SECTION 3 DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH

SECTION 3 DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH

Project Coordinated By: This Section Prepared by:

3.1 Introduction SECTION 3 - Demographic Growth The objective of this section is to present a demographic profile for the Golden Horseshoe (GH) using the most recent (2011) census data. 1 This section incorporates data from earlier census periods where available and allows for the identification of key demographic profiles and trends regarding population, immigration, social and cultural impacts and their marketing implications. The data shows profiles and trends for each of the participating municipalities and thus differences in key markets and locations are profiled. Except where indicated, data in this section is from the Statistics Canada censuses of 2006 and 2011. Starting in 2011, information previously collected by the mandatory long-form census questionnaire was collected as part of the voluntary National Household Survey (NHS). Caution should therefore be exercised in comparing 2011 data very closely with data from previous censuses. 2 3.2 Population Growth The population of the GH and its municipalities has increased from 6.5 million in 2006 to 7 million in 2011, and now accounts for 55% of Ontario s population. This represents a growth rate of 8% for the entire GH region over the five year period. The highest rates of growth have been experienced by (14%), York (15%) and Peel (11%) which immediately surround Toronto. As further evidence of growth pressures being experienced in the GH, it is worth noting that Milton, Canada s fastest growing municipality, grew by 57% over the period. 3 Figure 3.1a below shows the growth rate for each upper tier municipality. Figure 3.1a Population Growth (000s) in the Golden Horseshoe by, 2006-2011 Growth 2006 2011 Geogra phic Loca tion 2006-2011 Durha m 584 631 8.0% Ha lton 458 520 13.5% Ha milton 524 540 3.1% Nia ga ra 442 446 0.9% Peel 1,213 1,350 11.3% Toronto 2,611 2,725 4.4% York 932 1,072 15.0% Tota l 6,764 7,284 8.0% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report (November 2012) Addendum, June 2013, Appendix B, Section 1, Table 1 Reference Projection. This report was produced for the most recent Places to Grow forecast projections. Net under-coverage rates are added to census population to produce total population data. An explanation of how this is determined is included on page 26 of the report. 1 Some of the data produced in this section incorporates earlier census data from the Profile of Agricultural Attributes in the GTA published for the Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee and the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance by Planscape Inc. March 2010. 2 Global non-response rates for each municipality for the 2011 National Household Survey were (28.4%); (22.3%); Hamilton (29.0%); (28.6%); Peel (25.4%); Toronto (26.5%); and York (22.5%) as well as 27.1% for all Ontario. The indicator combines complete non-response (household) and partial non-response (question) into a single rate. 3 http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-310-x/2011001/tbl/tbl6-eng.cfm 3.1

Figure 3.2a shows the GH growth for the period 2001 to 2011 and compares this rate with the projected rate for 2011 to 2031 using the Places to Grow most recent projections. 4 A compound annual growth rate is used in each case for comparative purposes. The Places to Grow projections are shown in Figure 3.2a. Based on the Places to Grow Act, the GH will continue to grow at a robust rate (1.4% compounded annually) until 2031 at which time the total GH population will be almost 9.6 million. However, as noted in Figure 3.2a, the future population will be distributed somewhat differently with the s of, and York projected to grow at high compound annual growth rates; 2.3%, 2.2% and 2.0% respectively over the period, compared to lower rates for the other municipalities. Figure 3.2b shows the growth rates for the GH municipalities graphically. Figure 3.2a Population Growth (000s) in the Golden Horseshoe by, 2001 2011 and Projected to 2031 Census Years Percentage Change Geographic Location 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2001-2011 Cpd. Ann. Growth Rate 2011-2031 Cpd. Ann. Growth Rate 528 584 631 691 770 861 970 1.8% 2.2% 391 458 520 575 645 726 815 2.9% 2.3% Hamilton 510 524 540 568 601 640 683 0.6% 1.2% 427 442 446 463 483 511 543 0.4% 1.0% Peel 1,032 1,213 1,350 1,455 1,559 1,660 1,766 2.7% 1.4% Toronto 2,584 2,611 2,725 2,865 2,975 3,081 3,193 0.5% 0.8% York 763 932 1,072 1,199 1,330 1,459 1,858 3.5% 2.0% Total 6,235 6,764 7,284 7,816 8,363 8,938 9,555 1.6% 1.4% Note: Growth rates are compound annual growth rates. Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report (November 2012) Addendum, June 2013, Appendix B, Section 1, Table 1 Reference Projection. This report was produced for the most recent Places to Grow forecast projections. 4 Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, Office Consolidation June 2013, Schedule 3, Updated Forecasts. 3.2

