Connect with us

Business

New report highlights housing affordability challenges across Canada

Published

6 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Wendell Cox

The year 2022 marked a concerning increase in “severely unaffordable” housing markets, extending beyond the scope of the six major markets.

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy’s Demographia Housing Affordability in Canada report, released today, cast a spotlight on the pressing issue of housing affordability in Canada. This comprehensive report offers a detailed analysis of middle-income housing affordability during the third quarter of 2022, focusing on 46 housing markets referred to as census metropolitan areas.

The report goes beyond the conventional analysis of property prices, delving into the intricate interplay between house prices and income. Price-to-income ratios, a crucial metric for assessing housing affordability, have gained global recognition. Esteemed institutions, including the World Bank, United Nations, OECD, and IMF, have endorsed this measurement. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy’s housing affordability index adopts a similar approach, utilizing the “median multiple” calculation. This calculation involves dividing the median house price by pre-tax median household income.

The report sheds light on the historical context of housing affordability within Canada’s six major markets – Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa – each with populations surpassing one million. The period from 1970 to the mid-2000s witnessed relative stability in the housing affordability landscape. However, by 2005, Vancouver’s market initiated a significant shift towards unaffordability, a trend that has only intensified since the mid-2000s.

The year 2022 marked a concerning increase in “severely unaffordable” housing markets, extending beyond the scope of the six major markets. The number of severely unaffordable markets surged from 18 in 2019 to 24 among the surveyed 46 markets. In contrast, the count of “affordable” markets dwindled from eight in 2019 to a mere three.

The advent of remote work, or “telecommuting” during the pandemic led to a surge in households seeking more spacious living spaces. This surge in demand outpaced supply, resulting in a “demand shock” that further exacerbated the challenges of housing affordability.

The epicentre of unaffordable housing primarily lies in British Columbia and Ontario. Notably, Vancouver and Toronto emerged as the most severely unaffordable major markets, ranking third and 10th least affordable among 94 markets in Demographia’s International Housing Affordability Report 2022. This phenomenon extended beyond Vancouver, impacting other markets in British Columbia. Similarly, the trend reached markets beyond Toronto, prompting a net interprovincial migration as households pursued more affordable housing options.

Amidst these challenges, four markets – Moose Jaw (SK), Fort McMurray (AB), Saguenay (QC), and Fredericton (NB) – have managed to uphold their affordability. The Canadian housing market faces intensified scrutiny, with analyses highlighting the formidable task of addressing the nation’s housing crisis. This includes restoring affordability and enabling home ownership amidst obstacles such as the scale of the issue and the capacity of the home-building sector.

At the heart of the crisis lies urban containment regulation, which has driven land prices to unsustainable levels, constraining housing supply for middle income households. This scenario arises from the deliberate intent of urban containment policies to inflate land prices. Disparities in land costs across markets play a pivotal role in housing affordability disparities. Government policies, like urban containment, unintentionally contribute to government-induced inequality by inflating land prices. Practical alternatives exist to revitalize housing affordability.

Migration to more affordable housing markets has become a priority for many, as evidenced by an unprecedented population shift away from major metropolitan areas towards regions with more affordable housing options. Ensuring affordability remains in these markets is pivotal. Neglecting this could lead to replicating the ongoing affordability crisis in regions that are currently more affordable, which could limit opportunities for future generations and impact Canada’s attractiveness as an international migration destination.

About the Frontier Centre for Public Policy The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent, non-partisan think tank that conducts research and analysis on a wide range of public policy issues. Committed to promoting economic freedom, individual liberty, and responsible governance, the Centre aims to contribute to informed public debates and shape effective policies that benefit Canadians.

Wendell Cox is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is principal of Demographia.com, author of Demographia World Urban Areas and an author of Demographia International Housing Affordability (19 annual editions) and Demographia World Urban Areas. He earned a BA in Government from California State University, Los Angeles and an MBA from Pepperdine University. He served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers in Paris, a national university.

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

Business

Nestlé boycott begins as activists target DEI rollbacks

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The latest corporate boycott targeting companies rolling back their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives is set to begin this week, with Nestlé in the crosshairs. Unlike previous boycotts of Amazon and Target, which focused on avoiding specific retailers, this campaign urges consumers to boycott hundreds of household products from March 21 to March 28. Other major companies, including Walmart, McDonald’s, and General Mills, are also slated for boycotts in the coming months.

