Not to sound agist (that’s how any great conversations with that one uncle starts eh), but who uses the word “Tariff” these day, what happened to duties, or just taxes? Also we’d be at least 10 states, if not 13. If it was 10 all the stars would still fit on the flag.
Backstory:
If you’re reading this in the future, you might have no idea what I’m alluding to. Well it’s the year 2025, May has just started and I think I’ve heard the word Tariff more than I ever thought possible. Canada’s federal liberal party had possibly the worlds quickest U-Turn to an election victory after facing sure defeat, and the guy running the US is convinced Canada should be “the 51st state”, among about 500 other things. What a weird timeline. I think I’m going to come back to this in 10 or 20 years and be so confused. At least I hope that’s the case and all the worlds problems get solved, one can at least dream. But for now this is the world we live in and there are some pressing problems facing Canada and the new Prime Minister.
Mark Carney:
Arguably, one of the best moves of Trudeaus political career was knowing when to bow out. With the snap election being called by the new leader of the liberal party Mark Carney. Who really seemed to come out of nowhere, although looking at his resume he’s been quite involved in government prior to this. Against all odds, a seemingly defeated liberal party, he managed to come 3 seats short of a majority government. In this article, while there are so many things going on in the US and Canada, and as we’re all learning the links are extremely deep and trade policy is very important to not only the price of goods, but consumer confidence in spending money and keep jobs. While I’d love to chat about all of it, my main focus is going to be talking about what plans Mark Carney has for Canada and what things might look like if he is able to follow through on some of his party’s platform. A lot of the things he’s been touting on the campaign trail, I’ve addressed as problems in my prior posts related to trades education, cost of housing, and investment and innovation in Canada. I’ve also been focusing a bit more of my time on video format content on my YouTube channel youtube.com/oliverfoote. So let’s see what we can find shall we.
One Economy:
This is an idea that has come up ever since the start of the trade war. The idea of one Canadian economy. Many of the provinces are on board with this idea, and now that there is the political will to find a way to remove our own trade barriers (thanks Trump, I guess), I think it’s likely that this will get done between Carney and the premiers. There have been some numbers quoted that if we are able to do this it would return around the same amount of economic activity to Canada as a 25% tariff from the US would cost Canada. I believe that pretty much everyone is in agreement that more labour mobility, easier flow of goods, and accepting credentials across provinces is just a sensible thing to do. This could help provinces that need workers, and provinces that have an oversupply of workers balance out their supply dynamics a bit. We’ve already been seeing an outflow of people from provinces like Ontario to provinces like Alberta and the Maritimes. This in theory is a win-win, takes pressure off Ontario employment and housing and provides much needed workers to places that are having a hard time finding them.
Build Baby Build:
There was one line that stood out to me on building and that was “we need to build homes on a scale not seen since the Second World War”. They outline how they will do this by creating a new agency with the goal of investing in new home building technology, providing low cost financing for affordable units, tax incentives for multi-residential unit construction and conversions, and importantly cutting governmental charges on building homes. Of all the development costs, government charges (taxes) have gone up the most in percentage terms of any development cost in the past 20 years, for a variety of reasons. They claim on their website that cutting development costs in half, will spur $8 Billion of private investment (every year!), let’s bookmark that to see how that pans out 5 years from now. They also said they will work with cities to speed up approvals and try to systematize things across Canada so builders can work anywhere, again I think this is a positive thing. Toronto’s approval timeline is around 30 months right now, that’s just approval! The actual construction of a high rise takes about 2-3 years, but the approvals and delays at 7 years on average to that timeline. So if we are able to even cut down the delays by half, it would immensely improve affordability. Businesses are all about systems, and the systems of many municipal governments are way to complicated and exclusionary when it comes to getting things built. I really hope that municipal governments across Canada are able to get on board with the provinces and federal governments and start rubber stamping thousands more units per year.