Figure 3.2b Population Growth (000s) in the Golden Horseshoe by, 2001 2011 and Projected to 2031 (000s) 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Hamilton Peel Toronto York 500 0 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Sources: Hemson Consulting Ltd., Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report (November 2012) Addendum, June 2013, Appendix B, Section 1, Table 1 Reference Projection. This report was produced for the most recent Places to Grow forecast projections. The growth rates for the entire GH region present increasing market opportunities for agricultural products, however, accommodating this population growth will have implications for municipalities. While Places to Grow and the Provincial Policy Statement identify the need to intensify growth in existing settlement areas, this strategy cannot accommodate all of the growth required and can only come at a large expense of taking agricultural land out of production. Further, if municipalities are unable to achieve their target densities, the demand for development lands will keep increasing, at the expense of productive agricultural land. 5 5 The Growth Plan requires that for 2015 and for every year thereafter, a minimum of 40% of all residential development occurring annually within each upper and single tier municipality will be within its built up area. For the years 2007 to 2010, the average intensification rate (ie, percentage of new residential units in built up areas) for each municipality was 46%; 33%; Hamilton, 48%, 64%, Peel 50%, Toronto 100%, and York 46%. Source: Technical Report on Preliminary Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006. 3.3

Figure 3.2c shows a comparison of the growth rate over the 10 year period 2001 to 2011 compared with the expected growth rate according to Places to Grow legislation from 2011 to 2031. Clearly, continued high rates of growth are expected to continue throughout the GH region for the next two decades. Figure 3.2c Population Annual Growth Rates in the Golden Horseshoe by, 2001 2011 and Projected Rate 2011 to 2031 4.0% 3.5% 2001-2011 Growth rate 2011-2031 Growth rate 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.9% 2.7% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.8% 2.2% 2.3% 0.6% 1.2% 0.4% 1.0% 1.4% 0.5% 0.8% 2.0% 1.6% 1.4% 0.0% Hamilton Peel Toronto York Total Sources: Hemson Consulting Ltd., Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report (November 2012) Addendum, June 2013, Appendix B, Section 1, Table 1 Reference Projection. This report was produced for the most recent Places to Grow forecast projections. 3.4

3.3 Population Density Figure 3.3 below shows the population density (persons per sq km) for each of the regions in the GH for 2011 as well as projected density under Places to Grow for 2031 and 2041. Toronto has by far the highest population density (4,324) persons per square km, followed by Peel (1,083), York (608) and (539), regions in closer proximity to Toronto. and currently have relatively lower densities and will continue to be the least dense, or most rural, of the regions for the year 2031. Population densities are projected to continue to increase over the next two decades in each of the municipalities in the GH. As noted, this population pressure will have the dual effect of providing increased markets for agricultural produce, while also placing continued pressure on agricultural land. Figure 3.3 Population Growth (Persons per Square Kilometer) in the Golden Horseshoe by, 2011 to 2031 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Hamilton Peel Toronto York Total 2011 250 539 483 241 1,083 4,324 608 721 2031 384 845 611 293 1,416 5,067 899 946 Sources: Statistics Canada. 2011 Census, Census Profiles and Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, Office Consolidation June 2013, Schedule 3, Updated Forecasts based on reference projections. 3.5

3.4 Population by Age Figure 3.4 shows the breakdown of the age profile for the GH. While there are substantial portions of the population in the younger age brackets, note that the population is slowly aging the 0 to 19 years and the 20 to 44 years age groups have been declining somewhat over the past five years, while the 45 to 64 years age group and 65 years plus age group have been increasing. The presence of younger age groups with higher income presents an opportunity for development of agricultural products for this group, particularly since this group is interested in products such as locally grown products, organics and whole foods. These groups tend to be located in the more urbanized parts of the GH and producers will therefore have to develop distribution channels to reach these markets. Older demographic groups with access to more income may have unique demands affecting agricultural producers. For example, these may include access to fresh fruits and vegetables, smaller portion sizes, low fat and low salt products, no sugar foods, gluten free items, whole foods and organics, specialty food items, prepared foods and meals, etc. Figure 3.4 Age Profile of the Golden Horseshoe Area, 2006 and 2011 40% 2006 35% 37% 35% 2011 30% 25% 20% 25% 24% 26% 28% 15% 10% 13% 13% 5% 0% 0-19 years 20-44 years 45-64 years 65 years and older Note: Note percentages have been rounded and may not add to 100%. Source: Statistics Canada. 2006, 2011 Censuses, Census Profiles. 3.6

