demographic profile of the crw - cvc

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE CREDIT RIVER WATERSHED

Prepared by: Tesfa Asfaha and Kate Stiefelmeyer

George Morris Centre 225-150 Research Lane Guelph, Ontario, N1G 4T2 519-822-3929 ext. 206 [email protected]

Date: February, 2009

Note to Reader In support of CVC’s Ecological Goods and Services Project, demographic data specific to the Credit River Watershed was acquired from Statistics Canada, based on the 1996, 2001, and 2006 census. The raw data was tabulated by Statistics Canada through a custom geographic processing of the census data based on CVC’s subwatershed and watershed boundaries. The George Morris Centre was hired to process the raw census data and produce a report to share some key demographic data across CVC. As such the information presented in this report covers only small portion of the available census data. There is over 2100 individual variables, within various cross tabulations of the census data, available in raw form for the watershed. If anyone within CVC is interested in demographic data that has not been described within this report please feel free to contact Jeff Wilson or Mike Puddister in the Restoration and Stewardship Department. The report was coordinated by Jamie Ferguson, Jeff Wilson, Dave Beaton, and Mike Puddister.

Demographic Profile of the Credit River Watershed

ii

Executive Summary

A rapidly urbanizing part of Ontario: • Population in the Credit River Watershed (Watershed) increased by 32% between 1996 and

2006, reaching just over 750,000. In Ontario, the population increase was 13% over the same time period.

• The number of private dwellings in the Watershed was estimated at 242,700 in 2006, an increase of 32% from 1996. The number of private dwellings in all of Ontario grew by 16% over the same time period.

• The percentage of private dwellings owned in the Credit River Watershed (78%) is slightly greater than the provincial average of approximately 71%.

• The population of the Watershed is relatively young compared to Ontario overall. In 2006, the proportion of persons aged 34 and younger was 49% for the Watershed and 44% for Ontario.

• The lower portion of the Watershed, which includes Mississauga, Oakville, and Milton, houses 88% of the population, whereas the upper portion houses only 5.5%.

A multicultural area:

• Although English is the dominant mother tongue (56%) in the Watershed, it is much lower than the province as a whole, where English is the mother tongue for 73% of the population.

• Punjabi (11.7%), Urdu (8.6%) and Polish (8.1%) are relatively widely spoken non-official languages in the Watershed.

• In 2006, 8,330 persons (1.1%) in the Watershed identified themselves as Aboriginal compared to 2% in all of Ontario.

• The visible minority population in the Watershed was estimated at 343,350 (45.3%) in 2006, up from 163,925 (28.6%) in 1996. This is just less than double the percentage of visible minorities in all of Ontario at 22.8%.

• South Asian is the dominant visible minority both in the Watershed (42%) and the province as a whole (28.9%) in 2006.

• The number of immigrants in the Watershed was estimated at just below 350,000 (46% of the total population) in 2006. In Ontario, immigrants represent 28.3% of the total population.

• Recent immigrants living in the Watershed in 2006 were just above 72,000. Recent immigrants from India make up the largest portion of this group with 27%, followed by Pakistan (13%), the Philippines (9%) and China (7.2%).

• This is likely due to the Watershed’s proximity to Toronto and its inclusion the Greater Toronto Area.

Growing economically The Watershed surpasses Ontario in a number of economic measures:

• The median household income in the Watershed ($90,140) was higher than in Ontario ($60,455) in 2005.

• Between 1996 and 2006, the median household income in the Watershed increased by 30%, whereas it increased in Ontario only by 9%.

• 36% of households in the Watershed had an income of $100,000 or more. • The employment rate and participation rate were slightly higher for the Watershed (67.6% and

72% respectively) than for Ontario (62.8% and 67.1% respectively).

Other Trends: • Just fewer than 75% of people who live in the Watershed drove to work in 2006, compared to

71% in all of Ontario. This may be due to the number of rural communities located in the Watershed, and the proximity to Toronto where many residents may commute to work.

• 56% of individuals aged 15 and over had attained education beyond high school. This is slightly lower than Ontario as a whole at 61.5%. The percentage of residents with education beyond high school has been declining in the Watershed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Methodology and Data Limitations.......................................................................................... 2

Population.................................................................................................................................. 3

Private Dwellings ....................................................................................................................... 6

Marital Status............................................................................................................................. 7

Mother Tongue and Knowledge of Official Languages ............................................................... 9

Aboriginal Population ................................................................................................................14

Visible Minority Population ........................................................................................................14

Household income ....................................................................................................................20

Labour Force and Employment .................................................................................................24

Modes of Transportation ...........................................................................................................26

Educational Attainment .............................................................................................................26

References ...............................................................................................................................29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Cities and Towns Located Within the Credit River Watershed........................ 1

Figure 2: The Credit River Watershed and its Subwatersheds ................................................... 2

Figure 3: Proportion of Male in the Watershed, 2006 ................................................................. 5

Figure 4: Population Distribution by Age Group in the Watershed, 1996-2006 ........................... 5

Figure 5: Marital Status in the Watershed compared to Ontario, 2006 ....................................... 8

Figure 6: Aboriginal Identity Population in the Watershed and Ontario, 1996-2006 ...................14

Figure 7: Visible Minority Population in the Watershed, 2006....................................................16

Figure 8: Population by Immigrant Status in the Watershed, 2006 ............................................18

Figure 9: Median Household Income in the Watershed and Ontario, 1996-2006 Census..........22

Figure 10: Household Income Distribution in the Watershed, census 2006 ...............................22

Figure 11: Change in the Composition of Income in the Watershed, Census 1996-2006 ..........24

Figure 12: Mode of Transportation to Work, 1996-2006 ............................................................26

Figure 13: Educational Attainment Trends in the Watershed, 1996-2006..................................27

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Population and Growth in the Watershed, 1996-2006 .................................................. 4

Table 2: Private Dwellings in the Watershed, 1996-2006 ........................................................... 6

Table 3: Owned and Rented Private Dwellings in the Watershed, 2006..................................... 7

Table 4: Marital Status in the Watershed, 2006.......................................................................... 8

Table 5: Number of Children at Home in the Watershed by Age Group, 2006............................ 9

Table 6: Population with Official Languages as their Mother Tongue, 2006 ..............................10

Table 7: Population by Knowledge of Official Languages in the Watershed, 2006 ....................12

Table 8: Commonly Spoken Non- Official Languages in the Watershed, 2006..........................13

Table 9: Visible Minority Population in the Watershed, 2006.....................................................15

Table 10: Distribution of Population by Ethnic Origin, 2006.......................................................17

Table 11: Recent Immigrants by Selected Places of Birth, 2006 ...............................................19

Table 12: Median Household Income in the Watershed, 1996-2006 Census ............................21

Table 13: Composition of Household Income in the Watershed, Census 2006 .........................23

Table 14: Change in Labour Force and Employment Rate in the Watershed, 1996-2006 .........25

Table 15: Employment Rate in the Watershed, 2006 ................................................................25

Table 16: Level of Educational Attainment in the Watershed, 2006...........................................28


1

Introduction The Credit River Watershed is 1,000 square kilometres in area and is drained by the Credit River and its 1,500 kilometres of tributaries.1 It is located in one of the most rapidly urbanizing parts of Canada, adjacent to the Greater Toronto Area. It includes portions of Peel and Halton Regions and the municipalities of Mississauga, Brampton, Halton Hills, and Orangeville among others, as shown in Figure 1 (CVC, 2008). The following report examines demographic trends in the watershed based on Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, and 2006 Census data. Figure 2 is a map of the subwatersheds within the Credit River Watershed. Data were collected and reported based on the subwatershed boundaries2. Figure 1: Map of Cities and Towns Located Within the Credit River Watershed

Source: CVC (2008)

1 A watershed is an area of land that drains into a river or stream. 2 A subwatershed is a smaller drainage area within the larger watershed (Conservation Halton, 2008). Note that Lake Ontario Shoreline subwatersheds (numbers 21 and 22 shown in Figure 2) are not actual subwatersheds; they are a collection of distinct watersheds that drain directly into Lake Ontario. For management purposes CVC has grouped these independent watersheds into two management areas.


2

Figure 2: The Credit River Watershed and its Subwatersheds

Source: CVC (2008) Methodology and Data Limitations Data for the Statistical Profile of the Credit River Watershed were obtained based on a custom request from Statistics Canada using data collected in the 2006, 2001, and 1996 Census. As part of the Census, Statistics Canada collects statistics at national, provincial and sub-provincial levels. The smallest standard geographic area for which Census data are provided is a dissemination area (DA). The dissemination areas cover all the territory of Canada (Statistics Canada, 2007e). In order to present data for the Credit River Watershed and its subwatersheds, custom geographies were provided to Statistics Canada by Credit Valley Conservation. Statistics Canada then overlaid a DA map on top of the subwatershed map in order to allocate the data from each DA to the respective subwatershed. This method of allocating the data has some limitations, which must be noted:

• In some instances, DAs overlapped two or more subwatersheds. When this occurred, Statistics Canada would allocate all of the data from a DA to the subwatershed that had greater than 50% of the DA’s area within the subwatershed. Due to Statistics Canada’s DA allocation rules, this introduces some error in the allocation of census data to subwatershed. Watershed totals are less affected by this error.

• Dissemination areas are based on population size (400-700 people) and can, therefore, change over time as populations change, particularly in urbanizing areas such as the


3

Credit River Watershed. Due to changes that likely occurred in some DAs between Census years, this will also introduce some error in trend analysis at the subwatershed level.

• In some of the descriptions and tables below, n/a does not represent missing data but, rather, the cases where no DAs were allocated to a subwatershed as per the allocation rules.

Population Population in the Credit River Watershed (Watershed) was just over 750,000 in 2006, an increase of 32% over 1996. Table 1 shows population growth in the Watershed between 1996 and 2006. Growth in population within the Watershed was much greater than Ontario as a whole. During the same period, population in the province increased by 13% to reach just over 12 million in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2008a). Between 1996 and 2006 some subwatersheds experienced significant population growth. For example, the population in Levi Creek, between Mississauga and Milton, has more than doubled since 1996. Other subwatersheds with significant growth include Carolyn Creek, Fletcher’s Creek in Brampton and the East Credit River. In some of the smaller populated subwatersheds, Table 1 shows negative growth based on the numbers received from Statistics Canada. It is more likely that this result is due to the DA method used to match subwatersheds with data, and not necessarily that population is declining in these watersheds, which are located in a growing part of the province. The lower portion3 of the Watershed which includes Mississauga, Oakville, and Milton houses 88% of the population. The upper portion4 of the Watershed houses only 5.5% of the population.

3 The lower portion of the Watershed includes subwatersheds shown in green in Figure 2 (Loyalist Creek, Carolyn Creek, Sawmill Creek, Mullett Creek, Fletcher’s Creek, Levi Creek, Huttonville Creek, Springbrook Tributary, Churchville Tributary, Norval to Port Credit, Lake Ontario Shoreline (21) and Lake Ontario Shoreline (22)). 4 The upper portion of the Watershed includes subwatersheds shown in pink in Figure 2 (West Credit River, Caledon Creek, Shaw’s Creek, Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit, Orangeville).


4

Table 1: Population and Growth in the Watershed, 1996-2006 % of Total Population % Change Sub-Watersheds 1996 2001 2006

2006 1996-2006 Loyalist Creek 25,565 23,655 23,955 3.2% -6.3% Carolyn Creek 9,440 18,055 21,845 2.9% 131.4% Sawmill Creek 30,115 40,230 45,695 6.0% 51.7% Mullett Creek 72,995 82,015 79,180 10.5% 8.5% Fletcher`s Creek 45,320 59,770 120,610 15.9% 166.1% Levi Creek 1,545 3,900 5,070 0.7% 228.2% Huttonville Creek n/a 1,460 575 0.1% n/a Norval to Port Credit 110,110 128,540 145,210 19.2% 31.9% Black Creek 12,540 13,275 18,120 2.4% 44.5% Silver Creek 19,180 20,535 20,420 2.7% 6.5% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 3,115 3,280 3,550 0.5% 14.0% East Credit River 620 690 1,545 0.2% 149.2% Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 2,560 2,695 2,425 0.3% -5.3% West Credit River 8,090 7,675 7,380 1.0% -8.8% Caledon Creek 2,180 2,065 2,140 0.3% -1.8% Shaw`s Creek 1,910 3,485 3,395 0.4% 77.7% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit n/a n/a 1,190 0.2% n/a Orangeville 23,560 26,240 27,570 3.6% 17.0% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 1,905 2,650 1,880 0.2% -1.3% Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 48,410 52,070 49,470 6.5% 2.2% Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 143,115 149,545 157,620 20.8% 10.1% Springbrook Tributary n/a n/a 1,695 0.2% n/a Churchville Tributary 10,440 15,905 17,055 2.3% 63.4% Credit River 572,715 657,735 757,595 14.8% 32.3%

* n/a: Does not represent missing data, but is a limitation of the DA allocation rules (see methodology and data limitation discussion on page 2). Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006 Figures 3 and 4 present the distribution of the population in the Watershed by gender and age, respectively, in 2006. As depicted in Figure 3, the ratio of males to total population in the Watershed declined from just above 60% in 1996 to just below 50% in 2006. The distribution of males in Ontario was stable at just below 50% between 1996 and 2006. Within the Watershed, the largest subwatershed split between males and females was in the East Credit River subwatershed, with males accounting for 54% of the population in 2006.


5

Figure 3: Proportion of Males in the Watershed, 2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001 and 2006 As shown in Figure 4, 49% of the watershed population was 34 years of age and younger in 2006. The Watershed is relatively young by comparison to Ontario’s population 34 years and younger, which makes up 44% of the total Ontario population. The largest proportion of the population is under 15 years, followed by those between 35 and 44 years old. Although there has been an increase in all age groups since 1996, the older population increased more than proportionately. Between 1996 and 2006, the population between 55 and 64 years increased by 170%, and 65 and over by 65%, compared to 53% for all the age groups. The population between 25 and 34 years grew only slightly (2%). Figure 4: Population Distribution by Age Group in the Watershed, 1996-2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001, 2006


6

Private Dwellings Overall, the number of private dwellings in the Credit River Watershed increased from 183,490 in 1996 to 242,700 in 2006, a 32% increase, as shown in Table 2. Private dwelling growth in the Watershed surpassed growth in Ontario as a whole, which experienced a 16% increase between 1996 and 2006 (from 3,924,510 to 4,555,025) (Statistics Canada, 2008a). Within the watershed, the largest proportional increase in the number of private dwellings occurred in Levi Creek; this is consistent with the population growth in this subwatershed. In absolute terms, the private dwellings in Fletcher`s Creek increased by just over 20,000, a 145% rise between 1996 and 2006. Table 2: Private Dwellings in the Watershed, 1996-2006

