Nova Scotians paying a high price for ‘affordable’ public housing

Nova Scotia is struggling with a housing crisis amid an immigration-fuelled population boom. In response, the Houston government in February announced $136.4 million in spending for 242 new government (or public) housing units. Combined with previous commitments, that brings the total number of public housing units planned or under construction to 515.

But rather than solve the crisis, public housing is becoming a costly distraction from more effective ways to help boost supply and support those most in need.

For example, the 242 units announced in February will cost a projected $563,636 per unit—substantially higher than the average sale price (in May 2025) of a townhouse ($548,860) or apartment ($511,258) sold in Nova Scotia. And that cost projection covers only the construction. Ongoing maintenance and administration by the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency (NSPHA) comes with additional costs. NSPHA employs more than 500 staff to manage around 11,200 units, and last year it received more than $81 million in provincial operating funding—about $7,500 per unit, above and beyond what tenants paid in rent (roughly $6,100 per unit per year).

So, while tenants in public housing pay no more than 30 per cent of their income in rent, the system itself is far from affordable.

To justify these costs, the government claims they add much-needed new homes for Nova Scotians. But that claim deserves scrutiny. Taxpayers pay for public housing, but it’s built by the same private contractors who would otherwise build private homes. Since homebuilding capacity can’t expand overnight, government projects compete for workers and material. That can push up costs and make some private projects too costly to finish. While public housing does add homes to the housing stock, it also may discourage some private homebuilding—meaning the true boost in total housing is likely much smaller than advertised.

But there’s good news. There are more impactful and cost-effective options to unlock housing supply and improve housing affordability. First, the government should end any provincial policy that discourages housing development, such as rent control (which can deter builders from building rental units) and provincial sales taxes on new or substantially renovated homes (which increase costs and deter building). The government should also expand on reforms introduced last year that remove restrictions on density. And the government should further encourage local governments to reduce costs and administrative barriers to new housing development. These changes would expand housing supply at little public expense, helping to reduce costs across the board.

Of course, the government also claims that public housing is necessary to take care of vulnerable people. And all Nova Scotians should want to help those in need. But those who qualify for public housing in Nova Scotia face average wait times of two years. When a unit finally becomes available, they cannot apply for a transfer to another unit for at least two more years—limiting their ability to move closer to employment opportunities or more affordable child care. Public housing may be essential for Nova Scotians with complex needs, such as people with certain mental illnesses, but it’s a poor fit for the broader population that struggles to find affordable housing.

A smarter approach would focus on helping people, not building public housing units. For example, the Houston government could expand Nova Scotia’s rent supplement program and help give low-income households the means to access market housing, where options are more flexible, varied and often less expensive to build and maintain. In other words, it’s more cost-effective for the government to provide direct financial support than to build public housing. Moreover, giving people the flexibility to choose where and how they live would empower them to improve their own lives.

Of course, the government should combine any housing or income supports with tax reductions and other measures to improve the province’s economic competitiveness, spurring job creation and wage growth so more Nova Scotians can afford housing without government assistance.

Doubling down on public housing is a step in the wrong direction. The Houston government should help unlock housing supply and empower individuals, rather than pouring more resources into an expensive system that underdelivers.

Alex Whalen

Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#AlexWhalen #FraserInstitute AustinThompson NovaScotiaPublicHousingCost

Up Next

Blockbuster Announcement Coming: EPA Will No Longer Regulate Greenhouse Gasses

Don't Miss

Attempt to thwart Poilievre in Alberta election with 200-plus candidates forces ballot change

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

EXCLUSIVE: Alleged Chinese Spy in New York’s Cuomo and Hochul Administrations Barred From Using Seized Millions

Business / 3 hours ago

Trump’s long-promised “reciprocal tariff” regime is no longer a threat — it’s the new world order.

Business / 4 hours ago

Canada’s postal service would benefit from liberalization, privatization, new MEI publication shows

Business

Trump’s long-promised “reciprocal tariff” regime is no longer a threat — it’s the new world order.

Published on August 1, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

The world woke up Friday to Trump’s tariff world order — with a rate-modifying executive order enforcing the terms of Liberation Day, imposing tariffs up to 41% on countries that failed to cut a deal with the United States.

Key Details:

The executive order builds on Trump’s April Liberation Day proclamation, which declared chronic U.S. trade deficits a national emergency and imposed ad valorem tariffs on nearly 70 countries.
Thursday’s follow-up order modifies tariff levels, effective seven days after signing, with full penalties up to 41% now locked in for countries that failed to reach meaningful trade or security agreements with the U.S.
Transshipped goods — products routed through third countries to evade tariffs — will be hit with a flat 40% duty and no possibility for leniency. A blacklist of violators will be published every six months.

🚨 AUGUST 1ST.

