Housing Affordability Crisis in Canada

 

Housing Affordability Crisis in Canada

Across Canada, the dream of securing affordable housing — whether through renting or homeownership — has become unattainable for most citizens. This crisis highlights a growing imbalance in the nation’s economy, making the gap between recovery and decline increasingly stark. Nowhere is this disparity more evident than in the Greater Toronto Area, where the challenges of accessing affordable housing are acutely pronounced and serve as a microcosm of the broader national issue.

Politicians and political parties often interpret Canada’s circumstances through a limited lens, largely due to insufficient awareness of the considerable diversity in Canadian perspectives. These differences arise from both cultural factors and the unique needs shaped by Canada’s vast geography and relatively small population.

After moving to Toronto from the prairies, I quickly noticed that much of the country’s policy is shaped by the priorities of the Golden Horseshoe region and Montreal. Because these areas have so many parliamentary seats, winning them is essential for political parties aiming for success. As a result, political attention is concentrated on this densely populated region, often at the expense of other parts of Canada. This focus leaves many regions facing disparities, as national policy fails to address their needs adequately.

Entering the 1990s and the new millennium, there was a significant transformation in both culture and public perception within the Golden Horseshoe, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area. Regions previously considered disadvantaged have evolved into central pillars of Canada’s economic and cultural landscape. This transition coincided with substantial changes to Ontario and Quebec’s manufacturing sectors, which were notably affected by NAFTA and WTO agreements, resulting in a reduction in labour union influence and worker rights and altering the provincial financial status of these regions.

Toronto, once known as “the good,” became isolated and struggled to understand what had happened. The city began to close in on itself, mainly as foreign investors, real estate speculators, and chartered banks contributed to the growing debt burden on its people. As a result, Toronto’s economy became more dependent on real estate transactions than on human productivity. This trend was also occurring in Vancouver and other major cities throughout the country.

The government failed to anticipate the inherent risks associated with this policy adequately. Nevertheless, the significant revenues generated from ongoing property flipping and the tax-sheltered development of condominium properties provided incentives that were difficult for the legislatures and the House of Commons to overlook, ultimately contributing to the current circumstances. These developments are reflected in the considerable homeless population and the substantial number of individuals in Canada who are inadequately housed.

Canadian audiences were influenced by multiple television programs, such as Property Brothers, Love it or List it, and Flip This House, which promoted the concept of generating quick profits through property renovation. This approach encouraged viewing homes primarily as investment opportunities rather than residences. As a result, both the general population and financial institutions supported this trend, with banks increasingly offering lines of credit to facilitate ongoing property transactions, sustaining the practice for as long as market conditions allowed.

As the Toronto real estate market begins its downward spiral, the city, investors, banks, and those with extensive real estate holdings are left in a state of unease and insecurity. Most realize there is no bailout coming, and even with the Bank of Canada cutting its trend-setting rate, virtually no new investment is coming from any corner of the globe.

A growing concern for policymakers is the increasingly severe responses from the public, as unemployment and poverty rise rapidly, particularly among individuals aged 30 and under, as well as Canada’s senior population.

As Canadians become more vocal, developers and speculators are moving on to other opportunities, abandoning many essential housing projects. Increasingly, the idea of for-profit housing is being replaced by calls for models established in the 1970s and 1980s, such as geared-to-income and cooperative housing.

Governments have yet to acknowledge this situation, mainly because many politicians hold personal interests in significant development and financial firms. For example, the Canadian Prime Minister is connected through his role as Vice Chairman at Brookfield, a company with substantial real estate and property investments. Finding solutions can be challenging when individuals stand to gain financially from those they are supposed to regulate. This issue extends beyond any one person; it is not merely a criticism of Carney, as numerous Conservative members also have an interest in Brookfield’s prosperity.

This situation is likely to persist indefinitely, as individuals often prioritize personal interests over universal, equitable financial solutions. Such priorities frequently motivate some individuals to enter politics to safeguard their own interests rather than those of the broader public. Both Carney and Poilievre recognize this dynamic; while Pierre Poilievre’s popularity is declining, Carney’s support may also diminish if economic conditions worsen. However, both appear to overlook the growing awareness among Canadians, which may catalyze meaningful change and help revitalize the Canadian economy.

Canada requires housing that cannot be easily resold for profit or constructed solely for financial gain, nor should properties be left vacant as tax shelters while citizens face homelessness and hunger. Political leaders must pay attention to this issue, as Canadians demand responsible action.