Indoors

It takes 9.9 times the median income to buy a median-priced home in Toronto— the fifth most expensive city in the world. Vancouver is worse at 13.8 times—behind only Hong Kong. Canada is winning the race to become the—or one of the—priciest place to live in the world.

It is disappointing we didn’t talk more about housing during this election. This is not to say the competing parties didn’t present ideas and plans. They did. We didn’t talk about them much. So our leaders may be forgiven for working the simpler grifts such as writing $500 cheques to seniors just before the writ was issued. Or saying anything, becoming anything to get elected. Or, having found that $70 billion in promises didn’t work last time, calculating that upping the ante to $200 billion might do the trick. Why not a $1,000 kajillion?

Whoever wins the job on Monday, there is unlikely to be any seismic shift in how the place is governed. The truth is that Canada is a modest nation with a largely centrist political sensibility. So far.

A Prime Minister Jagmeet Singh—even with his ambition and enthusiasm—would relent to such pressure as surely as Bob Rae did. We would still recognize the place in four years’ time. We tend to ask only that the place be managed without a big fuss, and please, please don’t embarrass us when you go out into the world.

But housing?

We should all be skeptical of the federal government weighing in to solve market problems— even when such dysfunction results from overwrought and illconsidered regulation. Such endeavours almost always end in massive waste, indecent pork barrelling and immeasurable outcomes.

Nevertheless, the risk of profound societal and economic disruption is too big to ignore. When young people conclude that owning their own home will never be possible, they will turn things upside down. When rental costs consume half their disposable income, they will demand solutions. Not necessarily at the ballot box.

There are only so many times we can clear our parks and green spaces of tent cities before we figure out that we have a systemic housing crisis. A crisis built on our own shortsightedness.

In California, state and municipal officials have moved homeless folks into hotels. It has put these folks out of sight but hasn’t dealt with the problem—no one wants affordable housing built near them. Few want any new housing near them whatsoever.

Evermore prohibitive planning rules make it harder—and longer—to build homes. And build densely. These forces—time and regulations— combine to add costs that have nothing to do with the land, labour or lumber needed to build a home.

So what are the federal parties proposing? All promise to throw money at the problem. Both the Liberals and NDP want to spend directly— building and managing social housing. The Conservatives want to lavish financial credits upon individuals and businesses to encourage us to build rental housing and create Community Land Trusts.

Liberals and NDP are both keen to grease the palms of home builders—proposing to eliminate federal sales tax from new capital investment in affordable housing. All three are keen to signal their xenophobia—promising to clamp down on foreign land and housing speculators—each offering a ban or steep tax on non-resident buyers. And, oh yes, Liberals promise to review escalating house prices in Toronto and Vancouver.

Only one party is acknowledging that in Canada— indeed North America—we have a housing supply problem where we’ve clogged the supply lines on purpose—and that the best way to fix an intentionally clogged artery is to simply remove the clog.

The Conservatives propose to work with municipalities to increase density in urban areas and to fasttrack planning approvals. This may involve some carrots and sticks—but infrastructure-hobbled municipalities have some incentive to listen to their federal benefactor’s ideas.

The Conservatives are also tying in public transit investment to enable folks to commute to more affordable communities. Getting to work will mean something different after COVID. Some investment is needed in any event. But transit expansion targeted at moving those most exposed to unaffordable housing makes sense.

Finally, all political leaders must do more—much more—to shake Canadian homeowners of our collective NIMBYism. Leaders must better explain that it is in our self-interest that our fellow Canadians afford a place to live. And live among us.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca