Housing's on Fire, and the Election's Just the Gas Can
The Contributors Corner , where Michael Succurro from Spark Financial and I shed a spotlight on topics that could impact your portfolios and build a bridge between unsuspected sectors.
If you're a Canadian hoping to own a home—or just curious whether that dream's already torched—you might want to look past the usual campaign slogans and into the tangled mess of real estate economics unraveling across the country.
Let's not sugarcoat this: Home prices have decoupled from reality. The average house in Canada is now north of $700,000, and if you're eyeing anything in Toronto or Vancouver, you'd better be prepared to shell out well over a million. But here's the kicker: wages didn't get the memo. And in places like Vancouver, renters are now entering bidding wars just for a roof over their heads.
The great Canadian housing crunch isn't just a social issue anymore. It's a full-blown capital markets story—and with the federal election looming, housing is the matchstick both major parties are playing with.
Voters are being hit with polar visions of the fix. The Conservatives are going full throttle on deregulation—cutting red tape, pressuring municipalities, and sweet-talking private developers to bring supply online faster. The Liberals are running a different playbook: national programs, rent-to-own incentives, and social housing as the new frontier.
But here's the million-dollar question for voters—and investors: Can either side realistically cool the market without first solving the bottlenecks choking the system?
Because unless we unlock supply and skilled labour now, no policy promise matters. CMHC says we'll need 3.5 million new homes by 2030. Not want— need . That's a big number, and we're nowhere close. Permits take years, labour is scarce, and the cost of materials is still punching homeowners in the gut.
Builders are bailing mid-project, converting unsold units into rentals. Courts are so jammed it's practically impossible to enforce contracts when buyers walk away. It's chaos behind the drywall—and this election could determine whether we deal with it or delay until the next crash.
Foreign investment's still being treated like the villain in a bad movie, but it's far from the root of the problem. Yes, nobody liked the optics of an offshore buyer scooping up entire condo floors. But turning off the tap of global capital didn't flood the market with affordable homes—it just dried up another funding source. The ban was political red meat, not structural reform.
Meanwhile, campaign promises around mortgage rules sound like lifelines—but could become anchors. Longer amortizations, easier borrowing, loosened stress tests… they all sound great until you realize we've been here before. Lowering the bar for entry without upping supply only drives prices higher.
And Canada's still clinging to outdated mortgage structures. Five-year terms dominate, locking borrowers into cyclical shocks. South of the border? Thirty-year fixed rates are the norm. That's why American homeowners who locked in during Covid aren't sweating today's rates—while Canadians brace for a financial gut-punch on renewal.
The housing crisis is also splintering by region. Affordability isn't just dying in Toronto and Vancouver anymore—it's flatlining in suburbs, exurbs, and rural communities. And don't even start on the lack of Indigenous housing infrastructure or the gaps facing Atlantic Canada and the North. Campaign platforms talk a big game, but none of it sticks unless policy adapts to Canada's diverse, decentralized housing landscape.
That's the heart of this election. Not just 'Who's going to win?' but 'What kind of housing future are we actually voting for?' Will it be a nation that builds fast and frees up markets? Or one that doubles down on subsidies and strategies that look great in headlines but flop on the ground?
Whether you're a homeowner, investor, renter, or real estate junkie, this isn't just about party politics—it's about portfolio impact. And what comes next could determine whether Gen Z ever owns a home or if Canada doubles down on becoming a nation of permanent renters.
Housing isn't just an issue anymore. It's the issue. And your vote? It might just be the only affordable investment left in this market.
This episode is a must-listen for anyone tracking the intersection of real estate, investing, and the upcoming federal election.
🎧 Listen now to find out why housing is the ballot-box issue of 2025—and how the outcome could reshape not just policy, but the very foundation of wealth creation in Canada.
To stay up-to-date on all of your market news head to stockhouse.com
Join the discussion: Find out what everybody's saying check out the rest of Stockhouse's stock forums and message boards.