Number of Private Dwellings Percentage Change Subwatershed

1996 2001 2006 1996-2001

2001-2006

1996-2006

Loyalist Creek 7,355 7,015 7,165 -5% 2% -3%

Carolyn Creek 2,610 4,845 5,715 86% 18% 119%

Sawmill Creek 9,465 12,700 14,460 34% 14% 53%

Mullett Creek 22,745 25,835 25,295 14% -2% 11%

Fletcher`s Creek 13,890 18,260 34,090 31% 87% 145%

Levi Creek 525 1,160 1,555 121% 34% 196%

Huttonville Creek n/a 485 195 n/a n/a -60%

Norval to Port Credit 33,735 39,380 45,130 17% 15% 34%

Black Creek 4,115 4,535 6,065 10% 34% 47%

Silver Creek 6,620 7,180 7,470 8% 4% 13%

Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 1,070 1,110 1,175 4% 6% 10%

East Credit River 230 245 520 7% 112% 126%

Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 1,020 1,120 985 10% -12% -3%

West Credit River 2,730 2,640 2,570 -3% -3% -6%

Caledon Creek 685 665 675 -3% 2% -1%

Shaw`s Creek 640 1,135 1,085 77% -4% 70% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit

n/a n/a 410 n/a n/a n/a

Orangeville 7,975 9,010 9,670 13% 7% 21% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham

670 935 665 40% -29% -1%

Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 15,940 17,350 16,805 9% -3% 5%

Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 48,760 51,690 56,035 6% 8% 15%

Springbrook Tributary n/a n/a 465 n/a n/a n/a Churchville Tributary 2,710 4,295 4,500 58% 5% 66% Credit River 183,490 211,590 242,700 15% 15% 32% * n/a: Does not represent missing data, but is a limitation of the DA allocation rules (See methodology and data limitation discussion on page 2). Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001, 2006 Of the total 242,700 private dwellings in the Credit River Watershed in 2006, 189,300 (78%) were owned and the remaining 22% were rented (see Table 3). The percentage of private dwellings owned in the Watershed is slightly greater than the provincial average of


7

approximately 71% (Statistics Canada, 2008a). Within the subwatersheds, Lake Ontario Shoreline (22) has the largest number of private dwellings and the smallest percentage of owned dwellings (65%). The percentage of private dwellings owned was the largest (97%) in Springbrook Tributary, where the number of private dwellings was estimated to be 465 in 2006. Table 3: Owned and Rented Private Dwellings in the Watershed, 2006

Number of Private Dwellings Percentage of total Subwatershed

Total Owned Rented Owned Rented Loyalist Creek 7,165 5,215 1,945 73% 27% Carolyn Creek 5,715 4,970 735 87% 13% Sawmill Creek 14,460 11,760 2,705 81% 19% Mullett Creek 25,295 20,455 4,840 81% 19% Fletcher`s Creek 34,090 28,725 5,365 84% 16% Levi Creek 1,555 1,470 80 95% 5% Huttonville Creek 195 150 40 77% 21% Norval to Port Credit 45,130 35,170 9,965 78% 22% Black Creek 6,065 5,270 795 87% 13% Silver Creek 7,470 6,075 1,390 81% 19% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 1,175 1,080 95 92% 8% East Credit River 520 460 55 88% 11% Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 985 775 210 79% 21% West Credit River 2,570 2,300 265 89% 10% Caledon Creek 675 645 30 96% 4% Shaw`s Creek 1,085 965 125 89% 12% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit 410 370 45 90% 11% Orangeville 9,670 7,805 1,870 81% 19% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 665 575 90 86% 14% Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 16,805 13,885 2,925 83% 17% Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 56,035 36,690 19,345 65% 35% Springbrook Tributary 465 450 15 97% 3% Churchville Tributary 4,500 4,040 460 90% 10% Credit River 242,700 189,300 53,390 78% 22% Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006 Marital Status Table 4 and Figure 5 illustrate marital status in the Watershed for 2006. Of the population 15 years and over in the Watershed, 57% were legally married, 30% have never married, 6% divorced, 4% widowed and 3% separated. These percentages are comparable to the marital statistics for the province as a whole. The marital status statistics for Ontario in 2006 were: legally married (52%), never married (32%), divorced (7%), widowed (6%) and separated (3%). Subwatershed marital statistics were similar to the whole watershed. The percentage of legally married for the subwatersheds varied between 52% and 68%, except for Credit – Glen Williams to Norval. Its percentage was low (44%), never married between 22% and 32%, divorced between 4% and 9%, widowed between 2% and 9% and separated between 1.8% and 5%.


8

Table 4: Marital Status in the Watershed, 2006

Subwatershed Population over 15

Never Married

Legally Married Separated Divorced Widowed

Loyalist Creek 19,015 6,145 10,765 445 820 840 Carolyn Creek 16,705 5,190 9,960 400 600 555 Sawmill Creek 36,475 11,430 20,530 1,055 1,925 1,535 Mullett Creek 62,790 19,800 35,270 1,865 3,510 2,345 Fletcher`s Creek 89,505 25,420 53,820 2,755 4,305 3,205 Levi Creek 3,625 815 2,465 65 190 90 Huttonville Creek 490 140 275 20 45 10 Norval to Port Credit 116,680 36,360 67,210 2,895 5,565 4,650 Black Creek 13,970 3,680 8,500 430 770 590 Silver Creek 16,415 4,675 9,195 605 1,150 790 Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 2,870 675 1,745 60 200 190 East Credit River 1,290 370 775 25 90 30 Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 2,020 660 890 100 180 190 West Credit River 5,785 1,475 3,375 235 425 275 Caledon Creek 1,645 415 1,035 50 60 85 Shaw`s Creek 2,530 635 1,540 90 160 105 Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit 950 280 520 30 85 35 Orangeville 21,540 6,610 11,275 840 1,645 1,170 Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 1,620 485 950 40 110 35 Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 40,105 12,045 22,510 1,270 2,410 1,870 Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 129,355 41,255 69,195 4,280 8,270 6,355 Springbrook Tributary 1,190 305 765 30 45 45 Churchville Tributary 12,925 4,070 7,490 330 645 390 Credit River 599,495 182,935 340,055 17,915 33,205 25,385 Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006 Figure 5: Marital Status in the Watershed compared to Ontario, 2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006


9

Table 5 illustrates the number of children at home in the Watershed by age range in 2006. Children between the ages of 6 and 14 years make up the largest proportion at 34%, followed by children ages 15-25 years. Within the Watershed, Norval to Port Credit, Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) and Fletcher`s Creek have the largest numbers of children living at home. Two of these subwatersheds are located within the City of Mississauga or the City of Brampton. Springbrook had the largest percentage (28%) of at-home children under 6 years of age, Levi Creek and Shaw`s Creek had the largest percentage of at-home children from 6-14 years of age, and Huttonville Creek had the largest percentage of at-home children 25 years of age and over. Table 5: Number of Children at Home in the Watershed by Age Group, 2006

