Urban Population Densities in Canada and Abroad—an Update

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman and Milagros Palacios

Canadian cities—including Toronto and Vancouver, which are experiencing high and increasing housing costs—can accommodate much more housing supply as they have much lower population densities than other major comparable urban centres around the world, finds a new study by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Compared to their international peers, Canadian cities have much lower levels of density, which means there’s an opportunity to expand the supply of housing and perhaps make housing more affordable, too,” said Steven Globerman, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-author of Urban Population Densities in Canada and Abroad—an Update.

The study, which compares population densities in 30 metropolitan centres in highincome developed countries, finds that Canadian cities are among the least-dense.

Even Vancouver—Canada’s densest major city with 5,750 people per square kilometre—ranks 13th out of 30, and is significantly less dense than San Francisco (6,656 people per square kilometre), a comparable west coast city. In Toronto, there are 4,552 people per square kilometre. In fact, Toronto’s population could double and the city would still be less dense than New York City (10,712). And crucially, Toronto and Vancouver are significantly less dense than many other major cities around the world, including London (10,663) Tokyo (15,531) and Paris (20,360).

“Some of the most desirable, liveable cities in the world have much higher population densities than Canada’s biggest cities,” Globerman said. “Canadian cities can become significantly more dense, and possibly more affordable, without necessarily sacrificing living standards.”

Affordable housing in cities is a major public-policy issue in Canada.
Zoning and related restrictions on increased construction of multi-family housing in urban centres have been identified by the federal government and several provincial governments as major impediments to affordable housing.
Governments are promoting increased population density in urban areas through financial incentives and other initiatives but face opposition from homeowners and other interest groups concerned that density will bring a diminished quality of living.
In fact, urban population densities in Canada are relatively low compared to medium- and large-sized cities in other wealthy countries.
Moreover, there is no consistent evidence showing that increased urban density leads to a lower quality of living.

Authors:

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

Milagros Palacios

Director, Addington Centre for Measurement, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #MilagrosPalacios #PopulationDensity #StevenGloberman #Toronto #UrbanDensityCanada Vancouver

Up Next

Klaus Schwab pushes ‘fourth industrial revolution’ at WEF’s ‘Summer Davos’ opening

Don't Miss

40 Canadian professors urge Trudeau government to abolish DEI mandates

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

New children’s book demonstrates how the everyday world is connected to natural resources

conflict / 7 hours ago

Hamas, Palestinians paraded dead babies coffins through streets before handover to Israel

Health / 8 hours ago

RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B

Business

Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

In the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S.

According to a new Statistics Canada report, government regulation has grown over the years and it’s hurting Canada’s economy. The report, which uses a regulatory burden measure devised by KPMG and Transport Canada, shows government regulatory requirements increased 2.1 per cent annually from 2006 to 2021, with the effect of reducing the business sector’s GDP, employment, labour productivity and investment.

Specifically, the growth in regulation over these years cut business-sector investment by an estimated nine per cent and “reduced business start-ups and business dynamism,” cut GDP in the business sector by 1.7 percentage points, cut employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points.

While the report only covered regulatory growth through 2021, in the past four years an avalanche of new regulations has made the already existing problem of overregulation worse.

The Trudeau government in particular has intensified its regulatory assault on the extraction sector with a greenhouse gas emissions cap, new fuel regulations and new methane emissions regulations. In the last few years, federal diktats and expansions of bureaucratic control have swept the auto industry, child care, supermarkets and many other sectors.

Again, the negative results are evident. Over the past nine years, Canada’s cumulative real growth in per-person GDP (an indicator of incomes and living standards) has been a paltry 1.7 per cent and trending downward, compared to 18.6 per cent and trending upward in the United States. Put differently, if the Canadian economy had tracked with the U.S. economy over the past nine years, average incomes in Canada would be much higher today.

Also in the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S., and only about two-thirds as much new capital (on average) as workers in other developed countries.

