Mothercraft – Child & Youth Mental Health Services under MCYS

Child & Youth Mental Health

Data dictionaries contain definitions for the data elements on which MCYS-funded and -operated agencies are required to report quarterly. The dictionaries are organized by funding code. See the Data Elements page for more information on Mothercraft’s role in ensuring that the data elements are collected and reported consistently across the children and youth services sector.

Type Document / Resource Size
Download PDF A505 – Residential Placement Advisory Committee DE Definitions 2013-14Residential Placement Advisory Committee, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 23.66 KB
Download PDF A508 – Children’s Comm Support – Other DE Definitions 2013-14Children’s Community Support – Other, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 39.20 KB
Download PDF A555 – Child and Family Intervention – Operating – Residential DE Definitions 2013-14Child and Family Intervention – Operating – Residential, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 28.29 KB
Download PDF A556 – Child and Family Intervention – Operating – Non-Residential DE Definitions 2013-14Child and Family Intervention – Operating – Non-Residential, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 25.85 KB
Download PDF A559 – Intensive Child and Family Services DE Definitions 2013-14Intensive Child and Family Services, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 30.33 KB
Download PDF A560 – Mobile Crisis DE Definitions 2013-14Mobile Crisis, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 30.12 KB
Download PDF A562 – CMH 0-6 DE Definitions 2013-14Children’s Mental Health (CMH) 0-6, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 30.31 KB
Download PDF A566 – Section 23 Classrooms DE Defintions 2013-14Section 23 Classrooms, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 28.18 KB
Download PDF A577 – Child Treatment – Operating – Secure DE Definitions 2013-14Child Treatment – Operating – Secure, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 28.10 KB
Download PDF A578 – Child Treatment – Residential DE Definitions 2013-14Child Treatment – Residential, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 28.07 KB
Download PDF A579 – Child Treatment – Operating – Non-Residential DE Definitions 2013-14Child Treatment – Operating – Non-Residential, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 25.63 KB
Download PDF A583 – CMH Outpatient Programs DE Definitions 2013-14Children’s Mental Health (CMH) Outpatient Programs, Service Data Element Definitions, 2013-14 (Apr 2013) 29.21 KB

Overview

Every year the Ministry of Finance (MoF) updates its population projections for Ontario and each of its 49 census divisions to reflect the most recent trends and historical data. The Spring 2016 update is based on new 2015 population estimates from Statistics Canada and reflects minor changes in trends in fertility, mortality and migration.

MofF - Chart 00
Figure 1. Map of Ontario Census Divisions.

The projections provide three reasonable growth scenarios for the population of Ontario to 2041. The medium-growth or reference scenario is considered most likely to occur if recent trends continue. The low- and high-growth scenarios provide a forecast range based on plausible changes in the components of growth. Population is projected for each of the 49 census divisions for the reference scenario only.

The MoF’s analysis and commentary on the population projections includes several Charts and Tables that reference various geographic units.

Geographic Units
Province Charts 1-4, 13-19; Table B; Appendix: Tables 1-3
Regions (6) Chart 8; Table A; Appendix: Tables 10-15
Census Divisions (49) Charts 7, 9-12; Appendix: Tables 4-5, 10.1-10.5, 11.1-11.13, 12.1-12.10, 13.1-13.10, 14.1-14.8, 15.1-15.3
Demographic Units
Single Years (0, 1, …, 90+) Appendix: Table 6
Five-Year Groupings (0-4, 5-9, …, 85-89, 90+) Appendix: Tables 7-10
Life Cycle Groupings (0-14, 15-64, 65+) Charts 5-6, 10-12; Appendix: Table 2

Our contribution

To assist in planning, delivering, and evaluating mental health services for children and youth, we extend the MoF’s analysis and commentary on the population projections to include the Children and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) Service Areas used by the Ministry of Children and Youth (MCYS). For the CYMH Service Areas, we derive two datasets:

We also derive different population projections for young people:

