Connect with us

Business

Ontario government will spend more—for less housing

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Austin Thompson

To state the obvious, in Ontario homebuilding is not keeping pace with population growth. This imbalance is driving sky-high home prices and rents, not only in the GTA but many other Ontario cities.

What’s to be done?

In the Ford government’s recent budget, “housing” appears not as a central theme but as one of several areas to receive “support” (read: increased spending) in light of Trump’s tariffs, mainly in the form of more money for local infrastructure.

Specifically, the government will spend an additional $400 million on the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund and the Municipal Housing Infrastructure program (on top of the $2 billion already committed to these two programs until 2027). The government will also spend $325 million (over seven years) on a joint project with the federal government and City of Toronto for the waterfront revitalization plan, which includes new housing development.

And as part of this “housing” spending spree, the Ford government will continue to spend millions on the Community Infrastructure Fund—which targets smaller communities—and programs to encourage skilled trades, which could support housing development.

So, will Ontarians, including those who can’t afford to buy a home or struggle to pay their rent, get good value for their taxpayer dollars?

For the answer to that question, consider this. The Ontario government has already spent billions on its housing strategy, yet has not moved the needle on housing supply. Even Ford’s new budget with its massive housing “support” includes an abysmal forecast for new home construction. According to the budget, housing starts will actually fall from 74,573 in 2024 to 71,800 in 2025, continuing the decline from the 89,297 new homes started in 2023. And the budget now forecasts that only 303,700 new homes will be built between 2024 and 2027—an 18 per cent decrease from the 370,400 projected in last year’s budget.

This low level of homebuilding puts the Ford government’s target for 1.5 million housing starts between 2022 and 2031 further out of reach. In fact, if the projected average of housing starts from 2022 to 2027 is maintained until 2031, Ontario would fall short of its target by more than 680,000 homes—severely reducing the likelihood of any meaningful improvement in housing affordability.

The Ford government blames the slowdown in housing starts on economic uncertainty and U.S. trade policy. These factors matter, but there’s plenty of blame to go around. Major Ontario municipalities (including Toronto, Hamilton and Markham) are among Canada’s worst performing cities for how long they make homebuilders wait to receive municipal approval to start construction. Ontario municipalities also impose some of the highest upfront charges on new housing development—for example, a high-rise development in Toronto faces municipal charges nearly 20 times higher than in Edmonton on a per square foot basis. More fundamentally, the federal and provincial governments have failed to create the business and investment environment needed to finance housing development. And Ottawa’s supercharged immigration targets have created many more potential homebuyers and renters, driving up costs.

So again, what should the Ford government do?

Ontario’s housing crisis is a big problem with many contributing factors. For its part, the Ford government should focus on low-cost ways to spur housing growth. To the government’s credit, the recently proposed Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 is one such effort. The bill would require reluctant municipalities to allow more and denser housing development, streamline regulatory hurdles, and help reduce the upfront charges tied to new construction. It holds some promise for accelerating homebuilding.

If the Ford government wants to hit its housing target and offer hope to Ontarians struggling to buy or rent, it must shift its focus from spending to structural reforms. Real progress in the housing front requires cutting red tape and lowering homebuilding costs.

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

Alberta

Moving to single 8% provincial personal income tax rate would help restore the Alberta Advantage

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ergete Ferede

Moving to a single eight per cent personal income tax rate for all working Albertans would dramatically improve the province’s competitiveness among
energy-producing jurisdictions, according to a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“It’s crucial to restore Alberta’s historic tax advantage and understanding how changes to personal income tax rates affect provincial revenues is critical for informed policy decisions,” said Ergete Ferede, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Revenue Effects of Tax Rate Changes in Alberta.

The report examines two potential tax reform scenarios and their impact on provincial revenue: an immediate adoption of an eight per cent single tax rate starting in 2025; and a gradual move to that same rate over three years.

An immediate switch to an eight per cent single personal income tax (PIT) rate would decrease PIT revenue by about $6.1 billion (a 35.6 per cent reduction) in the first year.

