6 182.6 179.0 (1.9) 176.1 168.3 (4.4) 154.6 157.6 160.9 165.9 170.0 System Renewal 265.7 262.7 250.7 308.4 23.0 265.4 291.2 9.7 285.0 252.2 (11.5) 248.6 318.7 336.7 362.5 451.1 System Service 96.5 85.5 120.1 71.6 (40.4) 103.3 76.8 (25.7) 110.1 66.6 (39.5) 81.8 93.4 85.6 78.8 69.5 General Plant 115.3 99.9 94.8 110.1 16.2 103.3 156.3 51.2 90.1 146.3 62.3 149.0 187.1 135.8 133.4 136.6 Total 637.0 647.5 648.9 678.3 4.5 654.7 703.2 7.4 661.4 633.5 (4.2) 633.9 756.8 719.0 740.7 827.2 System OM&A 3 610.6 674.5 543.1 572.5 5.4 589.1 583.6 (0.9) 593.0 580.5 (2.1) 591.9 595.6 603.1 621.5 625.9 1) 2013 and 2014 were IRM years and therefore do not have Board-approved capital expenditure figures. 2) Bridge year 2017 is a forecast as of end of 2016 3 3) System OM&A values include all Operations, Maintenance and Administration expenses. 4 Exhibit Reference: B1-1-1 5
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 28 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 27 of 36
1 6.1 CAPITAL DRIVERS
2
3 System Renewal costs are expected to increase by an average of 12.3% annually from
4 2017 to 2022, reflecting an increase in pole replacements, station refurbishments, line
5 sustainment and life cycle optimization investments to deal with assets at end of life.
6 PCB line equipment replacements increase to meet Environment Canada’s December 31,
7 2025 deadline. In 2021, there is a significant increase in spending as Hydro One begins
8 replacing smart meters that will be at end of life. Higher General Plant investment levels
9 are attributable to an investment in the Integrated System Operations Centre, which
10 replaces the existing backup power system control and telecommunication centres. This
11 investment is described in Investment Summary Document GP18 of the DSP.
12
13 Costs associated specifically with renewable energy connections/expansions, smart grid,
14 and regional planning initiatives are summarized in Table 10 below.
15
16 Table 10: REG Connections/Expansions, Smart Grid and
17 Regional Planning Investments DSP ISD# Investment Name Total Cost ($M) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 SA5 Generation Connections 4.1 3.4 3.3 2.9 3.0 SS2 System Upgrades Driven by Load Growth* 6.7 11.7 8.4 - - - Regional Planning Projects only SS7 Advanced Distribution System 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GP25 Leamington TS Capital Contribution 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
GP26 Hanmer TS Capital Contribution 3.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 GP27 Enfield TS - Capital contribution 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18 Exhibit Reference: B1-1-1 19 *These amounts are included in the investment summary document (“ISD”) which covers all investments 20 due to load growth.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 29 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 28 of 36
1 Investments have been paced to mitigate rate impacts and offset the effects of a reduced
2 load forecast, which includes managing asset replacement rates and, where appropriate,
3 accepting potentially increased risk, to reduce or defer capital spending requirements.
4 Hydro One’s leadership team is actively driving cost reductions and improving
5 productivity to help offset the customer bill impacts of the proposed plan and reduced
6 load forecast.
7
8 6.2 OPERATING, MAINTENANCE AND ADMINISTRATION DRIVERS
9
10 A summary of forecast OM&A expenses for 2018 is provided in Table 11. More detail is
11 available in Exhibit C1, Tab 1, Schedule 1.
12
13 Table 11: Summary of Recoverable Distribution OM&A Expenses ($ Millions)
Historic Bridge Test
2014 Description IRM 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 Actual Actual Approved Forecast Approved Forecast Approved Forecast Sustainment 325.7 304.6 316.5 326.6 361.4 334.5 367.1 346.7 Development 11.0 10.9 15.4 12.1 17.8 13.2 17.0 11.0 Operations* 29.5 27.6 35.8 29.5 39.4 33.4 37.5 36.7 Customer Care* 209.3 155.4 111.7 129.3 110.9 132.6 111.6 131.6 Common Corporate 94.4 69.1 59.0 81.5 54.8 62.0 54.7 61.0 Property Taxes & Rights Payments 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.9 4.7 5.0 4.9 Total 674.5 572.5 543.1 583.6 589.1 580.5 593.0 591.9 % Change (year- over-year) -15% -19% 2% 8% -1% 1% 2% % Change (Test vs. 2016 Actual) 1% 14 Exhibit Reference: C1-1 -1 15 *Costs associated with the Smart Grid pilot were moved from Customer Care to Operations in 2015.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 30 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 29 of 36
1 Hydro One has identified and applied significant productivity and efficiency
2 improvements that have resulted in an OM&A plan that reflects this Application’s
3 commitment to the top customer priority of keeping bills as low as possible. In 2018,
4 Hydro One forecasts total OM&A expenditures of $591.9 million. This is an increase of
5 $11.4 million or 2% compared with the 2017 forecast expenditures, which were $12.5
6 million below OEB-approved levels, as shown in Table 12. Despite inflation, the
7 expansion of the Hydro One Distribution system, and expenditures that are required to
8 address the increasing maintenance requirements of a deteriorating distribution system,
9 Hydro One has planned for lower OM&A costs than the last level approved by the OEB
10 in 2017.
11
12 Table 12 compares 2017 projected costs to the 2017 OM&A expenditures approved by
13 the OEB in Hydro One’s previous distribution application (EB-2013-0416).
14
15 Table 12: 2017 OEB-approved versus 2017 Projected OM&A Expenditures
Bridge
Description 2017 2017 Forecast Approved Sustainment 334.5 367.1 Development 13.2 17.0 Operations 33.4 37.5 Customer Service 132.6 111.6 Common Corporate 62.0 54.7 Property Taxes & Rights Payments 4.7 5.0 Total 580.5 593.0 % Variance -2.1% 16
17 Hydro One’s projected 2017 OM&A costs are $12.5 million lower or 2.1% below OEB-
18 approved levels, mostly due to lower Sustainment expenditures attributable to initiatives
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 31 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 30 of 36
1 in the vegetation management program (described in Exhibit C1, Tab 1, Schedule 2) and
2 cost reductions that new management has been driving and which are now benefiting the
3 2018 base year.
4
5 Details of Hydro One’s corporate staffing and compensation are provided at Exhibit C1,
6 Tab 4, Schedule 1.
7
8 7. RATE BASE
9
10 Exhibit D1, Tab 1, Schedule 1 provides the details of the derivation of the requested rate
11 base figures for the Term. Table 13 summarizes this request.
12
13 Table 13: Distribution Rate Base ($ Millions) Description Test 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Mid-Year Gross Plant 11,948.7 12,541.0 13,219.8 14,082.3 14,783.5 Mid-Year Accumulated (4,601.7) (4,833.1) (5,097.7) (5,431.3) (5,749.7) Depreciation Mid-Year Net Plant 7,347.0 7,708.0 8,122.0 8,651.0 9,033.8 Cash Working Capital 321.2 335.7 348.3 378.5 395.3 Materials and Supplies 4.1 5.5 6.5 5.9 5.5 Inventory Distribution Rate Base 7,672.3 8,049.1 8,476.8 9,035.4 9,434.7 14
15 Table 14 compares 2017 forecast rate base to the 2017 rate base approved by the OEB in
16 its Decision on Hydro One’s previous distribution application EB-2013-0416.
