Costly construction isn’t the culprit behind unaffordable housing

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Land restriction creates what amount to land cartels. A now smaller number of landowners gain windfall profits, which, of course, encourages speculation

The latest Demographia report on housing affordability in Canada, which I produce for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, reveals that over half of the 46 Canadian housing markets we assess are severely unaffordable. In fact, Vancouver and Toronto rank as third and 10th least affordable, respectively, among the 94 major global markets included in our latest international housing affordability study.

To evaluate housing costs, we utilize the “median multiple,” which divides the median house price within a given market (census metropolitan area) by its median household income. A multiple equal to or less than 3.0 is categorized as “affordable,” while anything exceeding 5.0 is labelled “severely unaffordable.”

Among the major Canadian housing markets, Vancouver (with a median multiple of 12), Toronto (9.5), Montreal (5.4), and Ottawa-Gatineau (5.2) fall into the severely unaffordable category. Vancouver has maintained a high median multiple for several decades, while Toronto has been in this range for approximately two decades. The increased prevalence of telecommuting has recently contributed to Montreal and Ottawa-Gatineau’s affordability challenges, leading to a surge in demand for larger homes and properties in more distant suburbs. In contrast, housing in Edmonton (4.0) and Calgary (4.3) remains comparatively affordable.

In Toronto and Vancouver, the implementation of international urban planning principles, particularly those promoting anti-sprawl measures like greenbelts and agricultural preserves, has led to unprecedented price hikes. This “urban containment” approach has consistently driven up land values where it has been adopted. And high land values rather than increased construction costs are what explain the substantial disparity between severely unaffordable and more budget-friendly markets.

Land restriction creates what amount to land cartels. A now smaller number of landowners gain windfall profits, which, of course, encourages speculation. Maintaining or restoring affordability requires eliminating windfall profits by ensuring a competitive market for land.

Another issue arises from urban planners’ preference for higher-density housing, such as high-rise condos. Some households may prefer high-rise living, but families with children typically seek housing with more land, whether detached or semi-detached. When they’re priced out of good housing markets, their quality of life suffers and they may even fall into poverty.

The troubling paradox is that unaffordable housing is far more common in markets like Vancouver and Toronto, which have embraced the planning orthodoxy — which is supposed to produce affordable housing. The same applies to international markets like Sydney, Auckland, London and San Francisco, where urban containment and unaffordable housing have gone hand in hand.

What’s the solution? Give up on urban containment and make more land available for housing. But wouldn’t that threaten the natural environment, as critics of Ontario’s recent attempt to allow development of a sliver of its greenbelt argued?

Not at all. It’s true that land under cultivation in Canada has been declining steadily over the years. But the culprit is improved agricultural productivity, not urban expansion. According to Statistics Canada, between 2001 and 2021, agricultural land shrank 53,000 square kilometres. That’s about equal to the land area of Nova Scotia. And it’s about triple all the area urbanized since European settlement began. Even in Ontario and B.C. where most of the severely unaffordable markets are concentrated, urban expansion from 2016 to 2021 took up less than one-quarter of the agricultural loss over that period. Urban expansion is not squeezing out agricultural land.

Given all this, what should we do about affordability? In my view, three things:

First, it’s essential to acknowledge that Canadians are already addressing the issue by relocating from pricier to more affordable regions. Housing is more affordable in the Atlantic and Prairie provinces and areas in Quebec east of Montreal. So it’s not surprising there is now a net influx of people to smaller, typically more affordable, locations. In the past five years, markets with populations exceeding 100,000 have collectively witnessed over 250,000 people moving to smaller markets.

Second, make more land available for development in increasingly unaffordable markets like B.C., southern Ontario, and the Montreal-Ottawa corridor. One way is with “housing opportunity enclaves” (HOEs), in which traditional, i.e., not high-density, housing regulations would apply, but essential environmental and safety regulations would. The aim would be to provide middle-income housing at the price-to-income ratios that were typical before urban containment came along and housing across the country was largely affordable.

