Economy
Canada can’t have fast population growth, housing supply constraints, and housing affordability
From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Steve Lafleur
No one wants to solve the housing crisis enough to make the hard choices.
It’s tempting to try to have it all and policymakers are not immune to this. There are tradeoffs in everything. Ignoring those tradeoffs might work for awhile, but eventually reality catches up to you. Try as we might, we can’t have it all.
For instance, we can’t have rapid population growth, housing supply constraints, and housing affordability all at the same time. We’ll call this the housing affordability trilemma.
The idea of a policy trilemma comes from the Mundell-Fleming model which is included in most introductory economics textbooks. The model was named after Canadian economist Robert Mundell and British economist Marcus Fleming, who developed the idea in the early 1960s. The basic premise of the model, also called the “impossible trinity” or “trilemma” is that you can have two of three policies, but not all three (namely, free capital flow, a fixed exchange rate, and a sovereign monetary policy).
The idea of an impossible trinity can and has been applied to other situations, like the euro crisis in the early 2010s, and provides a useful way of looking at seemingly intractable problems. Plotting the related problems on a Venn Diagram helps visualize the problem. Here is the Mundell-Flemming model, visualized.

(Source: Author’s creation, graphic recreated)
Now, let’s return to housing policy. Few Canadian problems are as intractable as the now nationwide housing affordability crisis. Rents are rising quickly, apartment availability is falling, and home prices are the highest relative to incomes in the G7. As we’ve shown in a recent paper for the MacDonald Laurier Institute, Canada’s population growth is outstripping housing growth. This, unsurprisingly, has undermined housing affordability. Let’s visualize this trilemma.

(Source: Author’s creation, graphic recreated)
At the root of Canada’s housing woes is a severe shortage of homes relative to the number needed. We simply don’t build enough homes to adequately house current and future Canadians.
Not only is there cross-party consensus that there’s a housing shortage, but most parties in provincial and federal elections have proposed policies aimed at addressing it. So why do we still have a shortage?
Let’s go through the elements of the Canada’s housing trilemma (or housing impossibility trinity).
The first element is a fast-growing population. Canada has the fastest growing population in the G7, and last year alone grew by more than a million people. Barring any major shifts in immigration policy, this trend is unlikely to change any time soon. Indeed, the population grew by 430,635 in the third quarter of 2023. That’s the highest quarterly growth rate since 1957.
The second element is restrictions on homebuilding. Whether intended or not, a suite of policies processes and regulations that prevent or limit the addition of more homes both in existing neighbourhoods and at the urban fringe. Barriers to density include local zoning bylaws, lengthy and uncertain consultation processes, and growth plans that exclude building or upgrading the infrastructure necessary to enable more homebuilding in existing neighbourhoods. Policies explicitly preventing the addition of homes outside of existing neighbourhoods include Ontario’s Greenbelt and British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve, while softer versions include local planning targets limiting the share of development slotted to occur on city outskirts. Given these limitations, it’s no surprise that we’ve rarely surpassed 200,000 housing completions annually since the 1970s, while the rate of population growth has reached generational highs.
The third element is housing affordability. That is, the ability for individuals and families earning local incomes to comfortably meet their housing needs. This means shelter costs don’t prevent them from feeding and clothing themselves, but also allow saving and investing in an education, for instance. For example, some peg the cut-off for affordability at 30 percent of income. By that measure, a household would require an income of over $100,000 to afford a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver, for example.
Whether we like it or not, we can’t have fast population growth, rigid housing supply constraints, and housing affordability all at the same time.
For most of our recent past, the choice we’ve collectively made is to accelerate population growth while maintaining many (if not most) restrictions on both outward and upward growth, meaning we’ve excluded the possibility of achieving broad affordability. The consequences? All the symptoms mentioned before: rising rents, falling vacancies, higher ownership costs.
