articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/220922-comparative-statistics-local-and-regional-government-risk-indicators-institutional-strengths-buoy-canadian-12500066 content esgSubNav
In This List
COMMENTS

Comparative Statistics: Local And Regional Government Risk Indicators: Institutional Strengths Buoy Canadian LRGs Even In Rough Waters

COMMENTS

Economic Outlook U.K. Q1 2023: A Moderate Yet Painful Recession

COMMENTS

Economic Outlook Latin America Q1 2023: A Shift To Lower Growth

COMMENTS

Economic Outlook Eurozone Q1 2023: Reality Check

COMMENTS

Instant Insights: Key Takeaways From Our Research


Comparative Statistics: Local And Regional Government Risk Indicators: Institutional Strengths Buoy Canadian LRGs Even In Rough Waters

This report does not constitute a rating action.

S&P Global Ratings assigns credit ratings to local and regional governments (LRGs) based on its qualitative and quantitative analysis of a range of financial, economic, managerial, and institutional factors. We articulate our analytical framework for rating LRGs around six major components resulting from our methodology: the institutional framework; economy; financial management; budgetary performance; liquidity; and debt burden.

Our assessment of the institutional framework is an important component of the rating. The institutional and legislative environment in which an LRG operates provides important context to our evaluation of the LRG's individual credit profile. Therefore, we combine our assessment of the institutional framework and the five other factors listed above to determine an indicative credit level for an individual LRG. We then adjust this level for certain overriding factors to provide the final rating for the respective LRG (see "Methodology For Rating Local And Regional Governments Outside Of The U.S." published July 15, 2019).

Strong Institutional Frameworks Support Creditworthiness Of Canadian LRGs

As vaccination rates increased and provincial governments began to reopen in stages in 2021, economic growth in Canada rebounded and almost fully recovered, following a significant decline with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Aside from the more resource-dependent provinces, which experienced more pronounced declines and recoveries, the return to growth for most provinces, individually, was in line with that of Canada. As a result, for all provinces, the boost in own-source revenue increased and offset the withdrawal of pandemic-related federal transfers. Moreover, pandemic-related spending will diminish and operating and after-capital deficits will improve, but not enough to lift either into surplus in the next couple of years. However, the growth in the tax-supported debt burden will generally moderate over the next two years. In addition, given recent headwinds, such as a potential recession in the U.S., we expect that provincial governments will pause on introducing measures to return to balance and restore fiscal sustainability, until these risks have subsided.

In our view, Canadian provinces operate in a very predictable and well-balanced institutional framework, which has supported their creditworthiness with temporary measures during the pandemic. The provinces have almost full revenue and expenditure autonomy for the powers and responsibilities granted to them under the constitution. Although in theory, revenues should always be adequate to cover expenditures, the reality is very different. Political considerations and tax competitiveness constrain the ability to increase revenues beyond those gains resulting from economic growth. In addition, the nature of the provinces' key spending responsibilities, such as health care, effectively constrains expenditure autonomy, resulting in relatively high budgetary deficits and debt levels compared with those of international peers.

Our view of the institutional framework for Canadian municipalities was strengthened in June 2022 to extremely predictable and supportive. Following the upward revision of the framework, we raised the ratings on 21 Canadian municipalities and affirmed the ratings on 13 LRGs.

In the past two years, direct federal support to individuals and businesses meant that the collection of property taxes, municipalities' largest revenue source, generally remained stable, while grants from upper levels of government mitigated the impact of a decline in non-tax revenues such as user fees through the pandemic. We believe the framework will continue to provide incentives to maintain strong budgetary performance and manageable debt levels. In addition, we believe that the financial strength we've witnessed to date is supported largely by the maturity and stability of the Canadian intergovernmental system.

As a result, we also believe that our ratings on Canadian LRGs remain resilient to periods of stress. Both our five-year forecasts on balance after capital accounts as a percentage of total revenue and tax-supported debt as a percentage of consolidated revenues remained mainly unchanged within their respective rating categories (see chart 1 and 2).