Market-driven development would be ensured by relying on the private sector to provide housing, land, and infrastructure, a model that has been successful in Colorado and Texas. Current residents would maintain their property rights but could sell to private parties and First Nations for development.

HOEs would be situated far enough outside major centres to take advantage of low-priced land, prioritizing areas with the largest recent agricultural land reductions. Communities likely would resemble Waverly West in Winnipeg or The Woodlands in Houston, with ample housing space and yards for families with children.

These new communities would attract people working at least partly from home. Jobs would naturally follow, creating self-contained communities where most commutes occurred within the HOE. To ensure a competitive market and prevent land cost escalation, HOEs must have ample land available.

Third, public authorities should allocate an ample amount of suburban land to safeguard reasonable land values in the Prairie and Atlantic provinces, as well as in Quebec east of Montreal. This would allow currently more affordable markets such as Quebec City, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Moncton and Halifax to accommodate interprovincial migrants without jeopardizing their affordability.

Provincial and local governments would need to monitor housing affordability multiples on at least a five-year cycle, and legislatures, land use authorities and city councils would have to allow enough low-cost land development to maintain price-to-income stability.

It’s not enough just to provide enough building lots to meet projected demand. The goal should be to enable builders to provide housing at prices middle-income households can afford. The key to that is affordable land.

Wendell Cox is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is the author of 2023 Edition Of Demographia Housing Affordability In Canada and has been featured on Leaders on the Frontier – Cost of Living Under Crisis With Charles Blain.

Up Next

Justin Trudeau’s existential problems with oil and gas: Jack Mintz

Don't Miss

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s video on Canada’s housing crisis under Trudeau gov’t goes viral

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

EXCLUSIVE: Former Biden Climate Czar Apparently Pushed Homeland Security To Ease Up On Chinese Company Linked To Slave Labor

COVID-19 / 8 hours ago

Esteemed UK Doctor pleads with governments to cancel COVID-19 vaccines

Brownstone Institute / 11 hours ago

A Potpourri of the World’s Unexposed Scandals

Business

EXCLUSIVE: Former Biden Climate Czar Apparently Pushed Homeland Security To Ease Up On Chinese Company Linked To Slave Labor

Published on December 18, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

Then-national climate adviser Gina McCarthy appears to have met directly with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in 2021 to urge him to ease up on a Chinese solar company linked to slave labor, according to documents obtained by Protect the Public’s Trust, a government watchdog group.

A pre-meeting primer prepared for Mayorkas by staff to get him ready to meet with McCarthy in June 2021 states that McCarthy would “likely discuss the concerns the solar industry has regarding the Department’s enforcement posture on solar products, particularly with regard to Hoshine Silicon Products Company.” The meeting, which McCarthy requested, was scheduled to take place several days after DHS issued a “Withhold Release Order” (WRO) to customs officials to begin seizing shipments of Hoshine solar products because of its connections to slave labor in China’s Xinjiang region, an area known as ground zero for the Chinese government’s genocidal repression of Uyghur Muslims.

DHS still lists Hoshine Silicon Industry and its subsidiaries as entities manufacturing products that use slave labor in violation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

“The impacts of the Hoshine Withold (sic) Release Order (WRO) include the detention of goods and their effect on consumer and investor confidence in solar products, projects, and the industry; concern is growing that this will affect the industry’s ability to meet the nation’s clean energy goals,” the primer for Mayorkas reads.

PPT Documents – Hoshine + DHS by Nick Pope

“Industry indicates that the Hoshine WRO limits their ability to meet demand for solar panels without liability,” the memo continues. “Industry expressed that the WRO’s impact on consumer and investor confidence has resulted in cancelled orders and investments and has put jobs at risk.”

