Tag: immigration

Policy Born Out of Panic

April 26, 2024

It is astonishing how the federal and Ontario governments announced a fifteen billion dollar incentive to Honda to set up a car battery plant in Ontario yesterday while they encouraged the municipalities last week to eliminate the requirement for parking for multiple unit developments. So, the message is to make more cars but provide no parking! Let me describe what happened.

Camada’s three levels of government hastily introduced a cobbled together housing policy this month, a move that could have significant repercussions. Upon learning that our City Council, under pressure from senior government levels, is considering approving quadruplexes or four units on a residential lot and eliminating parking requirements for highrise or multiple-unit buildings, I couldn’t help but worry. These are just a couple of the many proposals aimed at addressing the severe housing shortage that has led to the emergence of tent cities in all metropolitan areas.

With all the recent announcements, the federal government promises to double housing starts for the next seven years from the current pace of 250,000 units per year, by pouring billions of dollars into municipal budgets, providing local city councils agree to change zoning codes, including the above two proposals.

While this could alleviate the housing shortage and provide more affordable housing options, it raises concerns about the quality of these new units and the impact on existing neighborhoods.

Yes, the recent surge in international migration created the housing shortage; statistics show that the Canadian fertility rate is way below the replacement rate, and the increase in population and the consequent surge in housing demand can be attributed directly and totally to immigration.

But wouldn’t it be more prudent for the federal government to address the demand for housing as well instead of focusing solely on the supply side? Would it not be faster and easier to restrict immigration in the short term than build housing that takes years to complete? A more balanced approach would be advisable in considering both supply and demand for housing.

A panic reaction is not a good incubator for developing thoughtful housing policy. For example, consider the proposal for building four housing units on a residential lot. A quarter-acre lot measures seventy by one hundred feet (excluding space for roads). Yes, one can build four units on such a lot; it could be two side by side units on the main level and the same upstairs, or one unit per floor in a four-storey building. It would be a dense development, especially considering the parking space for each unit.   But, oops! Are parking spots still required?

However, more recent developments have much smaller lot sizes; some are thirty-five by one hundred feet. To put four units in such a small lot would be a design challenge. And where would the parking be? On the neithborhood streets? As much as good public transit, which we do not have, may negate the need for cars, most individuals and families like to have a car to get around on weekends and at nights when public transit is sporadic at best.

In the suburbs, there are one-acre and larger lots where four units per residential lot are reasonably achievable, but would people desire it? They moved to the suburbs because they wanted bigger lots so why would they now build three additional units on their land? Not likely.

Although four units per residential lot is an attractive slogan, it behooves the government to specify what a “residential lot” means. For example, it would be helpful to identify a minimum lot size to utilize this concept fully.

While the first proposal for densification relates to the efficient use of an urban lot (four units on a lot), the second proposal to eliminate parking refers to cost; by not building garages, the government claims the cost savings would benefit renters/buyers. However, consider the potential impact of this idea on different demographic groups. For instance, families with children, the disabled or elderly individuals may still require parking spaces, and the lack of these amenities could disproportionately affect them.

Before believing government claims that eliminating parking spaces will reduce the cost to the buyer/renter, consider vacancy rates. With vacancy rates so low today that people immediately take up any vacant rental unit, why would developers not charge market rates even though their costs would be lower by not providing parking? And when people buy condominiums, they buy garage spaces in addition to the unit’s price. As a consequence, I do not see why multiple unit residential buildings with no parking would save money for renters/buyers.

To implement the no parking proposal, the City Council proposes to do away with the current policy of requiring parking as a ratio of the number of units in the building and let developers decide on the number of stalls provided based on market forces. While in some areas of the city, developers may choose to skimp on parking spaces, assuming that people could park on neighboring streets, it may not be the case downtown, where office towers dominate, and street parking is not available. I am concerned that not providing parking would exacerbate congestion on the streets and create a huge problem during the winter months when parking is prohibited on the streets for snow clearing.

What further concerns me and find astonishing is when I see that the two higher levels of government are actively pursuing car manufacturers to set up shop in Ontario.  They announced yesterday a multi-billion-dollar incentives package for Honda, after providing incentives for Volkswagen and Stellantis, last year. Is this not a huge contradiction: do not provide parking but encourage the manufacture of cars?

Quadruplexes on quarter-acre lots and highrise buildings without parking do not reflect what people want today; to me, it appears that governments are attempting to modify behavior to solve a housing shortage, without dealing with any of the basic issues that contributed to the problem – that is, an unprecedented increase in immigration levels, and the capacity of the country in both labor and supplies to accelerate any construction. Despite all good intentions and even beyond the questionable objectives of these ideas, the pace of housing construction cannot and will not double for the next few years due to the lack of skilled labor.