17
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 32 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 31 of 36
1 Table 14: 2017 OEB-approved versus 2017 Bridge Year Forecast Rate Base
2 ($ Millions) Rate Base 2017 Bridge 2017 OEB- Variance Component Year (Forecast) approved
Mid-Year Gross 11,372.7 11,239.1 133.6 Plant Less: Mid-Year (4,335.6) (4,311.7) (23.9) Accumulated Depreciation Mid-Year Net 7,037.1 6,927.4 109.7 Utility Plant Cash Working 310.2 255.7 54.5 Capital* Materials & 4.0 6.8 (2.7) Supplies Inventory Total Rate Base 7,351.3 7,189.9 161.5
3
4 Total 2017 rate base is expected to be $161.5 million above the OEB-approved level.
5 This variance of 2.2% is explained by higher in-service additions due to higher than
6 forecast spending on trouble calls and storm damage, as well as joint use and relocation
7 projects. This is partially offset by lower demand for distribution generation connections
8 and more efficient completion of wood pole replacements. In addition, a higher cash
9 working capital requirement also results in higher rate base.
10
11 8. COST OF CAPITAL
12
13 Table 15 summarizes the cost of capital parameters reflected in the Application, details of
14 which can be found at Exhibit D2, Tab 2, Schedule 1.
15
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 33 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 32 of 36
1 Table 15: Cost of Capital OEB- Exhibit Comparison of Cost of Capital and Rate Base approved 2018 Reference 2017* Cost of Debt 4.25% 4.15% D2-2-1 Cost of Equity 8.78% 8.78% D2-2-1 Total Debt ($ Millions) 4,313.94 4,603.39 D2-2-1 Total Equity ($ Millions) 2,875.96 3,068.92 D2-2-1 Rate Base ($ Millions) 7,189.89 7,672.31 D2-2-1 Weighted Average Cost of Capital 6.1% 6.0% *Source: Dx 2015-19 Rate Order Evidence 2
3 Hydro One’s deemed capital structure for distribution ratemaking purposes is 60% debt
4 and 40% common equity. The 60% deemed debt component comprises 4% short-term
5 debt and 56% long-term debt. For the 2018 rebasing year, Hydro One intends to
6 continue to use the OEB’s cost of capital parameters for its deemed short-term debt rate
7 and return on equity, consistent with the OEB’s report on cost of capital. Hydro One’s
8 forecast 2018 cost of long-term debt is calculated as the weighted average cost rate of
9 embedded debt, new debt issued after the last OEB-approved rate application and
10 forecast debt to be issued in 2017 and 2018.
11
12 Hydro One’s Application reflects a “placeholder” return on equity of 8.78% for the 2018
13 test year, based on the cost of capital parameters released by the OEB on October 27,
14 2016, for rates effective January 1, 2017. Hydro One will update the return on equity and
15 the cost of short-term debt for the purpose of establishing the final revenue requirement
16 for 2018, when those metrics are updated by the OEB later in 2017. Hydro One has
17 applied to also update the cost of capital metrics in 2021 with the integration of the
18 Acquired Utilities.
19
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 34 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 33 of 36
1 9. COST ALLOCATION AND RATE DESIGN
2
3 Hydro One has followed the OEB’s cost allocation and rate design methodologies, with
4 minor changes to address Hydro One’s specific circumstances as previously reviewed
5 and approved by the OEB. For the 2021 cost allocation model, Hydro One adopted six
6 new customer classes for the Acquired Utilities and included some adjustment factors
7 within the model to ensure that costs allocated to the six new classes appropriately reflect
8 their cost to serve, as directed by the OEB. Details of these adjustments are discussed in
9 Exhibit G1, Tab 3, Schedule 1.
10
11 Hydro One proposes to change only those revenue-to-cost ratios that fall outside the
12 OEB-approved ranges for the Distributed Generation class from 2018 to 2020 and for
13 some of the new Acquired Utilities’ rate classes in 2021 and 2022. No changes to
14 fixed/variable splits are proposed except with respect to the move to fully-fixed rates for
15 all residential classes as required by the OEB under proceeding EB-2012-0410, and the
16 transition to new customer classes for general service energy and demand customers of
17 two of the Acquired Utilities. The details of these changes are discussed in Exhibit H1,