Innovation and Investment:
I heard a business owner say and I think this goes for builders and housing developers, that they are running their businesses in Canada “in spite of” the local government. I do believe strongly in oversight, making sure workers are safe, making sure that monopolies don’t prevent competition, supporting and championing local businesses. All levels of government should work hard to be partners with business, not roadblocks. Another great line from the platform was lets change “why are we doing this” to “how can we get this done”.
When it comes to housing, when it comes to business, when it comes to trades, innovation and re-investment. We really need to start asking how we can enable things to happen, not why they should or shouldn’t be allowed in the first place (while being smart about the investments obviously). I’ve made videos and spoken about Canada’s declining business investments in the past and how a lot of our big business investments have instead moved into residential housing and inflating asset prices, this has been somewhat of a trend across many western countries lead by the US. There are points in the liberal platform that address this as well and point to specific plans for increasing investment in Canadian companies and businesses. I read a very interesting piece from the BoC where they mentioned that global capital flows historically went to the US and their “Superstar” firms which also tends to attracts global talent. Canada needs to invest and encourage a larger start up and entrepreneurial culture that can potentially create multiple global superstar competitors that will make Canada a more attractive place for global capital. One problem with the ultra ambitious, is that they frequently run into market size and somewhat fragmented, or limited markets in Canada. Naturally, at some point every company will expand internationally, and finding success in the US is the ultimate victory because of the liquidity of the market, start up culture, and global capital flows, wealth in general, can make companies grow exponentially.
The Future of Canada
There is so much to talk about here and the layers go very deep. I don’t know how much the Carney government will be able to accomplish, but I really hope that at least some of their ideas get through and I think as a nation we’ve reached a point in time where everyone is on board to try and resolve some of these bigger issues and people are united in the idea of doing so. I feel a positive national spirit building in Canada and I hope that this will be the catalyst towards helping Canada become a real player on the world stage. If there has even been a moment in time where the country and all levels of government seem willing to make massive changes, it’s right now, and I really hope that they are able to do that, and that they have enough runway and political pressure to get some of these major projects through. Amidst all the chaos of the past 5 years, first COVID, now a trade war, I actually find myself feeling optimistic about what the future of Canada might hold, and I no longer feel this imminent urge to pack my bags and leave for better opportunities elsewhere in the world. Only time will tell what ends up happening and what doesn’t, but I have a lot more hope than I did a few months and years ago. There will be a lot of bumps in the road along the way, but I have faith now, which is not something I could say 5 years ago. Let’s see what we can do.
Tonight there is an election in Ontario (at the time of writing this I’m not sure who won, but polls are suggesting the PC’s will win). During the election campaigning the party leaders spoke on a lot of issues. I wanted to do a bit of a review and analysis of the different housing policies that each party is running on and talk about what the PCs have accomplished so far, targets they set and if they were realistic, and what things continue to stand in the way of housing getting built in the province that I think the next government should tackle or implement.
Ontario Has A Supply Problem:
As I spoke about in my last post. The fundamental problem with Ontario real estate is that we do not build enough. Simple supply and demand. Not enough supply for the demand that we have, in rentals and end user homes. The amount of factors that influence housing is quite long, again, see my previous post. But just to name a few major ones that have led to the situation we’re in: exclusionary zoning (i.e. only one housing type allowed per lot, very hard to change zoning), lack of investment in trades for over 30 years, high construction and development costs, uncontrolled migration (importantly, with no housing to meet the new demand, migration itself isn’t generally a negative thing), and lack of purpose built rentals.
Will Our Changes Bear Fruit:
There are about a dozen more factors but these are some of the bigger ones that are keeping prices high. Every level of government appears to be trying to do something about the issue. But are they actually seeing results? When might all of this “investment” actually bear fruit? Or are we all too entrenched in our old ways to make a meaningful change that would actually improve housing supply (read: potentially hurt housing values for incumbents). Sometimes you have to upset people to get things done. But equally, there are ways to make meaningful changes and change attitudes without upsetting too many people, it’s just much more challenging. But lets see what my small set of ideas can do to change perspectives.