Chart 1

image

Chart 2

image

At the provincial level, grants from the federal government were allocated to help fund rising costs related to the pandemic (namely health and education), a portion of which was also passed down to municipalities. A significant decline in economic output and revenue, in addition to rising pandemic-related operating spending for health and education, led to notably weaker budget results in fiscal 2021, both on an operating and after-capital basis. Although we expect some improvement in provincial budgetary results in fiscal 2023, generally, it will take several years for the fiscal impact of the pandemic to unwind. As a result, we expect already comparatively high debt levels will continue to rise in the medium term, albeit at a slower pace.

Table 1

Canadian Provincial Government Risk Indicators
Rating Factor Assessments
Foreign currency ratings* Institutional framework Economy Financial management Budgetary performance Liquidity Debt burden

British Columbia (Province of)

AA+/Stable/A-1+ 2 1 1 3 2 4

Saskatchewan (Province of)

AA/Stable/A-1+ 2 1 2 4 1 4

Quebec (Province of)

AA-/Stable/A-1+ 2 1 2 5 1 4

Nova Scotia (Province of)

AA-/Stable/A-1+ 2 3 2 3 2 4

New Brunswick (Province of)

A+/Stable/A-1+ 2 3 3 2 1 4

Ontario (Province of)

A+/Stable/A-1 2 1 2 5 2 5

Manitoba (Province of)

A+/Stable/A-1 2 1 2 3 3 4

Alberta (Province of)

A+/Stable/A-1 2 2 2 5 2 4

Prince Edward Island (Province of)

A/Stable/A-1 2 2 2 5 3 4

Newfoundland and Labrador (Province of)

A/Stable/A-1 2 3 2 3 4 5
*Issuer credit rating as of Sept. 16, 2022. Institutional framework assessement is based on a six-point scale where 1 is the strongest and 6 the weakest, while the other factors consider a scale from 1 to 5, being 1 the strongest score and 5 the weakest.

Table 2

Canadian Provincial Government Financial And Economic Statistics
Local GDP (nominal) per capita (US$) National GDP (nominal) per capita (US$) --Operating balance (% of operating revenue)-- --Balance after capital accounts (% of total revenue)-- --Direct debt (% of operating revenue)-- --Tax-supported debt (% of consolidated operating revenue)-- --Interest (% of operating revenue)--
2021a 2021a 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average

British Columbia (Province of)

53,192.0 51,987.9 0.2 (3.4) (8.4) (13.3) 130.4 152.0 134.4 155.9 4.0 4.5

Saskatchewan (Province of)

57,923.3 51,987.9 (8.2) (4.1) (15.8) (12.8) 153.0 171.5 159.4 178.3 5.8 6.6

Quebec (Province of)

46,355.2 52,214.9 (2.0) (1.1) (11.5) (9.9) 181.9 188.3 193.2 199.7 6.9 6.9

Nova Scotia (Province of)

40,307.8 51,987.9 5.5 2.6 0.3 (5.5) 120.8 129.7 121.4 130.2 5.0 5.3

New Brunswick (Province of)

41,074.6 51,987.9 8.3 6.2 2.5 0.1 200.3 205.1 208.4 213.4 7.5 7.5

Ontario (Province of)

52,223.4 51,987.9 (5.1) (4.5) (12.6) (12.3) 247.5 246.9 259.6 258.6 7.6 7.6

Manitoba (Province of)

46,380.8 51,987.9 (1.5) 1.1 (8.0) (5.4) 290.8 295.9 291.7 296.8 9.5 9.9

Alberta (Province of)

62,996.4 51,987.9 0.4 (2.0) (8.0) (11.3) 185.2 196.0 190.4 201.5 4.0 4.7

Prince Edward Island (Province of)

42,554.4 51,987.9 0.2 (0.1) (9.0) (8.1) 146.4 149.5 147.2 150.2 5.1 5.3

Newfoundland and Labrador (Province of)

59,016.9 51,987.9 2.1 (0.6) (2.3) (5.0) 195.0 204.7 254.4 264.1 10.6 10.6
Five-year averages cover 2020-2024. For provinces, 2021a is for the fiscal year 2022 ended March. Data refers to actuals whenever available, then base cases whenever available. a--Actual. N.A.--Not available. The data and ratios above result in part from S&P Global Ratings' own calculations, drawing on national as well as international sources, reflecting S&P Global Ratings' independent view on the timeliness, coverage, accuracy, credibility, and usability of available information. The main sources are the financial statements and budgets, as provided by the issuer.