Chinese companies dominate the global supply chains for green energy products including solar panels, and a large share of the world’s polysilicon — a key ingredient for the production of solar panels — comes from the Xinjiang region specifically, The New York Times reported in June 2021 following the announcement of the Hoshine WRO. The Hoshine WRO illustrates a wider problem for the Biden administration whereby it works to cut China and Chinese slave labor-tied companies out of the U.S. solar supply chain without going too far and suffocating American solar companies that rely on Chinese component parts at the expense of the government’s lofty long-term green energy goals.

For example, about one year after the scheduled Mayorkas-McCarthy meeting, the Biden administration opted to waive tariffs on Chinese solar products in June 2022 amid concerns that the levies could crush the American solar industry before reinstating the duties in June 2024. Some American solar firms and executives said that Chinese companies managed to undercut U.S. solar production during the period of time when the tariffs were not being enforced.

Mayorkas stated publicly that “the United States will not tolerate modern-day slavery in our supply chains” on the day DHS announced the WRO against Hoshine.

The memo briefed Mayorkas on several options that McCarthy was likely to bring up at the meeting, including possible proposals to phase in enforcement to reassure the spooked market, increase transparency for the public with respect to DHS’ Hoshine restrictions or to create a “de minimis” threshold for the amount of slave labor-linked polysilicon in a given imported product. Mayorkas’ staff also laid out detailed “pros” and “cons” for each of the suggestions they expected McCarthy to make in the meeting.

“DHS made a rational and moral judgement about products from a company and a nation that uses the forced labor of Uyghurs and other ethnic and political prisoners,” Michael Chamberlain, executive director of Protect the Public’s Trust, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “But it seems human rights are a secondary consideration for the people charged with implementing the Biden administration’s green agenda and their counterparts in the clean energy industry. It’s hard to see what’s ‘clean’ about solar panels made with slave labor.”

McCarthy, who was the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Obama administration, served as the Biden administration’s national climate adviser before leaving the government in 2022. In between her stints in the Obama and Biden administrations, McCarthy worked as the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a major environmental activist group that has a presence in China and is registered with or supervised by Chinese government institutions like the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and the State Forestry and Grassland Administration, according to NRDC’s Chinese language website.

Notably, the documents obtained by Protect the Public’s Trust also include a similar briefing memo meant to prepare him for an October 2021 meeting with the American Clean Power Association about DHS’ enforcement actions against slave labor-linked solar products. That particular document spells out how representatives for the green energy trade group were likely to push for answers about the administration’s conflicting goals of rooting out slave labor from solar supply chains and quickly standing up a robust domestic solar industry.

DHS and McCarthy’s spokesperson did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the DCNF.

Business

Public Accounts of Canada Report Buried on Last Day of Sitting Session

Published on December 17, 2024

Todayville

Dan Knight

Trudeau Government Hides Exploding Deficit and Fiscal Mismanagement Amid Chaos and Distraction

Well, folks, here we go again. The Trudeau government—masterclass in obfuscation, fiscal recklessness, and zero accountability—just pulled off another slick political maneuver. This time, it’s the Public Accounts of Canada 2024, a document that should be front-page news, but this news bite is buried so deep in the news cycle you’d think it was radioactive.

Here’s what’s happening: the government dropped its final, audited financial statements for the fiscal year on the last day of the parliamentary sitting session, when no one’s watching. Why? Because it’s bad. Really bad. Let’s connect the dots.

First, we had the Fall Economic Statement released just yesterday, a forward-looking document that’s basically a glossy brochure for Trudeau’s latest spending spree. That’s what the media focused on. But the Public Accounts—that’s where you see the hard, cold truth: the deficit is exploding, hitting $61.9 billion, and Canada’s finances are way past the so-called “guardrails” Trudeau and Freeland promised us.

Let’s not forget, those guardrails were supposed to limit deficits to $40 billion, but Trudeau blew right past that, overspending by more than $20 billion. And now they’re scrambling to hide the numbers because they know Canadians will not tolerate this reckless fiscal mismanagement any longer.