  • simple groupings of
    • 0 – 17 year olds (to align with the definition of “child” in the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA), and
    • 0 – 24 year olds (a demographic that is arguably more meaningful from a developmental point of view)
  • life cycle groupings of
    • children (0 – 14 year olds), and
    • youth (15 – 24 year olds)
  • transitional-age group of
    • young persons making the transition from mental health services for “children” (16 and 17 year olds) under the CFSA to mental health services for “emerging adults” (18, 19, and 20 year olds) under the Mental Health Act in Ontario
Census Districts (49)
   Land Area (forthcoming)
   Total Population (forthcoming)
CYMH Service Areas (33)
  Land Area CYMHSAS_Land_Area.csv
  Total Population CYMHSAS_Total_Population_2016_2041.csv
Integrated Service Regions (5)
   Land Area (forthcoming)
   Total Population (forthcoming)
Local Health Integration Networks (14)
   Land Area (forthcoming)
   Total Population (forthcoming)

We also derive different population projections for young people:

  • simple groupings of
    • 0 – 17 year olds (to align with the definition of “child” in the Child and Family Services Act that governs the work of the MCYS), and
    • 0 – 24 year olds (a demographic that is arguably more meaningful from a developmental point of view)
  • life cycle groupings of
    • 0 – 14 year olds (children), and
    • 15 – 24 year olds (youth)
  • a transitional-age group of
    • young persons making the transition from mental health services for “children” (16 and 17 years old) under the MCYS/CFSA to mental health services for “emerging adults” (18, 19, and 20 years old) under the MOHLTC/Mental Health Act in Ontario

CYMHSAS_0017_2016_2041.csv, CYMHSAS_1620_2016_2041.csv and others …., have this structure:

area_name

id

Population_YYYY, where YYYY = {2016, 2017, …, 2041}

Density_YYYY, where YYYY = {2016, 2017, …, 2041}

Share _YYYY, where YYYY = {2016, 2017, …, 2041}

AnnualGrowth_YYYY, where YYYY = {2017, 2018, …, 2041}

Growth_YYYY_vs_2017, where YYYY = {2021, 2026, 2031, 2036, 2041}

Population_1524_2016; .

Growth_1524_2036_vs_2017

..

Geographic Units
Integrated Service Regions (5) (forthcoming)
CYMH Service Areas (33)
LHINs (14) (forthcoming)
Demographic Units
Simple Groupings (0-17, 0-24) CYMHSAS_0017_2016_2041.csv
Life Cycle Groupings (0-14, 15-24) CYMHSAS_0014_2016_2041.csv

CYMHSAS_1524_2016_2041.csv

Transitional-Age Grouping (16-20) CYMHSAS_1620_2016_2041.csv

Under all three scenarios, Ontario’s population is projected to experience moderate growth over the 2015–2041 period. In the reference scenario, population is projected to grow 30.1 per cent, or almost 4.2 million, over the next 26 years, from an estimated 13.8 million on July 1, 2015 to more than 17.9 million on July 1, 2041 (Chart 1).

MofF - Chart 1
Chart 1. Ontario population, 1971 to 2014

The annual rate of growth of Ontario’s population in the reference scenario is projected to decline gradually from 1.2 per cent to 0.8 per cent over the projection period (Chart 2).

MofF - Chart 2
Chart 2. Annual rate of population growth in Ontario, 1971 to 2041.

Components of population changeIn any given year, the contributions of natural increase and net migration to population growth vary. While natural increase trends evolve slowly, net migration can be more variable, mostly due to swings in interprovincial migration and variations in international immigration.The number of births and deaths has been rising slowly and at a similar pace. As a result, natural increase has been fairly stable at about 50,000 annually over the last decade.Net migration levels to Ontario have averaged about 77,000 per year in the past decade, with a low of 52,000 in 2006–07 and a high of 96,000 in 2011–12.Net migration is projected to be higher at the beginning of the projections than it has been during the past few years as net losses of population through interprovincial migration have recently turned to gains and federal immigration targets were raised by a significant amount. Ontario’s annual net migration gain is projected to increase over the projection period from 114,000 in 2015–16 to 130,000 by 2040–41. The share of population growth accounted for by net migration is projected to rise from 68 per cent to almost 89 per cent by 2041 as a result of lower natural increase.

MofF - Chart 3
Chart 3. Contribution of natural increase and net migration to population growth, 1971 to 2041.

Future levels of natural increase will be affected by two main factors over the projection period:

  • The passage of the baby boom echo generation (children of baby boomers) through peak fertility years, which results in an increase in the number of births through the late 2010s and early 2020s.
  • The transition of large cohorts of baby boomers into the senior age group.