Number of children at home

Under 6 years of age 6 - 14 years 15 - 24 years

25 years and more Subwatershed

Total Total % Total % Total % Total % Loyalist Creek 9,940 1,630

16% 3,350

3,305 33% 3,570

3,575 36% 1,430

1,430 14%

Carolyn Creek 9,575 1,695 1,695

18% 3,420 3,420

36% 3,350 3,350

35% 1,150 1,110

12% Sawmill Creek 18,200 3,170

3,170 17% 5,980

5,980 33% 6,700

6,700 37% 2,350

2,350 13%

Mullett Creek 31,425 5,165 16% 11,115 11,115

35% 11,480 11,480

37% 3,665 3,665

12% Fletcher`s Creek 48,935 13,080 27% 17,765

17,765 36% 13,390

13,390 27% 4,700

4,700 10%

Levi Creek 2,060 545 26% 900 900

44% 530 530

26% 85 85

4% Huttonville Creek 215 20 9% 75

75 35% 80

80 37% 40

40 19%

Norval to Port Credit 55,360 10,120 10,120

18% 18,235 18,235

33% 19,020 19,020

34% 7,985 7,985

14% Black Creek 6,350 1,720

1,720 27% 2,420

2,420 38% 1,785

1,785 28% 425

425 7%

Silver Creek 7,015 1,390 1,390

20% 2,615 2,615

37% 2,335 2,335

33% 675 675

10% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams

1,185 195 195

16% 480 480

41% 415 415

35% 95 95

8% East Credit River 515 55 11% 205

205 40% 200

200 39% 55

55 11%

Credit – Glen Williams to Norval

765 135 135

18% 265 265

35% 265 265

35% 100 100

13% West Credit River 2,650 460

460 17% 1,140

1,140 43% 875

875 33% 175

175 7%

Caledon Creek 855 140 140

16% 355 355

42% 295 295

35% 65 65

8% Shaw`s Creek 1,325 265

265 20% 585

585 44% 415

415 31% 60

60 5%

Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit

420 105 105

25% 135 135

32% 140 140

33% 40 40

10% Orangeville 10,110 2,170

2,170 21% 3,830

3,830 38% 3,310

3,310 33% 800

800 8%

Credit – Forks of the Credit to

565 95 17% 160 160

28% 245 245

43% 65 65

12% Lake Ontario (21) 18,155 2,990

2,990 16% 6,355

6,355 35% 6,490

6,490 36% 2,320

2,320 13%

Lake Ontario (22) 54,820 10,880 10,880

20% 17,170 17,170

31% 18,320 18,320

33% 8,450 8,450

15% Springbrook Tributary

725 205 28% 290 290

40% 185 185

26% 45 45

6% Churchville Tributary 7,145 1,560

22% 2,545 36% 2,250 31% 790 11%

Credit River 288,310 57,790 20% 99,345 99,345

34% 95,650 95,650

33% 35,525 35,525

12% Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006 Mother Tongue and Knowledge of Official Languages

For the majority (56%) of the population in the Watershed, English was their mother tongue with only 1% reporting French as their mother tongue (see Table 6). The percentage of the population with English as their mother tongue was relatively low compared to Ontario as a whole with 73% (Statistics Canada, 2008b). This result may be due to the proximity of the


10

Watershed to the Greater Toronto Area, and the inclusion of Mississauga and Brampton. Historically, a large percentage of recent immigrants settle in large metropolitan areas of the country, and 43% of them settled in the Greater Toronto Area (Canadian Labour and Business Centre, 2003).

The subwatersheds in which less than 50% of the population’s mother tongue is English include Carolyn Creek, Lake Ontario Shoreline (22), and Norval to Port Credit. These subwatersheds are located in close proximity to or within Mississauga. By contrast, in the upper Subwatersheds (West Credit River, Shaw`s Creek, Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit, Orangeville), English is the mother tongue of more than 84% of the population. Table 6: Population with Official Languages as their Mother Tongue, 2006

English French Non-official Languages Subwatershed Total*

Total % Total % Total % Loyalist Creek 23,545 12,400 53% 395 2% 10,750 46% Carolyn Creek 21,050 7,805 37% 130 1% 13,115 62% Sawmill Creek 44,400 24,470 55% 690 2% 19,240 43% Mullett Creek 77,020 47,275 61% 1,030 1% 28,715 37% Fletcher`s Creek 117,555 61,850 53% 955 1% 54,750 47% Levi Creek 4,945 3,415 69% 65 1% 1,465 30% Huttonville Creek 580 465 80% 0 0% 115 20% Norval to Port Credit 141,275 65,185 46% 1,670 1% 74,420 53% Black Creek 18,045 16,095 89% 285 2% 1,665 9% Silver Creek 20,300 18,135 89% 325 2% 1,840 9% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams

3,545 3,115 88% 60 2% 370 10% East Credit River 1,545 1,300 84% 10 1% 235 15% Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 2,420 2,085 86% 95 4% 240 10% West Credit River 7,330 6,760 92% 85 1% 485 7% Caledon Creek 2,145 1,805 84% 20 1% 320 15% Shaw`s Creek 3,365 3,080 92% 30 1% 255 8% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit

1,180 1,050 89% 60 5% 70 6% Orangeville 27,385 25,360 93% 325 1% 1,700 6% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham

1,850 1,535 83% 25 1% 290 16% Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 48,750 34,525 71% 740 2% 13,485 28% Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 153,015 68,065 44% 1,640 1% 83,310 54% Springbrook Tributary 1,660 1,050 63%

0 0%

610

37%

Churchville Tributary 16,695

9,095

54%

110

1%

7,490

45% Credit River 739,600 415,920 56% 8,745 1% 314,935 43%

*The total number in the table is less than the actual number of the population because it includes only single responses and not that of multiple responses. For instance, those who reported that both English and French was their mother tongue were not included in the count. Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006 As shown in Table 7, out of the two official languages in Canada, 89% of the population in the Watershed was able to communicate only in English in 2006, 7% both in English and French, and 3% neither in English nor French. In all of Ontario, 86% of the population can communicate


11

in English only, 0.4% only in French, 11% in both English and French, and 2.2% in neither English nor French (Statistics Canada, 2008c). Table 8 shows some commonly spoken non-official languages in the Watershed. Of the non-official languages, Punjabi (11.7%), Urdu (8.6%) and Polish (8.1%) are widely spoken.


12

Table 7: Population by Knowledge of Official Languages in the Watershed, 2006

Total English only French only Both English &

French Neither English nor

French Subwatershed Population Total % Total % Total % Total %

Loyalist Creek 23,955 21,295 89% 15 0.06% 2,015 8% 630 3%

Carolyn Creek 21,840 19,465 89% 10 0.05% 1,240 6% 1,125 5% Sawmill Creek 45,700 40,680 89% 35 0.08% 4,030 9% 955 2% Mullett Creek 79,175 70,555 89% 115 0.15% 6,840 9% 1,665 2% Fletcher`s Creek 120,605 108,695 90% 70 0.06% 6,425 5% 5,415 4% Levi Creek 5,070 4,575 90% 0 0.00% 460 9% 35 1% Huttonville Creek 580 570 98% 0 0.00% 10 2% 0 0% Norval to Port Credit 145,215 128,255 88% 125 0.09% 10,405 7% 6,430 4% Black Creek 18,125 16,625 92% 10 0.06% 1,430 8% 60 0% Silver Creek 20,425 18,630 91% 10 0.05% 1,725 8% 60 0% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 3,550 3,140 88% 0 0.00% 385 11% 25 1% East Credit River 1,545 1,410 91% 0 0.00% 125 8% 10 1% Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 2,425 2,105 87% 0 0.00% 260 11% 60 2% West Credit River 7,375 6,660 90% 0 0.00% 715 10% 0 0% Caledon Creek 2,140 2,010 94% 0 0.00% 120 6% 10 0% Shaw`s Creek 3,395 3,050 90% 0 0.00% 330 10% 15 0% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit 1,190 1,060 89% 0 0.00% 130 11% 0 0% Orangeville 27,570 26,030 94% 0 0.00% 1,500 5% 40 0% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 1,875 1,755 94% 0 0.00% 120 6% 0 0% Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 49,470 43,585 88% 50 0.10% 5,285 11% 550 1% Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 157,615 140,520 89% 180 0.11% 10,200 6% 6,715 4% Springbrook Tributary 1,695 1,570 93% 0 0.00% 40 2% 85 5% Churchville Tributary 17,050 15,165 89% 0 0.00% 1,065 6% 820 5% Credit River 757,585 677,405 89% 620 0.08% 54,855 7% 24,705 3% Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006