Awkward Facts

April 17, 2024

The Covid crisis brought to my attention the Canadian Government’s recent flood of announcements to address the ‘housing crisis.’ To contextualize this ”crisis,” I delved into statistics. I discovered that sixty-five percent of Canadians own their homes (and therefore experience no housing crisis), and the income-to-house price ratio has skyrocketed over the last decade. This has created significant hurdles for young people, making stepping onto the property ladder increasingly tricky.

However, the billions of dollars announced to encourage home construction seem overkill. The demand for housing, which many studies concluded resulted from the recent surge in international migration, may be reduced by government policy, limiting future immigration flows. Mortgage rates may also come down soon, alleviating the need to solve a “crisis.” However, throwing vast amounts of money at a sudden “crisis,” which has evolved recently, reminded me of the pandemic’s beginning. Let me describe.

The Canadian Minister of Procurement ordered 419 million Covid vaccines at the pandemic’s onset, costing nine billion dollars. The experience of Italy and New York State with Covid was a stark reminder of the potential devastation without vaccines. However, with a population of 38 million people in 2020, Canadians would receive ten vaccines each. The Public Health Agency of Canada recommended two doses for vaccination and boosters every six months. So, the vaccines purchased would suffice for five years for all Canadians.

As a result of publicizing the dangers of Covid, over 80 percent of the population raced to get the first two shots. Although the vaccines kept coming, and booster shots were widely available, people decided that two vaccines were sufficient, and fewer and fewer people took a third or fourth dose. By the time the sixth shot, the XBB.1.5 Omicron subvariant designed to shore up protection against the SARS-COV-2 descendants came about in late 2023, only fifteen percent of the population decided to receive the dose.

By late 2023, people considered Covid more of a nuisance than a dangerous sickness, similar to having a cold. With all the vaccines ordered but not used, the British Medical Journal called Canada one of the most vaccine-hoarding countries in the world. The Director General of the World Health Organization, in 2022, remarked that Canada was hoarding vaccines at the expense of poorer nations. Of the over 400 million vaccines contracted, only 105 million were used by December 2023 in Canada.

It’s disheartening to note that policymakers seemed to overlook the fact that vaccines have expiration dates. They also seemed to disregard the reality that the virus mutates, necessitating the development of updated vaccines to maintain effectiveness. As a result, millions of doses expired and were unusable   However, the contracts for the original orders still have to be honored. For instance, Canada still owes C$350 million to Novavax, one of the vaccine manufacturers, for vaccines ordered. 

So, was Canada successful in avoiding Covid? Can we put some metrics to success? The Canadian experience with Covid indicates that Canada fared well among the G7 countries in handling the pandemic, with less than a thousand deaths per million people, second best after Japan. However, we did spend a significant amount of money, and much of it was wasted. It is astounding that Canada used only 25 percent of the vaccines purchased. I wonder if we could have been more agile and intelligent in our decision-making, considering people’s willingness to receive periodic shots over the years and the expiry dates of the millions of vaccines ordered.

I also wonder if the Government has learned anything from throwing so much money at the Covid issue that could be applied to their new “housing crisis ” so that Canada can avoid throwing good money away with minimal results.

What is Canadian Culture

February 7, 2024

During a lively discussion with friends, I asked: what is Canadian culture? After a surprising period of thoughtful quiet, someone suggested that Canada has musicians, authors, and artists who combine to define Canadian culture. But I said that many of these have made their career in the US. For example, Celine Dion, Joni Mitchell, and The Guess Who (Burton Cummings) have become famous south of the border. When it comes to writers, Rohinton Mistry, although a Canadian author, wrote about India, Michael Ondaatje, another Canadian author, wrote about World War II (The English Patient), and Margaret Atwood’s novels have also enjoyed wide popularity south of the border. So, why would we call them examples of Canadian culture? What is Canadian about their work, except for their citizenship?

I brought up our difficulty when visiting friends and family in Europe; what should we take as gifts that would appear Canadian? We have often taken coasters and shawls with native Canadian themes but not much else. We could not think of other items. Canadian native themes represent a small portion of the Canadian art fabric, although considered very Canadian abroad.

When I think of Canadian culture, the McKenzie Brothers come to mind; Bob and Doug, acting as two dimwitted brothers, swilled beer, and every second word coming out of their mouths was “have another beer” and “eh,” on their popular show called The Great White North. There is something about drinking beer that is Canadian, whether in a ballpark or at hockey arenas during games. Bob and Doug have certainly become Canadian favorites, and I would label their popularity as part of Canadian culture.

Another part of Canadian culture is hockey. It is widely popular, and most children start playing when they are big enough to lace up a pair of skates. One of the most popular hockey commentators on “Hockey Night Canada” was Don Cherry, whose flamboyant suits and analyses of hockey games charmed many Canadian homes.  