Figure 3.5 shows the age profiles of each of the regions within the GH. Peel has the youngest age profile of the regions followed by, Toronto and. The clustering of young people in the more urban areas may prevent some from finding jobs in more rural areas, pointing to continued difficulty in attracting labour to work in the agricultural sector. Further, there will be continued challenges to attracting people to work in agricultural roles because these jobs tend to be more physically demanding and pay rates hover at or slightly above minimum wage. Municipalities with a comparatively older age profile include (an attractive retiree location with 19% of its population aged 65 or older), Hamilton (16% of its population 65 or older) and Toronto (14% of its population 65 or older). 6 Figure 3.5 Age Profile of the Golden Horseshoe s, 2011 Note: Percentages shown are the number in each age bracket as a percentage of the total population in each municipality. Golden Horseshoe median age based on a weighted average calculation. Source: Statistics Canada. 2011 Census, Census Profiles. 3.5 Ethnic Profile and Visible Minorities Geographic Location Hamilton Peel Toronto York Golden Horseshoe Median Age in 2011 39.2 39.3 40.9 44.1 36.9 39.2 39.3 39.2 0-19 26% 26% 23% 22% 27% 21% 26% 24% 20-64 62% 60% 61% 59% 62% 64% 62% 63% 65+ 12% 13% 16% 19% 10% 14% 12% 13% Immigrants continue to comprise large portions of the population and are responsible for a considerable portion of the growth in the GH. In 1996, 37% of the GH population were immigrants (e.g., born outside Canada) and by 2011 this increased to 40% or 2.8 million people. While the proportion of immigrants since 2006 has held steady overall in the GH, the proportion of immigrants as a percentage of the population increased for,, Peel and York. In the GH, regions closest to Toronto have the highest proportions of immigrants, where they tend to settle in preferred destinations in urban or suburban areas. 7 In 2011, Peel had the highest portion of immigrants (50%), followed by Toronto (48%) and York (45%). The proportions of immigrants in regional municipalities more distant from Toronto tend to be considerably lower such as (26%), Hamilton (24%), (21%) and (16%) as seen in Figure 3.6. The proportion of immigrants for the rest of Ontario (excluding the GH) are considerably lower than the GH region and are also shown for comparative purposes. 6 Ontario s profile is slightly older than the GH. Ontario had 24% of its population aged 19 or below and 15% aged 65 or over. Ontario s median age is 40.4 years. 7 As noted by Lindsay Wiginton, Canada s Decentralized Immigration Policy Through a Local Lens: How Small Communities are Attracting and Welcoming Immigrants, School of Urban Planning McGill University, August 2013, Immigrants in Canada have traditionally been attracted to urban areas because of economic opportunities, settlement services, social networks, transportation, housing, cultural amenities, diversity in the school system and community tolerance. Public agencies and especially the private sector will be required to provide many of these supports in order to be successful at attracting immigrants to smaller communities and rural areas. 3.7

Figure 3.6 Immigrants in the Golden Horseshoe by as Proportion of Total Population, 1996 to 2011 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1996 2001 2006 2011 19% 19% 20% 21% 22% 22% 25% 26% Hamilton 24% 24% 25% 24% 18% 17% 18% 16% Peel 40% 43% 48% 50% Toronto 47% 49% 49% 48% York 36% 39% 43% 45% Total Golden Horseshoe 37% 38% 40% 40% Rest of Ontario 13% 14% 14% 14% Note: Immigrant refers to a person who is or has ever been a landed immigrant/permanent resident. This person has been granted the right to live in Canada permanently by immigration authorities. Source: Statistics Canada. 1996, 2001, 2006, Census Profiles, and 2011 National Household Survey. Caution should be used in comparing these data sets too closely. 3.8