The 2022 Housing Affordability Task Force:
There was a report published by the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force in 2022 which very plainly and simply stated that our housing problem will NOT be solved by measures to “cool” the housing market. Cooling down measures include: higher interest rates (which the governments don’t directly control), more tax advantaged accounts, higher leverage down payments, tax rebates, mortgage stress tests, and other incentives. While these things might be nice, they do not deal with the heart of the problem; a lack of building.
The Core Issue, Building:
We are now well aware that the fundamental problem for real estate in Ontario is that we do not build enough housing, and have not built enough housing, for years on end. This means as our population grew, the number of new housing units did not grow at the same rate. It was especially bad in the last 15 years or so. If we can all agree that our fundamental problem is construction of new homes, the next logical step would be finding ways to make building new housing easier. This includes higher density housing in areas where people may not be used to higher density housing.
Make Building Easy Again:
How do we make building easier? The big elephant in the background, is zoning. Our provincial and municipal land planning legislation is set up in such a way that makes it nearly impossible for anything other than single-family homes or mega skyscrapers condos to be built. You even see this in “new” communities, which arguably have the freedom to start from scratch and design a better suburb or city. If you look to a city like Milton, north of Oakville, they are developing old farmland there like crazy! And they’re putting in… Single family homes, or at best 3 storey townhomes, maybe a few condo apartments here and there on Main st. It kind of drives me crazy to see that a BRAND NEW city is being built the SAME OLD way? Where are the thoughts to transit, or cyclists, or rental apartments next to the new university, or multiplexes on a “quiet residential street.” For some strange reason we have an aversion to building small to medium sized apartment buildings on the same lot that a single-family home would go and Milton does a great job proving how our past failures are continuing to show up in our attitudes and mentalities towards home building.
Builders Aren’t The Problem:
Many people might want to go and blame builders for lack of a variety of housing supply. NIMBYs in our province get upset when a builder proposes putting in a 15 storey condo building on the corner lot off the main road at the entrance of your “pristine” residential neighborhood. Another example I saw was a builder wanting to expand the senior care facility next door by adding more height to help add more beds to our over-extended healthcare system. “These builders! How dare they try to change anything about my neighborhood! Imagine the traffic this will cause!” Don’t blame the builders. The builders are doing exactly what any rational actor would do in their shoes. If the zoning laws say, “sorry, but in 98% of this neighborhood, we won’t allow you to buy up a few houses next to each other and then redevelop it into a 4 storey, 20 unit apartment building, adding 17 units of supply slowly increasing density with time to meet the needs of our growing city.” Builders will do what they are able to accomplish within the law, or they’ll do the math on fighting the law and figure that if they have to spend 5 years fighting for a patch of land to be re-zoned and permitted, the only option that makes financial sense at that point is the 15-20 storey re-development. Same thing goes for builders who subdivide and build single family homes on new farmland in a new city. It’s probably well within the law to do so. It’s an easy win for them. We have to make other types of new developments and re-developments easy wins for builders and seriously cut down the friction.
An Old Example of What We Did Right:
I recently moved to Toronto and live a few blocks away from a main artery road inside of a residential area. There is a little main street nearby with a few restaurants, businesses, and corner stores. My street, built in the 1930s, adjacent to this area of commerce and a 7 min walk to my nearest subway station, is exclusively 3-4 storey apartment buildings. If you go further into the neighborhood it is almost exclusively streets lined with large single-family homes. On the same lot, these apartment buildings house 20-30 families compared to 1. But, if you look to the City of Toronto zoning bylaws, it would be illegal to build more of these apartments today in the same region. Not because they’re unsafe, we have 2 fully functional staircases and a fire alarm system connected throughout the whole building. But because of zoning lot coverage regulations, parking regulations, and regulations that prevent “changing zoning” even where it would make a ton of sense (i.e. on streets adjacent to shops and restaurants). Case and point someone bought up 4-5 homes on an adjacent street and has been waiting years for the city to approve their project which is quite moderate as far as projects these days go. There is approximately 0.5 parking spots (1 spot that’s blocked during the work day) for all 20 units of my building in an arguably “very residential” area. As far as I can tell, no one seems to mind. The main street provides necessities, transit provides convenience, new bike lanes (just outside the residential area) make that mode of transportation much smoother and safer, and more people get to benefit from all these features.