Rick Mercer is a Canadian icon whose show was on air for over twenty years. His humor and rants pleased Canadians. His travels in the US interviewing famous people and asking dumb questions to embarrass interviewees were enormously popular in Canada (including one with then-presidential candidate Bush – Rick asked Bush about Canadian Prime Minister “Jean Poutine”). I appreciated his humor but did not like the idea of embarrassing people. But apparently, his wit pleased Canadians, which tells me something about Canadian character.

Founded by the ex-hockey player Tim Horton, the coffee shop chain of his name has become a Canadian institution. Although many Starbucks, Second Cups, and other coffee shops exist, Canadians gravitate to a local Tim Horton for their morning fix. I would call the chain part of our Canadian culture today.

We also enjoy the unique throat singing by Inuit people. In Canada, you hear throat singing on national holidays. I would call it a part of the Canadian cultural mosaic.

So, you may ask: what is culture? I am not an expert on this subject, but to me, it is a pattern of behavior of people living on a usually contiguous piece of geography with common traditions acquired over generations vis-a-vis work, diet, clothing, social interaction, language, religion, likes, and dislikes. For example, think of the French culture of Quebec, their joie-de-vivre, their history with les habitants (the original settlers from France in what is now Quebec), their love of hockey, and their language. And do not forget their food: poutine, tourtiere, feve au lards.

What spawned the discussion on Canadian culture was whether we are losing it. Whether the influx of immigrants, refugees, and the vast numbers of foreign students dilute Canadian culture, and whether the Prime Minister, advocating the concept of the “trans-national state,” supersedes traditional Canadian culture.

While the US embraced the “melting pot” concept for their newcomers, Canada favored “multi-culturalism.” We love the different cultures immigrants bring with them, their ethnic restaurants, and their ethnic community centers, and we support them financially to celebrate their national holidays. We encourage foreign cultures to thrive in Canada; we celebrate them on July 1 each year, Canada’s birthday. The more we do this, the more we dilute Canadian culture with foreign cultures. We forget who we are and what we stand for, except for Canadian society’s equity, diversity, and inclusion slogan.

Let me describe a day when I met three newcomers to Canada that made me think about their knowledge of Canada. A cheerful young fellow took my passport pictures at a pharmacy. Arriving six months ago from Sri Lanka, he has not secured a job in his field, civil engineering. Nobody in his home country told him during his application process he might need to requalify in Canada to work as an engineer. And so, he worked as a cashier and passport photographer at the pharmacy. Hoping for a better future, he has already rented an apartment to welcome his wife and two-year-old child in two months.

The fellow sitting beside me waiting to get his social insurance card at a Canadian service center (I  was there to renew my passport) came from Zimbabwe two months ago. As a pharmacist, he already has a job and awaits his family’s arrival in a few months. He told me he learned how to dress for the cold in Canada in January. He informed me he would stay for twenty years and then return home. He may change his mind in the next twenty years, and I am sure he will learn a lot about Canada that may attract him to stay.

The agent who did the paperwork to renew my passport was born in France to African parents. Bilingual and with a federal government job, he may be Canadianized to a degree, but I wondered how he feels as a black bilingual person in English-speaking Ontario.

These are just three examples of Canadian newcomers I met one day, and I wondered what they knew about Canadian culture. They will undoubtedly learn. Two have experienced the cold Canadian winter for the first time, which involves tuques, mukluks, down-filled gloves, and parkas. Years ago, I worked at the federal immigration department when a program existed with funding to assist immigrants in adjusting to Canadian life. The program does not exist anymore.

Personally, camping in the wilderness, canoeing, and picking wild blueberries on land recently devastated by forest fire, with bears around, is part of Canada. Cottaging around the lakes in Ontario, listening to the buzz of the chainsaw and the hammer sound, is also typical of Canadian culture. Unless we provide time and opportunity for our newcomers to learn to live in our country and engage in activities that have become traditions in Canada, I am afraid that we’ll gradually lose parts of our cultural identity.

Forty-six percent of Toronto is foreign-born. And twenty-three percent of Canada is foreign-born. How can we not lose part of who we are with these numbers? But immigrants are welcome in Canada; immigrants built this country. It could be that our success with immigrants will cause our changing culture.

My Rant for Today: Immigration Overload?

January 13, 2024

Driving to have coffee with my friend at Timmies, I listened to the daily talk show with a panel on immigration. One said the Canadian public is sympathetic to (and has an enviable record), welcoming immigrants. Based on that attitude and arguing that the economy needs immigrants for its continued growth, the government doubled immigration targets to the 500,000 range. In addition, another million people arrive in Canada annually as foreign students and temporary workers, many of these becoming permanent residents over time.

The combination of immigration and temporary workers and foreign students have coalesced into a momentous problem in Canada, resulting in an acute shortage of housing and a precipitous decline in healthcare (lack of nurses, doctors, unacceptable emergency department waiting times). Without question, the huge number of recent immigrants, foreign students and temporary workers are a major contributing factor to these problems. 

