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.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Génie

According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management.

The New Democrats and the Liberals have pledged to tackle inflation, curb price gouging, and address child poverty. Leaders like Jagmeet Singh have railed against corporate greed while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has introduced programs claiming to feed your children.

But despite these announcements, food affordability remains a serious problem in Canada. If our political leaders are truly committed to making nutritious food accessible for all Canadians, they must confront the largely ignored factor: Canada’s supply management system.

Supply Management Hurts Families

Supply management, which governs the production and pricing of dairy, eggs, and poultry in Canada, was designed  to stabilize farmers’ incomes. However, it now acts as an unnecessary burden on consumers, artificially inflating the cost of essential food items. Farmers are given strict quotas on how much they can produce, and sky-high tariffs—often more than 200%—are imposed on imports.

This creates a closed market that keeps prices far higher than in a free-market system. According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management. This is no small sum to households already feeling the pinch.

To put it in perspective, a litre of milk in Canada costs between $1.50-$2.50, compared to USD 1.00 (around $1.35 CAD) in the United States, where such market controls don’t exist. The cost of other staples, such as eggs and chicken, follows the same pattern, with Canadians paying significantly more than their American counterparts.

These artificially high prices disproportionately affect families struggling. As inflation continues to drive up the cost of housing, fuel, and other essentials, paying extra for basic food becomes the tipping point between having three meals a day or skipping meals to cover rent or bills.

The Conservative Opportunity: Free Markets and Family Values

The Conservative Party has historically championed free markets and policies promoting family well-being, but they also support the food cartels.

In a genuinely free market, prices are determined by supply and demand, leading to lower consumer costs and more production efficiency. Ending supply management would achieve both goals.

While Conservatives have long supported free markets, they have been reluctant to challenge supply management, largely due to political concerns in Quebec, where the system is popular among producers. Being pro-trade and supporting supply management are incongruous political positions.

However, with the Conservatives drawing closer to forming government, potentially without significant electoral support from Quebec, now is the time for a strategic shift. Shedding the protectionist policies would be a bold and forward-thinking move to distinguish the party as serious about free markets and family welfare.

It would also send a powerful message to voters across the country, particularly in regions where food insecurity is rising. Conservatives could frame the policy change as a direct effort to reduce food prices, ease the burden on low-income families, and protect Canadian consumers from the high costs supply management imposes.

The Ethical Case: Dumping Food While Canadians Go Hungry

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of supply management is the appalling waste it produces. To keep prices high, in 2023 alone, tens of millions of litres of milk were discarded—wasted food that could have gone to Canadians in need. This is an unconscionable practice in a country where nearly 2 million people rely on food banks to survive. How can wasting food while so many families struggle to afford basic groceries be justified?

This waste flies in the face of compassion and fairness, and contradicts the principles of a free market.

The Bloc Quebecois’ Game

Given that the significant dairy industry in Quebec benefits immensely from supply management, the Bloc Quebecois is seeking to leverage the weakness of the Trudeau minority in exchange for a Bloc bill, Bill C-282, that would shield supply management from future changes.  The Bloc Québécois Bill C-282 wants to amend the Trade and Development Act. Reportedly, it has support from all parties in Parliament.

One of the key setbacks is the restriction supply management places on open market access. It hinders the ability to fully embrace free trade agreements. A primary objectives of Bill C-282 is to prevent the Canadian government from making concessions in international trade agreements that could undermine the supply management system. This is particularly relevant in trade negotiations where foreign countries often seek increased access to Canada’s agricultural markets.

Consequently, this limits the potential for growth in agricultural exports. Central Canada benefits the most from supply management, and although its trade reverberations hurt everyone, they seem to hurt Western producers the most.

A Call to Action for All Parties

For New Democrats and Liberals, the solution to supporting families and children through food affordability lies  in targeting alleged corporate greed and expanding social programs. But if they are serious about addressing child poverty and food insecurity, they would confront supply management. Likewise, for Conservatives, ending supply management is a natural extension of their free-market impetus and commitment to family values.

The time for change is now. Regardless of party, all political leaders should recognize that dismantling supply management would be a direct, meaningful step toward making food more affordable for all Canadians, as well as maximizing agricultural chances to expand Canada’s exports. With the rising cost of living pushing more families into food insecurity, we cannot afford to let outdated policies continue to inflate prices, immorally perpetuate waste, and curtail chances for greater growth in Agrifoods.

Dismantling supply management would offer tangible relief to millions of Canadian consumers, particularly low-income families.  All other parties should start by killing Bill C-282.

Marco Navarro-Génie is the Vice President of Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy