New housing minister says immigration can help address affordability, supply

Minister Fraser will learn that increasing housing supply is much more complex than raising immigration levels, with considerable time lags. Highly unlikely that any meaningful progress on the ground will be realized during the government’s mandate.

A cruel irony given his role as immigration minister in exacerbating the problem through high levels of permanent and temporary residents.

It is not a matter of “closing the door on newcomers” but rather more thoughtful immigration policies and levels that don’t worsen further housing, healthcare and infrastructure for new and old Canadians alike, and that take these into account when setting levels:

Canada’s new housing and infrastructure minister says closing the door to newcomers is not the solution to the country’s housing woes, and has instead endorsed building more homes to accommodate higher immigration flows.

Sean Fraser, who previously served as immigration minister, was sworn in Wednesday morning as part of a Liberal government cabinet shuffle aimed at showcasing a fresh team ahead of the next federal election.

He comes into the role at a time when strong population growth through immigration is adding pressure to housing demand at a time when the country is struggling with an affordability crisis.

“The answer is, at least in part, to continue to build more stock,” Fraser told reporters after being sworn in.

“But I would urge caution to anyone who believes the answer to our housing challenges is to close the door on newcomers.”

Instead, the minister said immigration would be part of the solution to the housing challenge.

“When I talked to developers, in my capacity as a minister of immigration before today, one of the chief obstacles to completing the projects that they want to get done is having access to the labour force to build the houses that they need,” he said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to hand over the federal housing file to the Nova Scotia MP has been praised by experts who say that the Liberals need a strong communicator in charge as Canadians deal with an affordability crunch.

As part of the shakeup, the housing file has been merged with infrastructure and communities. Fraser said the goal is to look at housing and infrastructure projects together, rather than in isolation.

“If we encourage cities and communities to build more housing where infrastructure already exists or where it’s planned to be, we’re going to be able to leverage more progress for every public dollar that’s invested,” he said.

Ahmed Hussen, who became housing minister in 2021, has faced criticism for his handling of the file as the housing crisis worsened across the country.

Hussen is staying in cabinet as minister of international development.

“The selection of Sean, I think, is a recognition that the job requires fundamentally an energy and urgency and a passion in order to be able to effectively compete with the message that (Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre has put forward,” said Tyler Meredith, a former head of economic strategy and planning for Trudeau’s government.

Meredith said the choice to shift Fraser from immigration to housing also signals the federal government knows the two files are linked.

“If they lose the argument on housing, they will lose the argument on immigration, and they will then lose what is frankly, some of the some of the most effective pieces of their economic strategy,” Meredith said.

Canada’s population grew by more than one million people in 2022, a pace that experts say is adding pressure to housing demand. That, in turn, pushes up prices even further.

A recent analysis by BMO found that for every one per cent of population growth, housing prices typically increase by three per cent.

The Liberals have been taking a lot of heat from Poilievre for the state of the housing market. He’s blamed Trudeau’s government for the crisis, as well as municipal “gatekeepers” for standing in the way of new developments.

Poilievre has focused on the need to build more housing and has not weighed in on whether Canada needs to change the number of people it lets into the country.

The Conservative leader has also been particularly focused on speaking to young people struggling with affordability, commonly referring to the “35-year-olds still living in their parents’ basements” in the House of Commons.

Fraser, 39, acknowledged during the news conference that housing affordability is a major challenge facing younger Canadians in particular.

“It’s a real challenge for people my age and younger who are trying to get into the market, but it’s also a challenge for low-income families,” Fraser said.

“There’s no simple solutions, but if we continue to advance measures that help build more stock, that help make sure it’s easier for people to get into the market and make sure we’re offering protections for low-income families, particularly in vulnerable renting situations, we’re going to be able to make a meaningful difference.”

The housing crisis that once was associated with Vancouver and Toronto is now affecting all corners of the country, and experts say a shortage of homes is at its root.

The Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation has warned the country needs to build 3.5 million additional homes — on top of the current pace of building — to restore affordability by 2030.