13

Table 8: Commonly Spoken Non- Official Languages in the Watershed, 2006

Subwatershed

Total Population Who Speak Non-Official Languages P

un

jab

i

Ch

ines

e

Can

ton

ese

Po

rtu

gu

ese

Fili

pin

o

Ara

bic

Urd

u

Po

lish

Ital

ian

Oth

er

Loyalist Creek 10,750 5.7% 4.0% 3.6% 4.0% 4.9% 4.3% 23.7% 9.6% 4.3% 35.9% Carolyn Creek 13,115 8.0% 6.4% 5.9% 6.4% 7.3% 3.7% 13.2% 6.3% 3.5% 39.3% Sawmill Creek 19,240 4.1% 5.7% 4.9% 3.6% 7.5% 7.0% 12.4% 9.9% 2.8% 42.2% Mullett Creek 28,715 3.1% 6.7% 6.0% 5.7% 4.9% 6.8% 11.8% 7.2% 3.9% 43.9% Fletcher`s Creek 54,750 35.4% 1.8% 1.2% 8.4% 6.0% 1.9% 6.2% 2.9% 3.3% 33.0% Levi Creek 1,465 9.9% 5.5% 4.8% 1.7% 6.5% 3.4% 1.0% 14.7% 5.1% 47.4% Huttonville Creek 115 17.4% 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 17.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.1% 30.4% Norval to Port Credit 74,420 9.6% 6.1% 5.5% 7.2% 6.9% 6.0% 8.5% 8.2% 4.4% 37.5% Black Creek 1,665 2.1% 1.2% 0.0% 7.5% 3.6% 0.0% 2.7% 12.9% 11.1% 58.9% Silver Creek 1,840 0.0% 0.8% 3.8% 12.0% 1.4% 0.5% 0.8% 9.0% 8.4% 63.3% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 370 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 5.4% 85.1% East Credit River 235 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.8% 42.6% 38.3% Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 240 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 0.0% 8.3% 62.5% West Credit River 485 3.1% 2.1% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 8.2% 11.3% 64.9% Caledon Creek 320 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 20.3% 59.4% Shaw`s Creek 255 13.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 7.8% 56.9% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit 70 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% Orangeville 1,700 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 0.6% 0.6% 1.5% 7.9% 12.1% 60.9% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 290 3.4% 0.0% 19.0% 12.1% 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 50.0% Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 13,485 1.5% 4.7% 3.6% 7.3% 5.7% 4.7% 3.1% 16.6% 6.7% 46.0% Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 83,310 3.8% 4.2% 3.6% 7.1% 5.4% 6.0% 7.6% 10.6% 5.8% 45.7% Springbrook Tributary 610 28.7% 0.0% 2.5% 10.7% 6.6% 0.0% 4.9% 4.9% 2.5% 39.3% Churchville Tributary 7,490 41.5% 0.9% 0.8% 14.5% 4.5% 1.3% 5.7% 2.3% 4.3% 24.3% Credit River 314,935 11.7% 4.5% 3.9% 7.1% 5.9% 4.9% 8.6% 8.1% 4.7% 40.4% Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006


14

Aboriginal Population Aboriginal Identity refers to those persons who reported identifying with at least one Aboriginal group, e.g. North American Indian, Métis or Inuit. Also included are individuals who did not report an Aboriginal identity, but did report themselves as Registered or Treaty Indians, and/or Band or First Nation members (Statistics Canada, 2008d). Figure 6 shows the percentage of the population in the Watershed and Ontario that identify with at least one Aboriginal group. In 2006, 8,330 persons in the Watershed identified themselves as Aboriginal; this represents 1.1% of the population and increased from 0.3% in 1996. In 2006, 242,490 (2%) people were estimated to have identified themselves as Aboriginals in Ontario. Figure 6: Aboriginal Identity Population in the Watershed and Ontario, 1996-2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001, 2006 Visible Minority Population Visible minority population refers to the visible minority group to which the respondent belongs. The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as 'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.' Categories in the visible minority population variable include Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Southeast Asian, Arab, West Asian, Korean, Japanese, Visible minority, n.i.e5., and Multiple visible minority (Statistics Canada, 2008e). Table 9 and Figure 7 provide the trend and percentage distributions of the visible minority population in the Watershed. The visible minority population in the Watershed increased to 343,350 (45.3%) in 2006 from 163,925 (28.6%) in 1996. In 2006, the proportion of the total Ontario population identified as visible minority was estimated to be 22.8%, a significantly lower percentage than in the Watershed (Statistics Canada, 2008f). Within the Credit River Watershed, Carolyn Creek, in the central part of Mississauga had the largest percentage (71.1%) of visible minorities in 2006, followed by Springbrook Tributary (67%). The visible

5 'n.i.e.' means not included elsewhere.


15

minority population was the smallest (1.7%) in Credit – Cheltenham to Glen Williams. Those subwatersheds in the upper watershed (West Credit River, Caledon Creek, Shaw`s Creek, Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit, and Orangeville) and toward the west (Black Creek and Silver Creek) also had relatively few visible minorities compared to the other subwatersheds. Table 9: Visible Minority Population in the Watershed, 2006

Visible Minority Population % of total Population Subwatershed 1996 2001 2006 1996 2001 2006

Loyalist Creek 9,355 9,730 11,705 36.6% 41.1% 48.9% Carolyn Creek 4,630 10,665 15,540 49.1% 59.1% 71.1% Sawmill Creek 7,230 13,395 21,765 24.0% 33.3% 47.6% Mullett Creek 19,190 27,565 32,445 26.3% 33.6% 41.0% Fletcher`s Creek 16,700 27,685 78,085 36.8% 46.3% 64.7% Levi Creek 60 325 1,350 3.9% 8.3% 26.6% Huttonville Creek n/a* 410 115 37.7% 28.1% 19.8% Norval to Port Credit 41,475 59,430 78,265 2.4% 46.2% 53.9% Black Creek 295 420 785 2.3% 3.2% 4.3% Silver Creek 450 905 655 3.4% 4.4% 3.2% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 105 30 60 4.8% 0.9% 1.7% East Credit River 30 0 50 2.9% 0.0% 3.2% Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 75 15 150 2.9% 2.2% 6.2% West Credit River 125 175 150 1.5% 2.3% 2.0% Caledon Creek 105 50 75 4.8% 2.4% 3.5% Shaw`s Creek 60 120 260 3.1% 3.4% 7.7% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit n/a n/a 70 n/a n/a 5.9% Orangeville 555 1,085 1,425 2.4% 4.1% 5.2% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 65 70 175 3.4% 2.6% 9.3% Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 7,875 11,000 10,990 16.3% 21.1% 22.2% Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 51,835 64,035 78,040 36.2% 42.8% 49.5% Springbrook Tributary n/a n/a 1,135 n/a n/a 67.0% Churchville Tributary 3,710 7,475 10,060 35.6% 47.0% 59.0% Credit River 163,925 234,585 343,350 28.6% 35.7% 45.3% * n/a: Does not represent missing data, but is a limitation of the DA allocation rules (See methodology and data limitation discussion on page 2). Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006 Figure 7 shows that South Asian was the dominant visible minority (42%) in the Watershed, followed by Black (15%) and Chinese (12%) in 2006. Similarly, South Asian was the largest (28.9%) visible minority group in Ontario in 2006, but followed by Chinese (21%) and then Black (4%) (Statistics Canada, 2008f).