The origin of immigrants to GH municipalities has changed considerably as is shown in Figure 3.7. Since 2006, substantially more immigrants are from Asia, compared with historical patterns where immigration predominantly was from European origins. Figure 3.7 All Immigrants and Recent Immigrants (2006-2011), as Proportion of Total Population by Origin, Golden Horseshoe s, 2011 All Immigrants Hamilton Peel Toronto York Golden Horseshoe Americas 27% 14% 12% 19% 17% 17% 9% 16% Europe 39% 48% 54% 63% 22% 26% 27% 29% Africa 5% 6% 5% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% Asia 28% 31% 29% 14% 56% 51% 59% 50% Recent Immigrants 2006-2011 Americas 27% 22% 19% 39% 13% 15% 8% 15% Europe 14% 22% 19% 17% 6% 12% 14% 11% Africa 3% 7% 14% 11% 8% 7% 4% 7% Asia 47% 47% 47% 34% 73% 66% 74% 67% Note: Caution should be used in comparing these data sets too closely. Source: Statistics Canada. 2011 National Household Survey. The top countries of origin for all immigrants in the GH are shown in Figure 3.8. There are now some 200 different ethnic groups in the GH. These groups tend to locate near the Toronto region or its immediately surrounding regions and tend to be clustered to some degree based on countries of origin. Producers and the agri-food sector have been adapting to these challenges and opportunities, particularly increased demand for foods which appeal to different ethno-cultural segments. Vineland Research in conjunction with the University of Guelph has been doing research on identifying ethnic vegetable varieties that could be grown in Ontario to meet the needs of diverse population groups. Based on initial research a variety of crops would appear to have promising potential including okra, yard long beans, eggplant, fuzzy melon, callaloo, Indian kaddu and Chinese hot pepper. 8 8 Vineland Research and Innovation Centre s Research Director of Horticultural Production Systems Dr. Michael Brownbridge and Research Associate Ahmed Bilal together with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the University of Guelph have been working on identifying ethnic vegetable varieties that could be grown in Ontario to meet demand of diverse communities in the GTA. See also http://vinelandresearch.com/pub/docs/casestudy3worldcrops.pdf and http://vinelandresearch.com/pub/docs/ethno-cultural% 20vegetable%20Exec%20Summary%202011%20survey_website.pdf 3.9

Figure 3.8 Top Countries of Origin, All Immigrants, for Golden Horseshoe s, 2011 All Immigrants Hamilton Peel Toronto York Golden Horseshoe India 6,435 9,290 5,930 1,085 151,825 78,870 26,670 280,105 UK 22,280 23,770 15,290 14,395 24,605 45,260 17,550 163,150 Italy 3,955 3,780 11,610 8,275 17,780 52,485 38,100 135,985 China 2,490 4,175 3,740 1,555 24,030 29,105 64,620 129,715 Philippines 7,725 5,185 5,285 2,000 44,575 31,480 17,255 113,505 Sri Lanka 4,085 1,430 490 165 19,915 59,220 19,900 105,205 Pakistan 4,415 5,640 2,875 485 44,575 33,035 11,095 102,120 Hong Kong 1,225 1,180 545 310 8,810 39,340 47,725 99,135 Vietnam 785 1,315 2,870 635 15,445 31,275 11,155 63,480 Iran 830 1,170 1,105 215 3,180 25,860 24,570 56,930 South Korea 885 2,735 1,120 710 5,040 25,860 10,225 46,575 Bangladesh 575 445 640 145 3,425 20,100 800 26,130 Iraq 355 980 3,855 170 7,605 8,485 4,480 25,930 Total 125,845 128,740 125,015 69,720 650,530 1,252,210 463,120 2,815,180 Note: Countries of origin are ranked by prevalence in the entire GH region, with corresponding populations shown for each municipality. The table does not show the total number of immigrants. There may be populations in individual municipalities from other countries which are not shown and yet which are moderately sizable within that municipality. Source: Statistics Canada. 2011 National Household Survey. Figure 3.9 shows a profile of recent immigrants by country of origin for the period 2006 to 2011. Figure 3.9 Top Countries of Origin, Recent Immigrants (2006-2011), for the Golden Horseshoe s, 2011 Note: Countries of origin are ranked by prevalence in the entire GH region, with corresponding populations shown for each municipality. There may be populations in individual municipalities from other countries which are not shown and yet which are moderately sizable within that municipality. Source: Statistics Canada. 2011 National Household Survey. Recent Immigrants Hamilton Peel Toronto York Golden Horseshoe India 995 1,335 895 180 33,880 21,170 2,985 61,440 Philippines 1,100 1,365 1,275 580 9,330 31,480 2,970 48,100 China 340 835 665 270 4,050 29,105 12,305 47,570 Pakistan 470 1,025 560 105 9,295 7,745 1,555 20,755 Sri Lanka 280 285 70 15 3,385 9,535 2,095 15,665 Iran 45 165 270 30 395 9,695 4,475 15,075 Iraq 50 230 1,120 30 2,660 3,495 965 8,550 Bangladesh 100 45 105 0 815 7,275 145 8,485 South Korea 70 405 320 225 585 4,260 1,810 7,675 Russian Federation 55 290 115 45 450 3,785 2,115 6,855 UK 630 1,315 535 310 880 2,230 660 6,560 Vietnam 60 60 445 35 765 1,935 405 3,705 Hong Hong 0 10 25 0 210 695 990 1,930 Total 8,950 14,575 14,825 5,980 100,910 216,525 47,725 409,490 3.10

