Provinces may not like this budget, claiming encroachment into provincial jurisdiction. But with the municipalities on side, the federal government should be able to start delivering on a national housing strategy.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 11, 2022.

The federal budget’s $10-billion housing announcement should be nicknamed Back to the Future.

Most Canadians may be too young to remember the time more than three decades ago when the federal government was solely responsible for housing.

In the post-war period, the national housing drive spawned affordable housing for returning veterans which still stands today. The federal government funded housing for low-income families and seniors at a reduced rate, reflecting their income.

Canada was considered an innovator in the housing field. That progress ended in 1986, when the federal government devolved social housing responsibilities to the provinces.

With the exception of cooperative housing, which remained federal because of a successful co-op lobby, every other housing program was downloaded.

Unconditional cash transfers accompanied the transfer agreements, designed to finance housing initiatives that never materialized.

Even national Indigenous housing initiatives in urban centres were downloaded, with disastrous results in most instances.

Last January, the Ontario government announced a $10-million Indigenous housing investment. The urban-based Ontario Indigenous population is almost 800,000.

With that size of population, and that paltry investment, it is easy to see why the majority of urban aboriginal people live in substandard housing.

The country is still feeling the pain from a decision made years ago that took the federal government out of the housing market.

Justin Trudeau’s government was the first one to promise federal re-entry into social housing during the Sunny Days campaign of 2015. And this budget finally provides the financing to deliver on that promise.

While the two-year ban on foreign ownership is largely a symbolic measure promised during the last election, it will not dampen the speculative real estate market in large cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

Foreign buyers usually have connections in the country, making it fairly simple to bypass this anti-speculation measure.

The budget does provide an opportunity to explore new and innovative housing models. There is no reason why Indigenous urban housing cannot be funded directly through a national Indigenous organization.

The government’s decision to help municipalities navigate the challenges of the building permit system also has serious long-term potential to improve housing stock.

Instead of simply handing a cheque to each province, the federal government will be engaged with local governments, offering the tools they need to get affordable housing into the marketplace in a timely fashion.

It may also help tackle the problem of the pricing differential between large urban centres and smaller communities.

Federal building incentives targeted to assist low-income communities make a lot more sense than simply providing the same amount of money to every project.

Sherbrooke in Quebec, and Windsor in Ontario are currently the cities with the poorest residents in the country.

They obviously need more help than West Vancouver, Westmount, or Rosedale when the government is subsidizing the housing supply side.

By working directly with municipalities, the federal government will also be able to utilize knowledge transfer between provinces in a way that makes sense for new housing models.

The devil is obviously in the details. But one thing is certain: the Liberal government is making good on a campaign promise to invest in housing. This direct investment will go a long way to filling the hole created when the federal government vacated the housing field back in 1986.

The housing crisis is a good example of how a national government can help municipalities and provinces in the pursuit of knowledge transfer.

An innovative housing solution in New Brunswick could easily provide inspiration to northern Ontario. Both are areas with rural and remote communities largely dependent on natural resources.

They can learn more from each other than they could from Toronto or Fredericton.

A federal housing strategy that works directly with municipalities opens the door to a national solution. That does not mean one size fits all.

But it does mean that in the mobile world in which we live, Canadians will finally have a mobile housing platform wherever they reside.

Provinces may not like this budget, claiming encroachment into provincial jurisdiction. But with the municipalities on side, the federal government should be able to start delivering on a national housing strategy.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities got its first direct federal investment in greenhouse gas reductions 20 years ago, it was a $20-million baby step.

That program is now worth more than one billion dollars and is, arguably, the largest driver of municipal greenhouse gas reductions in Canada.

With this budget, the same will soon be happening for housing.

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

All budget positioning will be the precursor to a likely election and who blinks first may well end up the loser.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 29, 2021.

Budget preparation is not just about the spending priorities of the government.

It is also about crafting a plan that would be election-ready should the opposition parties decide to defeat the government.

In the upcoming budget, the government will be working to try and trap the opposition, while the other parties will be trying to highlight their priorities.

In particular, attention will be paid to the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois, because if they both vote with the government, there will be no election.

Obviously, with the current polling numbers in their favour, the Liberals would love to trigger a spring election. But they also do not want to appear as though they are forcing people to the polls in the middle of a pandemic.

By throwing a couple of items in the budget that cannot be supported by the NDP or the Bloc, the Liberals could manoeuvre both parties into a corner.

For example, the government would really like to strengthen national cooperation on long-term care facilities, when operations are provincial jurisdiction.

During the pandemic, the number of people who died in long-term care facilities varied widely from province to province, begging the question why?

And the only way to answer that question is to have some sort of national facilities oversight.

The Bloc could never support such a move and might be forced to vote against the budget in principle.

Conversely, the New Democrats support national intervention in the homecare system. Not only do they support national intervention, but they are also opposed to any private-sector participation in the long-term care facilities management systems.

By reinforcing national standards and at the same time, guaranteeing a private sector role in chronic care facilities management, the government could corner the New Democrats on the budget.

On the political side, every minister and every Member of Parliament is lining up to secure their regional and ministerial budget priorities.

In a lengthy document like the budget, small items can be buried that mean a lot to a region.

I remember having a leadership discussion with a former Liberal MP, who told me that he had promised his support to Paul Martin if the finance minister delivered road infrastructure money to his riding. Those monies appeared in the next budget.

The finance minister has significant leeway to include line items that might not stir up a lot of attention but can yield political results.

In my time in cabinet, each minister would draw up a list of their priorities and that would be whittled down and submitted to a written vote in cabinet.

The votes were non-binding, but they did send a message to the minister and the prime minister about priorities around the table.

In one budget, my priority was funding for the Canadian War Museum, and I unleashed a team of popular veterans including former minister Barney Danson to lobby all my colleagues.

He was so effective, and so persistent, that the War Museum funding topped all other ministerial priorities in that budgetary process.

In the end, the official opposition Conservatives may have to swallow themselves whole and vote in favour of the budget, even if it reinforces the Supreme Court’s decision on March 25 affirming the odious carbon tax.

It wouldn’t be the first time a government falls over the question of taxation of gasoline.

Back in 1979, then finance minister John Crosbie introduced an 18-cent-a-gallon gas tax, figuring there was no way the Liberals would defeat him as they had just emerged form a huge election defeat.

Their leader Pierre Trudeau had already announced his plan to step down. However, when the budget was defeated and the Liberals were leaderless, Trudeau agreed to step back into the fray and ended up returning to majority government.

Crosbie’s budget gamble was based on the fact that the Liberals would not topple the government, and he wasn’t able to deliver the numbers for his government to survive. Instead, prime minister Joe Clark lost his job after only 10 months in office.

Budgets can make or break governments. And they can also do the same for all party leaders.

By supporting the budget, the NDP and the Bloc run the risk of throwing their lot in with the governing party.

That allows the Conservatives to position themselves as the only real opposition to the Liberals.

All budget positioning will be the precursor to a likely election.

Who blinks first may well end up the loser.

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