16

Figure 7: Visible Minority Population in the Watershed, 2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006 Table 10 presents the distribution of population in the Watershed by ethnic origin. The majority (49.3%) of the population in the Watershed are British Isles origin, followed by Asian origin6 (18%) and European origin (16.5%). Figure 8 shows population by immigrant status in the Watershed for 2006. The number of immigrants in the Watershed was estimated at just below 350,000 (46% of the total population) in 2006, non-immigrants just above 400,000 (53%) and non-permanent residents just above 7,000 (1%). Within the Watershed, Carolyn Creek had the largest proportion (62%) of immigrants, while Credit–Cheltenham to Glen Williams, Shaw`s Creek and West Credit River had the lowest proportion (12%). Table 11 illustrates the number of recent immigrants7 (arrived in last five years) by selected places of birth. The number of recent immigrants in the Watershed was estimated at just above 72,000 in 2006. The largest percentage (27%) of these recent immigrants was born in India, 13% in Pakistan, 9% Philippines and 7.2% China.

6 Asian origin is the total sum of West Asian origin, South Asian origin and East &Southeast Asian origin. 7 Recent immigrants refer to immigrants who came to Canada between January 1, 2001 and May 16, 2006 (Statistics Canada. 2006a).


17

Table 10: Distribution of Population by Ethnic Origin, 2006

Subwatershed British Isles French

Other North

American Caribbean Asian European Other8

Loyalist Creek 50.3% 2.3% 6.6% 3.5% 17% 16.4% 3.4% Carolyn Creek 55.6% 1.0% 2.8% 4.0% 17% 15.2% 4.2% Sawmill Creek 50.4% 2.7% 6.5% 2.9% 17% 15.7% 4.6% Mullett Creek 48.1% 2.9% 7.9% 2.4% 18% 16.9% 3.9% Fletcher`s Creek 52.1% 1.7% 5.3% 7.6% 16% 12.9% 4.6% Levi Creek 44.8% 2.7% 9.1% 1.6% 20% 18.9% 3.0% Huttonville Creek 46.8% 4.0% 11.3% 3.2% 17% 16.9% 0.8% Norval to Port Credit 51.0% 1.9% 4.8% 2.9% 18% 17.0% 4.3% Black Creek 43.8% 4.4% 14.6% 0.5% 18% 17.8% 0.8% Silver Creek 46.2% 5.0% 14.7% 0.2% 17% 16.5% 0.7% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 43.9% 4.4% 14.2% 1.1% 18% 17.9% 0.4% East Credit River 46.1% 3.3% 12.5% 0.0% 19% 18.8% 0.4% Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 48.5% 3.6% 13.0% 1.3% 16% 16.0% 1.2% West Credit River 46.1% 4.8% 16.1% 0.4% 16% 15.7% 0.7% Caledon Creek 45.6% 3.5% 13.5% 0.0% 19% 17.4% 1.3% Shaw`s Creek 47.7% 4.4% 17.1% 0.4% 15% 15.1% 0.1% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit 50.2% 3.8% 13.9% 0.4% 16% 14.8% 1.3% Orangeville 46.8% 4.7% 15.6% 0.9% 16% 15.4% 0.8% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 45.6% 4.2% 7.9% 0.4% 21% 20.3% 1.1% Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 44.7% 3.4% 8.9% 1.8% 20% 19.0% 2.3% Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 49.1% 1.8% 4.6% 2.4% 19% 18.2% 4.5% Springbrook Tributary 53.2% 1.6% 6.4% 6.8% 15% 13.3% 3.5% Churchville Tributary 50.1% 1.6% 5.9% 7.6% 17% 14.7% 3.4% Credit River 49.3% 2.5% 6.9% 3.2% 18% 16.5% 3.7%


8 Other Origin includes Latin, Central and South American origin, African origin, Oceania Origin and Arab origin.


18

Figure 8: Population by Immigrant Status in the Watershed, 2006



19

Table 11: Recent Immigrants by Selected Places of Birth, 2006 Subwatershed Total India Pakistan Philippines China S. Korea Sri Lanka U.S. Jamaica Poland Iraq Other

Loyalist Creek 2,095 270 975 70 95 10 20 35 10 40 10 560

Carolyn Creek 2,525 795 525 210 240 90 60 45 15 30 25 490

Sawmill Creek 4,760 680 790 540 330 180 50 85 25 105 55 1,920

Mullett Creek 7,285 1,005 1,190 510 745 565 70 125 100 105 185 2,685

Fletcher`s Creek 13,330 6,630 1,310 1,000 285 45 170 210 570 135 65 2,910

Levi Creek 235 35 10 0 35 20 0 10 15 10 0 100

Huttonville Creek 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Norval to Port Credit 15,685 3,945 1,850 1,610 1,670 260 360 345 255 255 260 4,875

Black Creek 90 20 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 40

Silver Creek 265 0 25 10 0 0 0 30 0 25 0 175 Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

East Credit River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

West Credit River 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 35

Caledon Creek 20 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Shaw`s Creek 80 0 0 45 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 15 Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

Orangeville 360 40 20 0 10 0 0 60 25 0 0 205 Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 2,315 200 135 280 195 110 50 70 40 80 65 1,090 Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 21,105 5,045 2,560 1,895 1,540 445 610 315 175 500 595 7,425 Springbrook Tributary 115 65 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

Churchville Tributary 1,775 840 235 65 10 0 65 25 150 10 10 365

Credit River 72,165 19,580 9,625 6,265 5,175 1,745 1,455 1,375 1,380 1,305 1,270 22,990 Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006


20

Household income Median household income and trends for the Credit River Watershed and province are presented in Table 12 and Figure 9. Median household income9 for the Credit River Watershed as a whole was just above $90,000 in 200510. East Credit River had the highest median household income (just above $120,000), followed by Caledon Creek (just above $112,000) and Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham (just above $109,000). Median household income was the lowest in subwatershed Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) at just above $68,000. The trend in household income over time shows that the median household income in the Watershed increased from just over $63,000 in 1995 to just over $90,000 in 2005, a 30% increase11. Levi Creek had the largest percentage change (45%) increase and Churchville Tributary the smallest percentage change between 1995 and 2005. The level and growth of median household income for the Watershed was higher than the province overall. Ontario’s median household income was estimated at $60,455 in 2005 and increased only by 9.0% between 1995 and 2005 (Statistics Canada, 2008a).

9 The median is the middle of a distribution: half of the observations are above the median and half are below the median. The median is less sensitive to extreme observations than the mean (average) and this makes it a better measure than mean for highly skewed distributions (observations) in this type of analysis. The mean household income in the Watershed was just over $109,000 in 2005; in Ontario the mean household income was just more than $91,000. 10 Data for household income are reported for the year preceding the census year. 11 The income reported is in nominal value so the percentage changes reflect changes in nominal values not real values.