Despite recent pivots by a growing number of local and provincial governments, the balance of housing and land-use policies remains firmly tilted against reaching the level of homebuilding we need to restore some semblance of affordability, which by some estimates means more than doubling homebuilding. To wit, housing construction has remained remarkably stagnant—even slightly declining—in recent decades. Even the bold changes to zoning recently passed in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia are unlikely to double the number of housing built provincewide.
But, as the housing trilemma suggests, there are alternative routes. If Canadians remain adamant about affordability, we can demand more meaningful reduction or removal of policies preventing a growth in housing supply, or we can demand a reduction in population growth, or both. These are not easy choices but ignoring them doesn’t make them go away. We need to build upwards, outwards, or both, in order to meaningfully increase housing production. We can’t say no to every solution and expect better results.
The point is, there’s broad consensus that Canada faces a housing crisis, and that major policy actions are needed to fix the problem. There’s also a tacit consensus that the policies feeding the crisis should remain in place.
To put it more bluntly, everyone wants to solve the housing crisis, but no one wants to solve the housing crisis enough to make the hard choices. Until we collectively shift our priorities, we are choosing to sacrifice housing affordability. We can’t have it all. If we insist on maintaining fast population growth and restrictions on supply, we’ll get the broken housing market we deserve.
Steve Lafleur is a public policy analyst who researches and writes for Canadian think tanks.
Business
Canada’s combative trade tactics are backfiring
This article supplied by Troy Media.
Defiant messaging may play well at home, but abroad it fuels mistrust, higher tariffs and a steady erosion of Canada’s agri-food exports
The real threat to Canadian exporters isn’t U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, it’s Ottawa and Queen’s Park’s reckless diplomacy.
The latest tariff hike, whether triggered by Ontario’s anti-tariff ad campaign or not, is only a symptom. The deeper problem is Canada’s escalating loss of credibility at the trade table. Washington’s move to raise duties from 35 per cent to 45 per cent on nonCUSMA imports (goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, the successor to NAFTA) reflects a diplomatic climate that is quickly souring, with very real consequences for Canadian exporters.
Some analysts argue that a 10-point tariff increase is inconsequential. It is not. The issue isn’t just what is being tariffed; it is the tone of the relationship. Canada is increasingly seen as erratic and reactive, negotiating from emotion rather than strategy. That kind of reputation is dangerous when dealing with the U.S., which remains Canada’s most important trade partner by a wide margin.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s stand up to America messaging, complete with a nostalgic Ronald Reagan cameo, may have been rooted in genuine conviction. Many Canadians share his instinct to defend the country’s interests with bold language. But in diplomacy, tone often outweighs intent. What plays well domestically can sound defiant abroad, and the consequences are already being felt in boardrooms and warehouses across the country.
Ford’s public criticisms of companies such as Crown Royal, accused of abandoning Ontario, and Stellantis, which recently announced it will shift production of its Jeep Compass from Brampton to Illinois as part of a US$13 billion U.S. investment, may appeal to voters who like to see politicians get tough. But those theatrics reinforce the impression that Canada is hostile to
international investors. At a time when global capital can move freely, that perception is damaging. Collaboration, not confrontation, is what’s needed most to secure investment in Canada’s economy.
Such rhetoric fuels uncertainty on both sides of the border. The results are clear: higher tariffs, weaker investor confidence and American partners quietly pivoting away from Canadian suppliers.
Many Canadian food exporters are already losing U.S. accounts, not because of trade rules but because of eroding trust. Executives in the agri-food sector are beginning to wonder whether Canada can still be counted on as a reliable partner, and some have already shifted contracts southward.
Ford’s political campaigns may win applause locally, but Washington’s retaliatory measures do not distinguish between provinces. They hit all exporters, including Canada’s food manufacturers that rely heavily on the U.S. market, which purchases more than half of Canada’s agri-food exports. That means farmers, processors and transportation companies across the country are caught in the crossfire.
Those who believe the new 45 per cent rate will have little effect are mistaken. Some Canadian importers now face steeper duties than competitors in Vietnam, Laos or even Myanmar. And while tariffs matter, perception matters more. Right now, the optics for Canada’s agri-food sector are poor, and once confidence is lost, it is difficult to regain.