A Better Model That Seems to Be Working:
If you’ve ever been to a suburb of Montreal (or Montreal itself), you’ll notice that they do a lot of what I’m preaching here. They build a large variety of different housing types in a residential neighborhood where in Ontario you’d only see single family homes. This provides a variety of options for people who want to live in that area and reduces pressures on housing supply. I also mentioned in my last post that the way the legislation is designed in Montreal allows builders to be flexible with what they build on a lot, depending on what makes most sense at that moment in time (or what they think will make sense when the project is complete). This flexibility within the law allows them to do a much better job at meeting demand, and yes it means that things will change. We can’t continue to be immovable rocks that aren’t open to a modicum of change. We almost need to completely tear down and rebuild the way that we plan our land uses and housing in Ontario. The layers and layers of rules and regulations that have been stacked on top of each other just aren’t working anymore. Some people will get freaked out at the idea of tearing down rules and laws and think it will result in anarchy, that may be true. But, I’m suggesting replacing our current laws with ones that are proven to work, such as those found in Quebec, which aren’t perfect, but seem to be working a bit better. This line from the executive summary of the Provincial Housing Task Force sums it up pretty well: “The way housing is approved and built was designed for a different era when the province was less constrained by space and had fewer people. But it no longer meets the needs of Ontarians.” Honestly, if you haven’t read it, go read it, it’s very “based” (as the kids these days say). https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-housing-affordability-task-force-report-en-2022-02-07-v2.pdf
More Homes Built Slower Act, 2022:
Now that I’ve outlined what I think needs to happen, opening up zoning bylaws, adding more variety of housing, making building easier in general. Let’s chat a bit about what changes the provincial government has made and how housing is going so far. In 2022 we saw Bill 23 the “More Homes Built Faster Act” which aimed to reduce red tape for housing construction. This was passed in direct response to the housing task force recommendations of building 1.5 million homes by 2031, we’ll get back to that in a moment. One key change was allowing up to 3 residential units on land zoned single family residential, without requiring a zoning change, this includes construction of laneway or garden suites (ADU’s). Sources vary on what the actual numbers are on this new law. But in Toronto, where there are about 420,000 lots that may qualify for an ADU. A grand total of 126 have been built since this change (according to ADUsearch.ca). Even if we assumed a generous pipeline of 1000 units per year in say 2-3 years once more people get wind of building laneway houses. This “update” will mostly likely work out to a rounding error.
Condo’s Aren’t the Solution:
So that didn’t work, what else was included? In Bill 23 for rental developments of 4 or more units development charges will be reduced by 15-25 depending on unit size. According to the CMHC, “Among Canada’s three largest cities, Montreal posted a 112% year-over-year increase in actual housing starts in January while Vancouver recorded a 37% increase, both driven by higher multi-unit starts. Starts in Toronto fell 41% from January 2024, driven by decreasesin multi-unit starts.” Alright, so that’s not going to well either. Multi-family starts have been falling in Ontario, which is a problem since those tend to supply a lot of housing. Again, wonder what Montreal is doing? A 112% increase in housing starts?! More than double from last year? Can we get some of that over here? There is a really big WHY in the room. Why is Toronto slowing down while Montreal is doubling? What on earth are we still doing wrong? The answer mostly lies in the fact that investors aren’t finding condos an appealing investment anymore, and builders aren’t able to sell enough units, and we have NO OTHER OPTIONS as far as supply goes. Which again shows that we haven’t managed to legislate a housing type into existence that varies from either single family or 50 storey condo tower. We also haven’t provided the right type of funding, or development charge cuts for smaller apartment buildings or multiplexes.