21

Table 12: Median Household Income in the Watershed, $CDN

Median Household Income12 Percentage Change13

Subwatershed

1995 2000 2005 1995-2000

2000-2005

1995-2005

Loyalist Creek 64,810 79,078 85,904 22% 9% 25%

Carolyn Creek 58,897 69,749 82,873 18% 19% 29%

Sawmill Creek 68,682 77,698 88,570 13% 14% 22%

Mullett Creek 67,115 79,310 87,351 18% 10% 23% Fletcher`s Creek 54,373 63,701 76,834 17% 21% 29%

Levi Creek 54,883 94,418 99,944 72% 6% 45%

Huttonville Creek n/a* 86,168 77,373 n/a -10% n/a

Norval to Port Credit 59,444 69,512 84,159 n/a 21% n/a

Black Creek 61,620 75,033 95,918 n/a 28% n/a

Silver Creek 67,042 78,859 91,457 18% 16% 27% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams

68,077 88,167 100,438 30% 14% 32%

East Credit River 77,007 92,433 120,259 20% 30% 36%

Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 53,587 61,980 78,564 16% 27% 32%

West Credit River 64,086 73,887 95,840 15% 30% 33%

Caledon Creek 77,473 97,508 112,671 26% 16% 31% Shaw`s Creek 59,397 78,441 82,212 32% 5% 28% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit

n/a n/a 87,676 n/a n/a n/a

Orangeville 57,771 67,750 80,695 17% 19% 28% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham

66,976 92,838 109,749 39% 18% 39%



Springbrook Tributary n/a n/a 93,434 n/a n/a n/a

Churchville Tributary 66,268 69,727 78,626 5% 13% 16% Credit River 63,223 77,878 90,140 23% 16% 30% * n/a: Does not represent missing data, but is a limitation of the DA allocation rules (See methodology and data limitation discussion on page 2). Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001, 2006

12 Data for household income are reported for the year preceding the census year. 13 The income reported is in nominal value so the percentage changes reflect changes in nominal values not real values.


22

Figure 9: Median Household Income in the Watershed and Ontario

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

1995 2000 2005

Watershed Ontario

Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001, 2006 Figure 10 presents the proportion of households in the Credit River Watershed by range of household income reported in 2005. A large percentage (36%) of households in the Credit River Watershed had an income of $100,000 or more. Another 15% of households had an income between $80,000 and $100,000. Only a few households (approximately 6%) reported having an income below $20,000 (Statistics Canada, 2008a). Figure 10: Household Income Distribution in the Watershed, 2006 Census



23

Table 13 and Figure 11 break down the composition of household income and its trends for the Watershed. Of the total household income generated in 2005, almost 74% was from employment income and 10% from government transfers14. The proportion of government transfers as a source of household income was slightly higher for the Watershed compared to the province as a whole, at 8.8%. Within the Credit River Watershed, Huttonville Creek, Springbrook Tributary and Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham had the highest proportion of employment income, 91.7%, 88% and 87.3% respectively. The percentage of employment income was the smallest (36.7%) for Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams. There was a slight change in the composition of household income in the Credit River Watershed between 1996 and 2006. The proportion of employment income declined from 84.7% in 1996 to 74.6% in 2006 and government transfers increased from 8.1% in 1996 to 10.4% 2006. In contrast, the percentage of government transfers for Ontario declined from 11.2% in 1996 to 8.8% in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2008a). Table 13: Composition of Household Income in the Watershed, Census 2006

Subwatershed Employment Income (%)

Government Transfers (%) Other (%)

Loyalist Creek 71.8 16.3 11.9 Carolyn Creek 85.3 6.1 8.5 Sawmill Creek 69.2 9.3 21.7 Mullett Creek 81.4 8.2 10.5 Fletcher`s Creek 78.1 11.1 10.8 Levi Creek 80.3 9.8 8 Huttonville Creek 91.7 1.8 0 Norval to Port Credit 74.5 8.9 16.5 Black Creek 70.0 15.6 14.5 Silver Creek 65.9 15.7 18.5 Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 36.7 7.2 56.1 East Credit River 76.1 8.0 16.7 Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 73.0 13.3 14.7 West Credit River 61.0 12.6 27.3 Caledon Creek 59.5 19.9 20.6 Shaw`s Creek 74.2 9.5 15.7 Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit 72.8 3.3 23.9 Orangeville 68.6 15.2 16.2 Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 87.3 5.1 7.6 Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 69.6 10.2 20.2 Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 76.8 10.5 12.7 Springbrook Tributary 88.0 5.8 6.1 Churchville Tributary 84.9 6.7 8.4 Credit River 73.8 10.0 16.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006

14 Government transfer payments refer to total income from all transfer payments received from federal, provincial or municipal governments. This variable is the sum of the amounts reported in: the Old Age Security pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement, benefits from Canada or Quebec Pension Plan, benefits from Employment Insurance, Canada Child Tax benefits and other income from government sources (Statistics Canada, 2001h).


24

Figure 11: Change in the Composition of Income in the Watershed, Census 1996-2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001, 2006 Labour Force and Employment The size of the labour force in the Watershed was estimated to be 431,825 in 2006, up by 35% from what it was in 1996. Growth in the labour force reflects growth in the population of people aged 15 years or older in the Watershed over the same period. Both the employment rate15 and unemployment rate changed only slightly between 1996 and 2006. The employment rate increased slightly from 67.1% in 1996 to 67.6% in 2006 and the unemployment rate declined from 5.6% in 1996 to 4.5%. The number of persons “not in the labour force” also increased to 167,675 in 2006 from 120,345 in 1996, a 39% increase. As a result, the participation rate decreased slightly from 73% in 1996 to 72% in 2006. The employment rate (62.8%) and participation rate (67.1%) were slightly lower for Ontario in 2006 compared to the Watershed (Statistics Canada, 2008a). The percentage of population not in the labour force (45%) was higher for Ontario in 2006 compared to the Watershed. The number of persons “not in the labour force” in Ontario was estimated at 5,477,611, up 8% from what it was in 1996. Within the Credit River Watershed, Levi Creek had the highest employment rate (76.6%), followed by Shaw`s Creek (74.1%). Huttonville Creek had the lowest employment rate (62.5%), and Springbrook Tributary had the highest unemployment rate (5.9%).

15 Employment rate refers to the number of persons employed in the week prior to Census Day, expressed as a percentage of the total population 15 years of age and over, excluding institutional residents. Unemployment rate refers to the unemployed expressed as a percentage of the labour force in the week (Sunday to Saturday) prior to Census Day (Statistics Canada, 2006a).


25

Table 14: Change in Labour Force and Employment Rate in the Watershed, 1996-2006

1996 2001 2006 Labour force 320,315 376,805 431,825 Employment rate 67.1% 69.7% 67.6% Unemployment rate 5.6% 3.7% 4.5% Not in Labour force 120,345 136,215 167,675 Population 15 years and over 440,665 513,020 599,500 Participation rate16 73% 73% 72% Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001, 2006

Table 15: Employment Rate in the Watershed, 2006

Population 15 Employed Unemployed Not in labour

force Subwatershed years & over % of total % of total % of total

Loyalist Creek 19,020 64.3% 5.1% 30.6% Carolyn Creek 16,700 67.8% 4.5% 27.7% Sawmill Creek 36,480 67.8% 4.8% 27.4% Mullett Creek 62,790 70.2% 4.0% 25.8% Fletcher`s Creek 89,500 69.0% 4.9% 26.2% Levi Creek 3,625 76.6% 4.1% 19.3% Huttonville Creek 480 62.5% 3.1% 34.4% Norval to Port Credit 116,680 66.7% 4.6% 28.6% Black Creek 13,970 72.2% 3.0% 24.9% Silver Creek 16,415 71.2% 3.3% 25.6% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 2,870 67.4% 3.5% 29.1% East Credit River 1,280 68.8% 1.6% 30.1% Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 2,025 69.1% 1.2% 29.4% West Credit River 5,780 71.5% 3.2% 25.3% Caledon Creek 1,645 72.0% 1.5% 26.7% Shaw`s Creek 2,530 74.1% 3.0% 22.7% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit 950 70.0% 3.2% 26.3% Orangeville 21,550 70.4% 3.5% 26.1% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 1,630 69.6% 2.8% 27.6% Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 40,110 66.8% 3.8% 29.4% Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 129,360 64.6% 4.9% 30.6% Springbrook Tributary 1,195 73.6% 5.9% 20.5% Churchville Tributary 12,925 68.0% 5.0% 27.0%

Credit River 599,510 67.6% 4.5% 28.0% Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 2006 16 Participation rate - Refers to the number of persons in the labour force in the week (Sunday to Saturday) prior to Census Day, expressed as a percentage of the population 15 years of age and over, excluding institutional residents.