Carolyn Whitzman, a housing policy expert and adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa, said the decision to combine housing and infrastructure is a good move.

“Housing is infrastructure. It’s essential, as essential as water and sewers and hospitals and schools, for the functioning of a society,” she said.

Whitzman also called Fraser a “fairly effective communicator” and noted his experience as immigration minister may also help inform his role in the housing file.

Source: New housing minister says immigration can help address affordability, supply

TransLink braces to handle increasing immigration among service pressures 

A useful reminder of the impact of increased immigration on infrastructure:

The capacity of TransLink’s expansion plans might be tested sooner than expected by Canada’s higher targets for immigration, according to a new report for the transit authority’s mayors council.

TransLink is estimating Metro Vancouver could see up to 50,000 new immigrants per year coming to the region, based on Canada’s targets for 500,000 new residents per year by 2025, compared with 36,000 per year between 2017 and 2021, according to the transit agency’s report.

And trends for the settlement of new immigrants show they’re landing mostly in rapidly growing communities south of the Fraser River that are on frequently served transit lines.

However, those sections of TransLink’s network are already struggling with overcrowding. Whereas ridership systemwide has only recovered to 84 per cent of levels experienced in 2019, ridership in areas south of the Fraser has surpassed pre-COVID-19 levels.

And if service can’t be expanded to meet that growth, residents in the region who tend to rely more on transit to start with will experience more overcrowding and frequent pass-ups at bus stops than they do now, according to the report, an update on system pressures received by TransLink’s mayors council on Friday.

“What changes, it just enhances the urgency to be moving forward on expansion, particularly south of the Fraser where our ridership is higher than it was in 2019,” said Sarah Ross, TransLink’s vice-president of planning and policy.

Ross said the updated figures don’t represent a big departure from expectations in TransLink’s Transport 2050 plan, with its immediate 10-year, $20 billion capital plan for expansion.

“This is not us saying we need to change our 10-year priorities’ plan, not at all,” Ross said.

However, the need to stay focused on the expansion plan has been telegraphed by TransLink’s experience with service south of the Fraser. In the last year, TransLink has reallocated service, trimming routes in slower-growing communities in the region to add 12 per cent to routes south of the Fraser.

“Every time we put out more service it’s taken up right away,” Ross said.

Implementing the R6 RapidBus service on Scott Road is one of the top priorities in that 10-year capital plan, but the update report comes at a time TransLink is trying to renew discussions with the province and federal government on how to pay for it.

TransLink’s mayors council meeting Friday was the same meeting at which chairman Brad West, mayor of Port Coquitlam, acknowledged receipt of the province’s $479 million emergency contribution to backstop the agency’s pandemic-driven shortfalls.

“It was important because the alternative to the province stepping-up was significant service reductions to our region, increased congestion and poor outcomes,” West said in his report to the meeting.

TransLink’s challenge will be to lobby Ottawa, in addition to Victoria, on supporting TransLink’s efforts to create a more sustainable funding model that doesn’t rely so heavily on regional fuel taxes that are due to decline as Lower Mainland drivers also adopt electric vehicles at a faster rate.

“We’ve talked at length about the funding model that TransLink is currently operating under being insufficient for the job ahead and in many ways has gotten us to where we are now,” West said.

Source: TransLink braces to handle increasing immigration among service pressures 

Why are we so afraid of gender-based analysis?

Interesting and relevant study that gets behind the rhetoric around Trudeau’s statement on gender based analysis and infrastructure projects like pipelines:

Justin Trudeau set off a social media firestorm during the G20 summit in Argentina in November when he said, “Even big infrastructure projects, you know, might now say, ‘Well, what does a gender lens have to do with building this new highway or this new pipeline or something?’ Well, you know, there are gender impacts when you bring construction workers into a rural area. There are social impacts because they’re mostly male construction workers. How are you adjusting and adapting to those?” A Toronto Sun editorial headline appeared soon after: “Trudeau Unacceptably Smears Construction Workers.” Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer called him “a threat to rural Canada” in a tweet. Many Canadians have taken to Facebook and Twitter expressing their anger that Trudeau suggested that they or their husbands, sons or brothers who work in resource industries might be causing harm in rural communities.

