From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Austin Thompson

Economist Mike Moffatt estimated that, if Canadian wages grow at the average rate seen over the past two decades—and if home prices remain stable—it would still take 20 years for Canada to achieve housing affordability levels of 2005… In other words, reality remains at odds with the Carney government’s ambitious rhetoric about delivering so-called “affordable homes.”

In a recent media scrum, the Carney government’s new federal housing minister Gregor Robertson—former mayor of Vancouver—was asked: “Should home prices go down?” His response: “No, I think that we need to deliver more supply, make sure the market is stable. We need to be delivering more affordable housing.”

Robertson’s response raises a follow-up question: what does the Carney government mean when it promises “affordable housing”?

Rising house prices are nothing new. The sticker price for the average Canadian home has increased in most years, barring periods such as the 2008–09 Global Financial Crisis. And house prices aren’t expected to fall anytime soon; forecasts point to continued house price growth. But for homebuyers, the key issue isn’t that prices are increasing; it’s whether they’re rising faster than incomes. By that measure, housing in Canada has become much less affordable in recent years.

Consider Minister Robertson’s tenure as Vancouver mayor from 2008 to 2018. During that time, the price of a typical single- or semi-detached Vancouver home grew from $690,000 to $1,980,000—a 187 per cent increase. Meanwhile, the after-tax income of a typical Vancouver family rose by just 15 per cent. Today, the typical single- or semi-detached home in Vancouver costs $2,380,000. Vancouver’s housing market is somewhat unique, but strong price increases reflect a broader national trend: home prices have risen dramatically even as income growth has stagnated, largely because housing demand—driven by immigration-fuelled population growth—continues to far exceed new housing construction.

Which takes us back to the question of “affordability.” Housing can become more “affordable” even as home prices rise, so long as the after-tax incomes of Canadians grow even faster. This has happened before—after-tax wage growth exceeded house price increases in the late 1980s, for example. Unfortunately, this seems unlikely to happen in the 2020s.

In fact, while house prices have soared, wage growth in Canada has stagnated. Consequently, in 2022 (the latest year of available comparable data), the typical worker in Alberta—Canada’s highest-wage province—earned less than the typical worker in low-wage U.S. states such as Mississippi and West Virginia. And from 2014 to 2024, Canada’s GDP per-person, an indicator of incomes and living standards, grew by a mere 2.0 per cent compared to 19.6 per cent in the United States.

In a recent analysis, economist Mike Moffatt estimated that, if Canadian wages grow at the average rate seen over the past two decades—and if home prices remain stable—it would still take 20 years for Canada to achieve housing affordability levels of 2005. And of course, much could go wrong—if wage-growth estimates fall short, mortgage rates rise or house prices rise, then that slow march towards housing affordability may never end for many Canadians including young people looking to start a family.

In other words, reality remains at odds with the Carney government’s ambitious rhetoric about delivering so-called “affordable homes.”

Again, the government wants to double the rate of homebuilding in Canada in a decade. Is that possible? Currently, Canada lacks the required savings and investment to fund that level of building. And due to tepid growth of our construction workforce, we currently do not have the manpower to build twice as many homes. And as always, local opposition to rapid housing development in certain neighbourhoods and public lands may also prove hard to overcome.

But even if somehow Canada was able to marshal the resources and political capital required for such a feat, according to Minister Robertson, the end result would only be to “make sure the market is stable.” Stable, based on today’s prices, means unaffordable for many Canadians unless incomes rise. Clearly, housing supply is only half the battle. To achieve housing affordability on any reasonable timeline, the government must not only help facilitate a major expansion in homebuilding but also substantial growth in Canadian incomes—something the Trudeau government failed to do.

The key is investment, which is required to expand the housing supply, grow Canada’s economy and boost wages. In a capital-scarce economy such as Canada’s, these goals may compete with one another. So governments in Canada, including the Carney government, must adopt policies that attract investment, such as streamlining regulation and reforming capital gains taxes. And crucially, rising incomes will only translate into improved affordability if Canadians can keep more of what they earn, which will difficult given that anticipated increases in federal spending will ultimately result in a higher tax burden. Ottawa must also craft immigration and residency policies so population growth doesn’t continue to overwhelm housing supply and further increase prices.