26

Modes of Transportation Figure 12 shows the primary modes of transportation used to get to work in the Watershed by those employed labour force 15 years and over with usual place of work or no fixed workplace address. The majority (74.7%) of this population group drove to work in 2006, 12.8% used public transit to get to work, 8.6% rode to work as passengers in a car, truck or van, and 2.7% walked to work. The number of people who drive to work slightly decreased between 1996 and 2006, while those who rode as passengers in a car, truck or van and those who use public transit increased slightly. In Ontario, slightly fewer people drove to work and instead walk or bike to work, but overall the rates in the Credit River Watershed reflect those of Ontario as a whole. In Ontario, 71% of the work force drove a car, truck or van to work, 8.3% of people rode as a passenger, 12.9% took public transportation, 5.6 % walked, 1.2 % rode bicycles and 1% used other methods (Statistics Canada, 2008a). Figure 12: Mode of Transportation to Work, 1996-2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001 and 2006 Educational Attainment Figure 13 and Table 16 show levels of educational attainment and trends in the Watershed for the population 15 years and over. According to the 2006 census, 31% of all individuals aged 15 and over had university qualifications, 18% had a college diploma, and 7% had trade credentials. In all, 56% of individuals in this age group had qualifications beyond high school. Another 27% were high school graduates. Those without a certificate, diploma or degree represented 19% of the total population aged 15 and over. Although educational attainment in the Watershed is similar to the provincial (Ontario) statistics, the percentage of those without a certificate, diploma or degree was higher in the Watershed than the province as a whole. The educational attainment for Ontario in 2006 was as follows: 30.7% had a university degree, 22% a college degree, 8.8% trade credentials, 25% a high school certificate or equivalent and 13.6% were without a certificate, diploma or degree (Statistics Canada, 2008g).


27

There was a slight change in educational attainment in the Watershed between 1996 and 2006. The percentage of high school graduates increased from 16% in 1996 to 27% in 2006. While the percentage of the population with a university degree remained the same, those with college degrees declined from 28% in 1996 to 18% in 2006. Figure 13: Educational Attainment Trends in the Watershed, 1996-2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census, 1996, 2001, 2006


28

Table 16: Level of Educational Attainment in the Watershed, 2006 No certificate,

diploma High school Trades

certificate or

or degree graduation certificate diploma

College University Subwatershed

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Loyalist Creek 3,395 18% 4,935 26% 1,185 6% 3,085 16% 6,420 34% Carolyn Creek 3,365 20% 4,130 25% 1,030 6% 2,415 14% 5,755 34% Sawmill Creek 5,505 15% 9,590 26% 1,845 5% 6,465 18% 13,070 36% Mullett Creek 9,885 16% 16,075 26% 3,715 6% 11,455 18% 21,650 34% Fletcher`s Creek 19,185 21% 25,225 28% 6,560 7% 16,320 18% 22,225 25% Levi Creek 425 12% 950 26% 195 5% 895 25% 1155 32% Huttonville Creek 130 28% 150 32% 35 7% 75 16% 80 17% Norval to Port Credit 21,785 19% 28,915 25% 7,180 6% 18,910 16% 39,875 34% Black Creek 2,650 19% 4,185 30% 1,070 8% 3,275 23% 2,790 20% Silver Creek 2,935 18% 5,035 31% 1,435 9% 3,475 21% 3,520 21% Credit –Cheltenham to Glen Williams 655 23% 770 27% 185 6% 640 22% 630 22% East Credit River 205 16% 290 23% 90 7% 275 22% 405 32% Credit – Glen Williams to Norval 550 27% 670 33% 180 9% 345 17% 290 14% West Credit River 1,225 21% 1,695 29% 495 9% 1,275 22% 1,085 19% Caledon Creek 265 16% 480 29% 115 7% 410 25% 370 23% Shaw`s Creek 480 19% 780 31% 240 10% 710 28% 305 12% Credit – Melville to Forks of the Credit 190 20% 275 29% 50 5% 195 20% 250 26% Orangeville 4,960 23% 7,245 34% 1,600 7% 4,685 22% 3,060 14% Credit – Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 260 16% 485 30% 150 9% 280 17% 460 28% Lake Ontario Shoreline(21) 6,345 16% 10,575 26% 2,305 6% 7,080 18% 13,805 34% Lake Ontario Shoreline(22) 25,425 20% 32,915 25% 9,120 7% 20,615 16% 41,290 32% Springbrook Tributary 250 21% 285 24% 105 9% 230 19% 335 28% Churchville Tributary 2,965 23% 4,015 31% 850 7% 75 16% 80 17% Credit River 113,035 19% 159,670 27% 39,735 7% 105,215 18% 181,810 30%



29

References Canadian Labour and Business Centre. 2003. Trends in Immigration: Presentation. Retrieved on December 4, 2008 from http://www.clbc.ca/files/Reports/IHB_section_a.pdf Statistics Canada.2008a. Selected trend data for Ontario, 2006, 2001 and 1996 censuses. Retrieved Nov. 2008 from: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/trends/Table_1.cfm? GEOCODE=35&GEOLVL=PR&PRCODE=35&T=PR. Statistics Canada.2008b. Population by Mother Tongue, Showing Age Groups, for Canada, Provinces and Territories, 1996 Census - 20% Sample Data. Retrieved Nov. 2008 from: http://www.statcan.ca/english/census96/dec2/mother.htm.

Statistics Canada.2008c. Population by knowledge of official language, by province and territory (2006 Census). Retrieved Nov. 2008 from: http://www40.statcan.ca /l01/cst01/ demo15.htm.

Statistics Canada.2008d. Definitions. Retrieved Nov. 2008 from: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products /Analytic/companion /abor/definitions.cfm Statistics Canada.2008e. Visible Minority Population and Population Group Reference Guide, 2006 Census.http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/reference/reportsandguides/visible-minorities.cfm. Statistics Canada.2008f. Canada’s Ethnocultural Mosaic, 2006 Census: Provinces and territories. Retrieved Nov. 2008 from: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/ ethnicorigin/ontario.cfm. Statistics Canada.2008g. Highest level of educational attainment for the population aged 25 to 64, 2006 counts for both sexes, for Canada, provinces and territories - 20% sample data. Retrieved Nov. 2008 from: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/highlights /education/pages/ Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&Code=01&Table=1&Data=Count&Sex =1&StartRec=1&Sort=2&Display=Page. Statistics Canada. 2001h. Income: Government Transfer Payments. Census 2001. Retrieved Dec. 2008 from: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Reference/dict/pop046.htm. Statistics Canada. 2006a. Distribution of total population, total immigrant population and recent immigrants, Canada, provinces and territories, 2006 Census. Retrieved February. 2009 from: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/immcit/tables/table2.htm#nt2

demographic profile of the crw - cvc

Documents