Ontario Land Tribunal, More of the Same:
Another change in Bill 23 was trying to speed up the processes in the OLT. They wanted to, “expand the Tribunal’s authority to dismiss appeals without a hearing, notably on the basis that the party who brought a proceeding has contributed to undue delay or if the Tribunal is of the opinion that a party has failed to comply with a Tribunal order.” Basically, they want to stop NIMBYs from causing delay in the development process. Fundamentally, I think this should be a good change. There is proven data that NIMBYs delaying the development process contributes to mountains of cost that ultimately get passed on to the end renters or owners of the units, and also makes building less appealing overall due to this risk. This still doesn’t address the fundamental change that is needed in our zoning bylaws, say it with me, VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES.
The Middle is Still Missing:
What this effectively has accomplished is speeding up these mega projects. To be fair to residents of existing areas, often these projects seem a bit unwieldy and unnecessary when there could be a lot of smaller projects in the area that achieve the same amount of housing in a more graduated and “gentle” way. Inevitably you will hear people complaining about “greedy builders” who want to ruin the neighborhoods, when it’s our own legislation that’s handcuffing us. Again, builders are simply acting rationally, within the laws they’ve been given. A side effect of introducing this “Missing Middle” housing into legislation would likely also enable a greater number of smaller builders to take on these projects. The barrier to construction is quite high for very-high density projects. They require special, often custom engineering, massive re-bar concrete beams, and other construction materials that are very hard and expensive to ship or have to be custom built on site. This increases complication which increases costs. I’ll give this OLT thing a 1/2 point since the idea behind it is generally positive, but the foundation upon which it’s built sucks. It is still a drop in the bucket since there are so many other delays that continue to plague building and it’s not really a “solution”, just a band-aid on an existing problem.
What are the Results Saying and What Are the Projections:
According to this table from Statistics Canada. Ontario housing starts have gone down every single year since the Provincial governments Housing Task Force report in 2022 and their proclamation to build 150,000 homes per year. I’m not going to turn a blind eye to the fact that the overall economic environment is pretty bad as far as construction costs and labour costs go. People’s appetite for investment with high interest rates is down, and a slew of other problems we are dealing with related to the economy. I also think it’s a bit unreasonable to use an above average year of 2021, with almost 100,000 starts, then project out and say “I think we can do 150,000.” Yeah, right, how exactly are you planning to do that overnight? We can’t expect changes to happen that quickly, but we also really can’t afford to go backwards. We’ve had 3 years since Bill 23 to see results. The data clearly shows that our changes have not been bold enough. We also can’t use the economy as an excuse when BOTH Vancouver and Montreal are improving. This data isn’t housing completions, this is simply “starts” which is getting shovels in the ground. We need more shovels in the ground and more people who are able to dig (read: trades workers). Ontario is still failing Ontarians. We need bolder changes.
Chart design: Oliver Foote *technically housing starts, not new homes. Data from Stats. Canada.
The Best Platform – Green Party?
I’m not going to get too much more into Ontario politics, but the one party that surprised me with their housing platform was the Green Party. Regardless of your political affiliation, I believe that good ideas are worth sharing. They are taking the approach of shooting for the stars on housing and aiming for 2 million new homes rather than 1.5 million. I think that is a good approach, because if we overshoot, we may still land on the moon.
They are also proposing a bunch of changes that coincidentally align with a lot of what I wrote about in this article. I like their bold thinking and we need more of this from all of the other parties to help solve our housing problems. So what are some things I like that they are proposing?
