Trudeau can’t afford more unaffordable housing

CHELSEA, QUE.—When it comes to re-election, newly-appointed federal housing minister Sean Fraser may hold the fate of the Trudeau government in his hands. (No pressure, Sean!) That is because, as of today at least, the Trudeau government’s greatest vulnerability with a restive, youthful constituency is the ongoing lack of affordable housing in most Canadian cities—and all its attendant consequences. These include growing numbers of homeless encampments; difficulty in staffing restaurants, construction sites and retail outlets in some cities because even moderate-wage earners can’t afford to live there; and, finally, those not-entirely-fictional young adults living unhappily in their parents’ basements. They’d be disinclined, one would think, to vote for any incumbent government, including Trudeau’s. This is the demographic being ardently—and, potentially, successfully—courted by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. Unlike some of his more quixotic campaigns, this one—addressing the despair of so many people at ever being able to afford a home, or even a reasonably priced apartment—resonates broadly. That doesn’t mean Poilievre has brilliant solutions to what is a damnably complex problem. But he has glib remedies, resounding bullet points, dramatic Twitter videos and a likeable (and adult) housing critic in Parry Sound-Muskoka MP Scott Aitchison. Their back-of-the-napkin fixes include withholding federal infrastructure funding from municipalities that won’t open up suburbs and pricier neighbourhoods to multi-unit housing. In Poilievre’s framing, cities that play ball and get housing built—over the loud objections of the already well-housed—will be rewarded with “bonuses” from his government, while those that don’t will be “fined”. Poilievre also said he will force municipalities to build highrises around new transit stations and sell off 15 per cent of surplus federal office buildings—“big, ugly and empty”—for conversion to housing. That could amount to 5,000 to 6,000 buildings and brownfield sites that are, in his view, ripe for redevelopment. (In reality, as some planners argue, renovating an old office building can be more expensive than removing it and building something new.) He also promises to cut the bureaucracy that delays building permits—how, he doesn’t say, since this is largely a municipal arena, but it is part of a piece of his war on “gatekeepers.” That some of those “gatekeepers” enforce safety, environmental requirements, building materials quality and traffic flow— fundamentals of sustainable development—is a nuance he skirts. That said, some of these measures could produce new housing, and some are not very different from Liberal proposals. But Poilievre’s more urgent ambition is to blame Justin Trudeau for everything that isn’t working, and to pit the under-housed against wealthy, older “elites” living in detached homes with lawns and gardens. Even pools. In fact, the housing crisis—which is unfolding in most major cities in developed countries—has many fathers (and mothers). They include municipal governments with exclusionary zoning, protecting great swaths of serviced, suburban land for single family homes (although Vancouver City Council is considering opening half of its single-family neighbourhoods to laneway houses, triplexes, and even simplexes.) Provinces—the overlords of cities—have also failed to use their muscle in recent decades to increase housing supply, often favouring urban sprawl over densification of existing neighbourhoods. And the federal government, a bit-player in housing constitutionally, has been largely missing in action since the Pierre Trudeau era. While the feds have no direct control over city zoning, urban planning, or cumbersome municipal approval processes, they can bankroll social housing of various types to address the most urgent needs, and encourage construction of affordable rentals with tax incentives. But, despite promises, blueprints, and many new acronyms, existing affordable housing efforts haven’t produced enough in the way of new units. That has allowed Poilievre to play his favourite role: champion of the little guy. Sometimes, however, his class warfare rhetoric backfires, as it did recently when the opposition leader described a modest home in Niagara Falls as an overpriced “shack," to the chagrin of the young woman renting the place. Poilievre issued a rare apology. Meanwhile, Aitchison, a former mayor of Huntsville, Ont., and real estate professional, saves his fire for NIMBYS, but, overall, takes a more thoughtful and compassionate approach than his boss. In his campaign for the Conservative leadership in April 2022, Aitchison endorsed, among other things, investing “in more affordable and social housing in partnership with home builders” concluding that “everyone deserves a safe bed to sleep in.” What we hear from Poilievre, by contrast, are harangues against provinces that provide safe injection sites for street-involved addicts. The new Liberal housing minister would no doubt concur with Aitchison on some points. But Fraser was mere hours into his new job before he criticized Poilievre for threatening to deny money to cities that don’t build housing, rather than “creating incentives to empower good actors to do more.” That is why the 39-year-old Nova Scotian was given the job—for his superior “comms” skills, an acknowledgement that, on the housing file, the Liberals are getting clobbered in social media by a sharper, more focused Conservative effort. Unfortunately for Fraser, however, he doesn’t have much of a counter-narrative to sell. In 2017, the Trudeau government introduced a national housing strategy, and has since supplemented and refined it with an $82-billion investment over 10 years. Sounds impressive, but the strategy amounts to a collection of niche programs for first-time buyers, municipalities, Indigenous communities, non-profits, rental and shelter projects ,and so on, (dog houses are not yet included). According to most housing experts—and growing homeless encampments, visible to all—it has had little impact, so far. Critics on the left complain that most money is directed to market housing and private developers, which has only succeeded in providing more overpriced housing. The grand strategy—originally welcomed as the feds' long-delayed return to the housing field—landed in a time of urgent need, increasing labour shortages, record immigration and soaring construction costs. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says we need to build 3.5 units beyond those currently under construction by 2030. Meanwhile, National Housing Strategy programs are dribbling out new units practically in the single digits. (And a one-time, $500 payment for low-income renters is not a sustainable solution.) The problem is hugely challenging and complicated, and the federal programs seem unnecessarily complex and underfunded. It would be better for the feds to focus their money on fully funded social housing, in the form of co-ops, subsidized rentals, special needs units on available federal land, or with interested non-profits. Let municipalities, provinces and the market meet the needs of the middle class. Of course, if you are spending way too much on rent, can’t even dream of buying a house, are tied to an expensive city by family and a job, you want a quick fix—or, the promise of a fix—not a long-winded analysis of the housing crisis—or, worse: a justification. Poilievre is offering quick fixes. Fraser has to do him one better: he has to show tangible, multiple and highly-visible fixes and he has to do it before the next election. The future of his government could depend on it. Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist who writes regularly for The Hill Times. The Hill Times