Fraser Institute
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:
Business
Federal Budget 2025: A responsible media would ensure Canadians know about the dismal state of federal finance
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
From 2014 to 2024, gross government debt (including federal, provincial and local governments) increased from 85.5 per cent of the economy (measured by GDP) to 110.8 per cent—a larger increase than any other G7 country. When debt grows faster than the economy, government finances are unsustainable.
Ahead of the Carney government’s long-awaited first budget scheduled for Nov. 4, a recent CBC commentary described the long-standing debate about the federal deficit and the state of federal finances as “something of a phoney war.” And that calls to balance the budget—expressed today and over the last decade—have lacked any serious discussion about the trade-offs between allowing deficits to persist versus balancing the budget.
While there’s certainly something to be said about the political theatre that regularly dominates the House of Commons—which we agree focuses too often on scoring political points instead of adequately assessing the merits of policy—it’s wrong to downplay concerns about the state of federal finances. Such concerns aren’t “phoney.”
Consider this. From 2014 to 2024, gross government debt (including federal, provincial and local governments) increased from 85.5 per cent of the economy (measured by GDP) to 110.8 per cent—a larger increase than any other G7 country. And federal gross debt increased from 53.0 per cent of the economy in 2014/15 to a projected 70.0 per cent in 2024/25. When debt grows faster than the economy, government finances are unsustainable. And the Carney government seemingly plans to continue this same approach.
In other words, the government plans to continue to spend more than it collects in revenue, continue to run massive deficits, and continue to rack up large amounts of debt.
Why should Canadians care?
Because the costs of government debt land squarely on their backs. For example, when government debt levels rise, the cost of debt interest often also rises. This year the federal government will spend a projected $54.5 billion on debt interest costs—equivalent to what it sends to the provinces for health care. Moreover, when governments borrow money, they can help drive up the cost of borrowing by increasing demand for the limited pool of savings that both government and the private sector compete for—making it more expensive for a family to take out a mortgage or businesses to attract investments. And to pay for today’s debt accumulation, governments in the future may raise taxes—a burden that will fall disproportionately on younger generations.
Again, given this alarming deterioration in the state of government finances over the last decade and the costs it imposes on Canadians, there’s nothing disingenuous about calling for more fiscal discipline from Ottawa.
Of course, getting federal finances back in order is no small task—the Trudeau government’s forays into areas of provincial jurisdiction (which carry huge price tags), combined with Carney’s massive new spending commitments for defence and other programs, mean the government cannot balance the budget without significant trade-offs. In the past, the federal government has overcome similar fiscal circumstances by committing to balance the budget and outlining a clear plan to achieve this goal. The Carney government should heed these lessons and apply them in its upcoming budget.
Jake Fuss
Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Grady Munro
Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson
Next week, voters across Alberta will go to the polls to elect their local governments. Of course, while the issues vary depending on the city, town or district, all municipal governments spend taxpayer money.
And according to a recent study, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County were among Alberta’s highest-spending municipalities (on a per-person basis) in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data). Kara Westerlund, president of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, said that’s no surprise—arguing that it’s expensive to serve a small number of residents spread over large areas.
That challenge is real. In rural areas, fewer people share the cost of roads, parks and emergency services. But high spending isn’t inevitable. Some rural municipalities managed to spend far less, demonstrating that local choices about what services to provide, and how to deliver them, matter.
Consider the contrast in spending levels among rural counties. In 2023, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County spent $5,413 and $4,619 per person, respectively. Foothills County, by comparison, spent just $2,570 per person. All three counties have relatively low population densities (fewer than seven residents per square kilometre) yet their per-person spending varies widely. (In case you’re wondering, Calgary spent $3,144 and Edmonton spent $3,241.)
Some of that variation reflects differences in the cost of similar services. For example, all three counties provide fire protection but in 2023 this service cost $56.95 per person in Grande Prairie County, $38.51 in Red Deer County and $10.32 in Foothills County. Other spending differences reflect not just how much is spent, but whether a service is offered at all. For instance, in 2023 Grande Prairie County recorded $46,283 in daycare spending, while Red Deer County and Foothills County had none.
Put simply, population density alone simply doesn’t explain why some municipalities spend more than others. Much depends on the choices municipal governments make and how efficiently they deliver services.
Westerlund also dismissed comparisons showing that some counties spend more per person than nearby towns and cities, calling them “apples to oranges.” It’s true that rural municipalities and cities differ—but that doesn’t make comparisons meaningless. After all, whether apples are a good deal depends on the price of other fruit, and a savvy shopper might switch to oranges if they offer better value. In the same way, comparing municipal spending—across all types of communities—helps Albertans judge whether they get good value for their tax dollars.
Every municipality offers a different mix of services and those choices come with different price tags. Consider three nearby municipalities: in 2023, Rockyview County spent $3,419 per person, Calgary spent $3,144 and Airdrie spent $2,187. These differences reflect real trade-offs in the scope, quality and cost of local services. Albertans should decide for themselves which mix of local services best suits their needs—but they can’t do that without clear data on what those services actually cost.
A big municipal tax bill isn’t an inevitable consequence of rural living. How much gets spent in each Alberta municipality depends greatly on the choices made by the mayors, reeves and councillors Albertans will elect next week. And for Albertans to determine whether or not they get good value for their local tax dollars, they must know how much their municipality is spending.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Austin Thompson
Fact, fiction, and the pipeline that’s paying Canada’s rent
Protestor Behind ‘Longest Ballot’ Chaos targeting Poilievre pontificates to Commons Committee
UN, Gates Foundation push for digital ID across 50 nations by 2028
Trump Covets the Nobel Peace Prize
-
Alberta2 days agoClick here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design
-
National2 days agoDemocracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case
-
International1 day agoHamas will disarm or die
-
International2 days agoDaughter convinces healthy father to die in double assisted suicide with mother
-
illegal immigration1 day agoLos Angeles declares a state of emergency over ICE deportations
-
International2 days agoUS Warns Hamas To Halt Executions
-
Business1 day ago‘Taxation Without Representation’: Trump Admin Battles UN Over Global Carbon Tax
-
Indigenous1 day agoConstitutional lawyer calls for ‘false’ claims to end in Canadian residential schools burials