Overall, natural increase is projected to be fairly stable around 55,000 over the first decade of the projections, followed by a steady decline to less than 17,000 by 2040–41. The share of population growth accounted for by natural increase is projected to decline from 32 per cent in 2015–16 to 11 per cent by 2040–41.Age structureBy 2041, there will be more people in every age group in Ontario compared to 2015, with a sharp increase in the number of seniors. Baby boomers will have swelled the ranks of seniors; children of the baby boom echo generation will be of school-age; and the baby boom echo cohorts, along with a new generation of immigrants, will have bolstered the population aged 15–64.

MofF - Chart 4
Chart 4. Age pyramid of population, 2015 to 2041

The median age of Ontario’s population is projected to rise from 41 years in 2015 to 45 years in 2041. The number of seniors aged 65 and over is projected to more than double from about 2.2 million, or 16.0 per cent of population in 2015, to over 4.5 million, or 25.3 per cent, by 2041. In 2015, for the first time, seniors accounted for a larger share of population than children aged 0–14.

MofF - Chart 5
Chart 5. Proportion of population aged 0-14, 15-64, and 65+, 1971 to 2041.

The number of children aged 0–14 is projected to increase gradually over the projection period, from 2.2 million in 2015 to almost 2.7 million by 2041. The share of children in the population is projected to decrease from 15.9 per cent in 2015 to 14.9 per cent by 2041. By the late 2030s, the number of children is projected to grow at a much slower pace than other age groups, reflecting the smaller number of women in their 20s and 30s.

MofF - Chart 6
Chart 6. Pace of growth of population age groups 0-14, 51-64 and 65+, 1971 to 2041.

Regional components of population changeThe main demographic determinants of regional population growth are the current age structure of the population, the pace of natural increase, and the migratory movements in and out of each of Ontario’s regions. Demographic trends vary significantly among the 49 census divisions that comprise the six geographical regions of Ontario.The current age structure of each region has a direct impact on projected regional births and deaths. A region with a higher share of its current population in older age groups will likely experience more deaths in the future than a region of comparable size with a younger population. Similarly, a region with a large share of young adults in its population is expected to see more births than a region of comparable size with an older age structure. Also, since migration rates vary by age, the age structure of a region or census division will have an impact on the migration of its population.The general aging of the population will result in a rising number of census divisions where deaths will exceed births (negative natural increase) over the projection period. Deaths exceeded births in 24 of Ontario’s 49 census divisions over the past five years. This number is projected to rise gradually so that 37 census divisions are projected to experience negative natural increase by 2040– 41. These 37 census divisions will represent 26 per cent of Ontario’s population in 2041.This declining trend in natural increase means that many census divisions in Ontario where natural increase previously was the main or even sole contributor to population growth have already started to see their population growth slow. This trend is projected to continue as the population ages further.

MofF - Chart 7
Chart 7. Evolution of natural increase by census division, 2015 to 2041.

Migration is the most important factor contributing to population growth for Ontario as a whole and for most regions. Net migration gains, whether from international sources, other parts of Canada or other regions of Ontario, are projected to continue to be the major source of population growth for almost all census divisions.

MofF - Chart 9
Chart 8. Population growth/decline by census division over 2015 to 2041.

Large urban areas, especially the GTA, which receive most of the international migration to Ontario, are projected to grow strongly. For other regions such as Central Ontario, the continuation of migration gains from other parts of the province will be a key source of growth. Some census divisions of Northern Ontario receive only a small share of international migration and have been experiencing net out-migration, mostly among youth, which reduces both current and future population growth.Table 1. Population shares of Ontario Regions, 1991 to 2041.Regional age structureAll regions see a shift to an older age structure. Regions where natural increase and net migration are projected to become or remain negative see the largest shifts in age structure.The GTA is expected to remain the region with the youngest age structure, a result of strong international migration and positive natural increase. The Northeast is projected to remain the region with the oldest age structure.

MofF - Chart 10
Chart 8. Share of seniors in population by census division in 2041.

x

MofF - Chart 11
Chart 9. Growth in number of seniors by census division, 2015 to 2041.