LRG Characteristics By Rating Category

'AAA'

We rate 14 Canadian municipalities in the 'AAA' category. These LRGs operate in an extremely predictable and supportive institutional framework, and they compare favorably with international peers. They have very strong economies, reflected in high income levels; solid financial management; well-documented medium- to long- term financial planning; and manageable contingent liabilities that, if they materialize, wouldn't weaken the LRGs' financial position. All LRGs in this category have exceptional internal liquidity and satisfactory access to external liquidity to fund any unexpected short-term financial needs.

Other common characteristics that we observe among LRGs at this level include:

  • Strong budgetary performance by international standards. Median operating surpluses as a percentage of operating revenues average 16.9% over 2020-2024. All of the 'AAA' rated LRGs have surpluses after capital accounts--the median surplus is 4.5%--except for the City of Brampton and the City of Hamilton, which have planned modest deficits of 0.1% and 1.8%, respectively, on a five-year average from 2020-2024.
  • Relatively low tax-supported debt as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues, because we expect the median of the five-year averages for entities at this rating level will increase only slightly, to 35.4%. Notably, the regional municipalities of York and Peel will likely have considerably higher ratios of 95.6% and 65.2%, respectively, during this period. All LRGs have a low and stable median interest expense of about 1.4% of operating revenues, with a few entities reporting a ratio below 1.0%.

Table 3

Canadian Local And Regional Government Risk Indicators ('AAA' Rated)
--Rating factor assessments--
Foreign currency ratings* Institutional framework Economy Financial management Budgetary performance Liquidity Debt burden

Brampton (City of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 2 2 1 1

Durham (Regional Municipality of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 1 1 1 1

Essex (County of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 2 2 1 1 1

Guelph (City of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 2 2 1 1

Halton (Regional Municipality of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 1 1 1 1

Hamilton (City of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 2 2 1 1

Mississauga (City of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 1 1 1 1

Oxford (County of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 2 2 1 1 1

Peel (Regional Municipality of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 1 1 1 3

Regina (City of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 2 1 1 1

Saskatoon (City of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 1 1 1 1

Vancouver (City of)

AAA/Stable/A-1+ 1 1 1 1 1 2

Wellington (County of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 2 1 1 1

York (Regional Municipality of)

AAA/Stable/-- 1 1 1 1 1 2
*Issuer credit rating as of Sept. 16, 2022. Institutional framework assessement is based on a six-point scale where 1 is the strongest and 6 the weakest, while the other factors consider a scale from 1 to 5, being 1 the strongest score and 5 the weakest.

Table 4

Canadian Local And Regional Government Financial And Economic Statistics ('AAA' Rated)
--Operating balance (% of operating revenue)-- --Balance after capital accounts (% of total revenue)-- --Direct debt (% of operating revenue)-- --Tax-supported debt (% of consolidated operating revenue)-- --Interest (% of operating revenue)--
2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average

Brampton (City of)

10.5 10.7 5.5 (0.1) 16.5 20.0 17.4 20.9 1.0 1.1

Durham (Regional Municipality of)

25.1 23.3 14.7 13.2 16.4 29.7 16.4 29.7 0.5 0.9

Essex (County of)

29.0 23.9 20.2 12.7 26.6 25.1 26.6 25.1 1.7 1.6

Guelph (City of)

15.3 15.5 8.0 4.7 29.3 24.2 29.3 24.2 0.7 0.6

Halton (Regional Municipality of)

25.5 23.8 15.8 12.6 41.9 44.7 41.9 44.7 1.5 1.8

Hamilton (City of)

13.2 15.8 (3.4) (1.8) 22.0 27.7 22.0 27.7 0.6 0.8

Mississauga (City of)

16.2 13.4 7.9 1.6 24.8 24.9 24.8 24.9 0.5 0.5

Oxford (County of)

19.6 19.9 5.7 6.7 40.4 45.0 40.4 45.0 1.5 1.3

Peel (Regional Municipality of)

16.9 14.8 11.0 4.3 60.4 65.2 60.4 65.2 2.6 3.1

Regina (City of)

