Echoes a lot of my fears about housing and immigration. We’re at a crossroads where Canada needs to either abandon immigration and growth or NIMBYism and fear, the fact that people are blaming everything on immigration rather than NIMBYism makes me wonder what this country really stands for.
What a great article -- thank you. We don't just having a housing crisis; we have an affordable housing crisis that is affecting many millions of Canadians, including those who have "fallen out" of the middle class. Provinces don't want to know, and municipalities haven't the resources to help. And yes, of course the feds can do something: they can put more $$ into social housing. What they've already done is a good start but much more is needed.
Thank you for writing this article. As you note, being pro-immigration can become harmful if you don't build the necessary infrastructure. My fear, however, is that our political leaders are not up for this task, and that we will continue down this path towards eventual nativism.
I agree with this article, (I can't believe I just wrote that.)
The demand for housing in Canada far exceeds the supply. Either we moderate the demand, or we speed up the supply of new housing. Control of immigration is part of moderating growth in demand, but by itself, it will not solve the problem. Put bluntly, we need lots more housing.
The federal government is quite limited in what it can do on its own as housing is clearly in provincial jurisdiction. For those who suggest ignoring jurisdictional demarcations, the constitutional lawyers thank you. I personally will stock up on popcorn to watch the fight in the courtrooms across the country.
The one lever the federal government does have over housing supply is its spending power (also known as fiscal federalism). For example, the federal government might withhold funds from municipalities or provinces that do not amend bylaws to allow densification of housing. Take the typical single-family lot and rezone it to allow for buildings that can house four or six families, as Victoria, Vancouver, and now Toronto, are doing.
Of course, that would be politically costly. Some sixty per cent of Canadian families own their own homes. Densification would lead to lower house prices, and they would be angry. What politician wants to antagonize 60% of the electorate? Similar considerations apply to most measures to increase housing supply.
Municipal politicians can't antagonize property owning constituents without being voted out in the next election cycle. I would also add that the group that is being priced out of the market are young families; many of whom don't want to live in a building with other families. They want their own home, with their own back yard for their kids to play in. They wonder why their parents got to have that, yet they don't.
I grew up in Montreal, where duplexes and triplexes (buildings designed to house two or three families) were quite common. I'm not aware of any negative effects on families, including children. (I myself grew up in an apartment. We were too poor to live in a duplex.)
Canadians are going to have to accept densification of housing. It's either that, or a great mass of unhoused. Personally, I would rather share, rather than see young people and immigrants with no place to go.
I don't agree. There is no reason why middle class families shouldn't be able to own a house. Owning a house is the most important financial investments you can make, and that is what many young families want. The first thing many immigrants do is buy a house.
You don't create equity when you rent; you create it when you own. The reason we have subdivisions is that a large percentage of the population want to own their own home. They don't want to be subject to the vagaries of a landlord. More specifically, owning your own home is how we create and support a middle class, which is good for democracy. Do you rent or do you own?
There’s plenty of housing styles that people can own, not rent, that aren’t large detached single houses. A row house, or three story walk up, or condo building is not an attack on democracy
Now, if we as a culture decide that a suburban model is the only one that we’ll accept that’s also fine. But it’s a lifestyle that has only largely developed over the last 40 years and has accumulated a substantial infrastructure deficit in order to sell itself as artificially affordable. If we want to continue down that road we either need to accept substantially higher taxes across the board or accept that most people are not going to have access to robust services
The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich has a lot in common right now with American GOP plans. Canada is just getting the watered down version of the same politics. The CPC has decided that division is their best policy and the Liberals need to make some huge strides to prove their strategy wrong. I'm hoping the cabinet shuffle is Trudeau's serious attempt at fixing the housing policy. Extremely innovative and tangible results policies are what is needed now. If need be, bypass the provinces. Fund municipalities directly and point out the lack of involvement from the provinces. Ford especially. Trudeau needs to take the gloves off. Ford is sitting on a huge surplus and much of that is federal money. Enough is enough.
I wonder if the Federal government could get away with tying provincial immigration quotas to infrastructure investments?
You want student visas for your universities? Build housing. Temporary foreign worker approvals? Only if you build sufficient healthcare capacity. High demand skilled workers? Only if you have the schools for their families. Visas for parents? Better build senior care facilities.
All the provinces want immigrants. If Trudeau actually cut immigration they would be the first and loudest to howl. All the provinces also want to coast along on infrastructure that hasn’t been expanded in 30+ years while they brag about low budgets. These things are naturally in conflict, so force them to choose one or the other.