Key Details:

  • The Nestlé boycott runs from March 21 to March 28 and encourages avoiding products like Cheerios, KitKat, Purina pet food, and DiGiorno frozen pizza.

  • The movement follows the rollback of DEI policies by several major corporations after President Donald Trump’s call to eliminate DEI at the federal level.

  • Additional boycotts are planned for Walmart, McDonald’s, and Amazon, with an “economic blackout” scheduled for April 18.

Diving Deeper:

The push for boycotts against Nestlé and other corporations stems from a broader activist response to changes in corporate policies following President Donald Trump’s directive to rescind DEI initiatives at the federal level. Many companies, including AmazonTarget, and Walmart, have scaled back or eliminated their DEI programs, prompting backlash from activist groups.

While past boycotts targeted specific retailers—such as avoiding Amazon purchases or skipping Target shopping trips—the Nestlé boycott is structured differently. Consumers are being asked to avoid a wide range of products, from Coffee-Mate creamers to Stouffer’s frozen meals and Perrier sparkling water. This more expansive approach seeks to impact Nestlé’s bottom line across multiple product categories, rather than just limiting consumer spending at a particular store.

This campaign is part of a broader wave of organized economic boycotts. A 40-day boycott of Target was launched last week, intentionally aligning with Lent, a religious period of fasting leading up to Easter. Additionally, Amazon is facing another boycott in May following one that concluded recently.

Nestlé is far from the last target. Activists have mapped out additional boycotts for General Mills (April 21-28), McDonald’s (June 24-30), and an Independence Day boycott on July 4. These efforts appear to be designed for maximum financial pressure, with coordinated economic “blackouts” meant to disrupt revenue streams at key moments throughout the year.

As these corporate boycotts continue, companies may be forced to decide between maintaining DEI initiatives to appease activists or rolling them back to avoid alienating a different segment of their customer base. With President Trump advocating against DEI policies, businesses that comply with his agenda may find themselves the target of an increasingly organized opposition.

Continue Reading

Business

Top prosecutor calls Tesla violence ‘domestic terrorism’ amid federal cuts

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

As Tesla boss Elon Musk leads federal cost-cutting efforts, his auto company has drawn the ire of frustrated Americans who have taken things out on his cars, buildings, electric vehicle chargers and everything else that carries a Tesla logo.

President Donald Trump has gone to lengths to protect Musk as the Department of Government Efficiency works to reshape the federal workforce to Trump’s specifications.

This week, the nation’s top prosecutor put vandals and others on notice. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said the Justice Department will investigate the spate of recent attacks on Tesla property. She called the attacks on Tesla “domestic terrorism.”

“The swarm of violent attacks on Tesla property is nothing short of domestic terrorism,” she said. “The Department of Justice has already charged several perpetrators with that in mind, including in cases that involve charges with five-year mandatory minimum sentences.”

Bondi also hinted at organizers behind the attacks.

“We will continue investigations that impose severe consequences on those involved in these attacks, including those operating behind the scenes to coordinate and fund these crimes,” she said.

Since Musk took up the top cost-cutting position in Trump’s government, his Tesla electric vehicles have become a target for vandals of all stripes. Some have graffitied their feelings about Musk on Tesla vehicle chargers. Other have gone after the cars with keys or other forms of vandalism. The same goes for dealerships, car lots and showrooms. No injuries have been reported during the attacks.

Trump is keenly aware of the problem. He recently invited a parade of Tesla vehicles to the White House for some personal car shopping. The president even invited reporters along for the spectacle.

The violence and vandalism come as Trump looks to reduce the footprint of the federal government. Trump, with help from Musk and his team, has virtually shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development. Trump has also taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and other agencies that don’t align with his spending plans.

DOGE, with help from Trump’s cabinet, has directed cuts at agencies across the federal government.

Trump has promised to cut “hundreds of billions” in federal spending in 2025 through the reconciliation process. Musk initially suggested DOGE could cut $2 trillion in spending. Musk more recently said the group will aim for $2 trillion, but likely come up with half that amount.

Congress has run a deficit every year since 2001. In the past 50 years, the federal government has ended with a fiscal year-end budget surplus four times, most recently in 2001.

Continue Reading

Trending

X