A gradual transition over three years would start with a smaller loss of $264 million (a 1.5 per cent reduction) in 2025 increasing to $6.9 billion (37.0 per cent reduction) by 2027. However, these estimates may overstate provincial revenue losses as they do not account for the potential positive economic effect of personal income tax reductions on other revenue sources.

Alberta’s current combined federal and provincial personal income tax rate stands at 48 per cent—ranking 10th highest out of 61 jurisdictions in North America—and is significantly higher than other energy-producing regions such as Texas or Wyoming. Implementing a single 8 per cent tax rate would help re-establish Alberta as a low-tax jurisdiction, lowering its rank to the 16th lowest among the 61.

“The potential to strengthen Alberta’s economic position through tax cuts must be considered along with the revenue implications for the government,” Ferede said.

Revenue Effects of Tax Rate Changes in Alberta

  • As recently as 2014, Alberta enjoyed a significant tax advantage, which included a single 10% personal income tax (PIT) rate, the lowest in Canada. However, in 2015, the newly elected NDP government introduced a progressive five-bracket PIT system with a top rate of 15%, eroding Alberta’s tax advantage.
  • Alberta’s top combined provincial and federal PIT rate is 48%, ranking it the tenth highest in North America. As well, its tax competitiveness is lower, compared with other energy-producing regions.
  • The main objective of this study is to examine the revenue implications of replacing Alberta’s current five-bracket PIT system with a single rate of 8%. The study analyzed three alternative reform scenarios: Immediate transition to an 8% single rate starting in 2025, gradual transition to 8% over three years, ending in 2027, and an immediate 20% across-the-board tax reduction in the current five-bracket system in 2025.
  • After accounting for the positive behavioural effects of reduced taxes, this study finds that if Alberta immediately switches to a single 8% PIT rate, PIT revenue would drop by $6.1 billion (a 35.6% reduction) in the first year. Gradual transition to a single 8% rate would initially reduce revenue by $264 million (1.5%), rising to $6.9 billion (a 37.0% decline) by 2027. In contrast, an immediate 20% across-the-board cut in the current PIT system would reduce provincial revenue by $5.1 billion (a 29.5% drop) in 2025.

 

Ergete Ferede

Professor of Economics, MacEwan University
Continue Reading

Banks

Canada Pension Plan becomes latest institution to drop carbon ‘net zero’ target

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Changes to the law require companies to more rigorously prove their environmental claims.

The investment group in charge of Canada’s governmental pension plan has ditched its “net zero” mandate, joining a growing list of major institutions doing the same.

According to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Investments’ latest annual report, the entity is no longer committed to carbon “net-zero” by 2050. The CPP’s ditching of the target comes after a number of major institutions, including the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), all made similar moves in recent months.

While ditching the net-zero effort, chief executive of CPP Investments John Graham maintained that it is still “really important to incorporate climate and incorporate sustainability” in its long-term investment portfolio.

The dropping of the “climate” target comes as recent changes to Canada’s Competition Act now mandate that companies prove any environmental claims they make, with Graham insinuating these changes were a factor in the decision.

“Recent legal developments in Canada have introduced, kind of, new considerations around how net-zero commitments are interpreted, so that’s caused us to change a little bit how we talk about it, but nothing’s changed on what we’re actually doing.”

Over the past decade, left-wing activists have used “net zero” and “environmental, social & governance” (ESG) standards to encourage major Canadian and U.S. corporations to take particular stands on political and cultural issues, notably in promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism, race relations, the environment, and abortion.

Outside of Canada, many major corporations have announced they are walking back DEI and other related policies. Some of the most notable include Lowe’sJack Daniel’s, and Harley Davidson. Other companies such as DisneyTarget, and Bud Light have faced negative sales due to consumers fighting back and refusing to patronize the businesses.

Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government, first under Justin Trudeau and now under Mark Carney, has continued to push a radical environmental agenda in line with those promoted by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Part of this push includes the promotion of so called net-zero energy by as early as 2035.

Continue Reading

Trending

X