The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. For full disclaimer information, please click here
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
30 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
EDITORIAL: Federal bureaucracy is out of control
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during a press conference after a Cabinet meeting to discuss both trade negotiations with the US and the situation in the Middle East, at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada on July 30, 2025. Photo by DAVE CHAN / AFP via Getty Images If Prime Minister Mark Carney is going to meet his election promise of holding the annual increase in the cost of running the federal government to less than 2% annually, he's going to have to do a lot better than his election pledge of 'capping, not cutting' the size of the federal public service. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Capping the size of the federal bureaucracy would mean endorsing the record of his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, who increased those costs by almost 9% annually during his nearly decade in power. The number of civil servants hired during that period grew by 98,986 to 357,965. That was a 38% increase — more than triple the growth rate of Canada's population during the same period — accompanied by a 72.9% hike in the total federal payroll to $69.5 billion last year compared to $40.2 billion in 2016-17. While some of the increase was due to the pandemic, that was five years ago and the federal bureaucracy continued to increase every year after that, from 319,601 in 2020 to 357,965 at the end of the Trudeau era. During that same period, according to parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux, the cost of hiring outside consultants more than doubled to $21.4 billion from $10.4 billion. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Read More A recent Leger survey conducted for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation found that more than half of Canadians — 54% — want the federal bureaucracy cut, compared to only 4% who want it increased. It also found that despite the explosive growth in the federal bureaucracy, half of those surveyed said the quality of federal government services has deteriorated since 2016, with only 11% saying it had improved. A 2023 report by the parliamentary budget officer found that 'less than 50% of (performance) targets' set by government departments 'are consistently met within the same year.' While Carney recently instructed most federal departments to produce plans to cut their program spending by 15% by the 2028-29 fiscal year, his election platform declared 'federal workers deliver essential services to Canadians and are critical to helping Canada meet this moment of crisis,' referring to the ongoing trade war with the U.S. So we won't know until his first budget whether he's serious about cutting the federal bureaucracy or whether it was just political rhetoric to get elected. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Toronto Blue Jays Opinion Toronto & GTA Toronto Blue Jays Toronto Blue Jays
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
Here's what Canada's effective U.S. tariff rate might look like after carve-outs
Published Aug 12, 2025 • 3 minute read The Canadian flag flies near the Ambassador Bridge at the Canada-U.S. border crossing in Windsor, Ont., on Saturday, March 21, 2020. Photo by Rob Gurdebeke / THE CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA — When you peel back the many layers of tariffs and exemptions imposed by the United States, the effective tariff rate on Canada looks much lower than the headline figures suggest, some economists say. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account RBC senior economist Claire Fan said in an interview that the effective tariff rate is an average of the import duties paid on goods heading to the United States that accounts for exemptions tied to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) on trade. While U.S. President Donald Trump ramped up blanket tariffs on Canada to 35% at the start of the month, that move maintained an exemption for goods compliant with the CUSMA. RBC estimates the effective tariff rate on Canadian goods is closer to 6% today. BMO's calculations from the start of the month place that figure a little higher, at around 7%. Read More Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The Bank of Canada said in late July — before Trump's latest escalation — that it estimated the effective U.S. tariff rate was around 5%, up from almost nothing at the start of the year. RBC's calculation is based on export volume data from 2024. Other sets of data offer slightly different measures of the tariff strain facing Canadian businesses. Fan said that, according to data published by the U.S. Census Bureau, Canada's effective tariff rate was roughly 2.4% in June, before the latest wave of higher tariffs came into effect. That figure captures the actual duties paid at the Canada-U.S. border, she said, and may fall short because of delays in reporting and general confusion over tariff levels among businesses. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'It's not surprising that there's a certain amount of disarray at customs,' she said. The effective tariff rate could also be lower in practice as U.S. businesses shift away from importing Canadian goods that carry the highest levels of tariffs, Fan said. RECOMMENDED VIDEO While the effective tariff rate offers a simple explanation for the total level of U.S. tariffs facing Canada, Fan warned that it can underestimate the on-the-ground impact. 'It's not the best gauge of the severity of tariffs, but it's one of the only ones that we have, unfortunately,' she said. CUSMA compliance does not broadly exempt Canadian goods from sector-specific tariffs like those levied under Section 232 of U.S. trade legislation. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Ongoing U.S. tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminum, for example, will have an outsized impact on those sectors going forward, Fan said. At roughly 6%, Canada's effective tariff rate is well below the cumulative rate facing the United States' other trading partners right now, which RBC pegs at around 15% to 17%. 'That's the key point right there, which is why we're still one of the countries that's facing the least amount of U.S. tariffs right now,' Fan said. It's not fully clear to economists how much of the Canadian goods entering the United States are tariff-free under CUSMA. The Bank of Canada said in its monetary policy report in late July that it assumes Canadian businesses will collectively achieve CUSMA compliance on 95% of non-energy goods under a scenario that sees the tariff situation hold steady over the coming three years. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The central bank doesn't assume perfect compliance, since some businesses might not want to go through the administrative burden of securing a carve-out. But Fan said the CUSMA exemption is the critical element giving Canadian exporters a 'competitive advantage' over other highly tariffed economies. Oxford Economics' lead economist Adam Slater said in a report issued Monday that, despite tremendous uncertainty tied to disruption of trade with the United States, Canada and Mexico may extract some benefit as long as CUSMA remains active. That trade agreement is up for renegotiation in 2026. Based on U.S. Census Bureau data from June, Oxford calculates the effect tariff rate for China at 35%, Japan at 15% and the United Kingdom at 8%. The firm suggests that — at 2.5% — Canada's effective tariff rate is a bit higher than RBC's estimate based on the U.S. Census Bureau data, while Mexico's effective tariff rate is estimated at 4%. 'If the relatively low tariffs apparently being paid on imports from Mexico and Canada persist, these two economies could pick up some benefits from shifts in supply chains, although uncertainties over the endgame for tariffs and the future of the (CUSMA) deal will be near-term drags,' Slater wrote. Opinion Toronto Blue Jays Toronto & GTA Canada Toronto Blue Jays
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Opinion: A treaty beats a handshake
After what, for now, has been the most tumultuous month in Canada-U.S. trade relations, Canada emerges in a unique place among its G7 counterparts. We are the only G7 country without a new Trump trade deal. We are the only G7 member that is still retaliating with reciprocal tariffs against U.S. exports. And we have the lowest average tariff rate on our exports to the U.S. — by a long shot. How can this be? At approximately six per cent, the average tariff rate applied to Canadian goods is roughly one-third of the rate agreed to by the European Union and Japan and one-half of the U.K rate in their recent handshake trade deals with the Trump administration. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Amidst the confusion, the answer is clear. The rules-based trade framework embodied in the Canada-U.S. Mexico agreement (CUSMA) and its free trade predecessors (NAFTA, Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement) has, for now, held. Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Canada's inability to reach a bilateral deal with the U.S. last month was not the 10 per cent tariff bump on CUSMA non-compliant exports. It was the fact that Canada's negotiators did not find out until the very last minute that the CUSMA framework had survived President Trump's Sharpie in signing his July 31 executive order on Canada. In what is being called the 'CUSMA carve-out,' up to 95 per cent of Canada's non-energy exports face free or very low-tariff access to the U.S. market as long as they comply with CUSMA rules. There is a lot of confusion around CUSMA-compliant estimates at the moment, with some commentators saying the number is lower and others saying it might, in fact, go higher. The key variable at play here are CUSMA's rules-of-origin provisions. In a complicated set of rules, CUSMA accords duty-free status to exports that can demonstrate at least a majority of their content originates from one or more of the three