We recently completed a report for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, based on a review of over 400 scholarly and community research articles and interviews with seven key informants, about strengthening impact assessments of large resource developments to better understand and consider the experiences of Indigenous women. Our research found that there are both positive and negative — but mostly negative — social, economic, cultural and health impacts for Indigenous (and non-Indigenous) women when a resource development project is situated near their community. These gendered impacts are regularly overlooked in current environmental impact assessment processes.

Gendered impacts of resource development

New employment and business opportunities are some of the most important benefits of resource development for rural and remote communities. Indigenous women who are able to access these opportunities report positive impacts on their self-confidence and financial independence. However, not all women are able to access good-quality, high-paying jobs. Because of persistent gendered work patterns, women typically bear the bulk of care work in families and communities. When child care services are unavailable, unaffordable or inaccessible, women face barriers to accessing the training needed for high-paying jobs, such as those in the trades. The shift work and fly-in, fly-out nature of many resource development industries also creates child care challenges for families. While impact benefit agreements and other arrangements sometimes provide preferential hiring opportunities for Indigenous women, these jobs are often temporary, low-skilled and low-paying, and in traditionally feminine sectors like cooking and housekeeping.

Increases in violence and harassment are common impacts of resource development identified by Indigenous women. Racialized and sexualized violence and harassment are frequently reported by Indigenous women who are employed at resource extraction job sites. Women in communities near resource extraction sites sometimes experience rapid increases in gender-based and sexual violence. In particular, the stress that “two-week-on, two-week-off” industry work schedules place on families sometimes contributes to gender-based violence in workers’ homes. More disposable income can lead to increases in substance use and abuse, which research studies have linked to increased crime rates and increased rates of gendered and sexualized violence for women and girls.

Increases in sex work often accompany resource development industries and the mass influx of primarily male workers to resource towns and work camps. Some women enter sex work as an alternative source of income for themselves and their families, while others are victims of human trafficking.

Nearby resource development projects further strain what are in many cases very limited housing resources in Indigenous communities and in northern municipalities with high numbers of Indigenous people. Indigenous women who experience intergenerational trauma, addictions or mental health crises and who have low levels of education are especially vulnerable to becoming hard-to-house or homeless in these contexts. Others who have jobs with lower incomes than those in resource development sectors can find it hard or impossible to afford housing in their home communities.

The social impacts are both positive and negative, but our research shows that for Indigenous women, and other marginalized members of communities, the negative impacts are in many cases likely to outweigh the positive ones.

Trudeau is correct to call for gender-based analysis. People’s Party Leader Maxime Berniersuggests that considering gender in resource development is “cultural Marxism nonsense,” and others have worried it will be “bad for business,” but gender-based analysis is an analytical tool used around the world by governments, businesses, researchers and nonprofit organizations. The federal government committed to using gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) to guide its decision-making beginning in 1995, although the fall 2015 Auditor General’s report made it clear that the quality of GBA+ in many federal departments has historically been less than ideal.

Using a GBA+ lens involves asking deliberate questions about not only gender but also diversity impacts and outcomes, focusing on who receives most of the benefits and who bears more of the costs in policy planning and decision-making, including decisions about resource development. In this case, it also involves making sure that environmental impact assessment processes seek out and listen to the voices of Indigenous women and other community members whose experiences have historically been overlooked.

Culturally relevant gender-based analysis recognizes the diversity among members of communities. It is an important analytical tool that can help to identify gendered impacts and aid in the development of plans to mitigate the worse impacts on women, to ensure that all members of our communities (Indigenous and non-Indigenous, women and men) can share in the benefits of resource extraction and to make it less likely that more marginalized members of communities, including women and girls and people with disabilities, will face more negative impacts than positive ones.

This article is based on a report co-written with Patricia Nash (independent researcher, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL) and Deborah Stienstra (Jarislowsky Chair in Families and Work, University of Guelph).

Source: Why are we so afraid of gender-based analysis?