Lafleur: We live in a dangerous world. Canada needs to bulk up

2025/03/24 Leave a comment

Makes the standard “bulk up” arguments in favour of a larger population but reality is we will always be significantly smaller than the USA and that the vast majority of us will continue to “huddle along the border.” Other recommendations are more sound but, as always, the diagnostique is easy compared to implementation:

…Make immigration popular again: We should continue to press to attract the best and the brightest from around the world – much like post-war America did. If they’re no longer interested, that’s a major opportunity for Canada. Uncertainty over U.S. immigration policy combined with a general sense of American decline might push some Canadians who might have otherwise moved to Silicon Valley or New York to stay put. Anecdotally, a friend was recently offered a tenure-track job at a well-known American university. Had the offer came six weeks earlier, they might have accepted. It didn’t seem like a great time to move to America, and Canada, too, has excellent universities, so they accepted a Canadian offer instead.

Canadians are starting to think more seriously about geopolitics. We’re concerned about how our own lives will be impacted by tariffs, or civil unrest in the United States, or global conflicts. One of the best ways to adapt to a world where great powers might decide to push around middle powers is to get too big to push around. Not just in population, but in an economic and military sense.

Getting pushed around by mutually destructive tariffs could create some slack in our economy – or worse, a deep recession. We should use that slack to build the things that we need to survive, and the things that can help us thrive. Better that than huddling along the border and hoping that history continues to ignore us.

Building a larger, more muscular Canada can allow us to become a bulwark against tyranny. With America stepping back, it’s more important than ever that Canada bulks up. That means getting more shovels in the ground, much faster. It’s time to build everything, everywhere, all at once so that we can grow our economy and population and reach our full potential.

Source: We live in a dangerous world. Canada needs to bulk up

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Steve Lafleur: It’s time to stop importing American debates, Canada. We’ve got our own country to run

2024/01/10 Leave a comment

Amen… Captures many of my pet peeves, reflecting a colonial mentality, although his comments on immigration oversimplify:

For the love of God, stop uncritically importing American political debates

Well, it’s here. 2024. U.S. election year. Which means that, regrettably, we’re going to be talking a lot more about Donald Trump—whether it’s because his legal troubles get the better of him, or he finds his way back into the White House. Maybe both. It’s almost too depressing to contemplate, but here we are. 

This has wide-ranging implications for Canada, and the world at large. The world will be watching—particularly America’s adversaries. Canada, Europe, and our allies need contingency plans in case America turns its back on the world.

I’m not here to talk about the geopolitical implications of letting Vladimir Putin walk through Europe, or the prospect of our closest ally potentially tearing itself apart over a geriatric nepo baby with a severe allergy to the law. I’m getting off track here.

Let’s try this again. Canadians will be rightly fixated on the American election. Who can blame us? But our cultural commonalities with the United States often make it tempting to uncritically import American debate. We’ll need to try even harder than usual to avoid that. No good comes of it. 

Canada is, in many respects, a collection of bi-national regional political cultures overlayed by a loose national culture. Vancouver is basically Seattle with Canadian characteristics, for instance. We often have as much in common with our regional neighbours south of the border as we do with Canadians on the other side of the country. 

With a population largely strewn across the American border, an economy oriented towards southern exports, and a media ecosystem filled with American content, it’s easy to forget that Canada is its own country with distinct challenges, opportunities, and history. There isn’t always an off-the-shelf American policy solution that we can just slap a maple leaf on.

This may seem painfully obvious, but Canadian politicians have a long history of seemingly forgetting which side of the border we’re on. And it’s not getting any better. Whether it’s Danielle Smith fawning over Ron DeSantis or Justin Trudeau conflating Pierre Poilievre and Donald Trump, all indications are that our political class wants to keep cosplaying American politics. 

Canadians should demand better. We deserve our own policy debates focused on actual Canadian issues. It’s up to us to ask for it.

Take immigration, for instance. It’s hard to think of two immigration systems as different as Canada’s and the United States’. Canada has very high levels of legal immigration focused on highly skilled immigrants. Our biggest immigration problem is that we haven’t built enough houses to accommodate people. By contrast, America has relatively low levels of legal immigration, but a porous southern border that people cross through for a chance to pick crops or clean hotel rooms. 

Canada has high but selective immigration; America has low but chaotic immigration. It’s understandable that irregular crossing sucks up a lot of the political oxygen stateside, but it’s a relatively niche topic here. Frankly, temporary foreign workers are a bigger political challenge in Canada than illegal immigration (specifically, housing them). Different countries, different issues.

Let’s take another thorny example: diversity. Canada is a far more multicultural country than the United States. While large American cities like New York or even Houston have very diverse populations, there are vast swaths of the country that are largely white and Black, with a smattering of Latinos. This has an enormous impact on discussions of diversity—particularly when it comes to religion. If you encounter Muslims on a regular basis, it’s hard to fearmonger about them. There’s a reason why the “Muslim ban” happened in America, not Canada. 

