Business
Ontario’s housing mess bad news for Canadians across the country
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Austin Thompson
According to new data from CMHC, homebuilding in Ontario plummeted in the first half of 2025 compared to prior years, making Premier Ford’s target of 1.5 million new homes by 2031 look increasingly farfetched. The weak numbers also undermine the Carney government’s pledge to double national homebuilding by 2035—a goal that was already very unrealistic. But the failure to increase homebuilding levels in Ontario does more than tarnish the reputation of politicians who make promises they can’t keep—it frustrates progress towards housing affordability in Ontario and across the country, harming Canadians who are priced out of the housing market or struggling to pay the rent.
In the first six months of 2025, construction began on only 27,368 new homes in Ontario—a staggering 25 per cent drop compared to the same six-month period in 2024, and 35 per cent below the first half of 2023. In fact, Ontario saw more housing starts in the first half of 2020 (33,588) despite disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
More broadly, from 2022 to 2024, Ontario averaged only 86,650 housing starts each year—far short of the 150,000 starts per year required to meet the Ford government’s target of 1.5 million new homes by 2031.
Across Ontario’s municipalities, homebuilding trends vary significantly. Some cities have achieved notable growth—for instance, Ottawa recorded 5,150 housing starts in the first half of 2025, an 82 per cent increase compared to the same period last year. Others have seen construction nearly grind to a halt. In Guelph, just 46 new homes were started in the first half of the year—a 76 per cent drop from the same period in 2024. And Toronto recorded a paltry 12,575 housing starts in the first half of this year—a 44 per cent decline from the same period in 2024. Given its size, Toronto’s poor performance is especially consequential.
While building more homes remains a challenge across much of Canada, the particularly sharp decline in Ontario undermines national progress. Again, in the first half of 2025 housing starts in Ontario fell by 25 per cent compared to last year. Meanwhile, the rest of Canada saw a 17 per cent increase in the first half of 2025. In absolute terms, 9,003 fewer homes were built in Ontario relative to last year while 12,921 more homes were added in the rest of the country. That’s a problem for all Canadians looking to buy a house, because as the country’s most populous province, Ontario’s homebuilding slowdown has nearly cancelled out the gains made elsewhere.
In other words, the trends in one housing market can have spillover effects in other markets. When the country’s largest province stumbles, it drags national progress down with it. The consequences ripple outward—people priced out of Ontario drive up housing costs elsewhere. Sky-high prices in economic hubs such as Toronto push workers away from where jobs are most plentiful. And inflated housing costs feed household debt, leaving Canadians more exposed in the next economic downturn.
This is all happening despite billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on initiatives meant to boost homebuilding. In this year’s provincial budget, the Ford government earmarked an additional $400 million for the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund (which helps expand water systems for new housing development) and the Municipal Housing Infrastructure program (on top of the $2 billion the government plans to spend on these two programs until 2027). The Ontario 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. This spending is helping drive major increases in the province’s debt, while barely moving the needle on housing supply.
Of course, housing costs depend on supply and demand. The demand side, fuelled mainly by federal immigration policy, remains out of the Ontario government’s control. But Ontario and its municipalities can help improve housing supply—unfortunately, they have instead allowed significant barriers to persist. For example, the Ford government has decided not to allow four-unit homes on residential lots, ignoring a key recommendation of its own Housing Affordability Task Force. And housing developers in Toronto and Hamilton face the longest wait times in the country to receive municipal approvals to start building—these two cities also charge some of the highest upfront fees on new housing development in the country, discouraging new construction.
If policymakers in Ontario are serious about tackling the housing crisis, they should remove these self-imposed barriers to homebuilding. While Ontario’s housing failures are felt most acutely by its residents—through high prices and limited options—the fallout reaches far beyond provincial borders. No serious effort to address housing affordability in Canada can succeed without Ontario getting its house in order.
Business
P.E.I. Moves to Open IRAC Files, Forcing Land Regulator to Publish Reports After The Bureau’s Investigation
Following an exclusive report from The Bureau detailing transparency concerns at Prince Edward Island’s land regulator — and a migration of lawyers from firms that represented the Buddhist land-owning entities the regulator had already probed — the P.E.I. Legislature has passed a new law forcing the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (IRAC) to make its land-investigation reports public.