Canadians should think about housing affordability not just in terms of housing supply but as part of a broader economic challenge—one that also depends on growing the economy, increasing savings and investment, and limiting how much governments take in taxes. Only a comprehensive strategy, centered on broad-based growth, will make the dream of homeownership a reality for generations of Canadians.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Michael Taube

Official party status requires 12 seats. The NDP got seven. End of story

Rules are rules.

That, in a nutshell, is why the NDP wasn’t granted official party status in the House of Commons on Monday. Prime Minister Mark Carney and the
Liberals, to their credit, made the right decision.

Let’s examine why.

The 1963 Senate and House of Commons Act passed an amendment that gave an annual allowance to party leaders other than the prime minister and
leader of the Opposition. In doing so, the Canadian government had to establish what constitutes a “political party.” The definition they came up with was a sensible one: it had to have a “recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons.”

This important amendment is still used today.

The NDP fell from 24 to a paltry seven seats in last month’s federal election. (There are a total of 343 seats in the House of Commons.) They finished with 1,234,673 votes, or 6.29 per cent, which was behind the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Québécois. Party leader Jagmeet Singh, who had represented the former Burnaby South riding since 2019, finished a distant third in the newly created Burnaby Central riding and resigned.

The NDP’s seven seats is well below the 12-seat requirement needed for official party status. This means Canada’s socialist alternative won’t be able to ask questions in the House of Commons and will lose out on money for research purposes.

Or, to put it another way, they’re plumb out of luck.

Hold on, some people said. They pointed out that the NDP’s seat count and popular vote only plummeted because many progressive voters backed Carney and the Liberals as the best option to counter U.S. President Donald Trump and his tariffs. They felt that the NDP’s long history as a champion for unions and the working class should count for something. They suggested there should be an exception to the rule.

Guess what? They’re wrong.

This is the worst election result in the party’s history. Even its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), did marginally better in its first campaign. The CCF won seven out of 245 seats—and earned 410,125 votes, or 9.31 per cent—in the 1935 election. Party leader J.S. Woodsworth, who had represented the riding of Winnipeg North Centre as an Independent Labour MP since 1925, comfortably held his seat.

Meanwhile, this won’t be the first time they’ve ever lost official party status.

The NDP dropped from 43 to nine seats in the 1993 election. It was a dismal showing, to say the least. There was a suggestion at the time that then-party leader Audrey McLaughlin, the first woman to lead a party with political representation in Canada’s House of Commons, deserved a better fate. While the NDP certainly came closer to achieving the 12-seat requirement in this particular election, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Liberals decided against granting them official party status.

Why? As I mentioned earlier, rules are rules.

Then again, British pilot Harry Day notably told his fellow flying ace Douglas Bader in 1931, “You know my views about some regulations—they’re written for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”

Does this mean that individuals and organizations who follow rules are, in fact, fools? Not at all. While certain rules in a liberal democratic society can range from slightly questionable to utterly ridiculous, they’re usually put in place for a specific purpose.

In the case of the House of Commons, it’s to ensure that a bar has been set with respect to political representation. Is 12 seats the right number? That’s difficult to say. It certainly prevents small protest parties and one-issue parties that unexpectedly win a tiny number of seats in an election from acquiring power and status right off the bat. They need to win more seats and grow in size and stature to reach a point of respectability. Most of them never reach this point and disappear while others float in a constant state of mediocrity like the Green Party of Canada. ’Tis the nature of the political beast.

One final point. If Singh and the NDP had reached double digits in total number of seats in 2025, a solid case could have been made in favour of official party status. If they had finished with 11 seats, it would have almost been a lock. Neither scenario ultimately materialized, which is why Carney and the Liberals did exactly what they did.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.