With the high number of immigrants, it is notable that many speak a language other than English in the home (Figure 3.10) and moderately high proportions of the population have no knowledge of English or French, in Toronto (5%), York (5%) and Peel (4%). Clearly, these linguistic barriers present challenges to agricultural and food industries in marketing to and communicating with these communities. Figure 3.10 Preference for and Ability to Speak English, Golden Horseshoe s, 2011 Proportion of Total Population Speaking Language Other Than English Most Often at Home Proportion of Total Population Having No Knowledge of English or French Hamilton Source: Statistics Canada. 2011 Census, Census Profiles. Peel There has been growing interest in the market potential provided by ethno-cultural groups preferences for certain foods and vegetables reflecting their native cultural preferences. For example, Guelph researchers 9 have estimated the demand for ethno-cultural vegetables in the Greater Toronto Area by the South Asian community represents $33 million a month, followed by $21 million by the Chinese-Canadian community and $7 million a month by Afro-Caribbean Canadians. While much of this food is imported, the researchers believe much of this produce can be grown locally in Ontario. Reflecting the changes in origin of immigration, the prevalence of visible minorities continues to increase dramatically in regions close to Toronto, especially in Peel (where 57% of the total population are visible minorities), Toronto (48% visible minorities) and York (43% visible minorities). The GH now has a substantial visible minority population of 2.8 million, 39% of the total population and these trends are likely to continue. These municipalities tend to have high concentrations of certain ethno-cultural groups, some relatively new and some well established. Many of these groups have food preferences reflecting their original culture, but consumption is also influenced by Western culture and a variety of other considerations including income levels. Some newer Immigrant groups and visible minority groups are constrained by lower levels of income relative to non-immigrants and those who are not visible minorities. (This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 3.8, Income and Other Indicators). The market size associated with ethno-cultural food preferences is considerable and producers, distribution channel members, food retailers and food service sectors will be challenged to serve these markets. Toronto York Golden Horseshoe 6% 10% 12% 5% 27% 29% 27% 22% 1% 1% 2% 1% 4% 5% 5% 4% 9 Prof. Glen Filson, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development (SEDRD) discussed at http://atguelph.uoguelph.ca/2011/11/demand-for-ethnocultural-vegetables-far-exceeds-supply/. See also, EthnoCultural Vegetables in Ontario blob at http://evcontario2011.blogspot.ca 3.11

In Figure 3.11a, the proportion of visible minorities for the rest of Ontario (excluding the GH) is also shown for comparative purposes. Figure 3.11a Prevalence of Visible Minorities in the Golden Horseshoe s, 1996 to 2011 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1996 2001 2006 2011 10% 12% 17% 20% 7% 9% 13% 18% Hamilton 9% 11% 13% 15% 3% 4% 6% 6% Peel 31% 38% 50% 57% Toronto 37% 42% 46% 48% York 24% 30% 37% 43% Total Golden Horseshoe 26% 30% 36% 39% Rest of Ontario 5% 6% 8% 9% Note: Caution should be used in comparing 2011 data sets too closely with prior censuses. Source: Statistics Canada. 1996, 2001, 2006, Censuses, 2011 National Household Survey. 3.12

Figure 3.11b shows comparative data on income levels of immigrants and visible minorities for Ontario. Immigrants who have arrived prior to 1990 have income levels somewhat higher than the median for all Ontario, while those who have immigrated since 1990 have lower levels. Visible minorities and those who speak neither official language also have median incomes considerably lower than the median for the province as a whole. Figure 3.11b Median Income for Selected Population Segments, Aged 15 or More in Ontario who are Earning Income, 2011 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Total with any income All Immigrants Immigrated before 1981 Immigrated between 1981 to 1990 Immigrated between 1991 to 2000 Immigrated between 2001 to 2009 Nonimmigrants Visible minorities Not a visible minority Speak neither English nor French Median Income $30,526 $27,896 $31,765 $32,033 $25,672 $21,166 $32,657 $23,508 $32,839 $16,660 Note: Immigrated between 2001 to 2009 is most recent period for which Statistics Canada has data for this table. Note: Median income of individuals - The median income of a specified group of income recipients is that amount which divides their income size distribution into two halves, i.e., the incomes of the first half of individuals are below the median, while those of the second half are above the median. Median income is calculated from the individuals with income in that group (e.g., all immigrants). Source: Statistics Canada. National Household Survey, 99-014-X2011032. 3.13