Ah, yes, Chrystia Freeland—the “fiscally responsible” finance minister—who just resigned in the middle of this chaos. What are the odds? She’s out, claiming “irreconcilable differences” with Trudeau’s economic policies. Translation: she knew the books are in tatters, and she didn’t want her name on them when the inevitable reckoning comes.

Now ask yourself: if everything was fine, if Canada’s economy was strong and the government was keeping its promises, wouldn’t Trudeau and his pals want to shout this from the rooftops? Wouldn’t they want the opposition to read every page of those Public Accounts? Instead, they slid the report across the table on the last possible day—while the media was distracted, MPs were packing up, and Freeland was running for the hills.

This is the oldest trick in the book. When governments screw up, they don’t admit it. They bury the evidence, release it late, or throw out a flashy distraction. Trudeau just did all three in one week: the Fall Economic Statement, full of nice words but exposing Trudeau’s reckless spending; Chrystia Freeland’s resignation, a clear sign even she wanted no part of it; and Anita Anand quietly releasing the Public Accounts on the last day of the sitting session, hoping no one would notice as Trudeau’s crumbling leadership sucks up all the oxygen in the news cycle.

What’s in those Public Accounts that Trudeau doesn’t want you to see? Deficits far larger than what he promised? Ballooning spending on programs that are failing Canadians? Spiraling interest costs on our record-breaking debt? Likely all of the above.

Here’s the bottom line: Trudeau’s government has lost control of the country’s finances. They’re driving Canada into economic oblivion, and when the consequences hit, it won’t be politicians who pay the price. It’ll be hardworking Canadians—your taxes, your savings, your livelihoods.

And what does Trudeau do? He hides the truth, covers it up, and hopes you’re too distracted to care. This is what contempt for democracy looks like, and it’s a disgrace. Canadians deserve better.

That’s the real story here—Trudeau’s government has a deficit of trust, a deficit of competence, and now, a fiscal deficit so big it makes Freeland want to quit. You couldn’t make it up if you tried.

Stay tuned, folks, because this isn’t over. When the numbers come out, they’ll tell a story Trudeau can’t hide forever—and that story won’t be pretty.

What is the Public Accounts of Canada?

The Public Accounts of Canada is the official, audited financial report of the Government of Canada, providing a final and comprehensive overview of the federal government’s finances for the fiscal year, which runs from April 1 to March 31.

This document is produced annually by the Receiver General for Canada and is audited by the Auditor General of Canada to ensure its accuracy, reliability, and adherence to public sector accounting standards.
It includes detailed information about revenues, expenditures, deficits or surpluses, debt, and all financial activities of government departments, agencies, and Crown corporations.

The Public Accounts is a backward-looking document: it reports the final, audited numbers of what has already happened financially over the previous fiscal year.

How is it Different from the Fall Economic Statement?

The Fall Economic Statement is a forward-looking financial update presented by the government midway through the fiscal year, typically in November or December. It outlines the government’s current economic outlook, updates revenue and spending projections, and provides an estimate of deficits or surpluses for the upcoming years.

Key Differences Between the Public Accounts and the Fall Economic Statement

The Public Accounts of Canada and the Fall Economic Statement serve distinct purposes in the government’s financial reporting, primarily differing in their focus, timing, and level of scrutiny.

Timeframe:
The Public Accounts are backward-looking, presenting the final, audited financial results for the previous fiscal year (April 1 to March 31). In contrast, the Fall Economic Statement is forward-looking, providing forecasts and plans for the current and upcoming fiscal years.
Purpose:
The Public Accounts offer a definitive and detailed overview of the government’s financial performance, focusing on accountability and transparency. It includes actual revenues, expenditures, deficits, and debt levels. Meanwhile, the Fall Economic Statement serves as a mid-year economic and fiscal update, often outlining new spending initiatives, policies, and projections for future budgets.
Audit Status:
A key distinction is that the Public Accounts are audited by the Auditor General of Canada. This means the numbers are verified and considered reliable. In contrast, the Fall Economic Statement consists of projections prepared by the Department of Finance and is not independently audited.
Content:
The Public Accounts present actual, finalized financial data, including where taxpayer money was spent, how much debt was accumulated, and whether the deficit or surplus matched previous promises. The Fall Economic Statement, however, focuses on estimates—projecting government spending, deficits, and economic growth into the future.
Timing:
Traditionally, the Public Accounts are tabled in the fall, typically between late September and October. This timing ensures that Parliament and the public have an opportunity to analyze the government’s financial performance before the year ends. The Fall Economic Statement, on the other hand, is released later in the fall, usually in November or December, as a political and economic update.