Consequently, Canada is mired in an economic growth crisis—a fact that even the Trudeau government does not deny. “We have more work to do,” said Anita Anand, then-president of the Treasury Board, last August, “to examine the causes of low productivity levels.” The Statistics Canada report, if nothing else, confirms what economists and the business community already knew—the regulatory burden is much of the problem.

Of course, regulation is not the only factor hurting Canada’s economy. Higher federal carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher top marginal income tax rates are also weakening Canada’s productivity, GDP, business investment and entrepreneurship.

Finally, while the Statistics Canada report shows significant economic costs of regulation, the authors note that their estimate of the effect of regulatory accumulation on GDP is “much smaller” than the effect estimated in an American study published several years ago in the Review of Economic Dynamics. In other words, the negative effects of regulation in Canada may be even higher than StatsCan suggests.

Whether Statistics Canada has underestimated the economic costs of regulation or not, one thing is clear: reducing regulation and reversing the policy course of recent years would help get Canada out of its current economic rut. The country is effectively in a recession even if, as a result of rapid population growth fuelled by record levels of immigration, the GDP statistics do not meet the technical definition of a recession.

With dismal GDP and business investment numbers, a turnaround—both in policy and outcomes—can’t come quickly enough for Canadians.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

New climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians

Published on February 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Mark Carney, who wants to be your next prime minister, recently released his plan for Canada’s climate policies through 2035. It’s a sprawling plan (climate plans always are), encompassing industrial and manufacturing emissions, vehicle emissions, building emissions, appliance emissions, cross-border emissions, more “green” energy, more “heat pumps” replacing HVAC, more electric vehicle (EV) subsidies, more subsidies to consumers, more subsidies to companies, and more charging stations for the EV revolution that does not seem to be happening. And while the plan seeks to eliminate the “consumer carbon tax” on “fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, diesel, home heating oil, etc.” it’s basically Trudeau’s climate plans on steroids.

Consider this. Instead of paying the “consumer carbon tax” directly, under the Carney plan Canadians will pay more—but less visibly. The plan would “tighten” (i.e. raise) the carbon tax on “large industrial emitters” (you know, the people who make the stuff you buy) who will undoubtedly pass some or all of that cost to consumers. Second, the plan wants to force those same large emitters to somehow fund subsidy programs for consumer purchases to offset the losses to Canadians currently profiting from consumer carbon tax rebates. No doubt the costs of those subsidy programs will also be folded into the costs of the products that flow from Canada’s “large industrial emitters,” but the cause of rising prices will be less visible to the general public. And the plan wants more consumer home energy audits and retrofit programs, some of the most notoriously wasteful climate policies ever developed.

But the ironic icing on this plan’s climate cake is the desire to implement tariffs (excuse me, a “carbon border adjustment mechanism”) on U.S. products in association with “key stakeholders and international partners to ensure fairness for Canadian industries.” Yes, you read that right, the plan seeks to kick off a carbon-emission tariff war with the United States, not only for Canada’s trade, but to bring in European allies to pile on. And this, all while posturing in high dudgeon over Donald Trump’s plans to impose tariffs on Canadian products based on perceived injustices in the U.S./Canada trade relationship.

To recap, while grudgingly admitting that the “consumer carbon tax” is wildly unpopular, poorly designed and easily dispensable in Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts, the Carney plan intends to double down on all of the economically damaging climate policies of the last 10 years.

But that doubling down will be more out of sight and out of mind to Canadians. Instead of directly seeing how they pay for Canada’s climate crusade, Canadians will see prices rise for goods and services as government stamps climate mandates on Canada’s largest manufacturers and producers, and those costs trickle down onto consumer pocketbooks.

In this regard, the plan is truly old school—historically, governments and bureaucrats preferred to hide their taxes inside of obscure regulations and programs invisible to the public. Canadians will also see prices rise as tariffs imposed on imported American goods (and potentially services) force American businesses to raise prices on goods that Canadians purchase.

The Carney climate plan is a return to the hidden European-style technocratic/bureaucratic/administrative mindset that has led Canada’s economy into record underperformance. Hopefully, whether Carney becomes our next prime minister or not, this plan becomes another dead letter pack of political promises.