The fact that diversity in Canada looks different than in the United States isn’t merely a statistical curiosity. It has implications for some of the cultural debates that are increasingly monopolizing our political discourse. 

Take the term BIPOC, for instance. It’s a term often used in American progressive circles that has managed to seep through the border. BIPOC—Black, Indigenous, People of Color—is a very specific American term. Note the order of the terms. Slavery was America’s greatest sin. Racial segregation persisted until the 1960s. Discrimination continues to this day. Of course, the historical treatment of American Indigenous People wasn’t much better. But sharing an acronym isn’t entirely unreasonable. 

In Canada, it’s not reasonable. The frequency, severity, and persistence of mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples is Canada’s most shameful legacy. Lumping Indigenous issues in with broader racial issues in Canada isn’t just silly, but insulting. Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples is one of the most important tasks facing the country. Indigenous issues deserve a more prominent role than the second letter of an acronym. 

Finally, there’s guns. A lot of them if you’re on the American side, but not so much here (unless you’re talking about farm rifles). Canada’s cities, contrary to the rhetoric, are much safer than American cities. The fact that we don’t have yahoos walking around with semi-automatic weapons probably helps. Nevertheless, firearms policy gets a surprising amount of oxygen on both sides of the political spectrum, even if it isn’t kitchen table talk. Conservatives take up gun rights issues to appease rural elements of their base, and Liberals use guns as a wedge issue. Despite the very different realities of firearms policy in Canada and America, sometimes it sounds like our politicians live a few hundred miles south. That isn’t to say there isn’t room for debate about firearms policy. But Canadian politicians should not make policy decisions based on American news stories, nor should they adopt gun rights rhetoric. Uncritically importing American gun debates isn’t going to make our policies smarter. It will almost certainly make them dumber.

Look, I’m not trying to dump on Americans here. For all its faults, America is one of the greatest countries on earth. They’ve led the peaceful post-war international order since the end of the Second World War. I desperately want America to continue doing so. But America is a unique country with a very different political, social, and historical context. Uncritically echoing American talking points doesn’t enrich our political discourse. Quite the opposite. We can, and should, think for ourselves. 

So, now that we’re in the backstretch of the white-knuckle ride to the 2024 election, Canadians need to be especially on guard against allowing the increasingly poisonous American political discourse to pollute our debates. By all means, tune in to the most bewildering show on earth. But, please, remember that we’re just viewers. We’ve got our own country to run. Let’s try to focus on that.

Steve Lafleur is a public policy analyst and columnist based in Toronto.

Source: Steve Lafleur: It’s time to stop importing American debates, Canada. We’ve got our own country to run

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Canada’s housing policy is failing citizens and newcomers alike

2023/06/30 Leave a comment

Need also to question the demand side of the equation, which includes high levels of permanent and temporary residents:

Canada recently reached a milestone of 40 million people after growing by more than one million people in one year for the first time in 2022. But while we’re adding people at record levels, the same can’t be said about homes.

According to recent research, while the number of people Canada-wide has accelerated in recent years, the number of housing units completed has stagnated and even fallen to levels well below previous peaks. Specifically, from 1971 to 1980, Canada’s population grew by 283,737 people annually on average while an annual average of 226,524 housing units were completed.

By comparison, from 2013 to 2022, Canada’s population grew by 427,439 people annually on average yet only 196,872 housing units were completed annually on average. Put differently, during the 1970s, roughly four housing units were constructed for every five new people in Canada, compared to slightly less than one housing unit constructed for every two new people in recent times.

In short, fewer homes are being built for a larger, faster-growing population.

These dual trends spell trouble for many Canadians, especially those already struggling to find affordable housing. The severe imbalance between the number of homes available and the number required have squeezed many renters and would-be homebuyers who increasingly find themselves bidding for a dwindling supply of available units.

The result? Higher rents and home prices, and not just among the “usual suspect” communities in the greater Toronto and Vancouver areas, but in small- and medium-sized cities across the country. Last year, communities including London, Ont., Waterloo Region, Peterborough, Ont., Hamilton, Ont., Kingston, Gatineau, Quebec City and Halifax all saw their rental vacancy rates (a measure of rental unit availability) fall below 2 per cent, which places them in the same league as Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria. And when vacancy rates fall, rents rise.

Canada’s shortage of housing has negative consequences for almost everyone, from the most vulnerable individuals and families to employers struggling to find workers. It also hurts newcomers to Canada – the single largest group contributing to Canada’s population growth. Most new arrivals to Canada rent their homes, leaving them especially exposed to rapidly tightening rental markets. Rising rents and worsening availability hamper their prospects – and indeed the prospects of all renters or would-be homeowners – of achieving upward mobility, arguably one of Canada’s main draws.