The bill — introduced by Green Party Leader Matt MacFarlane — passed unanimously on Wednesday, CTV News reported. It amends the Lands Protection Act to require IRAC to table final investigation reports and supporting documents in the Legislature within 15 days of completion.
MacFarlane told CTV the reform was necessary because “public trust … is at an all-time low in the system,” adding that “if Islanders can see that work is getting done, that the (LPA) is being properly administered and enforced, that will get some trust rebuilt in this body.”
The Bureau’s report last week underscored that concern, showing how lawyers from Cox & Palmer — the firm representing the Buddhist landholders — steadily moved into senior IRAC positions after the regulator quietly shut down its mandated probe into those same entities. The issue exploded this fall when a Legislative Committee subpoena confirmed that IRAC’s oft-cited 2016–2018 investigation had never produced a final report at all.
There have been reports, including from CBC, that the Buddhist landholders have ties to a Chinese Communist Party entity, which leaders from the group deny.
In the years following IRAC’s cancelled probe into the Buddhist landholders, The Bureau reported, Cox & Palmer’s general counsel and director of land joined IRAC, and the migration of senior former lawyers culminated this spring, with former premier Dennis King appointing his own chief of staff, longtime Cox & Palmer partner Pam Williams, as IRAC chair shortly after the province’s land minister ordered the regulator to reopen a probe into Buddhist landholdings.
The law firm did not respond to questions, while IRAC said it has strong measures in place to guard against any conflicted decision-making.
Reporting on the overall matter, The Bureau wrote that:
“The integrity of the institution has, in effect, become a test of public confidence — or increasingly, of public disbelief. When Minister of Housing, Land and Communities Steven Myers ordered IRAC in February 2025 to release the 2016–2018 report and reopen the investigation, the commission did not comply … Myers later resigned in October 2025. Days afterward, the Legislative Committee on Natural Resources subpoenaed IRAC to produce the report. The commission replied that no formal report had ever been prepared.”
The Bureau’s investigation also showed that the Buddhist entities under review control assets exceeding $480 million, and there is also a planned $185-million campus development in the Town of Three Rivers, citing concerns that such financial power, combined with a revolving door between key law firms, political offices and the regulator, risks undermining confidence in P.E.I.’s land-oversight regime.
Wednesday’s new law converts the expectation for transparency at IRAC, voiced loudly by numerous citizens in this small province of about 170,000, into a statutory obligation.
Housing, Land and Communities Minister Cory Deagle told CTV the government supported the bill: “We do have concerns about some aspects of it, but the main principles of what you’re trying to achieve are a good thing.”
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
Mark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog
After scathing warnings from interim budget officer Jason Jacques, Liberals move to silence dissent and install a compliant insider with “tact and discretion.”
It’s remarkable, isn’t it? After a decade of gaslighting Canadians about their so-called “fiscally responsible” governance, the Liberal Party, now under the direction of Mark Carney, finally runs into a problem they can’t spin: someone told the truth. Jason Jacques, the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, was appointed for six months, six months. And within weeks, he did something this government considers a fireable offense: he read the books, looked at the numbers, and spoke plainly. That’s it. His crime? Honesty.
Here’s what he found. First, the deficit. Remember when Trudeau said “the budget will balance itself”? That myth has now mutated into a projected $68.5 billion deficit for 2025–26, up from $51.7 billion the year before. Jacques didn’t just disagree with it. He called it “stupefying,” “shocking,” and, this is the one they hate the most, “unsustainable.” Because if there’s one thing Ottawa elites can’t handle, it’s accountability from someone who doesn’t need a job after this.
But Jacques didn’t stop there. He pointed out that this government has no fiscal anchor. None. Not even a fake one. A fiscal anchor is a target, like a deficit limit or a falling debt-to-GDP ratio—basic stuff for any country pretending to manage its money. Jacques said the Liberals have abandoned even that pretense. In his words, there’s no clear framework. Just blind spending. No roadmap. No compass. No brakes.
And speaking of GDP, here’s the kicker: the debt-to-GDP ratio, which Trudeau once swore would always go down, is now heading up. Jacques projects it rising from 41.7% in 2024–25 to over 43% by 2030–31. And what happens when debt rises and growth slows? You pay more just to service the interest. That’s exactly what Jacques warned. He said the cost of carrying the debt is eating into core government operations. That means fewer services. Higher taxes. Slower growth. The burden gets passed to your children while Mark Carney gives another speech in Zurich about “inclusive capitalism.”