CUSMA partners. However, compliance with these rules requires extensive paperwork and reporting. A year ago, some Canadian exporters of, say, widgets considered the expenses of complying with CUSMA's widget rules of origin to be greater than the cost of absorbing the minimal U.S. widget tariff applied to other countries shipping widgets to the U.S. This tariff, known in WTO terms as the most favoured nation rate, was on average less than two per cent for exports to the U.S. Now that this average tariff has soared to 35 per cent for Canadian widgets, exporters are reportedly scrambling to get inside the CUSMA-compliant tent to secure the duty-free access they had foregone before. The CUSMA carveout does not apply to extraordinary Trump tariff levies on key sectors of Canada's exports including automobiles (25 per cent on non-U.S. content) and steel, aluminum and copper (all at 50 per cent). Nor does it have bearing on the ever-growing levies on our softwood lumber exports which, through a process initiated under the Biden administration, is on track to face tariffs in the range of 35 per cent by the end of this year. In the topsy-turvy world of U.S. trade deals, several countries have agreed to accept tariffs at much higher levels with fewer carveouts and some extraordinary commitments. For example, at the end of July, the EU agreed to suspend over 93 million euros of retaliatory tariffs against U.S. imports in return for accepting a tariff of up to 15 per cent on its exports to the U.S. (The previous average rate had been 1.2 per cent). In addition, the EU has also agreed to buy an additional $750 billion in U.S. energy products over the next three years and make $600 billion in investments in 'various U.S. sectors' by 2029. These undertakings have been made with a handshake without any indication if the EU intends to press European enterprises that would actually be doing the business to meet these commitments. Several other handshake deals contain similar commitments — such as the U.S.'s deals with Japan ($550 billion US in investment commitments) and the Republic of Korea ($350 billion USD in investment commitments and $100 billion USD purchase of U.S. natural gas). So far, Canada has made no such commitments. Amidst the chaos of tariff changes and industry trade adjustment packages, it's sometimes hard to see Canada's CUSMA advantage. However, the advantage is real and is, for now, holding. CUSMA is a formal trade agreement not a handshake. The agreement, which came into effect in 2020, was the result of a negotiation initiated in President Trump's first term to replace NAFTA, which he had called 'the worst trade deal in history' We should be constantly reminding him that CUSMA is his agreement — the 'Art of the Deal' magician at the top of his game. Importantly, CUSMA was approved into law by the U.S. Congress in. As such, it cannot be simply torn up by a U.S. President in a foul mood — for now, at least. This shifts the focus to CUSMA's renewal, which is scheduled for a review in July 2026. At that time, the parties may recommend revisions to the agreement which, if agreed, would extend the agreement by another 10 years. If, however, any party wishes to withdraw from CUSMA they need only provide six months notice Despite being the author of the agreement, it's hard to believe that Mr. Trump will be in the mood to accept a few tweaks here and there as he arguably did in the conversion of NAFTA to CUSMA. Moreover, we are already hearing a slow and steady drumbeat that CUSMA renewal talks will be advanced — perhaps as early as the end of this year. What is apparent is that trade with our largest trading partner will be framed in the future by more complicated rules and restrictions. In addition to some tariffs, we can expect tighter rules-of-origin and more quantitative restrictions on our exports to the U.S., making trade more managed than free. The era of relatively friction-free trade and just-in-time supply lines is, for now, on a death watch. It is imperative that CUSMA can adapt to this new reality. Canada's trade negotiators will need to demonstrate a greater degree of creativity and resilience than has been needed in the ancient normal times. At the same time, we need to aggressively building a new trade profile that is more diversified and less dependent on our isolationist America First neighbour. CUSMA is Canada's most important economic agreement delivering significant benefits for an open economy such as ours. Over almost four decades of free trade, our exports to the U.S. have grown to constitute a full quarter of Canada's GDP. No small share. The world is changing rapidly and Canada needs CUSMA to safely evolve with it. We need agreed rules and commitments that can govern what will still be our largest trade relationship for a long time to come. As Prime Minister Carney is fond of saying 'A plan beats no plan' and, I might add, a treaty beats a handshake. Stuart Culbertson is a former deputy minister in the government of B.C. He served as B.C. trade representative during the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement negotiations
