Fraser Institute
How to talk about housing at the holiday dinner table
From the Fraser Institute
The holidays are a time when families reconnect and share cherished traditions, hearty meals and, occasionally, heated debates. This year, housing policy might be a touchy subject at the holiday dinner table. Homebuilding has not kept pace with housing demand in Canada, causing a sharp decline in affordability. Efforts to accelerate homebuilding are also changing neighbourhoods, sometimes in ways that concern residents. Add in a generational divide in how Canadians have experienced the housing market, and it’s easy to see how friends and family can end up talking past one another on housing issues.
Some disagreement about housing policy is inevitable. But in the spirit of the holidays, we can keep the conversation charitable and productive by grounding it in shared facts, respecting one another’s housing choices, and acknowledging the trade-offs of neighbourhood change.
One way to avoid needless conflict is to start with a shared factual baseline about just how unaffordable housing is today—and how that compares to the past.
The reality is that today’s housing affordability challenges are severe, but not entirely unprecedented. Over the past decade, prices for typical homes have grown faster than ordinary families’ after-tax incomes in nearly every major city. At the pandemic-era peak, the mortgage burden for a typical purchase was the worst since the early 1980s. The housing market has cooled in some cities since then, but not enough to bring affordability back to pre-pandemic levels—when affordability was already strained.
These facts provide some useful context for the holiday dinner table. Today’s aspiring homebuyers aren’t wrong to notice how hard it has become to enter the market, and earlier generations aren’t exaggerating when they recall the shock of double-digit interest rates. Housing affordability crises have happened in the past, but they are not the norm. Living through a housing crisis is not, and should not be, a generational rite of passage. Canada has had long periods of relative housing affordability—that’s what we should all want to work towards.
Even when we agree on the facts about affordability, conflicts can flare up when we judge one another’s housing choices. Casual remarks like “Who would want to live in a shoebox like that?” or “Why would anyone pay that much for so little?” or “Why are you still renting at your age?” may be well-intentioned but they ignore the constraints and trade-offs that shape where and how people live.
A small townhome with no yard might seem unappealing to someone who already owns a single-detached house, but for a first-time homebuyer who prioritizes living closer to work or childcare, it might be the best option they can afford.
At first glance, a new condo or townhome might look “overpriced” compared with nearby older single-family homes that offer more space. But buyers must budget for the full cost of ownership, including heating bills, maintenance and renovations, which can make the financial math on some “overpriced” new homes pencil out.
And renting isn’t necessarily a sign that someone is falling behind. Many renters are intentionally keeping their options open: to pursue job opportunities in other cities, to sort out their romantic lives before committing to homeownership, or to invest their money outside of real estate.
This isn’t just a dinner-table issue. The belief that “no one wants to live like that” leads some to support policies restricting apartments, townhomes or purpose-built rentals on the premise that they’re inherently undesirable. A better approach is to set fair rules and let builders respond to what Canadian families choose for themselves—not what we think they should want.
The hardest housing conversations are about where new homes should go, and who gets a say as neighbourhoods change.
It’s natural for homeowners to feel uneasy about how their neighbourhoods might change as a consequence of housing redevelopment. But aspiring homebuyers are also right to be frustrated when local restrictions prevent the kinds of homes Canadian families want from being built in the places they want to live. The economics is clear—allowing more housing styles to be built in more places means greater options and lower prices for renters and homebuyers.
There’s no simple way to balance the competing views of existing residents and aspiring homebuyers. But the conversation becomes more productive if both sides recognize an unavoidable trade-off—resistance to neighbourhood change reliably restricts housing options and makes housing less affordable, but redevelopment can entail real downsides for existing residents.
Everyone wants better housing outcomes for Canadian families, but we won’t get them by talking past one another. If we bring empathy to the table and stay clear eyed about the trade-offs, we’ll collectively make better housing policy decisions—and have calmer holiday dinners.
Alberta
A Christmas wish list for health-care reform
From the Fraser Institute
By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir
It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.
For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.
While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.
And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.
At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.
The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.
While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.
While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.
Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.
Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.
The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.
Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.
These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.
So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.
Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.