And let’s talk about definitions. Jacques flagged that the Liberals are now muddying the waters on what counts as operating spending versus capital spending. Why does that matter? Because if you redefine the terms, you can claim to be balancing the “operating budget” while secretly racking up long-term debt. It’s accounting gimmickry, a shell game with your tax dollars.
He also pointed to unaccounted spending, about $20 billion a year in campaign promises that haven’t even been formally costed yet. Add that to their multi-decade defense commitments, green subsidies, and inflated federal payroll, and you’re looking at an avalanche of unmodeled liabilities.
And just to make this circus complete, Jacques even criticized the way his own office was filled. The Prime Minister can handpick an interim PBO with zero parliamentary input. No transparency. No debate. Just a quiet appointment, until the appointee grows a spine and tells the public what’s really going on.
Now the Liberals are racing to replace Jacques. Why? Because he said all of this publicly. Because he didn’t play ball. Because his office dared to function as it was intended: independently. They’re looking for someone with “tact and discretion.” That’s what the job listing says. Not independence. Not integrity. Tact. Discretion. In other words: someone who’ll sit down, shut up, and nod politely while Carney and Champagne burn through another $100 billion pretending it’s “investment.”
Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about replacing a bureaucrat. It’s about neutering the last shred of fiscal oversight left in Ottawa. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is supposed to be a firewall between reckless political ambition and your wallet. But in Carney’s Canada, independence is an inconvenience. So now, instead of extending Jacques’ term, something that would preserve continuity and show respect for accountability, the Liberals are shopping for a compliant technocrat. Someone who won’t call a $68.5 billion deficit “stupefying.” Someone who’ll massage the numbers just enough to keep the illusion intact.
They don’t want an economist. They want a courtier. Someone with just enough credentials to fake credibility, and just enough cowardice to keep their mouth shut when the spending blows past every so-called “anchor” they once pretended to respect. That’s the game. Keep the optics clean. Keep the watchdog muzzled. And keep Canadians in the dark while this government drives the country off a fiscal cliff.
But let me say it plainly, thank god someone in this country still believes in accountability. Thank God Jason Jacques stepped into that office and had the guts to tell the truth, not just to Parliament, but to the Canadian people. And thank God Pierre Poilievre has the common sense, the spine, and the clarity to back him. While Mark Carney and his Laurentian elite pals are busy gutting oversight, rewriting the rules, and flooding the economy with borrowed billions, it’s men like Jacques who refuse to play along. He looked at the books and didn’t see “investment”—he saw a ticking fiscal time bomb. And instead of ducking, he sounded the alarm.
Poilievre, to his credit, is standing firmly behind the man. He understands that without a real watchdog, Parliament becomes a stage play, just actors and scripts, no substance. Backing Jacques isn’t just good politics. It’s basic sanity. It’s the minimum standard for anyone who still thinks this country should live within its means, tell the truth about its finances, and respect the people footing the bill.
So while the Liberals scramble to muzzle dissent and hire another smiling yes-man with a resume full of buzzwords and a Rolodex full of Davos invites, at least one opposition leader is saying: No. We need a watchdog, not a lapdog. And in a city full of spineless bureaucrats, that’s not just refreshing—it’s absolutely essential.
-
Crime2 days agoCBSA Bust Uncovers Mexican Cartel Network in Montreal High-Rise, Moving Hundreds Across Canada-U.S. Border
-
Environment2 days agoThe Myths We’re Told About Climate Change | Michael Shellenberger
-
armed forces2 days agoWhat A Second World War Aircraft Taught Me About Remembrance Day
-
armed forces2 days agoWhy we keep getting Remembrance Day wrong
-
Alberta2 days agoMark Carney Has Failed to Make Use of the Powerful Tools at His Disposal to Get Oil Pipelines Built
-
Business1 day agoCarney shrugs off debt problem with more borrowing
-
Daily Caller2 days agoEx-Terrorist Leader Goes On Fox News, Gives Wild Answer About 9/11
-
Energy2 days agoFor the sake of Confederation, will we be open-minded about pipelines?