Allowing single family homes to be divided into multiple condo units
Pre-approved building designs for municipalities to instantly approve for construction
Plan for mixed housing types based on demographic and immigration projections
Allow fourplexes on existing lots, and sixplexes on existing lots in cities over 500,000 residents
Remove onerous zoning rules around floor space index, set backs, planes etc.
Pre-zone missing middle housing ranging from 6-11 stories on transit corridors and major streets in large urban areas with over 100,000 people
Increase financial and legal support for small builders of missing middle housing
End minimum parking requirements
Change planning laws to allow various buildings to be built on main streets, transit stations, corridors, etc.
Real Changes Are Needed:
I do really like the ideas listed above and I think if they were implemented it would be a serious improvement to our zoning laws and these changes could actually get housing moving again in the province. Whatever the results of the election are, I hope that who ever is running the ship makes some real impactful changes.
Conclusion:
This was a bit of a long one, but I felt with the provincial election happening tonight that I needed to write out some of my thoughts on housing. What the current government has accomplished related to housing with their time in office isn’t particularly impressive. I believe if they continue along this path they won’t ever be able to accomplish their ambitious targets. But focusing more on pure data and the change that is required, I just don’t they’ll accomplish their targets on their current trajectory, on this particular issue I can’t say they have my confidence. I also don’t know which government WOULD be able to accomplish these targets since our system is so deeply broken. Whoever wins, they’ll have to make some very unpopular decisions. I just hope that the unpopular decisions are backed by data and proven success from other provinces or countries, not focused on personal affiliations or gains. This problem is not personal, it’s needs to be a unifying crisis. Thanks for reading, as always.
As someone who likes to stay on top of what’s happening in Real Estate and the economy. I have noticed something happening that honestly, I’m not sure many people saw coming. Rental prices are dropping in major city centers across Canada, and have been on a slow but steady decline for a good 6-8 months. The main reason for this change simply has to do with a supply and demand problem (on many levels), and it’s all happening at the same time, right now.
Demand:
Let’s talk about demand first. Allow me to tell you a bit of a short story about recent events, namely something called COVID-19. The effects of the pandemic are beginning to show up in so many different aspects of society, and what I’m going to talk about here is another example of how generational of a shift was caused by COVID. Prior to COVID, people knew we had a bit of a housing shortage in Canada, in bigger cities multiple offers were common, but politicians were making some small policy changes to try and address some of the problems. Fair housing plan, first time home buyer tax rebates etc. But these were really drops in the bucket, and I don’t know that any politicians were earnest sitting down and thinking to themselves that there was a real problem here and that things needed to change. Enter the pandemic, low interest rates, followed up quickly by a completely crazy housing market. What COIVD did, was shine the worlds biggest spotlight on housing and made the entire country realize how bad housing could really get if we let things go too far. All of a sudden, every level of government is talking about housing, all of a sudden we’re talking about educating trades workers again and doing something to fill in these gaps in our economy that have been growing for decades leading to the problems that we are now experiencing.
Interest Rates:
So what did the various levels of government do in order to try and reduce this crazy demand in housing that was brought on by COVID? Many things. The Bank of Canada (not technically the government, although still a government entity?), increase interest rates by 4.75% over the course of 1 year, the fastest rate increases in history, which made housing extremely unaffordable at current market prices. Almost instantly, a ton of demand dried up because, financially, it became a horrible deal to purchase a home. Real estate prices move in the downward direction a lot slower than they move in the upward direction, which meant that while the cost of owning a home climbed in lockstep with rate increases, prices did not fall at the same pace. Even with these high interest rates reducing the pool of potential buyers significantly, there’s just so little supply, that some people who really need a home, were still buying homes. We didn’t see a huge flood of inventory (until about a year or two later), because most people who were already in their homes might not have to renew their mortgage for another 3-5 years and don’t need to sell. Rates were a big hit to demand, but everyone was finally beginning to realize the gravity of the situation, and the Bank of Canada made it pretty clear that the high rates would eventually come down once they dealt with inflation. So while the oven was still hot, governments began to put other policies into place.