The Bottom Line

The Public Accounts of Canada is about facts and accountability, providing hard, audited numbers on what the government actually did with its finances. The Fall Economic Statement is about forecasts and priorities, giving Canadians a sense of where the government intends to go financially and politically. While both are important, only the Public Accounts holds the government accountable for its actual financial record.

Why it Matters

The Public Accounts hold the government accountable for its actual spending and deficits. Because they are audited, these numbers are considered the final word on the government’s fiscal performance.
The Fall Economic Statement, however, is a political document. It forecasts future spending, reflects policy priorities, and often contains new announcements or programs. While it gives an idea of where the government thinks finances are headed, it’s not final or independently audited.

Final Thoughts

The Public Accounts of Canada is a finalized, audited report that shows where the government’s money actually went—the truth, the real numbers, no spin, no glossy brochures. It’s the hard, cold record of how this government spent your hard-earned tax dollars. The Fall Economic Statement, by contrast, is just a wish list—a forward-looking document full of lofty promises, political spin, and projections that rarely match reality. One is about accountability. The other is about politics and promises.

Both matter, but only one tells Canadians the hard truth about the state of our country’s finances. And let’s be clear: this Public Accounts report isn’t going away. Come the next session, the Public Accounts Committee will be digging through every page of this government’s fiscal mismanagement. They’ll expose what Trudeau, Freeland, and now LeBlanc have done to this country’s finances—runaway deficits, bloated spending, mountains of debt our kids will have to pay off.

And where is the NDP in all this? They’ll criticize just enough to keep up appearances, but let’s not pretend they’re not part of the problem. They’ve traded your children’s future for a seat at Trudeau’s crumbling table. For what? A dental plan? A plan that sounds great on paper, but let’s face it: what good is getting your teeth cleaned when you can’t afford to put food on the table? What good is a government that pretends to care about affordability while driving this country further into debt?

Canadians deserve better than this. Our families, our children, and our seniors deserve better. This country was built on the promise of hard work, sacrifice, and the dream of a better life for the next generation. But that dream is being stolen—piece by piece—by a government with no respect for fiscal responsibility, no sense of accountability, and no real plan for the future. Instead, they’re mortgaging your kids’ future, spending money we don’t have on programs we can’t afford, all to cling to power a little longer.

This is about more than budgets and deficits. This is about Canada—about the values that built this country. We are a nation of workers, builders, and innovators. We are a people who believe in living within our means, taking responsibility for ourselves and our families, and handing something better to the next generation. That’s what makes Canada strong. And that’s what this government is destroying—recklessly, selfishly, and without shame.

Canadians are tired of the misplaced priorities. Tired of being told there’s no money for veterans, farmers, or small businesses while this government burns through billions on their pet projects and political handouts. Tired of watching their taxes go up, their cost of living skyrocket, and their dreams slip further and further out of reach.

It’s time to stop this madness. Canadians deserve a government that respects their sacrifices, lives within its means, and understands that every dollar it spends belongs to you—not them. This country is not Justin Trudeau’s personal playground. It’s your country. It’s our country. And it’s time to take it back.

We need an election. Canadians need to send a message to this government that enough is enough. We will not stand by while they gamble away our future. We will not let them bury the truth in backroom releases and holiday distractions. This is our Canada, and it’s time to fight for it. For our families, for our future, and for the country we love.

Support independent journalism by subscribing to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.