3.6 Education Figure 3.12a shows that the proportion of the population with educational qualifications in 2011 is higher than in prior years. In the GH, 58% of the population had a college level certification, trades certificate or university. Peel had the highest level (66%) for these categories, followed by (62%), York, (59%) and Toronto (58%). These higher education levels correspond with higher levels of income; many of the new highly educated are immigrants. Those with higher levels of education and income are likely to spend more on food and horticulture products than the average and are likely to drive increased demand for fresh, locally sourced produce including organics. 10 Figure 3.12a Education Levels in the Golden Horseshoe s, 2011 Hamilton Peel Toronto York Golden Horseshoe No certificate, diploma or degree 17% 13% 22% 20% 10% 18% 17% 17% High school diploma or equivalent 30% 25% 27% 30% 24% 24% 25% 25% College or trades certificate or diploma 32% 27% 29% 32% 28% 20% 23% 25% University 21% 35% 21% 18% 38% 38% 36% 33% Note: percentages have been rounded and may not add to 100%. Source: Statistics Canada. 2011 Census, Census Profiles. Figure 3.12b Education Attainment Levels in the Golden Horseshoe s, 2006 and 2011 Figure 3.12b shows how education levels in the GH have been slowly rising since 2006 which would correspond with higher levels of income addressed in the next section. 40% 35% 30% 30% 2006 2011 33% 25% 20% 27% 25% 24% 25% 15% 19% 17% 10% Note: percentages have been rounded and may not add to 100%. Caution should be used in comparing these data sets too closely. 5% Source: Statistics Canada. 2006 Censuses, and 2011 National Household Survey. 0% No certificate, diploma or degree High school diploma or equivalent College or trades certificate or diploma University 10 Ontario household food expenditures from stores were 2.6 times higher for the highest income quintile than the lowest household income quintile in 2012. Source: CANSIM Table 203-0022. 3.14

3.7 Labour Market Figure 3.13 provides a profile of each region based on some labour market and income measures. The proportion of the employed adult population using public transit is also shown, reflecting the considerable differences in workers use of public transit across the GH to commute to their place of work. Those regions with low levels of public transit use are likely to experience difficulty attracting workers, many of whom are paid at or slightly above the minimum wage. Figure 3.13 Labour Market Indices in the Golden Horseshoe s, 2011 Hamilton Peel Toronto York Golden Horseshoe Rest of Ontario Population aged 15+ in the labour force 488,660 396,545 424,055 365,395 1,034,070 2,175,830 832,050 5,716,605 4,757,065 Participation rate 69.2% 71.0% 62.8% 60.5% 68.8% 64.3% 68.5% 66.3% 64.7% Unemployment rate 8.6% 6.3% 8.7% 8.6% 8.9% 9.3% 7.3% 8.6% 7.9% Those using public transit to their usual place of work as % of total employed population aged 15+ 10.00% 9.60% 9.90% 2.80% 13.60% 33.80% 11.80% 19.60% 6.70% Note: Participation rate is the percentage of the total population 15+ in the labour force. Unemployment rate is the percentage of unemployed in the labour force. Source: Statistics Canada. 2011 National Household Survey. Labour force participation rates are relatively high across the region, especially in (71%), (69%), Peel (69%), York (69%) and Toronto (64%). Generally these are indicators of a strong labour market. That said, the unemployment rate is also high throughout the GH including Toronto (9%), Peel (9%), Hamilton (9%) and (9%). The rest of Ontario, excluding the GH, had an unemployment rate of 7.9%. 3.15

