Odd thing about the report is that there actually is no discussion of ‘affordability’ – it automatically assumes that it’s related to supply, with no real justification for it, in terms of population, employment and demographics. They are only relying on ONE piece of information to suggest a physical shortage in supply – the oft-referenced Scotiabank note regarding comparisons to other G7 countries (which itself is flawed — I’ve read it) – but NO other factors regarding housing affordability are examined. There’s absolutely no examination of any other factors – in particular the ones that have really lead to the affordability crisis — as BD readers already know, which are the presence of non-essential buyers, excess liquidity and industry interests.

I also couldn’t find ANY verifiable justification for saying that the province needs 1.5 million homes are needed over the next 10 years – that number just seems to ‘appear’. Hence, they also failed to articulate or provide any quantifiable evidence as to how increasing supply will bring selling prices back down to the realm of median affordability — it’s all just ‘assumed’ that if you build enough, all will be fine. But how do you expect prices to DECLINE back down to median affordability without building an OVER-SUPPLY? No manufacturer / builder ever wants to build more than they can sell — and that’s the only way the supply-narrative people could ever get prices to be commanded LOWER — so who’s going to do it?

They state in the report: “During our deliberations, we met with and talked to over 140 organizations and individuals, including industry associations representing builders and developers, planners, architects, realtors and others; labour unions; social justice advocates; elected officials at the municipal level; academics and research groups; and municipal planners. We also received written submissions from many of these participants.” Funny thing is that they don’t identify who these individuals were, where their interests lay, what did they say or submit (there’s no documentation provided), which ones did the panel actually listen to and incorporate, and which ones did they ignore, and why.

Also stated: “While governments across Canada have taken steps to “cool down” the housing market or provide help to first-time buyers, these demand-side solutions only work if there is enough supply. Shortages of supply in any market have a direct impact on affordability. Scarcity breeds price increases. Simply put, if we want more Ontarians to have housing, we need to build more housing in Ontario.” What bunk! Nobody has asked whether the demand-side mechanisms employed were of the appropriate type or magnitude, in relation to pricing exacerbations. Further, the statement that ‘Shortages of supply in any market have a direct impact on affordability’ is misleading — easy statement to make to frighten people, but what’s left out is the fact that it’s ONLY true when faced with excess liquidity. Sure, something can be very popular, but if people don’t have the money to pay the price being commanded, how is it that the price can stay that high or continue to escalate?

I’ve looked into housing completions (as provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation) from 2006 to 2019, plus housing starts from 2000 to 2005, (as a surrogate for completions, assuming the starts in December in one year are finished by December of the next).
Over this 20 year period, there was about 3.48 million housing completions across the country, and this compares to a total population growth of about 7.15 million persons (source: macrotrends).
Noting that over 50% of the completions between 2006 and 2019 were detached houses, semis and duplexes based on CMHC data (i.e. 3+ bedroom configurations), and assuming the same ratio between 2000 and 2005, that means these ‘homes’ could theoretically house at least 4 x 1.74 million = 6.96 million individuals, and that doesn’t include the remaining 1.74 million completions classified as ‘apartments and other’. Given that not all 7.15 million persons added to the population would require their very own self-contained home (i.e. a 1:1 ratio), it seems highly implausible that there is a housing shortage in any absolute sense. And even so, how could you measure population growth, if people didn’t already have a place to live?

A really disappointing ‘report’ – to me, more of a propaganda piece, where someone who already decided to ‘build more’ because it suits their interests simply wanted to look semi-legitimized by having this panel convened..

lol So true !

If your BS alarm isn’t going off, you’re either about to get very rich by perpetuating the nonsense or you’re too dumb to have a valid opinion.