By Matthew Mendelsohn | Part of our Special Series: Always Canada. Never 51.
Canadians are more vulnerable to Trump’s economic warfare today because our housing system is in crisis and has left many Canadians insecure in their housing. Some of our own bad policy choices have put us in this position of vulnerability. But there are things we can do to rectify this, and I know who I want to hear from.
Mike Moffat and the team at Missing Middle have made a real impact on housing policy in Canada. Their work has helped refocus our discussions on supply and, more recently, on increasing costs caused by things like development charges. They have been a model for how non-partisan, evidence-based research and advocacy can shape public policy. Housing is still a national crisis because governments have made such terrible policy decisions for a very long time, but the team at Missing Middle is making things better.
So, I’d like to raise three housing policy issues that could use more of their attention.
First, the role of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in making housing more expensive. CMHC charges mortgage insurance to new home buyers and makes a large profit. Their philosophical approach to their business is to run themselves like a private–sector mortgage insurer, rather than a public–purpose financial institution. They should stop doing that. Their large profit means they are charging too much. CMHC should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Their policies make housing more expensive.
Why the government allows this remains a mystery. What say you Nate Erskine-Smith? As we face a declaration of economic war from the American administration, why is CMHC over-charging first-time home buyers?
Second, Missing Middle’s work has downplayed the role of investors in driving up prices. We at SCP have been on this issue for a while, and it seems obvious to us that if first-time home buyers are competing with investors looking for a safe place to park their funds, well, prices will go up and middle-class people will be priced out.
Investors are important for new residential development, but having investors buy existing homes drives up prices. This is true with respect to large residential real–estate investors as well as smaller ones.
We should disincentivize practices that treat real estate as an investment class. The U.K. has just increased its surcharge when you buy a second home, and in Singapore, there are graduated charges if you are buying a second or third home. In Canada we could do that. Dominic LeBlanc and Nate Erskine-Smith, what say you? As we face a full economic assault that will hit working and middle –class people hardest, why are we allowing investors to grow wealthier while families cannot afford a home?
“As we face a full economic assault that will hit working and middle-class people hardest, why are we allowing investors to grow wealthier while families cannot afford a home?“
And third, we need some research on the consolidation of various services in the residential real estate building sector. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that many of the input costs related to building housing are getting more expensive, beyond what should be expected if markets were working properly. There are lots of factors connected to price inflation, but it appears that prices are going up in part because of market consolidation, private equity roll-ups and a lack of real competition. Many services important to the price of residential housing in some communities are increasingly run like cartels.
We need research on how this lack of competition and oligopolistic behaviour is impacting the price of housing. What say you François-Philippe Champagne and the Competition Bureau? Will you look into this? One way to make life more affordable for Canadians is to have real local competition.
These are just three questions that I think merit more attention. As we face an economic attack from the U.S. administration, there are many other things we can be doing in housing, like financing our non-market sector and approaching housing as strategic industrial policy. Our exporters and manufacturers are looking for new buyers for their products and accelerated investments in housing can help.
I’m curious what Mike Moffat thinks about these issues. I think they need more attention.
There are lots of things in the world we can’t control, but we have to stop sabotaging ourselves on the things Canada can control, like the cost of housing.
Share with a friend
Related reading
From Guidelines to Action: Feedback on the Proposed Merger Enforcement Guidelines
The Competition Bureau's proposed Merger Enforcement Guidelines represent meaningful progress against trends towards corporate consolidation in Canada. In our formal feedback submission to the bureau, Social Capital Partners outlines that we strongly support the new guidelines. However, we believe that the operationalization of these guidelines will be the real test of their impact. Guidance documents shape expectations, but enforcement outcomes shape behaviour. Serial acquirers are sophisticated actors who model regulatory risk into their strategies. To succeed, the bureau must demonstrate visible capacity to track, analyze and challenge roll-up patterns that are driving up prices and sacrificing quality and service in key sectors.
A youth employment supplement could rebalance Canada’s generational divide | Policy Options
Canada is overdue for a broader debate on intergenerational fairness and how our taxes and benefits support—and exclude—different age groups. As Kiran Gill and Matthew Mendelsohn explain in Policy Options, we continue to live with programs designed by baby boomers to provide security to seniors, even if those seniors are well off. Meanwhile, young adults in our country face challenges entering the labour market, securing stable employment and saving to build some measure of economic security in the face of rising costs. They propose a policy designed to make the economy work for younger Canadians—a youth supplement to the existing Canada Workers Benefit. This youth employment supplement—aptly coined a YES!—could help rebuild financial security and allow younger adults to buy homes, finance education for themselves or their children and save for the future.
Sign the open letter | Make the Employee Ownership Trust incentive permanent
Employee Ownership Trusts (EOTs) offer a practical succession pathway that keeps businesses Canadian-owned, empowers employees to share in the value they help create and supports long-term investment in our communities. With the right policy support, employee ownership can be a strong, proven path forward for Canada’s economy. If this is something you support too, you are invited to read and sign Employee Ownership Canada’s national open letter.