The number of children aged 0–14 is projected to decline in the North, but to increase in the rest of Ontario over the projection period. However, by 2041 the share of children in every region is projected to be slightly lower than it is today. In 2015, the highest share of children among regions was in the Northwest at 16.9 per cent; the Northeast had the lowest share at 14.4 per cent. By 2041, the Northeast is projected to remain the region with the lowest share of children at 13.3 per cent while the highest share is projected to be found in the Northwest at 15.5 per cent.The suburban GTA census divisions, along with Ottawa, are projected to record the highest growth in the number of children aged 0–14 over the 2015–2041 period, with Halton seeing the most growth at 49 per cent. Conversely, the majority of rural and northern census divisions are projected to have significantly fewer children by 2041, with the largest declines in the North. However, most census divisions are projected to see only a slight decrease in the share of children in their population. In 2015, the highest share of children was found in Kenora at 21.9 per cent and the lowest share in Haliburton at 9.9 per cent. By 2041, Kenora is projected to still have the highest share of children at 20.0 per cent while Haliburton is projected to continue to have the lowest at 9.1 per cent.

MofF - Chart 12
Chart 10. Growth/decline in number of children aged 0-14 by census division, 2015 to 2041.
1 2
Population (%) 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 2041
GTA 42.0 44.5 47.2 49.3 51.1 52.7
Central 22.2 22.1 21.6 21.2 20.8 20.5
East 13.9 13.5 13.2 12.9 12.7 12.4
Southwest 13.7 13.0 12.0 11.2 10.5 9.9
Northeast 5.8 4.8 4.3 3.8 3.3 3.0
Northwest 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3

CYMHSAS_33

Access geospatial data from MCYS

The Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) has defined two administrative views of Ontario’s geography:

  • Integrated Service Regions
  • Children and Youth Mental Health Service Areas

Children and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) Service Areas

The Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) funds a variety of planned, multidisciplinary interventions for children, youth and their families in thirty-three Service Areas across Ontario. 1 Let’s download the shapefile that contains the geospatial data used by the provincial government to map these Service Areas and rename the shapefiles “CYMH-Service-Areas.*”.

Generate GeoJSON files

We use ogr2ogr to convert the shapefiles to GeoJSON files:


ogr2ogr -t_srs EPSG:4269 -f GeoJSON cymhsas_geo.json CYMH-Service-Areas.shp

We use Notepad++ to give more meaningful names to the variables in cymhsas_geo.json in all lowercase letters:

cymhsas_geo.json
Original variable Modified variable
ServiceAre area_index
ServiceA00 area_name

Next: We convert the geojson file into a more compact topojson file:

topojson -o cymhsas_topo.json --id-property area_index  --properties -- cymhsas_geo.json

xx

A problem using EPSG:26917 to convert *.shp files to *_geo.json format

Converting Shapefiles to GeoJSON format

To use d3.geo to visualize the ISRs and the CYMHSAs, we first convert their Shapefiles into GeoJSON format files, using ogr2ogr. There are three steps:

  1. Determine the Spatial Reference System (SRS) used by the Shapefile
  2. Set the -t_srs switch in ogr2ogr to output the GeoJSON file using this SRS
  3. Rename variables for ease of use

The projection format files for the ISRs and the CYMHSAs – isrs.prj and cymhsas.prj, respectively – specify:

GEOGCS["GCS_North_American_1983",DATUM["D_North_American_1983",SPHEROID["GRS_1980",6378137,298.257222101]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],UNIT["Degree",0.017453292519943295]]

and

PROJCS["NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N",GEOGCS["GCS_North_American_1983",DATUM["D_North_American_1983",SPHEROID["GRS_1980",6378137,298.257222101]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],UNIT["Degree",0.017453292519943295]],PROJECTION["Transverse_Mercator"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",500000],PARAMETER["False_Northing",0],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",-81],PARAMETER["Scale_Factor",0.9996],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",0],UNIT["Meter",1]]

We use Prj2EPSG, a simple online service to convert the projection information contained in these .prj files into standard EPSG codes for the corresponding spatial reference system(s). From this we determine that the specification contained in isrs.prj corresponds to EPSG 4269 – GCS_North_American_1983; likewise, cymhsas.prj corresponds to EPSG 26917 – NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N.

