It makes sense for the federal government to include an interprovincial mobility clause when funding provincial housing. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 3, 2024.

OTTAWA—Half of the residents in Canada’s major cities are ready to move for more affordable living.

Thunder Bay, Ont., is the best destination if you are trying to reduce the cost of housing as a percentage of your monthly income.

According to a Royal LePage affordability study released last week, you can live in that city and pay only 22.2 per cent of your income for a mortgage.

The study polled Canadians living in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver asking whether they would be prepared to move for more affordable accommodation.

Some 54 per cent of Greater Montreal residents said yes, while 51 per cent in Greater Toronto and 45 per cent in Greater Vancouver were willing to move for cheaper accommodation.

Edmonton was the only large city that made the cut as one of the 15 most affordable living locations in the nation.

Not surprisingly, it also polled at the top when people were asked which of the 15 they would move to.

In my own family, my daughter made an affordability move from Toronto to Montreal earlier this year. She purchased a duplexed apartment in Verdun with a budget that probably would have gotten her a shoebox in Toronto.

And Montreal is not even included on the list of potential destinations for affordable housing.

But the reality is that the quality of life in a major urban centre like Montreal often trumps the simple issue of affordability.

I have family living in Thunder Bay, and it is a wonderful place if you enjoy the great outdoors with easy access to fishing, hunting, and hiking.

But if you are an urban type, this most affordable community is somewhat remote. For example, I once took a train trip from Toronto to Thunder Bay, and the excursion took 17 hours. The city is also 700 kilometres away from Winnipeg, which is the nearest community with a professional theatre company, dance group, and other attractions attached to living in major urban centres.

If urban life is important to you, the choice of the cheapest mortgage is not the only reason to make a move.

But the survey does show Canadians that there are options when it comes to housing affordability.

Too bad those options are not built into the country’s public policy framework.

With every housing agreement signed with individual provinces, there is absolutely no incentive to encourage people to cross provincial borders in search of affordable housing.

If anything, the larger the local population, the more funding is focussed on providing services to that population.

When Toronto lays claim to a population larger than most provinces, it is correct.

But it would make sense to encourage people to move out of the GTA in an effort to tackle the affordability issue.

Housing prices in nearby Hamilton have long been a magnet for Torontonians who want to be able to live in an urban centre without spending a million dollars.

The investment in rapid transit between communities also makes the affordability move painless as it includes the possibility of either remote work, or actually commuting to a job in Toronto if necessary.

Just last week the federal and Ontario governments finally signed an agreement which transfers $357-million into provincial coffers for housing projects.

The agreement had been stalled for months because of a dispute over what Ontario was actually spending on social housing, which the feds alleged was less than other provinces.

The new agreement includes an “action plan” that both governments are happy with, but municipal partners in housing are asking to “fundamentally re-think the way that community housing is funded in Ontario.”

That fundamental re-think should involve a deeper dive into portability for affordability.

If it is less expensive to live in Windsor, Ont., or Thunder Bay, as evidenced by the Royal LePage survey, why not encourage people to move to those locations?

A bonus system for municipal affordability would ensure that governments are investing in the communities that provide the greatest housing return.

Why not include interprovincial movement in that equation?

It is cheaper to live in St. John’s, N.L., so why not provide incentives for people who are prepared to take the risk and make that move?

Housing solutions involve thinking outside the box.

Either you get a condo box in Toronto, or more spacious, affordable accommodation elsewhere in Canada.

It makes sense for the federal government to include an interprovincial mobility clause when funding provincial housing.

Canadians should be encouraged to migrate to affordable cities.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 8, 2024.

OTTAWA–I woke up to a news item last week that said Liberals had experienced a big spike in national popularity while the Greens and the Bloc were on the uptick.

Hardly believable, but in the world of politics, you are on a roller coaster. And six months is about the time-frame for either a dip or rise in popularity.

Then I had a coffee and realized it was April Fool’s Day. I was the fool. Because for a brief second, I thought Liberals’ flagging fortunes had turned around.

Both the Liberal and Conservative leaders seem to be in campaign mode.

Whether it’s an orthodox synagogue in Montréal, or a rally in Newfoundland or British Columbia, Pierre Poilievre is everywhere. And on his ‘Axe the Tax’ campaign, he really seems to be enjoying himself.

Finally, it looks as though the prime minister is also moving into campaign mode.

In a series of pre-budget announcement, Justin Trudeau and some of his key ministers have peppered the country with funding and programs.

From children’s school lunch funding, to a renters’ bill of rights, to carbon pricing, the governing party has finally realized that in government, you can control the agenda.

And they are definitely shaping a narrative that could play in their favour in the next election.

Poilievre is focusing on individual pocketbook issues. By pushing his anti-tax view, he is sending the message that under a Poilievre government, there would be cuts in government spending that would end up in your wallet.

He may be on to something. As altruistic as we would like to think ourselves to be, Canadians usually vote for what is in their personal self-interest.

Up until last week, not too many Canadians actually knew that 80 per cent of the population will receive a carbon rebate which exceeds the additional cost of the pricing program.

The frenetic pace Poilievre was keeping climaxed on April 1 when the new pricing regime went into effect.

He pulled out all the stops, including engaging oil-producing provincial premiers in a fight to roll back the carbon price increase.

But by associating so closely with leaders like Danielle Smith and Doug Ford, who are not universally admired across the country, he may be digging himself a petroleum hole from which he cannot get out.

Smith was hard-pressed to explain why, on the same day she was trashing carbon pricing, her government was hiking Alberta’s gas tax by a total of 13 cents a litre. Her supporters defended the hike, saying the money would be used to build roads and infrastructure, not to reduce carbon emissions.

When you compare the building of roads to the fight against global warming, which is more critical to our survival?

The younger generation—or NexGen as they are euphemistically known—consider global warming the challenge of our times.

Poilievre has been successful in attracting young voters on the basis that his policies will make housing and daily essentials more affordable.

Just like Trudeau rode the marijuana wave to victory in his first election in 2015, Poilievre hopes to ride the affordability train.

But on global warming, he has been strangely silent. His communications people say that the Conservative plan to fight climate change will come out when an election is called. That will be too late. By then, his image as a petro-politician will have solidified.

That will help in Alberta, but he certainly won’t become prime minister on the basis of that province alone.

His anti-environmental positions do not play well in Quebec or British Columbia, both provinces which were critical in getting the Liberals over the line in the last election.

Because Poilievre’s political message has been so tightly identified with carbon pricing, it will be hard for him to build any credibility on global warming.

His axe will also be used to cut government spending. But where will he start? Will he cancel dental benefits, pharmacare, or $10-a-day childcare? Something has to go.

The Axe-the-Tax campaign has finally created an opening for Liberals to start talking about what they have achieved, and asking the pertinent question: what will Poilievre axe?

Thanks to their agreement with the New Democratic Party, the Liberals now have a year to aggressively sell its vision to Canadians. And that doesn’t involve an axe-the-tax.

With April 1 come and gone, if the sky doesn’t fall, Poilievre could be left looking like Chicken Little.

A campaign that promotes dental care, pharmacare, rental rights, and daycare sound a lot more interesting than one involving an axe.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.