Up until a few years ago, with half the number of arrivals into Canada compared to the recent year, assimilation into Canadian society had occurred seamlessly without impacting housing and healthcare. Services provided paralleled demand. (In fact, it has just been revealed that the Canadian cabinet minister responsible for immigration was warned two years ago that we were facing a housing crunch, even before immigration levels were increased this past year!  This warning was ignored for political purposes!)

Now, Canadians are becoming aware of what the massively increased number of newcomers has wrought, and anecdotal evidence points to a shrinking welcome mat.

One panelist on the talk show said that we need immigrants for our economy to grow. OK. How many do we need? I’m not too fond of loose talk. Provide some metrics. Arguments with no evidence to back them up are useless. The bottom line is: how many immigrants, foreign students and temporary workers do we need for the economy?

People with skills required in Canada would be a great addition to the economy, but how many immigrants are skilled in occupations we need?  We are told that we need them for house construction; however, we are also told that only about 5% of immigrants work in the housing industry….

I’d like to know how many of the half million immigrants we allow to enter Canada qualify for the needed skilled categories. Equally importantly, how many of these needed people would be allowed to practice their trade in Canada without certification (medical licensing, trade licensing)? And how long would it take to get their licenses to be productive in Canada?

Without data to back up the justifications for even more immigrants, we, the Canadian public, are left with only anecdotal information and our own experiences of worsening health care access, inability to find family doctors, long wait times for emergency care and rapidly increasing housing and rents which all will translate into reversing Canadians’ goodwill towards immigration.

Are We Panicking About Housing?

November 27, 2023

Current headline news bombards us with titles like: “housing shortage”, “unaffordable housing”, and “people die on the streets for lack of housing”. These housing-related issues have materialized since 2015; we did not have these topics at that time.

However, all of these headlines spawn questions. For example, what is affordable housing? One metric the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC, the Canadian mortgage insurance company) uses is that no more than forty percent of after-tax family income should be used for housing. But does this metric apply today?

The median family income in Ottawa is just over $100,000 today, and the average house price is slightly over $600,000. The minimum downpayment is five percent for the first half million dollars, ten percent for the next half million, which translates into $35,000 for the average house in Ottawa. So, with this downpayment one needs a mortgage of $565,000 that would cost today circa $4.000 per month. The annual cost, $48,000, would therefore be over forty percent of the annual income of the average Ottawa family income. Which means housing is, in fact, unaffordable, unless one has a larger downpayment to reduce the monthly mortgage payment.

One way to look at housing issues is to identify factors creating demand for, and supply of, housing. Either decreasing demand, increasing the supply of housing, or doing both, would alleviate the current housing problem.

The major factors on the demand side are immigration and the entry of foreign students. Canada let in 430,000 immigrants and 550,000 foreign students in 2022. All of the housing demand can be attributed to these two classes of newcomers to Canada: there are 424 housing units per 1000 people in Canada, so the close to one million newcomers alone needed 400,000 units in 2022 when Canada builds only 250,000 units per annum (Census and CMHC statistics).

While the last two classes of newcomers are beneficial to Canada, they create a huge stress on the housing markets. They are beneficial in that Canadian fertility rates are below replacement rate, hence the rationale for increased immigration. Similarly, Canada is short of skilled construction workers, and therefore welcomes immigrants with such skills. And foreign students pay two or three times the university fees Canadian students pay and therefore contribute to the universities’ bottom line. But we must balance our priorities and perhaps providing housing is more important today than other objectives.

Most of the supply issues can be attributed to the shortage of skilled workers and the lack of land for development. Land is especially a major issue in some of our large cities. Vancouver is surrounded by water and mountains. Toronto’s expansion is limited on one side by water.

Densification has become the key word today to accommodate the increasing population. Densification requires rezoning by municipalities, that takes years. And vacant land development, where available, also takes years for approval.

Are there any solutions? On the demand side, the federal government could reduce the flow of immigration and the intake of foreign students to alleviate demand and pressure on housing. And municipalities could accelerate the approval process to increase the supply of housing.

The two levels of government, working in tandem, could alleviate the housing problem. However, both initiatives would also create negative consequences; Canada needs skilled people and universities favor foreign students. And an acceleration of municipal approvals may weaken environmental reviews and public engagement – both important review elements in the development process and expected by Canadians.  

The bottom line is that increased coordination between the different levels of government would go a long way to streamline the process of welcoming immigrants and foreign students entering Canada by making sure that housing is available.

The danger I see is that a panicky response today encouraging a hugely accelerated house construction program could result in an oversupply of housing in the next few years during which the federal government may change its priorities and reduce targets for immigration and the entry of foreign students.