While many Canadians dismiss Trump as unpredictable, the deeper question is what happened to Canada’s once-cohesive Team Canada approach to trade. The agri-food industry depends on stability and predictability. Alienating our largest customer, representing 34 per cent of the global consumer market and millions of Canadian jobs tied to trade, is not just short-sighted, it’s economically reckless.
There is no trade war. What we are witnessing is an American recalibration of domestic fiscal policy with global consequences. Canada must adapt with prudence, not posturing.
The lesson is simple: reckless rhetoric is costing Canada far more than tariffs. It’s time to change course, especially at Queen’s Park.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country
Business
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
Mike Davies calls for ambition and reform to build a stronger Canada
A shift in ambition
A year after the Trans Mountain Expansion Project came into service, Mike Davies, President and Chief Operating Officer at Trans Mountain, told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that the project’s success should mark the beginning of a new national mindset — one defined by ambition, reform, and nation building.
“It took fifteen years to get this version of the project built,” Davies said. “During that time, Canadian producers lost about $50 billion in value because they were selling into a discounted market. We have some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas, but we can only trade with one other country. That’s unusual.”
With the expansion now in operation, that imbalance is shifting. “The differential on Canadian oil has narrowed by about $13 billion,” he said. “That’s value that used to be extracted by the United States and now stays in Canada — supporting healthcare, reconciliation, and energy transformation. About $5 billion of that is in royalties and taxes. It’s meaningful for us as a society.”
Davies rejected the notion that Trans Mountain was a public subsidy. “The federal government lent its balance sheet so that nation-building infrastructure could get built,” he said. “In our first full year of operation, we’ll return more than $1.3 billion to the federal government, rising toward $2 billion annually as cleanup work wraps up.”
At the Westridge Marine Terminal, shipments have increased from one tanker a week to nearly one a day, with more than half heading to Asia. “California remains an important market,” Davies said, “but diversification is finally happening — and it’s vital to our long-term prosperity.”
Fixing the system to move forward
Davies said this moment of success should prompt a broader rethinking of how Canada approaches resource development. “We’re positioned to take advantage of this moment,” he said. “Public attitudes are shifting. Canadians increasingly recognize that our natural resource advantages are a strength, not a liability. The question now is whether governments can seize it — and whether we’ll see that reflected in policy.”
He called for “deep, long-term reform” to restore scalability and investment confidence. “Linear infrastructure like pipelines requires billions in at-risk capital before a single certificate is issued,” he said. “Canada has a process for everything — we’re a responsible country — but it doesn’t scale for nation-building projects.”
Regulatory reform, he added, must go hand in hand with advancing economic reconciliation. “The challenge of our generation is shifting Indigenous communities from dependence to participation,” he said. “That means real ownership, partnership, and revenue opportunities.”
Davies urged renewed cooperation between Alberta and British Columbia, calling for “interprovincial harmony” on West Coast access. “I’d like to see Alberta see B.C. as part of its constituency,” he said. “And I’d like to see B.C. recognize the need for access.”
He summarized the path forward in plain terms: “We need to stem the exit of capital, create an environment that attracts investment, simplify approvals to one major process, and move decisions from the courts to clear legislation. If we do that, we can finally move from being a market hostage to being a competitor — and a nation builder.”
-
Alberta1 day agoPremier Smith sending teachers back to school and setting up classroom complexity task force
-
Business2 days agoThe painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures
-
Alberta2 days agoCoutts border officers seize 77 KG of cocaine in commercial truck entering Canada – Street value of $7 Million
-
International16 hours agoBiden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”
-
Business19 hours agoTrans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
National2 days agoElection Officials Warn MPs: Canada’s Ballot System Is Being Exploited
-
Business2 days agoOttawa Bought Jobs That Disappeared: Paying for Trudeau’s EV Gamble
-
Canada Free Press17 hours agoThe real genocide is not taking place in Gaza, but in Nigeria


