Economy
One Solution to Canada’s Housing Crisis: Move. Toronto loses nearly half million people to more affordable locations
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Wendell Cox
The largest CMA, Toronto, had by far the most significant net internal migration loss at 402,600, Montreal lost 162,700, and Vancouver lost 49,700.
Canadians are fleeing overpriced cities to find more affordable housing. And restrictive urban planning policies are to blame.
Canadians may be solving the housing crisis on their own by moving away from more expensive areas to areas where housing is much more affordable. This trend is highlighted in the latest internal migration data from Statistics Canada.
The data covers 167 areas comprising the entire nation, including Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), which have populations from 100,000 to seven million. It also includes the smaller Census Agglomerations (CAs), which have a core population of at least 10,000, as well as areas outside CMAs and CAs in each province and territory, which are referred to as “largely rural areas.”
Long-standing migration trends have been virtually reversed. Larger cities (CMAs) now see the highest loss of net internal migrants, while smaller cities (CAs) are experiencing solid gains. Between 2019 and 2023, Canada’s CMAs lost 273,800 net internal migrants to smaller areas, including CAs and largely rural areas. This contrasts sharply with the previous five-year period (2014 to 2018) when CMAs saw only a 1,000-person loss.
So, where did these people go? A significant portion – 108,100 – moved to CAs, which captured 39 per cent of the CMA losses. This is triple that of the previous five years (2014 through 2018).
However, the most notable shift occurred in largely rural areas, which gained 165,700 net internal migrants, representing 61 per cent of CMA losses. This is a dramatic increase compared to the 33,700 net loss in the previous five years.
Among the 167 areas, the migration data is stunning.
The areas experiencing the greatest net internal migration are outside CMAs and CAs. The largely rural area of Ontario saw the biggest gain, with a net increase of 78,300 people – nearly 40 times the number from the previous five years. Meanwhile, rural Quebec placed second, with a net gain of 76,200 people, more than 10 times the increase in the prior five years. The Calgary CMA ranked third (and first among CMAs) at 42,600, followed by the Ottawa Gatineau CMA (Ontario and Quebec) at 36,700 and the Oshawa CMA at 34,900.
The largest CMA, Toronto, had by far the most significant net internal migration loss at 402,600, Montreal lost 162,700, and Vancouver lost 49,700. Outside these CMAs, nearly all areas posted net gains.
People have also started moving to the Maritimes. The Halifax CMA tripled its previous gain (21,300). In New Brunswick, Moncton nearly quadrupled its gain (7,000). Modest gains were also made in Fredericton and Saint John as well as in Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island.
Meanwhile, housing affordability in Canada’s largest CMAs has become grim. Toronto’s median house price to median household income has doubled in less than two decades. Vancouver’s prices have tripled relative to incomes in five decades. Montreal’s house prices nearly doubled relative to incomes over two decades.
These CMAs (and others) have housing policies typical of the international planning orthodoxy, which seeks to make cities denser. In effect, they have declared war against “urban sprawl,” trying to stop any material expansion of urbanization. These urban containment policies, which include greenbelts, agricultural reserves, urban growth boundaries and compact city strategies, are associated with the worst housing affordability. Land prices are skewed upward throughout the market. Demand continues to increase ahead of incomes, but the supply of low-cost suburban land, so crucial to controlling costs, is frozen.
Regrettably, some areas where people have fled are also subject to urban containment and housing affordability has deteriorated rapidly. Between 2015 and 2022, prices in Ontario CMAs London, Guelph, Brantford and St. Catharines have about doubled. BC’s Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island have seen similar increases. Those moving to these areas are ahead financially, but the rapidly rising house prices are closing opportunities.
There are proposals to restore housing affordability, though none tackle the urban containment policies associated with the price increases. Indeed, we have not found a single metropolitan area where housing affordability has been restored with the market distortions of the intensity that have developed in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal (not in our Demographia International Housing Affordability report or elsewhere). Such markets have become unsustainable for most new entrant households because they cannot afford to live there.