Figure 3.14 shows the number of farm occupations by place of residence 11 has generally been declining throughout the GH region. Some of this decline may be attributable to increased efficiencies in farm operations. However, Toronto and York have experienced increases, but on a relatively small scale. Peel experienced a slightly higher increase in farm occupations. Figure 3.14 Farm Occupations (by Place of Residence) in the Golden Horseshoe, 2006 and 2011 Hamilton Peel Toronto York Golden Horseshoe 2006 Farm Occupations 2,418 1,732 3,188 6,181 1,727 1,897 2,135 19,278 2011 Farm Occupations 2,084 1,588 2,382 4,187 1,989 2,052 2,246 16,528 Percentage Increase -13.8% -8.3% -25.3% -32.3% 15.2% 8.2% 5.2% -14.3% Source: EMSI Analyst Economic Modelling Website based on Statistics Canada data. Note: Statistics Canada collects occupational information by the respondent s place of residence, not their place of work which may be in another municipality. Many of the farm occupations listed in Toronto, for example, may be working in other municipalities. An indicator of jobs in the farm and food group was created using occupations from a variety of different industry sectors. The sectors include not only agriculture production but food wholesaling and food service occupations. Based on the NAICS codes listed below Figure 3.15 in the table, the sector includes some 377,000 jobs throughout the region. This figure shows that generally the number of food related occupations is increasing for the GH region. Only Hamilton and experienced declines since 2006. Figure 3.15 Farm and Food Related Occupations* in the Golden Horseshoe s, 2006 and 2011 Hamilton Peel Toronto York Golden Horseshoe 2006 Jobs - Farms and Food group 25,848 27,956 27,228 33,121 63,052 131,064 43,870 352,139 2011 Jobs - Farms and Food group 26,292 29,785 26,134 31,133 73,990 141,874 48,029 377,237 Percentage Increase 1.7% 6.5% -4.0% -6.0% 17.3% 8.2% 9.5% 7.1% * 1110 Farms 1132 Forest nurseries and gathering of forest products 1150 Support activities for farms 3111 Animal food manufacturing 3112 Grain and oilseed milling 3114 Fruit and vegetable preserving and specialty food manufacturing 3115 Dairy product manufacturing 3116 Meat product manufacturing 3118 Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing 3119 Other food manufacturing 3121 Beverage manufacturing 3122 Tobacco manufacturing 3253 Pesticide, fertilizer and other agricultural chemical manufacturing 4111 Farm product merchant wholesalers 4131 Food merchant wholesalers 4132 Beverage merchant wholesalers 4171 Farm, lawn and garden machinery and equipment merchant wholesalers 4183 Agricultural supplies merchant wholesalers 4451 Grocery stores 4452 Specialty food stores 6242 Community food and housing, and emergency and other relief services 7223 Special food services 7224 Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) 7225 Full-service restaurants and limited-service eating places Source: EMSI Analyst Economic Modelling Website based on Statistics Canada data 11 See note in Figure 3.14. 3.16

3.8 Income and Other Indicators SECTION 3 - Demographic Growth Figure 3.16 shows income indicators based on region. Median household incomes are very high in ($92,000), York ($89,000), ($81,000) and Peel ($78,000). Average household income is also higher in these areas. The after tax low income measure (LIM-AT) for 2010 is also shown which is an indicator of the prevalence of low income population in each region. Toronto (19%) and Hamilton (16%) have high levels of the population with low income. In contrast, several communities have high proportions of their households with after tax household income of $100,000 or more. These include (35%), Toronto (20%) and (28%). These households are likely to pay somewhat of a premium for fresh food products, thus presenting opportunities to the agriculture and food industries. Figure 3.16 Income Indicators in the Golden Horseshoe s, 2011 Median household total income Average household total income Meidan after-tax household income After tax low income prevalence (LIM-AT)(% of population in private households) After-tax household income $100,000+ prevalence (% of households) Hamilton Peel Toronto York Golden Horseshoe Ontario $81,119 $91,955 $60,259 $58,662 $77,588 $58,381 $89,110 n/a $66,358 $95,567 $119,403 $76,742 $72,453 $93,916 $87,038 $110,751 $92,308 $85,772 $70,060 $78,329 $53,974 $52,999 $68,251 $52,149 $77,094 n/a $58,717 9.9% 7.6% 15.7% 12.9% 12.6% 19.3% 10.9% 14.5% 13.9% 27.7% 35.2% 18.0% 15.6% 26.7% 19.5% 34.1% 23.9% 23.3% Note: n/a = not available Note: Median income of individuals - The median income of a specified group of income recipients is that amount which divides their income size distribution into two halves, i.e., the incomes of the first half of individuals are below the median, while those of the second half are above the median. Median income is calculated from the individuals with income in that group. Average income of individuals - Average income of individuals refers to the weighted mean total income of individuals aged 15 years and over who reported income for 2010. Average income is calculated from unrounded data by dividing the aggregate income of a specified group of individuals by the number of individuals with income in that group. Median and average of individuals will be calculated for those individuals who are at least aged 15 years and who have an income (positive or negative). Source: Statistics Canada. 2011 National Household Survey. 3.17