Foreign Buyers Tax:
In some provinces, mainly the larger ones, foreign investor taxes were put into place in order to reduce speculation on the Canadian housing market as an investment vehicle. Canada is a very stable country, so if you have money from another country that is less stable, why not just park it in a piece of land located in Canada, and as a side benefit watch the investment grow. Makes perfect sense from an outsider point of view. But what this means is that local “middle class” people have to compete with the global rich, who may want to send their children to school in Canada or for whatever other reason have an interest in real estate. There have been arguments made about whether of not the percentage of foreign investment in Canada was actually making a dent at all in the cost of housing and what even counts as foreign investment. But on the whole, if the goal of this policy was to reduce demand, a 25-30% tax on foreign investment is one way to accomplish that.
Foreign Buyers Ban:
Following this policy, but at the federal level, we had a foreign buyer BAN for 2 years starting Jan 1, 2023. Which has been extended for an additional 2 years until Jan 1, 2027, and who knows, maybe it’ll be extended again. What this means is that if you weren’t a citizen, or don’t have Permanent Residency (PR) status in Canada, you CANNOT buy real estate here, at all. So even if you were willing to pay the provincial tax of 25-30%, with the hopes of getting a rebate (within 4 years) once you have your PR, you can’t do that anymore. Again, if the goal of the policy is to reduce demand for housing. This will have likely accomplished that. However, a potential side effect of this policy is driving up rent prices, because there may be a situation where you have a highly skilled worker who comes here and is making really good money or may have the means to purchase a home, but now they are forced to rent. Which means more demand for rental housing from people who are barred from buying, even if they plan to make Canada their home long term. I would consider this a more artificial and temporary reduction in demand, because these skilled workers will probably buy after getting PR.
Less Immigration:
Wow what a great transition, let’s talk a bit more about PR shall we. Quite recently, the government has been walking back the number of people that can apply for PR and officially immigrate to Canada. This has made the process of becoming a Canadian citizen a lot more competitive, and if you combine this “reduce immigration” policy with the previous policy which only allows citizens or PR holders to purchase homes, you will see a notable reduction in demand for buying housing. There will literally be fewer people who are legally able to purchase homes in the coming years. That’s not technically correct since we’ll be increasing the number of Canadian’s every year while still not building enough. The pace of new entrants will still be outpacing construction. But at least with these new policies things will get worse slower than before.
Fewer Students:
One final thing on the demand front deals with students and rental housing. Students make up quite significant portion of the rental market. Prior to, and just after the pandemic. The government was allowing pretty much anyone who would be accepted by a college or university, to come to Canada and study. Which in theory is an ok idea since we hope those people will stay, get a good job, and contribute positively to the productivity of our economy (not to mention spend money while they are here). But this unregulated environment led to some bad actors taking advantage of the situation. In some cases students were getting scammed by private “career colleges” which sold a promise of a Canadian education, and frequently didn’t deliver even the basics. It was a bad look on Canada, and brutal on students that took a huge risk spending international student tuition to get an education in Canada.
Aside About Higher Ed:
Additionally, at some point down the line, higher education institutions, including the prestigious ones. Began to cater their “services”, to the international student audience. Why? Because international students pay 2-4x the tuition rates of domestic students and universities have been dealing with consistent budget cuts from the provincial government over the course of decades (god forbid we help to pay to educate our future workforce). As an aside, I feel very strongly that higher education should be almost free in Canada for locals (which means more government funding). It’s ok if you disagree, but I would ask that you think about the implications on young people when education leads to debt, we are handicapping them before they even begin working. Additionally, if it’s too expensive, some people end up forgoing education altogether. More highly structured education after high school isn’t always the right answer. But, I think fundamentally we can all agree that continuing to get educated is a good thing and more funding for higher education is a great way to do that.
