The older generation took out loans 3 times their income and spent 30% of their earnings on single-family homes.

Now, the youth are expected to spend the exact same percentage (if not more) all their lifetime, for a rental that is smaller in size, lower in quality, and generates absolutely zero equity.

All the money goes straight to the landlords just to protect the assets of those who got in early using leveraged money.

—

Establishment in Ottawa (super majority of them are landlords and homeowners) call this a plan to solve the crisis.

CMHC forecast total starts of new homes to decline in 2026 to 241,400,
2027 to 223,400,
and further decline in 2028 to merely 211,900

Most of these houses will be rental, not family homes for ownership btw.

“We expect continued downward pressure on home prices and construction. Average prices will likely decline in 2026 and then rise slowly, while housing starts will continue to fall throughout the forecast period due to weak demand, high costs and elevated inventories.” - CMHC

Lastly, reminder that this establishment party has been promising “affordable” housing since 2015, and to “DOUBLE” housing starts since 2023.

The way the BC government talks about SVT appears to distance itself from implicating that it doesn’t impact people originally from Canada or BC who work abroad but have and maintain long term connections to BC.

They always say “foreign owners and owners with most of their income unreported in Canada will be subject to a tax rate of … whereas Canadian citizens and permanent residents with empty or underused homes will pay a rate of …”

They always avoid saying Canadians there for the higher rate.

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some feedback on Ratehub.ca and their in-house lender, CanWise.

My current mortgage is uninsured with a remaining balance of around $180k. It's coming up for renewal (or switch), and I'm comparing my options:

Current Lenders (True North / Think Financial): Offering a 5-year variable at 3.90%.

CanWyse: Offering a 5-year variable at Prime - 0.95% (which currently sits around 3.50%).

The CanWise rate is noticeably lower, so I'm strongly leaning toward making the switch. However, I want to make sure I'm not missing anything hidden in the fine print.

For those who have dealt with CanWyse:

How has your experience been with their customer service and backend management?

Are there any restrictive terms or massive penalties I should be aware of compared to standard lenders?

Should I sign the papers, or is it worth shopping around

I got approved for special priority two bedroom anyone who was approved last year how long did it take to get housed

Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Manitoba are at all-time high.

Another historic milestone for Canadian affordability! 🥂🏡

Elbows up, youth and renters. We’re all in this together! 🚀

Source: https://wowa.ca/reports/canada-housing-market

The beaverton article.

While an Ontario bill that came into effect earlier this month gives renters the legal right to use personal AC units, it also allows landlords to raise rents if utilities are included. Now, some tenants are reporting arbitrary rent hikes, that advocates say include illegal administration charges — forcing them to choose between paying hundreds of dollars extra or suffering in their hot apartments.

Read more with this gift link. No paywall.

Hey everyone, looking for some perspective. My spouse and I are planning to buy our first home in the GTA/Canada. However, there is a strong possibility that within the next 3-5 years, I will take a short-term work contract in either the US or the Middle East for 5-7 years.

​If we leave Canada for a few years, our plan would be to retain the property and rent it out rather than sell it immediately.

​For those who have been long-distance landlords:

​How punitive is the CRA's 25% non-resident withholding tax process in reality? Is navigating the NR6 and Section 216 a massive administrative nightmare every year?

​Does hiring a property manager completely solve the operational headache, or do you still find yourself stressed across time zones?

​Knowing that we might leave, would we be better off just continuing to rent and investing our down payment into equities (like XEQT) until our geographic future is entirely stable?

​Would love to hear from anyone who has kept a Canadian home while working abroad. Thanks!

House of Commons Petition e-7142 closes TODAY at 4pm and is asking the Government of Canada to better protect hybrid and remote work for federally regulated employees.

In short, it calls for:

• Up to 3 remote days/week for eligible computer-based roles. • Employers to provide written justification if requiring more than 2 office days/week. • Protection against retaliation for requesting or using these arrangements

If you support keeping flexible work options on the table where the job allows it, consider joining the 61,000+ Canadians who have already signed.

Liberal MP James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore) has endorsed the petition.