Thankfully, solutions are available, although policymakers must act big and act fast. There’s tremendous opportunity to open up more neighbourhoods to help achieve the levels of homebuilding required to adequately house a growing Canada. Several cities have already started implementing policies making it easier to add housing units. For example, Edmonton is overhauling its zoning bylaws to allow more housing options citywide, including duplexes, secondary suites and small apartments in current low-density residential areas. Similarly, Toronto City Council recently adopted plans to allow up to four units per lot citywide without the need to rezone. And elsewhere in Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia, provincial and local governments are making similar changes.

However, such policies are only the first of many necessary steps, and their effects will only be felt over the longer term so there’s no time to waste.

As Canadians and policymakers ponder our 40 million demographic milestone, they should give honest consideration to Canada’s worsening housing situation. In the right circumstances, a growing population can bring numerous benefits – economic, cultural and more. By not allowing homebuilding to keep up with population growth, however, governments across the country have hampered prosperity for both existing Canadians and newcomers. Governments, especially municipalities, must change the way they plan for and approve the millions more homes we need today and in the future if we’re to restore the promise of a thriving Canada with upward mobility.

Josef Filipowicz and Steve Lafleur are senior fellows at the Fraser Institute.

Source: Canada’s housing policy is failing citizens and newcomers alike

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Canada’s housing and immigration policies are at odds

2023/04/12 Leave a comment

More commentary on the disconnect between immigration and housing (and other infrastructure and services):

Housing affordability has metastasized from a Toronto and Vancouver problem to a national crisis. Double-digit rent increases have hit traditionally more affordable communities coast to coast, and the cost of home ownership remains persistently high amid rising interest rates. One of the main reasons for the lack of affordability, according to our recent report, is the misalignment between Canada’s different levels of government.

Over all, Canada’s system of decentralized federalism has served us well. Allowing different levels of government to make decisions that suit their own contexts is usually the right approach when it comes to program delivery. A century ago, Louis Brandeis, then a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, famously referred to states as “laboratories” for policy experimentation. This holds true for Canadian provinces, and on the whole, the structure is healthy for a medium-sized country spread out over the world’s second-largest land mass.

Many factors have contributed to eroding housing affordability, but the fundamental problem is a growing mismatch between supply and demand. While residential construction in Canada has plateaued, falling well short of historical highs, our population is growing faster than that of any other G7 nation.

Canada’s population growth averaged 422,000 additional inhabitants per year (July to July) between 2012 and 2022, compared with 335,000 annually over the previous decade. This trend is accelerating, with net growth of more than 500,000 inhabitants in three of the past five years, including a record 703,404 between 2021 and 2022.

Meanwhile, housing completions have stagnated over the past five decades. Between 2012 and 2022, an average of 195,000 homes were built annually, down from 199,000 annually the decade before – and 229,000 annually during the 1970s, Canada’s home-building highpoint.

Which brings us back to Canada’s system of governance. Population growth is controlled in large part by the federal government, and home building primarily by provincial and local governments.

Since the early 1990s, immigration has replaced net births (births minus deaths) as Canada’s primary driver of population growth. Unlike birth rates, which governments can only indirectly influence, immigration numbers are determined by government policy. For example, Canada’s most recent Immigration Levels Plan aims to add 465,000 new permanent residents in 2023, then 485,000 in 2024, and 500,000 in 2025 – the highest immigration levels ever.

Provincial and local governments, meantime, are tasked with planning for and approving enough housing to keep up with this record population growth. They do so through a series of land-use and growth plans, starting at the provincial or regional level and ending with local plans and bylaws governing how much building is permitted to happen, and where.

In short, the federal government (and, to varying extents, provinces) wield a formidable lever over housing demand, while provinces and municipalities largely control the housing supply. Unfortunately, these two sets of policy levers – immigration policy versus growth planning – are essentially set in isolation of one another.

Immigration levels plans, which are updated every year, are partly informed by a series of federal-provincial/territorial agreements. However, none of the current agreements even mention the word “housing,” focusing instead on concerns such as labour market needs and language requirements. These are important considerations, but newcomers also need places to live.

Meanwhile, provincial and local growth planning takes years to implement and update. For example, the Ontario government updated its 2006 growth plan for the region surrounding Toronto in 2019, and again in 2020, giving municipalities until 2022 to adjust their local plans accordingly. However, municipal plans can take years to translate into updated zoning bylaws, if at all, and since there is no strict enforcement of growth plans’ housing targets, they amount to a best guess as to how communities might grow.

Further, the length of time it takes to create and execute local plans means their population growth assumptions are often outdated before or during their implementation. While immigration levels plans are updated annually, major provincial directives – such as Ontario’s 2022 target of getting 1.5 million homes built over the next decade – are already a step behind.

Federal, provincial and municipal policy makers all need to get on the same page. Canada’s housing shortage won’t end until immigration policies start reflecting the reality of our housing markets, or until land-use and growth planning accurately reflects population growth. Without better co-ordination, the housing crisis will likely get worse.

Steve Lafleur and Josef Filipowicz are policy analysts who research housing and taxation. This article is part of a project they undertook with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Source: Canada’s housing and immigration policies are at odds

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,