18 Tab 1, Schedule 1.
19
20 Hydro One proposes bill impact mitigation by gradually phasing-in increases in revenue-
21 to-cost ratios to within the OEB- approved ranges for the Distributed Generation class
22 from 2018 to 2020, the new acquired urban general service energy and demand billed
23 classes in 2021 and 2022, and the new acquired general service demand billed class in
24 2021. Bill impact mitigation in the form of bill credits will be applied to the streetlight,
25 sentinel light and unmetered scattered load customers of the Acquired Utilities that are
26 transitioning to Hydro One’s existing classes. Details of these changes are discussed in
27 Exhibit H1, Tab 1, Schedule 1.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 35 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 34 of 36
1 10. DEFERRAL AND VARIANCE ACCOUNTS
2
3 Hydro One is seeking approval to continue or establish the following accounts:
4
5 Pension Cost Differential Account; 6 Tax Rate Changes Account; 7 OEB Cost Differential Account; 8 Smart Meter Entity Charge Variance Account; 9 Lost Revenue Adjustment Mechanism Variance Account; 10 Capital In-Service Additions Variance Account; 11 Earning Sharing Mechanism Deferral Account; and 12 Bill Impact Mitigation Variance Account. 13
14 Hydro One is seeking discontinuance of the following regulatory accounts:
15
16 Rural and Remote Rate Protection Variance Account; 17 Bill Impact Mitigation Variance Account; 18 Revenue Offset Difference Account – Pole Attachment Charge; and 19 Revenue Difference Account – Pole Attachment Charge. 20
21 Hydro One proposes disposing of its regulatory account balances as at December 31,
22 2016, plus interest improvement for 2017. Hydro One expects that the OEB’s final
23 decision will be based on the audited 2016 year end balances which Hydro One will
24 provide in its planned Blue Page Update in June 2017.
25
26 It is expected that new distribution rates will be effective and implemented on January 1,
27 2018 and that the disposition of these accounts will commence on that date. Hydro One’s
28 requested recovery in 2018 to 2022 of a total $115.3 million is detailed in Table 16:
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 36 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 35 of 36
1 Table 16: Hydro One Distribution Regulatory Assets Disposition of Regulatory Account Balances ($ Millions) Description US of A Forecast Account Ref. Balance as at Dec. 31, 2017 Retail Service Variance Accounts 1550 to 1589 115.1 Retail Cost Variance Accounts 1518/ 1548 0.0 Pension Cost Differential Account 2405 8.1 Tax Rate Changes Account 1592 (4.4) OEB Cost Differential Account 1508 (1.3) Smart Meter Entity Charge Variance Account 1551 0.3 Revenue Offset Difference Account – Pole Attachment Charge 2405 (2.3) Bill Impact Mitigation Variance Account 1508 2.4 Microfit Connection Charge Variance Account 1508 (0.8) Distribution Generation – Other Costs – HONI - Variance Account 1533 0.6 Smart Grid Variance Account 1536 (12.1) Distribution System Code (DSC) Exemption Deferral Account 1508 9.7 Total Regulatory Accounts for Disposition 115.3 2
3 11. BILL IMPACTS
4
5 Table 17 summarizes the 2018 total bill impacts for typical customers in all customer
6 classes. Bill impacts across a range of consumption levels and for customer classes in
7 2019-2022 are provided in Exhibit H1, Tab 4, Schedule 1.