18.3 18.0 0.5 0.4 37.6 33.8 49.3 46.0 1.9 1.9

Saskatoon (City of)

21.7 21.9 5.6 3.9 18.8 21.7 39.4 41.1 1.4 1.5

Vancouver (City of)

15.6 14.6 (0.3) 1.3 40.2 40.7 42.4 43.0 1.8 1.8

Wellington (County of)

13.9 13.6 10.3 5.1 24.5 26.0 24.5 26.0 0.8 0.8

York (Regional Municipality of)

29.6 30.5 17.0 11.3 102.0 95.6 102.0 95.6 4.3 4.2
Five-year averages cover 2020-2024. Data refers to actuals whenever available, then base cases whenever available. a--Actual. The data and ratios above result in part from S&P Global Ratings' own calculations, drawing on national as well as international sources, reflecting S&P Global Ratings' independent view on the timeliness, coverage, accuracy, credibility, and usability of available information. The main sources are the financial statements and budgets, as provided by the issuer.
'AA'

We rate 25 Canadian LRGs in the 'AA' category. The 'AA' rated municipalities share the same institutional framework, which we view as extremely predictable and supportive, as all other rated Canadian municipalities. Provincial LRGs at all rating levels share a very predictable and well-balanced institutional framework. Financial management practices are solid, although political and managerial strengths are not as strong as those of the 'AAA' rated LRGs. GDP per capita of these entities is high and comparable with those of international peers in this rating category; however, in some cases, they have slightly weaker economic profiles than those of 'AAA' rated peers.

Key economic and financial risk indicators that we observe for the 'AA' rated LRGs are:

  • Strong budgetary performances, with sound operating surpluses that are only slightly lower than the median among 'AAA' rated LRGs, and relatively minor deficits after capital spending. We expect the median operating surplus will be about 12.8% of operating revenue and the median after-capital deficit will be about 2.2% of total revenue in 2020-2024.
  • Tax-supported debt as a percentage of consolidated operating revenues is projected to slightly increase with median levels at 84.8% for 2020-2024. Median interest expense as a percentage of operating revenue is higher than that of 'AAA' rated peers, at about 2.9% during the same period.

Table 5

Canadian Local And Regional Government Risk Indicators ('AA' Rated)
--Rating factor assessments--
Foreign currency ratings* Institutional framework Economy Financial management Budgetary performance Liquidity Debt burden

British Columbia (Province of)

AA+/Stable/A-1+ 2 1 1 3 2 4

Calgary (City of)

AA+/Stable/A-1+ 1 2 1 1 1 3

Toronto (City of)

AA/Positive/A-1+ 1 1 2 3 1 3

Saskatchewan (Province of)

AA/Stable/A-1+ 2 1 2 4 1 4

Edmonton (City of)

AA/Stable/A-1+ 1 2 1 2 1 4

Yukon (Territory of)

AA/Stable/-- 1 3 2 4 1 1

Winnipeg (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 1 2 2 1 3

Windsor (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 2 2 3 1 1

Thunder Bay (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 2 3 1 1 1

Simcoe (County of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 2 3 2 1 1

Sault Ste. Marie (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 3 3 1 1 1

Peterborough (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 2 3 3 1 1

Ottawa (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 1 2 3 1 3

Niagara (Regional Municipality of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 3 2 2 1 2

Laval (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 1 2 3 1 3

St. John's (City of)

AA-/Stable/-- 1 2 3 2 3 4

Lambton (County of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 3 3 1 1 1

Kingston (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 1 2 2 1 3

Haldimand (County of)

AA/Stable/-- 1 3 3 2 1 1

Greater Sudbury (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 2 2 2 1 2

Barrie (City of)

AA+/Stable/-- 1 1 2 1 1 2

Quebec (Province of)

AA-/Stable/A-1+ 2 1 2 5 1 4

Nova Scotia (Province of)

AA-/Stable/A-1+ 2 3 2 3 2 4

Norfolk County

AA/Stable/-- 1 3 3 2 1 2

Montreal (City of)

AA/Stable/-- 1 1 3 3 1 4
*Issuer credit rating as of Sept. l6, 2022. Institutional framework assessement is based on a six-point scale where 1 is the strongest and 6 the weakest, while the other factors consider a scale from 1 to 5, being 1 the strongest score and 5 the weakest.