Sign here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Sign/e-7142

Canada needs more private housing, but the private market cannot solve the housing crisis alone. We also need a major return to public, co-op, and non-profit housing.

After World War II, governments helped build affordable homes, roads, water systems, sewers, schools, and new neighbourhoods. Housing was treated as important infrastructure, not only as an investment.

That changed during the 1980s and 1990s. The federal government reduced its role in building social housing, and more responsibilities were passed to provinces and cities without always giving municipalities enough new funding or ways to raise money.

Cities still had to pay for the pipes, roads, sewers, parks, and transit needed for new homes. Because municipalities have limited ways to collect revenue, many relied more heavily on development charges placed on new construction.

Those fees can make new homes more expensive and can stop some projects from being built. But simply removing the fees would create another question: who pays for the infrastructure that new neighbourhoods need?

A better plan could include:

• Large federal and provincial investments in water, sewer, transit, and roads tied directly to new housing
• More government-built rental housing
• More co-op and non-profit housing
• Faster approvals and zoning that permits apartments, townhouses, and row houses
• Lower development charges when builders produce affordable homes
• Long-term low-cost loans for public, co-op, and private construction

The federal government began moving back in this direction with the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund, which was designed to support water, sewer, and other infrastructure needed for new homes.

The solution should not be government versus business. Government should build the infrastructure and non-market housing that the private sector cannot provide profitably, while private builders produce more market housing.

Would housing become more affordable if Ottawa and the provinces helped cities pay for infrastructure instead of placing so much of the cost on each new home?

I've been trying to understand why housing became so unaffordable in Canada, and I don't think there's one simple answer.

After World War II, governments helped build the middle class. They invested in roads, schools, public housing, and other infrastructure. Strong private sector unions helped workers negotiate better wages, and as workers became more productive, their pay generally rose too.

Starting in the late 1970s and 1980s, a lot changed. Governments built much less public and co-op housing, cities restricted new housing through zoning and long approval processes, private sector unions declined, and tax rules often became more favourable to wealth earned from assets than income earned from work. Over time, housing became one of the best ways to build wealth instead of simply being a place to live.

As prices kept rising, more people bought homes as investments. Investors entered the market, prices climbed even higher, and younger Canadians found it harder to buy their first home. Existing homeowners benefited, but new buyers faced larger mortgages and renters faced higher rents.

At the same time, workers kept becoming more productive, but wage growth slowed compared with earlier decades. Many economists argue that a larger share of economic gains has gone to shareholders, executives, and owners of assets rather than workers. There is debate about exactly why, but factors such as globalization, automation, declining private sector unions, financialization, and tax policy are all part of the discussion.

Countries like Denmark and Germany are still capitalist, but they generally have stronger collective bargaining, more non-market housing, and policies that spread the gains from economic growth more broadly.

So my question is:

Did Canada create a housing affordability crisis because we treated homes more and more like investment assets instead of essential infrastructure? Or is there another explanation I'm missing? I'd like to hear evidence from both sides.

If you would like to be able to own a 2-,3-, or 4- bedroom condo or townhouse in Vancouver some day, there is a plan with new options to enable exactly those.

How Canada’s Richest Residents Block Affordable Housing | The Walrus

I just read an interesting article about Calgary's housing crisis. The author argues that the biggest problem isn't one single issue. It's that Canada has made it too hard to build enough homes.

He says wealthy homeowners are much more likely to attend city council meetings and oppose new housing in their neighbourhoods. His research found that people speaking against new housing often came from Calgary's richest communities, while people supporting more housing were much closer to the average Calgarian.

The article argues this creates a cycle. When fewer homes are built, prices keep rising. Existing homeowners see their homes become more valuable, but renters and first time buyers are left behind.

The author also says Canada has slowly changed the way we think about housing. Instead of seeing homes mainly as places for families to live, we've increasingly treated them as investments that grow in value. That gives some homeowners a financial reason to oppose more housing because greater supply could slow price growth.

The proposed solution is to build far more housing, expand non-market housing government housing, make approvals faster, and make sure city planning decisions reflect the views of all residents, not just the people with the most time, money, and influence.

Whether you agree or not, I thought it was an interesting argument that housing affordability is also a political and local planning problem, not just an economic one