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 37 of 37 C 24 - CW Info Filed: 2017-03-31 EB-2017-0049 Exhibit A Tab 3 Schedule 1 Page 36 of 36
1 Table 17: 2018 Total Bill Impacts for Typical/Average Customers
Rate Consumption Monthly Consumption Change in Total Bill Change in Total Bill Class Level (kWh/kW) ($) (%)
Typical 750 3.98 2.8% UR Average 755 3.99 2.8% Typical 750 4.74 2.9% R1 Average 920 5.05 2.6% Typical 750 4.93 3.0% R2 Average 1152 5.37 2.2% Typical 350 3.07 2.7% Seasonal Average 352 3.07 2.7% Typical 2000 8.72 1.9% GSe Average 1982 8.65 1.9% Typical 2000 5.22 1.4% UGe Average 2759 7.20 1.4% GSd Average 36104 / 124 274.18 3.5% UGd Average 50525 / 135 343.91 3.8% St Lgt Average 517 3.65 2.9% Sen Lgt Average 71 0.46 2.1% USL Average 364 -0.12 -0.1% DGen Average 1328 / 13 46.73 9.9% ST Average 1601036 / 3091 6231.28 2.6% 2
Witness: Oded Hubert June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 1 C 25 - CW Info
MIDDLESEX COUNTY | CYCLING STRATEGY NOTICE OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE #1 In March 2017, Middlesex County retained WSP Canada Group Ltd. to work with County and local municipal staff in the development of the Cycling Strategy which will address the planning, design, implementation, operation and maintenance of cycling routes, facilities and programs over the short, medium and long-term. The Cycling Strategy will:
1 Create a plan for a connected and continuous system of cycling routes
2 Establish a network that makes cycling more convenient and enjoyable for people of all ages and abilities
3 Enhance Middlesex as a destination for cycling while creating more healthy and sustainable communities
4 Create solutions that are specific to Middlesex County which complement ongoing initiatives Middlesex County in partnership with the local area municipalities and the consultant team have explored the current cycling conditions within the County, areas of improvement and opportunities to make the County more cycling-friendly. Now we need your input and your help! We will be hosting two public open houses both held on June 29th, 2017 between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. They will be drop-in style sessions where you will be able to review potential cycling routes which will be explored throughout the County and speak with members of the study team about cycling improvements and enhancements. The following is more detailed information about the location of these sessions. Open House Venue #1 Open House Venue #2 Strathroy Library Dorchester Library 34 Frank Street 2123 Dorchester Road Strathroy, ON N7G 2R4 Dorchester, ON N0L 1G2 If you are not able to attend either of the open house venues, there are other options and ways you can still get involved and provide your input, including: • Review the materials online or at https://www.middlesex.ca/node/823; • Complete the online survey or at: https://www.research.net/r/MiddlesexCycling; • Provide your thoughts on cycling issues, improvements and opportunities through the interactive mapping tool or at: http://communityremarks.com/middlesex/; and • Email or contact one of the study team representatives for more information or to provide input– please use their contact information below.
Chris Traini - County of Middlesex Jay Cranstone - WSP Canada Group Ltd. T: 519-434-7321 ext. 2264 T: 519-904-1755 E: [email protected] E:[email protected] If you have any questions about the accessibility of the venues or require this information in an alternate format please contact the Middlesex County representative noted above. June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 1 C 26 - CW Info
HOW FRESHSPOKE WORKS for Buyers & Sellers of Wholesale Local Food
FreshSpoke is an app-based marketplace for If you’re a local food producer or wholesale local food. It’s designed to grow sales and simplify buyer, here’s your opportunity to tap into this order, payment and delivery for local food innovative distribution system. producers and wholesale buyers. Find out how FreshSpoke will work for your FreshSpoke has already created quite a buzz since business. Attending a free one hour info session. launching its marketing and shared delivery platform for desktop and mobile devices. Now REGISTER NOW FreshSpoke is expanding across Ontario.
BRANT COUNTY MIDDLESEX COUNTY Tuesday, June 20th | 2pm & 7pm Monday, June 26th | 2pm Fire Station #1 Middlesex County Administration Bldg 61 Dundas St E, Paris 399 Ridout Street North, London
NORFOLK COUNTY ELGIN COUNTY Wednesday, June 21st | 2pm & 7pm Tuesday, June 27th | 2pm & 7pm Venture Norfolk Talbotville Berry Farm 4077 Hwy 3 East, Simcoe 11054 Sunset Road, St. Thomas
OXFORD COUNTY PERTH COUNTY Thursday, June 22st | 2pm & 7pm Thursday, June 29th | 2pm & 7pm Oxford County Administration Bldg Paramedic Headquarters, ES McNally Room A 21 Reeve Street, Woodstock 480 Douro St, Stratford
@FreshSpoke | freshspoke.com | [email protected] | 844.48.FRESH