Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

Toronto, Vancouver named “Impossibly Unaffordable”

Published

5 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Courtney Greenberg

Two Canadian cities — Toronto and Vancouver — have earned the title of “impossibly unaffordable” in a new report.

“There has been a considerable loss of housing affordability in Canada since the mid-2000s, especially in the Vancouver and Toronto markets,” according to the Demographia International Housing Affordability report, which is released annually.

“During the pandemic, the increase in remote work (working at home) fuelled a demand increase as many households were induced to move from more central areas to suburban, exurban and even more remote areas. The result was a demand shock that drove house prices up substantially, as households moved to obtain more space, within houses and in yards or gardens.”

Vancouver was the least affordable market in Canada, and the third least affordable out of all of the 94 markets observed in the report. The West Coast city’s affordability issue has “troublingly” spread to smaller areas like Chilliwack, the Fraser Valley, Kelowna, and markets on Vancouver Island, per the report.

Toronto was named as the second least affordable market in Canada. However, it fared slightly better than Vancouver when it came to the other markets, ranking 84 out of 94 in international affordability.

“As in Vancouver, severely unaffordable housing has spread to smaller, less unaffordable markets in Ontario, such as Kitchener-cambridge-waterloo, Brantford, London, and Guelph, as residents of metro Toronto seek lower costs of living outside the Toronto market,” the report says.

The findings of the report have “grave implications on the prospects for upward mobility,” said Joel Kotkin, the director at the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University, a co-publisher of the report along with Canada’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

“As with any problem, the first step towards a resolution should be to understand the basic facts,” he said. “This is what the Demographia study offers.”

The report looked at housing affordability in 94 metropolitan areas in Australia, China, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. The data analyzed was taken from September 2023. The ratings are based on five categories (affordable, moderately unaffordable, seriously unaffordable, severely unaffordable, and impossibly unaffordable) with a points system to classify each area.

The report determined affordability by calculating the median price-to-income ratio (“median multiple”) in each market.

“There is a genuine need to substantially restore housing affordability in many markets throughout the covered nations,” said Frontier Centre for Public Policy president Peter Holle, in a statement. “In Canada, policymakers are scrambling to ‘magic wand’ more housing but continue to mostly ignore the main reason for our dysfunctional costly housing markets — suburban land use restrictions.”

Toronto and Vancouver both received the worst possible rating for affordability, making them stand out as the most expensive Canadian cities in which to buy a home. However, other Canadian markets — like Calgary, Montreal and Ottawa-gatineau — stood out as well. They were considered “severely unaffordable.”

“This is a long time coming,” senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives David Macdonald told CTV News.

“We haven’t been building enough housing, we certainly haven’t had enough government investment in affordable housing for decades, and the chickens are coming home to roost.”

The most affordable Canadian city in the report was Edmonton, which was given a rating of “moderately unaffordable.” The city in Alberta was “at least twothirds more affordable” than Vancouver.

Overall, Canada ranked third in home ownership compared to the other regions observed in the report. The highest home ownership rate was in Singapore, at 89 per cent, followed by Ireland, at 70 per cent. In Canada, the rate was 67 per cent.

First published in the National Post here, June 17, 2024.

Courtney Greenberg is a Toronto-based freelance journalist writing for the National Post.

Alberta

Alberta government must further restrain spending to stabilize provincial finances

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

This year, program spending will reach a projected $14,334 per Albertan, which is $1,603 more per person (inflation-adjusted) than the Smith government originally planned to spend this year as outlined in the 2022 mid-year budget update.

Despite recording a $4.3 billion surplus last year, Premier Danielle Smith remains committed to a new approach to Alberta finances that relies less heavily on resource revenue, which includes restraining spending levels below the rate of inflation and population growth. That’s a big step forward, but is it enough to stabilize Alberta’s boom and bust rollercoaster?

First, some background.

After nearly a decade and a half of routine budget deficits, Alberta swung to a budget surplus when resource revenue (which includes includes oil and gas royalties) skyrocketed from $3.1 billion in 2020/21 to $16.2 billion in 2021/22. In 2022/23, the government enjoyed the highest level of resource revenue on record and relatively high levels have continued in recent years. Correspondingly, Alberta’s surpluses have continued.