President Donald J. Trump signs an Executive Order modifying reciprocal tariff rates, resetting decades of failed trade policies. America First 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/hsgQzlY1Uy

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 1, 2025

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump formalized a new phase of his Liberation Day trade strategy on Thursday, signing an executive order that rewrites tariff rates and tightens enforcement across the global economy. With this action, Trump’s long-promised “reciprocal tariff” regime is no longer a threat — it’s the new world order.

The executive order, issued from the White House Thursday, amends the original April declaration that framed persistent U.S. trade deficits as a national emergency. That earlier order imposed broad-based duties on nearly 70 countries. Thursday’s update locks in or adjusts those penalties depending on each country’s progress — or lack thereof — in negotiations with the United States.

For countries that reached or are nearing “meaningful trade and security commitments” with the United States, temporary rates will remain in place as agreements are finalized. For the rest, full penalties apply — with tariffs ranging from 10% to 41%, as outlined in Annex I of the order.

The European Union receives a tailored formula: if a product’s current U.S. tariff is under 15%, the new combined rate will be pushed to that floor. Goods already above 15% will not face additional penalties.

But the most aggressive provision of the order targets a growing tactic of tariff evasion — transshipping. Under Section 3, goods that are determined by Customs and Border Protection to have been rerouted through third countries to avoid tariffs will face an automatic 40% penalty. Mitigation or reduction of that duty is explicitly barred under the order.

Trump’s team will also release a biannual blacklist of known violators — naming countries and facilities involved in circumvention schemes. This list will inform public procurement, national security reviews, and corporate due diligence.

The order empowers the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Treasury, and the U.S. Trade Representative to implement the policy, issue regulations, and take “all necessary actions” to enforce it.

Countries that failed to reach a deal by the deadline now face the consequences. Those still negotiating have little time left. And for businesses and governments around the world, the message is clear: American leverage is back — and it comes with a price tag.

Business

Canada’s postal service would benefit from liberalization, privatization, new MEI publication shows

Published on August 1, 2025

Todayville

From the Montreal Economic Institute

Canada Post has accumulated $3.8 billion in losses since 2018.
The Crown corporation is receiving a $1-billion taxpayer loan to stay afloat in 2025-2026.
Privatization should include an employee share ownership plan.

Privatizing Canada Post and opening up the sector to competition would result in better services and lower prices for Canadians, shows a new publication released by the MEI.

“Canadians are held hostage by a postal system that is inefficient, strike-prone, and, increasingly, financially non-viable,” says Vincent Geloso, senior economist at the MEI and co-author of the report. “We should follow the lead of European countries like Germany that have liberalized and privatized their postal services, with excellent results.”

Canada Post has a federal monopoly on regular letter mail, making it the only entity legally permitted to deliver non-express letters.

The Crown corporation has run deficits for seven straight years, accumulating over $3.6 billion in losses over the past decade.

Meanwhile, letter volume in Canada has fallen from 5.5 billion letters in 2006 to 2 billion in 2024, a 64 per cent decline.

Canada Post’s market share in parcel delivery has also cratered, falling from 62 per cent in 2019 to 24 per cent in 2024, as private competitors have captured more of the growing market.

In December 2024, more than 55,000 Canada Post workers went on a 32-day strike that ground mail and parcel delivery to a halt causing a backlog of nearly 10 million packages, impacting individuals and businesses alike. The strike reportedly cost small businesses an estimated $1.6 billion.

This past May, another union issued a strike notice and began a nationwide overtime ban, again obstructing delivery volumes. Currently, Canada Post employees are voting on the corporation’s latest offer; if the vote fails, there are fears that another strike would ensue.

“There is an inherent problem with monopolies,” explains Mr. Geloso. “No competition means no incentive to be efficient or innovate, which means higher prices by way of increased costs, and consumers are left with no alternative.”

In 1989, Germany decided to open up its market to a limited amount of competition, and by 2008, the sector was fully liberalized.

Privatization of Deutsche Post started in 2000, and currently, the government holds only a small minority stake in the former monopoly.

Today, over 15,000 firms offer some sort of postal service in Germany. The country’s mail service generally outperforms those of other European countries.

In Canada, the cost of sending a letter is 50 per cent higher today than it was in 1989 (inflation-adjusted).

In Germany, postage prices have fallen by 10 per cent over the same period (after accounting for inflation).

The MEI recommends the following steps to kickstart a two-year process of privatizing Canada Post:

Offer employees shares: This would give workers a stake in the company’s success and help prevent insiders from taking advantage during the transition (i.e., avoid asset-stripping).
Avoid regulatory capture: A swift reform process would reduce the risk of special interest groups lobbying regulators to lock in unfair advantages in the law.

“Canada Post’s inability to adapt to the changing market shows that it won’t get better on its own; it needs a massive overhaul,” says Mr. Geloso. “Canadians are paying a lot for a second-rate service; Germany showed us how we can turn this around.”

The MEI Economic Note is available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.