After years of cuts, universities felt the need to increase international student enrollment in order to make up for the difference, and the funnel was effectively endless. Obviously, this all came to a head and some people began to tell their MPs about these issues, namely scam colleges, and shortly after we see a cap on student visas. What does this means for housing? Likely there will be less rental demand in major metro areas where higher education institutions are located.
Supply:
Ok, I think that wraps up the demand side of the equation. Excuse me while I go and watch the 4 Nations Faceoff Canada vs. USA game (Canada lost, dang). Supply is up next, and this is where things get really fascinating.
Rents at 18 Month Low:
A report from Urbanation, who do really good research on housing in the Greater Toronto Area explained in October 2024 that average rents, especially in large cities across Canada have been dropping. An even more recent report by BNN said that rents across Canada have hit an 18 month low in January declining 4.4 percent to $2100. Rents are still 5.2% higher than 2 years earlier. But this is still a welcome sign for many renters. So what’s going on here?
Flood of New Supply:
We’re in a very interesting moment in time right now. As mentioned in the demand section, we’ve done a pretty good across the board job of slowing demand. At the same time, we have a flood of new condo completions hitting the market, actually a record amount for 2024, 29,800 in the GTA. In a normal year there might be 20,000 completions, which means we saw a 50% increase in inventory hitting the market. Approximately half of these new condos were listed for rent, since many owners are reading the writing on the wall and can see that they won’t be able to sell at a good price. In fact they may not even get the price they paid out of the condo. The pandemic also slowed and delayed condo completions, and 2024 just happened to be the year of reckoning where everything hit the market all at once. Additionally, purpose built rental completions were 5,537 in 2024, which is 86% above the 10 year average. In 2023 completions were 5,779 units.
What This Moment Tell Us:
When you combine the twofold pressures of ton’s of supply for sale, a smaller pool of buyers than usual, more nationalistic policies, higher interest rates than usual, and a “stable” housing market which is moving very slowly in the downward direction. Many new condos and purpose built rentals hitting the market. Leading new condo owners to attempt to rent out their units because they are unable to sell them right now. We have accidentally created an amazing case study that proves the point that politicians, and economists have been shouting from the rooftops. How do we make housing more affordable? We build more. Simple. This moment in time proves that if we build more, and build more variety, and have a constant flow of new housing coming onto the market, it will very likely relieve the pressures that we’ve been seeing on the housing market and make housing more affordable. On top of managing demand, filling gaps in our economy with tradespeople, and building a variety of housing (we don’t need to exclusively build detached low-rise or 60 storey high-rise). If apartments almost become a dime a dozen, a commodity, instead of something you need to be making six figures even to afford a rental. That will put a lot of downward pressure on prices and people will be less feral when trying to bid on a home or a rental.
Quebec is Doing It Better:
We have a case study in Canada that we can look to, Montreal and Quebec. In general, Quebec has not seen the same problems with cost of housing that we have. The pandemic did make things worse for them as well. But I was wondering why they don’t seem to be having as severe of a crisis as we do in Ontario and BC. I learned that a few reasons for their ability to managing housing costs a bit better is because they have fewer exclusionary zoning by-laws, aka. They build a larger variety of housing. The home construction market in Montreal is able to adapt much quicker to changes in demand, they also don’t exclusively rely on high-rise condo’s to solve their supply problems. They build a variety of housing types, like 3-4 storey apartment buildings. That are able to be built quicker and meet demand quicker. Our supply is very inelastic in Ontario, which the supply in Quebec and Montreal tends to be more elastic preventing prices from going to crazy. They also prove the point that the fundamental issue surrounding housing is a simply supply and demand issue. We do have to look into all the layers that cause a supply problem, or lead to unusually high demand. But if you boil it down, we need to build a whole lot more, become a lot more creative, and as 2024 proved, the problem can get better. Thanks for reading, hope you found this interesting.