“capacity issues, from classroom size to wait times to housing shortages.”
I agree with you that it’s not politically survivable for the Liberals to just say “not a Federal problem”, but it’s worth noting that, constitutionally, these are unambiguously provincial responsibilities.
We’ve had a deeply unhealthy relationship between the provinces and the national government for a long time now. Where the provinces refuse to meet their responsibilities unless there’s federal dollars attached, do their best to pocket the money, and then brag about how they are keeping taxes low compared to the big bad federal government. And this is a pattern of behavior that cuts across all parties and provinces.
We have a multi decade social and physical infrastructure deficit and no one wants to talk about it. And now that we have no room in our schools or our hospitals or our neighborhoods we are blaming immigrants for being one load too many, rather than asking why we don’t have enough schools or hospitals or homes.
It doesn't help now that Conservative led provinces are all following a strategy to destabilize the federal government. Ford hid while the Ottawa occupation was happening. Why? They wanted to force Trudeau into using the EA in hopes it would be seen as an overreach and topple the government. I honestly believe Conservatives want their hands on the Canada Health Act and quite possibly the charter. If Poilievre wins you can also expect the provinces to do as they please with his support, another sell-off of Canadian assets and legislation making it harder for Conservatives to lose power. The parallels between the American GOP and the CPC are becoming more and more obvious. A Poilievre government would fundamentally change Canada and not for the better.
Echoes a lot of my fears about housing and immigration. We’re at a crossroads where Canada needs to either abandon immigration and growth or NIMBYism and fear, the fact that people are blaming everything on immigration rather than NIMBYism makes me wonder what this country really stands for.
“makes me wonder what this country really stands for”
Boomers never having to make compromises or feel uncomfortable
Aw yes, the desire for vengeance with schadenfreude - malicious joy. Great solution you have there.
What a great article -- thank you. We don't just having a housing crisis; we have an affordable housing crisis that is affecting many millions of Canadians, including those who have "fallen out" of the middle class. Provinces don't want to know, and municipalities haven't the resources to help. And yes, of course the feds can do something: they can put more $$ into social housing. What they've already done is a good start but much more is needed.
Thank you for writing this article. As you note, being pro-immigration can become harmful if you don't build the necessary infrastructure. My fear, however, is that our political leaders are not up for this task, and that we will continue down this path towards eventual nativism.
I agree with this article, (I can't believe I just wrote that.)
The demand for housing in Canada far exceeds the supply. Either we moderate the demand, or we speed up the supply of new housing. Control of immigration is part of moderating growth in demand, but by itself, it will not solve the problem. Put bluntly, we need lots more housing.
The federal government is quite limited in what it can do on its own as housing is clearly in provincial jurisdiction. For those who suggest ignoring jurisdictional demarcations, the constitutional lawyers thank you. I personally will stock up on popcorn to watch the fight in the courtrooms across the country.
The one lever the federal government does have over housing supply is its spending power (also known as fiscal federalism). For example, the federal government might withhold funds from municipalities or provinces that do not amend bylaws to allow densification of housing. Take the typical single-family lot and rezone it to allow for buildings that can house four or six families, as Victoria, Vancouver, and now Toronto, are doing.
Of course, that would be politically costly. Some sixty per cent of Canadian families own their own homes. Densification would lead to lower house prices, and they would be angry. What politician wants to antagonize 60% of the electorate? Similar considerations apply to most measures to increase housing supply.
Maybe if younger Canadians voted more often...
Municipal politicians can't antagonize property owning constituents without being voted out in the next election cycle. I would also add that the group that is being priced out of the market are young families; many of whom don't want to live in a building with other families. They want their own home, with their own back yard for their kids to play in. They wonder why their parents got to have that, yet they don't.
I grew up in Montreal, where duplexes and triplexes (buildings designed to house two or three families) were quite common. I'm not aware of any negative effects on families, including children. (I myself grew up in an apartment. We were too poor to live in a duplex.)
Canadians are going to have to accept densification of housing. It's either that, or a great mass of unhoused. Personally, I would rather share, rather than see young people and immigrants with no place to go.
I don't agree. There is no reason why middle class families shouldn't be able to own a house. Owning a house is the most important financial investments you can make, and that is what many young families want. The first thing many immigrants do is buy a house.