We now use the -t_srs switch in ogr2ogr to transform the output using the spatial reference system specified in isrs.prj and cymhsas.prj:

ogr2ogr -t_srs EPSG:4269 -f GeoJSON isrs_geo.json isrs.shp
ogr2ogr -t_srs EPSG:26917 -f GeoJSON cymhsas_geo.json cymhsas.shp

Unfortunately, “-t_srs EPSG:26917” seems to breaks ogr2ogr – and the cymhsas_geo.json file is corrupt. Consequently, we use EPSG 4269 for transforming cymhsas.shp. The issue with EPSG 26917 needs further research.

A related question: How does one merge two *_geo.json files if a different EPSG is used to convert their respective *.shp files?

Settling Smith, LJ – Captain Rock: Transplanting the Irish Agrarian Rebellion in Upper Canada, 1823-4

Settling Smith, LJ – Captain Rock: Transplanting the Irish Agrarian Rebellion in Upper Canada, 1823-4

Irish White Boys, from George Lillie Craik and C. MacFarlane, The Pictorial History of England: Being a History of the People as well as a History of the Kingdom, Vol. 5 (London: Charles Knight, 1849), 79. Public Domain via Google Books.

Settling Captain Rock: Transplanting the Irish Agrarian Rebellion in Upper Canada, 1823-4
Laura J. Smith

In the summer of 1824 the British Colonial Office instructed the Upper Canadian government to give a soon-to-arrive Irish emigrant named John Dundon a “gratuitous” land grant of 200 acres and provisions for a year.[1] Such assistance was not unusual. Assisted emigration programs targeting disbanded soldiers, dispossessed peasants, and unemployed craftsmen had already contributed substantially to the Upper Canadian settler population. But why did this particular emigrant warrant individual attention? A second letter sent a few weeks later went further: “John Dundon rendered some important services to the Irish government as an informer and… has been provided for as a settler.” Dundon was to be sent to the Lake Simcoe region, the letter instructed, for “the vicinity of the other settlers would be hardly safe for him.”[2]

John Dundon was a notorious “Captain Rock”; a leader within the Rockites, a secret agrarian protest group active in the Blackwater region of North County Cork in the mid-1820s. [3] Like similar Irish groups of the period, the Rockites agitated for social and economic change and particularly for the reform of access to and ownership of land. They targeted, usually through vigilante-style violence, all those who blocked the peasantry’s access to land. Dundon’s arrest and confession, which identified 50 local Rockites, and locations of substantial caches of arms, was a coup for beleaguered magistrates tasked with subduing the increasingly violent Rockites. Dundon’s information proved valuable, and consequently officials lobbied for a provision that might double as protection for Dundon and his family who it was noted, could no longer remain safely in Ireland.[4]

Smith: Emigrants Arrival at Cork
Emigrants Arrival at Cork–A Scene on the Quay. Illustrated London News, May 10, 1851. Public Domain via Steve Taylor at https://viewsofthefamine.wordpress.com
That Dundon was directed to Upper Canada is not surprising. The previous summer the British government had conveyed nearly 600 mostly Irish Catholics, the “other settlers” from the Blackwater to eastern Upper Canada under similar, but slightly less generous assistance terms.[5] Dubbed the “Peter Robinson emigrants” after the Upper Canadian who superintended their migration, they were the first of two groups of Irish Catholics sent to Upper Canada from the region.[6] Their assistance program was premised on contemporary ideas about the removal of “surplus” populations to ameliorate agrarian discontent and free land for modernization. The Blackwater region was targeted specifically because of the escalation of Rockite violence, and the intense lobbying of local landlords. Land use was changing, landholders argued, and the peasant farmer was obsolete. Such men, who in Ireland had rented a few acres for basic subsistence, were better settled in Canada where they could “cultivate the waste lands…and be useful members of society.” Left in Ireland, they were likely to turn into “bad subjects” who devoted their “time to Captain Rock and his associates.”[7]

There is no explicit evidence that any of the 1823 emigrants were Rockites, or that the assisted emigration scheme that year was used to transport troublemakers. Irish sources are inconclusive, and it appears more probable that participants, particularly a group of Irish Palatines, emigrated out of fear rather than complicity with the Rockites.[8] Though he insisted he chose only “paupers” who had agricultural experience, and thus had a chance to do well in Upper Canada, Peter Robinson was vague on the extent to which his emigrants could be implicated in the violence. Arguing that even the most “fiery” Irish male no matter his “former conduct,” could be tamed with a fresh start in Upper Canada, Robinson admitted that he had allowed local magistrates to select from the list of willing migrants those, “they [were] most desirous to get rid of.”[9] Such sentiments reflect an elitist view of the disposition toward anti-social behaviour that was both natural to the Irish character and nurtured by the Irish environment. For imperial officials explicit participation in secret societies was largely irrelevant for the state of Irish rural society made every inherently disorderly Irish peasant a potential Rockite.