Alberta governments have a habit of increasing spending during times of high resource revenue, such as the province is currently experiencing, to levels that are unsustainable without incurring deficits when resource revenue inevitably declines. That’s why the Smith government’s commitment to spending restraint is an important one.

Unfortunately, however, due to the Smith government’s spending increases in previous years, this restraint won’t go as far in stabilizing provincial finances. Moreover, there are a number of limitations and exceptions to these new spending rules that may impede their effectiveness.

Consider that this year, program spending will reach a projected $14,334 per Albertan, which is $1,603 more per person (inflation-adjusted) than the Smith government originally planned to spend this year as outlined in the 2022 mid-year budget update.

As shown above, program spending (inflation-adjusted) will reach a projected $14,041 per person in 2025/26 and a projected $13,750 per person in 2026/27, which is equivalent to per-person increases of $1,571 and $1,538, respectively, compared to the original plan in 2022.

So while per-person (inflation-adjusted) spending is set to decline, which aligns with the Smith government’s commitment, this restraint is starting from a higher base level due to spending decisions thus far. That means more work needs to be done to rein in spending.

Indeed, for perspective, if the Smith government had simply stuck to its original plan, spending would be closely aligned with stable, more predictable sources of revenue. And ultimately, that’s the way to avoid deficits.

There’s also several limitations and exceptions for the government’s new spending rule. For example, the spending limit applies only to “operating expense,” which does not include longer-term spending, disaster and emergency assistance, spending related to dedicated revenue, or contingencies. As a result of various limits and exceptions, total program spending growth in 2023/24 exceeds inflation and population growth by 1.8 percentage points. Put simply, these limitations and exceptions add to the risk of budget deficits.

Sustainable finances have been impeded by increases in per person spending since 2022. So while the Smith government deserves credit for its commitment to restrain spending moving forward, Alberta’s fiscal challenges aren’t over.

Continue Reading

Economy

Feds spending $1.7 million pushing carbon tax on other countries

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Ryan Thorpe

The Trudeau government is dumping $1.7 million into a failed bid to get countries around the world to impose carbon taxes, according to access-to-information records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

“All Canadians need to do to know Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax push is an utter failure is look south of the border and see the United States’ refusal to impose their own tax,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “If Trudeau can’t even get our biggest trading partner and ally to impose a carbon tax, then why is he wasting money trying to push this unpopular tax around the world?”

The Trudeau government launched the Global Carbon Pricing Challenge at COP26 in 2021.

The program “aims to see 60 per cent of global GHG emissions covered by carbon pricing policies by 2030.” The program website notes “carbon pricing is most effective when more countries adopt it.”

But the results so far are dismal for the government.

Only 24 per cent of global emissions are currently covered by a carbon tax. About 70 per cent of countries do not have a national carbon tax, according to the World Bank.

Three of the four largest emitting countries – the U.S., Russia and India – currently do not have a national carbon tax, according to the World Bank.

“The [climate] community has largely moved into a different framework,” said John Podesta, a long-time Democratic strategist, when asked about whether the Biden administration would impose a carbon tax in the U.S.

Only 12 countries, including Kazakhstan and Chile, have signed onto the Global Carbon Pricing Challenge as “partners,” alongside the European Union. Côte d’Ivoire is listed as the lone “friend” of the program.

There are 195 countries in the world, according to the United Nations.

“This program is a complete failure that’s wasting taxpayers’ money,” Terrazzano said. “The carbon tax makes life in Canada more expensive, forces taxpayers to pay for more bureaucrats to administer it and now we learn we’re also paying for the government to push this failed policy on other countries.”

Records obtained by the CTF show the Trudeau government has spent $811,598 on salaries for bureaucrats, operations and maintenance, and guidance and control for the program since the 2021-22 fiscal year.

The government committed an additional $974,900 towards the creation of an independent secretariat to “support the GCPC.”

The federal government has also spent about $200 million administering the carbon tax in Canada since it was first imposed, according to separate records obtained by the CTF.

Canada’s “GDP is expected to be about $25 billion lower in 2030 due to carbon pricing than it would be otherwise,” according to the Globe and Mail.

“Trudeau should stop wasting money, stop punishing Canadians and scrap the carbon tax,” Terrazzano said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X