Table 6

Canadian Local And Regional Government Financial And Economic Statistics ('AA' Rated)
--Operating balance (% of operating revenue)-- --Balance after capital accounts (% of total revenue)-- --Direct debt (% of operating revenue)-- --Tax-supported debt (% of consolidated operating revenue)-- --Interest (% of operating revenue)--
2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average

British Columbia (Province of)

0.2 (3.4) (8.4) (13.3) 130.4 152.0 134.4 155.9 4.0 4.5

Calgary (City of)

19.1 18.8 9.7 6.6 112.9 115.4 114.4 116.9 3.7 3.9

Toronto (City of)

18.5 14.9 (0.2) (4.9) 64.3 55.2 64.3 61.0 2.7 2.8

Saskatchewan (Province of)

(8.2) (4.1) (15.8) (12.8) 153.0 171.5 159.4 178.3 5.8 6.6

Edmonton (City of)

21.7 19.9 (0.7) (2.3) 129.5 138.9 129.5 138.9 3.7 4.5

Yukon (Territory of)

5.6 4.7 1.1 (1.6) 1.5 2.9 13.1 14.4 0.1 0.1

Winnipeg (City of)

12.4 12.5 (1.9) (0.8) 82.0 88.5 84.1 90.2 4.0 3.9

Windsor (City of)

10.7 12.2 (2.4) (1.0) 8.0 12.5 8.0 12.5 0.6 0.6

Thunder Bay (City of)

18.9 17.8 3.9 1.8 34.9 36.8 34.9 36.8 1.1 1.2

Simcoe (County of)

9.3 10.4 3.2 (0.8) 19.5 15.5 19.5 15.5 0.4 0.4

Sault Ste. Marie (City of)

12.1 14.6 (6.0) (0.4) 1.6 7.1 3.3 8.4 0.0 0.2

Peterborough (City of)

15.1 15.9 (4.5) (3.3) 41.6 45.4 42.2 45.7 1.1 1.0

Ottawa (City of)

9.8 8.0 (9.1) (7.7) 95.9 98.4 99.3 101.3 3.6 3.7

Niagara (Regional Municipality of)

10.4 11.7 (4.1) (2.2) 79.0 84.8 79.0 84.8 2.9 2.9

Laval (City of)

8.9 9.6 (11.5) (8.1) 83.3 92.6 83.3 92.6 2.6 2.4

St. John's (City of)

8.9 8.6 5.6 1.2 119.7 111.0 121.5 112.5 8.5 7.9

Lambton (County of)

10.8 12.8 1.0 3.5 16.6 15.0 17.4 15.6 0.2 0.2

Kingston (City of)

20.7 17.7 0.1 (2.4) 94.0 91.8 94.2 91.9 3.0 3.1

Haldimand (County of)

20.6 20.1 (3.4) 1.0 48.2 54.2 48.2 54.2 1.4 1.4

Greater Sudbury (City of)

16.2 15.0 2.9 (3.1) 39.7 47.0 39.7 47.0 1.2 1.4

Barrie (City of)

16.1 17.9 4.4 1.3 82.5 80.6 84.6 84.3 3.0 2.9

Quebec (Province of)

(2.0) (1.1) (11.5) (9.9) 181.9 188.3 193.2 199.7 6.9 6.9

Nova Scotia (Province of)

5.5 2.6 0.3 (5.5) 120.8 129.7 121.4 130.2 5.0 5.3

Norfolk County

26.5 21.4 11.8 5.0 35.7 40.9 35.7 40.9 1.1 1.2

Montreal (City of)

13.6 14.6 (4.5) (5.0) 163.5 164.0 169.2 169.7 6.6 7.2
Five-year averages cover 2020-2024. For provinces, 2021a is for the fiscal year 2022 ended March. Data refers to actuals whenever available, then base cases whenever available. a--Actual. The data and ratios above result in part from S&P Global Ratings' own calculations, drawing on national as well as international sources, reflecting S&P Global Ratings' independent view on the timeliness, coverage, accuracy, credibility, and usability of available information. The main sources are the financial statements and budgets, as provided by the issuer.
'A'

We rate six Canadian provinces in the 'A' rating category. As with all other rated provinces in Canada, entities in this rating category operate in a very predictable and well-balanced institutional framework. Typically, financial management is satisfactory, although commitment to prudent fiscal policies has varied over the years. Most of the individual credit profiles are weaker than those of the 'AA' rated LRGs. This is mainly because of weaker budgetary performances, lower budgetary flexibility, significantly higher debt burdens and interest payments, and notably, weaker liquidity.