The assisted emigrants were met with similar sentiments in Upper Canada, where perceptions and stereotypes that Irish Catholics were violent or easily provoked into violence persisted. Certainly their new neighbours needed little proof that the 1823 emigrants were Rockites or carried politically problematic baggage. The assistance the Irish had received was seen locally as underserved, Peter Robinson reported; the Irish, it was said, “had done nothing to entitle themselves to any bounty from the government, further than keeping their own country disturbed.”[10]

Smith Priest’s blessing nypl.digitalcollections.510d47e1-37f2-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99.001.w
Irish Emigrants Leaving Home–The Priest’s Blessing (1851) New York Public Library Digital Collections.
When a few members of the 1823 group were implicated in a tavern riot in the spring of 1824, locals saw confirmation that the violence of rural Ireland had been transplanted in their midst. Area officials immediately solicited military intervention certain that an insurrection was afoot. Drawing on tropes familiar to anyone who had read accounts of rural agitation in Ireland, the Montreal Herald depicted the emigrants as mindlessly violent, defiant of all authority, and opposed to the natural order of settlement life. Their violence was indicative, the paper implied, of those “permanent political feelings incident to a great proportion of Irish Emigrants.”[11] Despite absolution from a colonial investigator following the tavern riot, and clear evidence of settlement success, his fellow Blackwater emigrants continued to be plagued by the stigma of violence and questionable politics decades after their initial arrival.[12]

It is little wonder then that John Dundon was to be directed away from eastern Upper Canada and the emigrants who were under such close scrutiny and stigma. Engaged in a potentially large-scale and long-term project of assisted migration and settlement of Irish Catholics to Upper Canada, the Colonial Office wished to avoid further scrutiny of the goals of its colonial emigration policy, particularly accusations that it was prioritizing the displacement of Irish violence over the safety of Upper Canada. The settlement of John Dundon, an actual confessed agrarian rebel, had to be done carefully and quietly. It appears they were successful. It is not clear if Dundon claimed his reward in Upper Canada.[13] Land records for the colony offer a few misspelled, but inconclusive possibilities in Tiny, Vespra, and Mariposa Townships.[14] Of course it is possible he changed his name, or continued to the United States, but regardless John Dundon, it would seem, slipped into obscurity.

Considered together, the stories of John Dundon and the 1823 emigrants reveal the extent to which scrutiny and stigma of recent migrants, particularly those from disturbed regions and for whom state assistance is given, is nothing new. The state-sponsored migration and settlement of the 1823 emigrants sparked discussions about security, funding, reception and cultural integration, issues that remain important in 2016.

Laura J. Smith is a PhD Candidate in the department of history at the University of Toronto. Her forthcoming dissertation is entitled: “Unsettled Settlers: Irish Catholics and Irish Catholicism on the British North American settlement frontier, 1820-1840.” She can be found on Twitter @l4smith.

[1] Much of this post is drawn from the forthcoming: Laura J. Smith, “The Ballygiblins: British emigration policy, Irish violence, and immigrant reception in Upper Canada,” Ontario History, Vol. CVIII No. 1, Spring 2016.

[2] Archives of Ontario, Upper Canada Sundries, C-4613, p. 35320, Peter Robinson to Major G. Hillier, 12 June 1824; p. 35793, Peter Robinson to Major G. Hillier, 1 August 1824; Archives of Ontario, Peter Robinson Fonds, MS12, Reel 1, Major G. Hillier to Peter Robinson, 24 October 1824; Peter Robinson to Robert Wilmot Horton, 7 December 1824.

[3] James S. Donnelly, Captain Rock: The Irish Agrarian Rebellion of 1821-1824 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009) is the definitive history of the Rockite rebellion.