Most of the world “owning a house” doesn’t mean a separate house with a yard.
Now, we *could* do that. We have the land.
But services get wildly more expensive the more spread out you are. And, as a country, we don’t want to pay the cost.
We want dense city taxes and services, but suburban lifestyles.
You don't create equity when you rent; you create it when you own. The reason we have subdivisions is that a large percentage of the population want to own their own home. They don't want to be subject to the vagaries of a landlord. More specifically, owning your own home is how we create and support a middle class, which is good for democracy. Do you rent or do you own?
There’s plenty of housing styles that people can own, not rent, that aren’t large detached single houses. A row house, or three story walk up, or condo building is not an attack on democracy
Now, if we as a culture decide that a suburban model is the only one that we’ll accept that’s also fine. But it’s a lifestyle that has only largely developed over the last 40 years and has accumulated a substantial infrastructure deficit in order to sell itself as artificially affordable. If we want to continue down that road we either need to accept substantially higher taxes across the board or accept that most people are not going to have access to robust services
The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich has a lot in common right now with American GOP plans. Canada is just getting the watered down version of the same politics. The CPC has decided that division is their best policy and the Liberals need to make some huge strides to prove their strategy wrong. I'm hoping the cabinet shuffle is Trudeau's serious attempt at fixing the housing policy. Extremely innovative and tangible results policies are what is needed now. If need be, bypass the provinces. Fund municipalities directly and point out the lack of involvement from the provinces. Ford especially. Trudeau needs to take the gloves off. Ford is sitting on a huge surplus and much of that is federal money. Enough is enough.
I wonder if the Federal government could get away with tying provincial immigration quotas to infrastructure investments?
You want student visas for your universities? Build housing. Temporary foreign worker approvals? Only if you build sufficient healthcare capacity. High demand skilled workers? Only if you have the schools for their families. Visas for parents? Better build senior care facilities.
All the provinces want immigrants. If Trudeau actually cut immigration they would be the first and loudest to howl. All the provinces also want to coast along on infrastructure that hasn’t been expanded in 30+ years while they brag about low budgets. These things are naturally in conflict, so force them to choose one or the other.
“capacity issues, from classroom size to wait times to housing shortages.”
I agree with you that it’s not politically survivable for the Liberals to just say “not a Federal problem”, but it’s worth noting that, constitutionally, these are unambiguously provincial responsibilities.
We’ve had a deeply unhealthy relationship between the provinces and the national government for a long time now. Where the provinces refuse to meet their responsibilities unless there’s federal dollars attached, do their best to pocket the money, and then brag about how they are keeping taxes low compared to the big bad federal government. And this is a pattern of behavior that cuts across all parties and provinces.
We have a multi decade social and physical infrastructure deficit and no one wants to talk about it. And now that we have no room in our schools or our hospitals or our neighborhoods we are blaming immigrants for being one load too many, rather than asking why we don’t have enough schools or hospitals or homes.
It doesn't help now that Conservative led provinces are all following a strategy to destabilize the federal government. Ford hid while the Ottawa occupation was happening. Why? They wanted to force Trudeau into using the EA in hopes it would be seen as an overreach and topple the government. I honestly believe Conservatives want their hands on the Canada Health Act and quite possibly the charter. If Poilievre wins you can also expect the provinces to do as they please with his support, another sell-off of Canadian assets and legislation making it harder for Conservatives to lose power. The parallels between the American GOP and the CPC are becoming more and more obvious. A Poilievre government would fundamentally change Canada and not for the better.
very well said
.. Wow ! 🦎🏴☠️
What is that even supposed to mean, and what do you think it contributes?
.. you ever say please ? Or look down my backtrail ?
Think it’s the most timely Contemporary Journalism & Perspective currently available MainStreamMedia - Indy - SocialMedia - Drums or Smoke Signals
in Regard To Immigration & Housing & the HolyMoly GDP & eConoMEE
I write Indy about this & the Bizzare Concept of Growing The Economy ‘infinitely’
by stuffing most of the immigrants into Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver
Andrew Coyne believes 100 MILLION is what Canada needs ASAP
I often mention ‘The Upside Of Down’ - Canadian, Thomas Homer-Dixon
& Chapter about The Fall Of The Roman Empire..
The similarity to The Greenbelt sold off to Developers
reminds of when Rome could not support itself & citizenry
re Food, Clean Water, Space, Soil.. or Infrastructures
🦎🏴☠️