The 'A' rated LRGs exhibit the following common characteristics:

  • Budgetary performances are notably weaker than those of 'AA' rated peers. We estimate a modest median operating deficit as a percentage of operating revenues of 0.4% in 2020-2024. We also expect the median after-capital deficit as a percentage of total revenue will be 6.7% in 2020-2024 based on lower forecast deficits.
  • In 2020-2024, we expect median tax-supported debt as a percentage of consolidated operating revenue will be about 236%, which is significantly lower than our projected medians in the previous year, based on a stronger recovery from the pandemic. In the same time period, we expect median interest expense as a percentage of operating revenue will be 7.6%, which is considerably higher than that of 'AA' and 'AAA' rated Canadian peers.

Table 7

Canadian Local And Regional Government Risk Indicators ('A' Rated)
Rating Factor Assessments
Foreign currency ratings* Institutional framework Economy Financial management Budgetary performance Liquidity Debt burden

New Brunswick (Province of)

A+/Stable/A-1+ 2 3 3 2 1 4

Ontario (Province of)

A+/Stable/A-1 2 1 2 5 2 5

Manitoba (Province of)

A+/Stable/A-1 2 1 2 3 3 4

Alberta (Province of)

A+/Stable/A-1 2 2 2 5 2 4

Prince Edward Island (Province of)

A/Stable/A-1 2 2 2 5 3 4

Newfoundland and Labrador (Province of)

A/Stable/A-1 2 3 2 3 4 5
*Issuer credit rating as of Sept. 16, 2022. Institutional framework assessement is based on a six-point scale where 1 is the strongest and 6 the weakest, while the other factors consider a scale from 1 to 5, being 1 the strongest score and 5 the weakest.

Table 8

Canadian Local And Regional Government Financial And Economic Statistics ('A' Rated)
--Operating balance (% of operating revenue)-- --Balance after capital accounts (% of total revenue)-- --Direct debt (% of operating revenue)-- --Tax-supported debt (% of consolidated operating revenue)-- --Interest (% of operating revenue)--
2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average 2021a Five-year average

New Brunswick (Province of)

8.3 6.2 2.5 0.1 200.3 205.1 208.4 213.4 7.5 7.5

Ontario (Province of)

(5.1) (4.5) (12.6) (12.3) 247.5 246.9 259.6 258.6 7.6 7.6

Manitoba (Province of)

(1.5) 1.1 (8.0) (5.4) 290.8 295.9 291.7 296.8 9.5 9.9

Alberta (Province of)

0.4 (2.0) (8.0) (11.3) 185.2 196.0 190.4 201.5 4.0 4.7

Prince Edward Island (Province of)

0.2 (0.1) (9.0) (8.1) 146.4 149.5 147.2 150.2 5.1 5.3

Newfoundland and Labrador (Province of)

2.1 (0.6) (2.3) (5.0) 195.0 204.7 254.4 264.1 10.6 10.6
Five-year averages cover 2020-2024. For provinces, 2021a is for the fiscal year 2022 ended March. Data refers to actuals whenever available, then base cases whenever available. a--Actual. The data and ratios above result in part from S&P Global Ratings' own calculations, drawing on national as well as international sources, reflecting S&P Global Ratings' independent view on the timeliness, coverage, accuracy, credibility, and usability of available information. The main sources are the financial statements and budgets, as provided by the issuer.
Primary Credit Analyst:Bhavini Patel, CFA, Toronto + 1 (416) 507 2558;
bhavini.patel@spglobal.com
Secondary Contact:Stephen Ogilvie, Toronto + 1 (416) 507 2524;
stephen.ogilvie@spglobal.com

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.


Register with S&P Global Ratings

Register now to access exclusive content, events, tools, and more.

Go Back