Figure 3.17a Median Household Income in the Golden Horseshoe s, 2006 and 2011 $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 Figures 3.17a and b show that median household incomes have been rising throughout the GH region. However, only Toronto s household income has been rising faster than the Ontario Consumer Price Index (CPI) and therefore most regions have fallen behind somewhat in real terms after adjustment for inflation. $20,000 $10,000 $0 Hamilton Peel Toronto York 2006 $75,397 $83,496 $55,312 $54,497 $72,655 $52,833 $81,928 2011 $81,119 $91,955 $60,259 $58,662 $77,588 $58,381 $89,110 Source: Statistics Canada. 2006 Census and 2011 National Household Survey. Figure 3.17b Median Household Income in the Golden Horseshoe s, showing Percentage Increase, 2006 and 2011 Geographic Location 2006 2011 Percent Increase $75,397 $81,119 7.6% $83,496 $91,955 10.1% Hamilton $55,312 $60,259 8.9% $54,497 $58,662 7.6% Peel $72,655 $77,588 6.8% Toronto $52,833 $58,381 10.5% York $81,928 $89,110 8.8% Ontario CPI (2002=100) 108.8 120.1 10.4% Source: Statistics Canada. 2006 Census and 2011 National Household Survey. 3.18

Given relatively flat or slightly declining real household incomes, there are sizable portions of the population with low incomes as shown on Figure 3.18. These individuals are likely to source their food products from lowest cost sources often resulting in lower purchases of fresh, local produce. There is limited research on the food consumption patterns of low income households in Canada. In general, low income Canadians are nutritionally vulnerable because they are unable to purchase sufficient amounts of nutritionally adequate food. 12 They are less likely to consume fruit and vegetables and more likely to consume grains and higher fat foods. They are more likely to purchase food in grocery stores as opposed to eating out. Statistics Canada found in 2008 that 8% of Canadian households were considered food insecure because these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members due to insufficient money for food. In these households, adults or children (if present) or both adults and children experienced food insecurity. 13 A national poll 14 conducted by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada concluded that almost half (47%) of Canadians report going without fresh fruit, vegetables, dairy products, whole grain products, lean meat or fish because they are too expensive. Further, 68% of Canadians identified price as extremely or very important when choosing which items make it into their grocery cart. The study also found wide price variations in food prices amongst different communities in Canada. The latest data from Food Banks Canada shows 375,000 using food banks in Ontario each month of which 35% are children 15. For farmers and food producers the challenge may be to increase long term education in terms of helping to show the value of good nutrition on overall health. The changes in societal attitudes to smoking are an example of how values can shift in the longer term. A related strategy will be to find ways of increasing access to low cost nutritional foods in Ontario as these tend to vary considerably by community and are clearly impacted by low income groups limited physical mobility which is impacted by highly variable access to public transit. 12 Elaine M. Power, The Determinants of Healthy Eating Among Low Income Canadians, Scoping Paper prepared for The Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion Health Canada, 2004 at https:// qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/1974/1223/7/emp%20final%20determinants%20single.pdf 13 Statistics Canada Household Food Insecurity at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/insecurit/key-stats-cles-2007-2008-eng.php#a 14 Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada 2009 Report Card, at http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ikiqlcmwjte&b=4955951&ct=6715269. 15 Foodbankcanada.ca, March 2012, at http://foodbankscanada.ca/getmedia/05731b2c-847f-4f16-8b03-efece6289bce/map-page-eng.jpg.aspx?width=2550&height=2258&ext=.jpg. 3.19

Figure 3.18 After-Tax Low Income Prevalence in the Golden Horseshoe s, 2011 25% 20% 19% 15% 16% 13% 13% 10% 10% 11% 8% 5% 0% Hamilton Peel Toronto York Source: Statistics Canada. 2011 National Household Survey. 3.9 Summary In the last five years, the GH region has continued its long term trend as an important and fast growing economic region in Canada. Its population has continued to grow rapidly, this growth is expected to continue for the next two decades. While the region s population has been growing, demographic and cultural shifts are occurring reflecting an overall aging of the population, continued education growth, continued high levels of immigration and increasing numbers of visible minorities throughout the GH region. For the agricultural sector, this presents both challenges and opportunities. Rapid population growth will place continued pressure on agricultural land, farming and food production and will increase the need to find a balance between rural and urban land uses. At the same time, the rapid growth in the population will continue to create increased demand for food and agricultural products. Demographic changes and cultural shifts will create continued demand for a variety of food and agricultural products thus presenting new opportunities. Farmers and growers able to respond effectively, innovatively and entrepreneurially will be rewarded as they address a host of challenging issues including changing demographics, new markets, continued urbanization, changing inputs and costs of production, work force management issues, environmental issues and changing legislation. 3.20