FINANCIAL POST COLUMN: Expensive Housing Here to Stay Unless Governments Change Policies

uto mark column screencap

The recent rise in interest rates has dampened demand for home sales in Canada — the hike was inevitable given how historically low rates have been, and that has taken some of the froth off housing prices. However, given how high home prices still are in Canada, a useful question to ask is what can governments do to reverse previous poor policy and permanently increase supply, which has been part of the core problem.

Recent price declines in some markets seem significant. Composite prices in greater Toronto have already dropped by 13 per cent since March and prices in Vancouver are down by 4.5 per cent. However, before millennials or anyone else in the market for a detached home, townhouse or condominium get too excited about a deal, consider that the composite price in Metro Vancouver is still over $1.2 million, while in Toronto it remains over $1.1 million. Those are far from bargain prices.

Those figures did not arrive at such elevated heights overnight. The long-term trend has been heading to unaffordable prices for decades. Demographia International has calculated the rise in Canadian housing costs back to the 1980s by dividing the median house price by gross median household income. It has then tagged the resulting number as affordable (3.0 and under); moderately unaffordable (3.1 to 4.0); seriously unaffordable (4.1 to 5.0); and severely unaffordable (5.1 and above).

To grasp just how expensive Canada has become for housing, in 1987 the house-price-to-income ratio for the entire country was just 3.0, i.e., affordable. By 2020, the median market score for Canada as a whole was double that, or 6.0 — severely unaffordable. Some markets, such as Vancouver and Toronto, are in the double digits of “severely unaffordable” when median prices are compared with incomes.

It’s clear that Canada has a housing affordability problem and likely will indefinitely even with slightly higher interest rates — that is, unless governments begin to address their own roles in making and keeping housing prices high.

On the demand side, immigration levels also contribute to higher prices, but that deserves a full analysis on its own given that the “right” immigration levels address labour supply needs and other issues. Thus, in a report for SecondStreet.org I looked at just the supply side of the problem, as provincial and local governments across the country and across the ideological spectrum could take action without waiting for measures from the federal government.

The problem of constrained supply is severe. As Scotiabank noted last year, Canada needs 1.8 million housing units to reach a balanced market. Now consider how government policy is preventing such a balance and moderate prices.

The first problem on the supply side is regulation and bureaucracy, including how quickly housing developments are approved, while the second factor is escalating fees and taxes.

For example, in 2020, the Canadian Home Builders Association (CHBA) noted that development approvals in Canada take an average of 1.5 to two years to obtain (and more in some cases) — an average of over 20 months for multiple applications, and an average of nearly 12 months for single applications.

As the CHBA also noted, for multiple-unit buildings, for every extra month the builder waits for approval, the average extra monthly cost is $351,500 for a low-rise project and $216,300 for a high-rise project.

Beyond the industry analysis, British Columbia’s NDP government’s 2021 report on housing, chaired by former party leader Joy MacPhail, also noted that there was indeed a problem with regulation and delays. The report urged governments to “clarify and speed up approval processes for the planning and construction of homes,” noting that, “The time needed to steer new housing projects from concept through to ground-breaking can take years” and that this delay “can cost tens of thousands of dollars per new unit …”

The other issue making housing pricier than it ought to be is taxes and fees. The B.C. report found that “some of these fees — notably community amenity contributions — can be unpredictable or inconsistent, causing significant uncertainty, raising costs and compromising supply.”

For its part, the federal government could raise the maximum allowable price for a GST rebate on a new home to $750,000 from the current $450,000, and provide a full rebate of the tax rather than a partial one. That policy change, in combination with the “tens of thousands” of dollars that the MacPhail report said could be saved by speedier approvals, would start to make housing at least slightly more affordable in Canada.

There’s no perfect, magic-bullet remedy to high housing prices, but reduced taxes and fees, plus long-term increased supply as a result of speedier approvals, would contribute to moderating prices.

Mark Milke is the Executive Director of the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy. He authored the policy brief How to Make Housing Affordable in Canada for SecondStreet.org.

This column was published by the Financial Post on August 16, 2022.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.