Business
State of the Canadian Economy: Number of publicly listed companies in Canada down 32.7% since 2010
From the Fraser Institute
By Ben Cherniavsky and Jock Finlayson
Initial public offerings down 94% since 2010, reflecting country’s economic stagnation
Canadian equity markets are flashing red lights reflective of the larger stagnation, lack of productivity growth and lacklustre innovation of the
country’s economy, with the number of publicly listed companies down 32.7 per cent and initial public offerings down 92.5 per cent since 2010, finds a new report published Friday by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Even though the value of the companies trading on Canada’s stock exchanges has risen substantially over time, there has been an alarming decrease in the number of companies listed on the exchanges as well as the number of companies choosing to go public,” said Ben Cherniavsky, co-author of Canada’s Shrinking Stock Market: Causes and Implications for Future Economic Growth.
The study finds that over the past 15 years, the number of companies listed on Canada’s two stock markets (the TSX and the TSXV) has fallen from 3,141 in 2010 to 2,114 in 2024—a 32.7 per cent decline.
Similarly, the number of new public stock listings (IPOs) on the two Canadian exchanges has also plummeted from 67 in 2010 to just four in 2024, and only three the year before.
Previous research has shown that well-functioning, diverse public stock markets are significant contributors to economic growth, higher productivity and innovation by supplying financing (i.e. money) to the business sector to enable growth and ongoing investments.
At the same time, the study also finds an explosion of investment in what’s known as private equity in Canada, increasing assets under management from $21.7 billion (US) in 2010 to over $93.1 billion (US) in 2024.
“The shift to private equity has enormous implications for average investors, since it’s difficult if not impossible for average investors to access private equity funds for their savings and investments,” explained Cherniavsky.
Crucially, the study makes several recommendations to revitalize Canada’s stagnant capital markets, including reforming Canada’s complicated regulatory regime for listed companies, scaling back corporate disclosure requirements, and pursuing policy changes geared to improving Canada’s lacklustre performance on business investment, productivity growth, and new business formation.
“Public equity markets play a vital role in raising capital for the business sector to expand, and they also provide an accessible and low-cost way for Canadians to invest in the commercial success of domestic businesses,” said Jock Finlayson, a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute and study co-author.
“Policymakers and all Canadians should be concerned by the alarming decline in the number of publicly traded companies in Canada, which risks economic stagnation and lower living standards ahead.”
Canada’s Shrinking Stock Market: Causes and Implications for Future Economic Growth
- Public equity markets are an important part of the wider financial system.
- Since the early 2000s, the number of public companies has fallen in many countries, including Canada. In 2008, for instance, Canada had 3,520 publicly traded companies on its two exchanges, compared to 2,114 in 2024.
- This trend reflects [1] the impact of mergers and acquisitions, [2] greater access to private capital, [3] increasing regulatory and governance costs facing publicly traded businesses, and [4] the growth of index investing.
- Canada’s poor business climate, including many years of lacklustre business investment and little or no productivity growth, has also contributed to the decline in stock exchange listings.
- The number of new public stock listings (IPOs) on Canadian exchanges has plummeted: between 2008 and 2013, the average was 47 per year, but this dropped to 16 between 2014 and 2024, with only 5 new listings recorded in 2024.
- At the same time, the value of private equity in Canada has skyrocketed from $12.8 billion in 2008 to $93.2 billion in 2024. These trends are concerning, as most Canadians cannot easily access private equity investment vehicles, so their domestic investment options are shrinking.
- The growth of index investing is contributing to the decline in public listings, particularly among smaller companies. In 2008, there were 1,232 listed companies on the TSX Composite and 84 exchange-traded funds; in 2024, there were only 709 listed companies on the TSX and 1,052 exchange-traded funds.
- The trends discussed in this study are also important because Canada has relied more heavily than other jurisdictions on public equity markets to finance domestic businesses.
- Revitalizing Canada’s stagnant stock markets requires policy reforms, particularly regulatory changes to reduce costs to issuers and policies to improve the conditions for private-sector investment and business growth.
-
armed forces3 hours agoOttawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoHunting Poilievre Covers For Upcoming Demographic Collapse After Boomers
-
Business2 days agoState of the Canadian Economy: Number of publicly listed companies in Canada down 32.7% since 2010
-
espionage2 hours agoCarney Floor Crossing Raises Counterintelligence Questions aimed at China, Former Senior Mountie Argues
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoCanadian university censors free speech advocate who spoke out against Indigenous ‘mass grave’ hoax
-
Alberta2 days agoHousing in Calgary and Edmonton remains expensive but more affordable than other cities
-
Health1 hour agoAll 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Found the Same Thing: Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier
-
Energy4 hours ago75 per cent of Canadians support the construction of new pipelines to the East Coast and British Columbia