[4] National Archives of Ireland, State of the Country Papers, 2514/24, Finch to Arbuthnot, 19 July 1823.

[5] Male assisted emigrants over 18 were given 70 acres of land in the Bathurst District. A provision for the an additional 30 acres was to be made once the emigrants proved themselves to be “industrious and prudent.”

[6] The second assisted emigration in 1825 was larger, and sent approximately 2000 emigrants to the area around what is now known as Peterborough.

[7] Archives of Ontario, Peter Robinson fonds, MS 12, Reel 1, Kingston to Robinson, 19 December 1824.

[8] A search of the State of the Country Papers at the National Archives of Ireland revealed no explicit participation in Rockite violence on the part of the selected 1823 emigrants. For more on Irish Palatines see, Carolyn A. Heald, The Irish Palatines in Ontario: Religion, Ethnicity, and Rural Migration, (Gananoque: Langdale Press, 1994).

[9] Library and Archives Canada, Colonial Office 384/12 f. 21, Peter Robinson to Robert Wilmot Horton, 9 June 1823; Archives of Ontario, Peter Robinson fonds, MS 12, Reel 1, undated report by Peter Robinson to Lord Bathurst.

[10] Reports from the Select Committee on Emigration, (Great Britain: Parliament, House of Commons, Select Committee on Emigration from United Kingdom, 1826) p. 332.

[11] Montreal Herald, 5, 12, and 15 May 1824.

[12] Thirteen years later, when news of the aborted Upper Canadian rebellion reached London, observers there immediately assumed, entirely erroneously, that the 1823 emigrants would be implicated in the affair. See Robert Wilmot Horton, Ireland and Canada, supported by Local evidence, (London, 1839) p. 76-78, https://archive.org/details/cihm_21752. Perhaps anticipating questions about their loyalty, the Irish Catholics in the region sent a loyalty address to the Lieutenant Governor. See, Colin Read and Ronald J. Stagg ed., The Rebellion in Upper Canada: A Collection of Documents (Ottawa: Champlain Society, 1988) 263-265.

[13] Archives of Ontario, Peter Robinson fonds, MS 12, Reel 1, Major G. Hillier to Peter Robinson, 24 October 1824 indicated that Dundon had yet to arrive but was expected imminently.

[14] Archives of Ontario, Ontario Land Records Index, 1789-1920.

Featured Image: Irish White Boys, from George Lillie Craik and C. MacFarlane, The Pictorial History of England: Being a History of the People as well as a History of the Kingdom, Vol. 5 (London: Charles Knight, 1849), 79. Public Domain via Google Books.

About these ads

Share this:
3Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)3Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
File M and the Straightness of the Settler State in Early Canada
File M and the Straightness of the Settler State in Early Canada
In “Research”
The “Canadian Revolution,” the Early American Republic, and … Slavery?
The “Canadian Revolution,” the Early American Republic, and … Slavery?
In “Historiography”
The Quebec Invasion as Religious Encounter
The Quebec Invasion as Religious Encounter
In “Research”
on April 4, 2016 x
Post Tags:
19th Century 16
British Empire 1
British North America 15
Canadian History 28
Catholicism 2
Early Canadian History 33
History 24
Immigration 2
Irish History 1
Laura J. Smith 1
North America 21
Political History 5
transnational history 9
Upper Canada 5
Continue the conversation …

Enter your comment here…

Search …
s
Recent Posts

Settling Captain Rock: Transplanting the Irish Agrarian Rebellion in Upper Canada, 1823-4
A Northern Chorus: The Canadian Turn in Early American History
Dartmouth College and Canada: The Problem of National Historiographies
Let’s work together: A loyalist historian from Canada responds to American scholars
Canadian Fugitive Slave Advertisements: An Untapped Archive of Resistance
Archives

April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
May 2015
Categories

Book Previews
Conference Recaps
Digital History
Historiography
Primary Sources
Research
Reviews
Teaching
Uncategorized
Unrest Violence Social Order
Meta

Register
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
x
The Clear News Theme.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Follow
Follow “Borealia”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,461 other followers
Enter your email address

Sign me up

Build a website with WordPress.com

MCYS – Child and Youth Mental Health in Ontario – Resources

Service Framework

Program Guidelines