Housing is not a commodity. Households have varying preferences, from ground-oriented housing (detached and townhomes) to high-rise condos. Indeed, a growing body of literature associates detached housing with higher total fertility rates. According to Statistics Canada, Canadians have favoured lower densities for decades, a trend that continued through the 2021 Census, a trend that continued through the 2021 Census, according to Statistics Canada.
With governments (virtually around the world) failing to maintain stable and affordable housing markets, it’s not surprising people are taking matters into their own hands. Until fundamental reforms can be implemented in the most expensive markets, those seeking a better quality of life will have no choice but to leave.
First published in the Financial Post.
Wendell Cox is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the author of Demographia International Housing Affordability.
Business
‘We Had A Bad Experience’: Chinese Officials Losing Sleep Over Thought Of Dealing With Second Trump Term
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jake Smith
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials quietly believe that a second Donald Trump presidency would be more dangerous to them than a Kamala Harris administration, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.
The Biden-Harris administration’s relationship with Beijing has been marred with tensions in recent years over diplomatic, economic and national security disputes. But Chinese officials would seemingly still rather have Harris win in November over Trump because they worry that the former president will open up another trade war against China, officials told the WSJ.
“Chinese officials and scholars, in private conversations over many months, are largely exceptionally wary of a Trump victory,” Richard McGregor, China expert at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, told the WSJ.
Those worries are largely kept quiet. Publicly, Chinese officials maintain a stance of neutrality toward the U.S. elections. Chinese President Xi Jinping wrote in a letter last week that China had always handled relations with the U.S. with “mutual respect” and said that Beijing “is willing to work with the United States as partners and friends.”
“The presidential elections are the United States’ own affairs,” a spokesman from the Chinese Embassy in the U.S. told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We hope that whoever gets elected will be committed to growing sound and stable China-U.S. ties.”
Beijing wants whoever the next president is to take a predictable stance toward relations and dial back the U.S.’ tough-on-China stance. Privately, officials felt that standard was better reflected in President Joe Biden over Trump and thought his reelection would be better for China, according to the WSJ.
After Biden dropped out of the race in July, Beijing felt the same about Harris, officials told the WSJ.
“Under Trump, we had a bad experience,” senior CCP diplomat Liu Jianchao bemoaned during a closed-door session with U.S. think tanks earlier in the year.
The concerns of a second Trump term among Chinese officials stem from fears he will launch a second trade war against China, as he did in his first term, according to the WSJ.
Trump issued a sweeping set of tariffs against China during his first term — adding a tax to imports coming in from the country — in a bid to encourage domestic U.S. investment and compel China to buy more American goods.
Xi and those and his orbit became exhausted in trying to maneuver the trade war and Trump’s demands, according to the WSJ. Trump has weighed the idea in his second term to issue a 60% tariff against incoming Chinese goods, which economists at UBS have predicted could mark a 2.5% blow to China’s GDP growth over a year-long period.
Trump has also recently weighed the idea of using the threat of tariffs to deter China from invading Taiwan, even musing that he would completely halt trade relations if the island is taken by force, which has been received extremely poorly in Beijing.
“I would say: If you go into Taiwan, I’m sorry to do this, I’m going to tax you”—meaning impose tariffs—“at 150% to 200%,” Trump told the WSJ in an interview on Thursday.
The Trump and Harris campaigns did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Dan McTeague
Ottawa’s intentional destruction of western wealth
From Canadians for Affordable Energy
Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream.
At this point, everyone in Canada has heard about the Carbon Tax and had a chance to experience its negative effects. But less has been said about another harmful policy dreamed up by the Trudeau government — the Emissions Cap on the oil and gas sector. Just like the Carbon Tax, the Emissions Cap is part of Trudeau’s larger program to try and achieve “Net Zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, which will have no positive impact on the environment, but which will be ruinous to Canada’s natural resource sector and to the national economy.
In their 2021 platform, the Liberals made a commitment to “cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector” and proclaimed that that industry must reduce emissions “at a pace and scale needed to achieve net-zero by 2050.” As promised, in December 2023 the Trudeau government proposed an Emissions Cap to reduce GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector by 42 percent by 2030. Keep in mind Canada contributes only 1.5% of global emissions, so this plan, even if accomplished, would reduce global emissions by less than one half of one percent.
Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream. After all, the oil and gas industry generates $45 billion per year in annual economic activity, and contributes $170 billion per year to the GDP.
But don’t take my word for it. According to a Deloitte report commissioned by the Government of Alberta, an Emissions Cap would lead to a 10% decrease in Alberta’s oil production and a 16% decrease in conventional natural gas production. Fossil fuel production would decrease in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland as well. Other industries connected to the oil and gas sector such as the mining, refinery products, and utilities are also expected to be impacted and will experience a decrease in output in Alberta and the rest of Canada.
The report goes on to state that in 2040 “Alberta’s GDP is estimated to be lower by 4.5% and Canada’s GDP by 1.0% compared to the baseline.”
It notes that because it is assumed that “the Cap is a permanent measure, the shift in the output of the oil and gas sector and associated losses are permanent and accumulate over time. Cumulatively, over the 2030 to 2040 period, we estimate that real GDP in Alberta is $191 billion lower and real GDP in the Rest of Canada is $91 billion lower, compared to the baseline scenario ($2017 dollars).”
Of course, the environmentalists will crow that the oil and gas industry is dying anyway and the demand for oil and gas around the world is slowly decreasing, but this is simply not true.
Global demand for oil and gas is only growing and will continue to do so. According to the report, “Based on current policy and before the impact of the Cap, we expect: Oil production in Canada to increase by 27% by 2030 and 32% by 2040 from 2021 levels; and Gas production in Canada to increase by 10% by 2030 and 16% by 2040 from 2021 levels.”
And this isn’t the only study which projects negative outcomes from this policy. The Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) released a study which describes how the Trudeau government’s proposed Emissions Cap for the energy sector would “cost the Canadian economy between $44.8 billion and $79.3 billion a year” and would “cause substantial losses, without achieving any net reduction in global emission.”
You can read the study here.
Plus it is worth noting that this emissions cap will result in “substantial losses without achieving any net reduction in global emissions.”
Why? Because of the increase in global demands for oil and gas, we can either produce those resources here or get them from another country that has no environmental, much less labour standards, such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.
To add insult to injury for the oil and gas producing provinces, and as I’ve pointed out in the past, this cap on emissions would apply only to the oil and gas sector. This emissions cap would not apply to the concrete industry, the automotive industry, or the mining industry. And — surprise surprise — it certainly won’t apply to Montreal’s lucrative jet-building industry.
But take heed: this isn’t simply an Alberta issue. This is a Canadian issue and one that everyone in Canada should be concerned about.
The umbrella of Net Zero by 2050 is large and far reaching, and an emissions cap is simply one part of a multi-layered attack on our economy and way of life. Carbon taxes, layered on top of a Clean Fuel Standard, layered on top of pipeline blockages, layered on top of Bills C-48 and C-69, preventing oil from being shipped from other parts of the world — will run counter to our national interests, and endanger the Canadian way of life for generations to come.
If Canadians are now vehemently opposed to carbon taxes, as we suggested would be the case half a dozen years ago, wait for this unnecessary burden to befall them.
In the words made famous by the Canadian rock legend BTO, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
-
Uncategorized24 hours ago
UK Government And Media Spread Disinformation About Southport Killer, Evidence Suggests
-
National1 day ago
Committee Hearing Exposes Trudeau’s Political Spin on Foreign Interference
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta taking feds to court to challenge legality of heating oil carbon tax exemption
-
Business2 days ago
Taxpayers Federation urging Ontario to join Alberta’s carbon tax court fight
-
Culture2 days ago
Judge rejects call for recusal in Trump assassination case
-
Great Reset22 hours ago
A One-Stop Shop for Illegal Migration Reveals Ongoing Plans for Illegal Immigration
-
COVID-192 days ago
The Biden-Harris Administration Wasted Nearly One Billion on Misinformation
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy14 hours ago
The Destructive Legacy of Gender Theory’s Popular Pioneer