Opening doors: unlocking

housing supply for affordability

Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert
Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

engage.gov.bc.ca
Discussions about housing are also discussions about land and how it is used, noting that almost all
of British Columbia consists of traditional unceded territories of Indigenous peoples. We would like
to acknowledge that the Expert Panel focused discussions on the most urbanized areas of the Lower
Mainland: the unceded territory of the Coast Salish Peoples, including the territories of the Musqueam,
Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations; Greater Victoria including the unceded Coast Salish Territory of
the Lekwungen and W _ SÁNEĆ Nations; and the Central Okanagan: including the unceded territory of the
Syilx Okanagan Nation.

We, the Expert Panel members, are grateful for the opportunity to live in British Columbia and we ask
that you take a moment to reflect on the good things the land on which you’re located has brought you.
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Transmittal Letter

June 17, 2021

The Honourable Chrystia Freeland The Honourable Selina Robinson

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Minister of Finance
Department of Finance Canada Ministry of Finance, Province of British Columbia
90 Elgin Street Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G5 Victoria, British Columbia V8V 1X4

Dear Ministers Freeland and Robinson,

Thank you for the honour of serving as Canada and as the desire for more living space and—crucially—
British Columbia’s Expert Panel on Housing Supply and historically low mortgage interest rates have contributed
Affordability. It is with great pleasure that we provide to the sharp increase in home prices over 2020 and 2021.
you with our report, Opening doors: unlocking housing
Faced with strong demand to live in British Columbia,
supply for affordability, which offers recommendations
coupled with low interest rates, governments cannot simply
for all orders of government to increase the supply and
wish demand away. It is infeasible and unproductive
affordability of housing in British Columbia.
to discourage newcomers seeking opportunity, families
As you know, this province’s affordability challenges are severe, looking for more space, or retirees planning to settle here.
affecting not just the most vulnerable British Columbians Rather, governments need to focus on making room for all.
but also middle-income earners and families. These challenges Simply put, British Columbia needs to build the many
have been decades in the making, and will not disappear additional homes required to adequately house a growing
overnight. However, without the implementation of bold, population and economy, while tempering the rapid home
fundamental changes today, these challenges are certain price and rent increases many of the province’s communities
to persist well into the future. have become accustomed to.

To start, we recognize that British Columbia’s natural and As outlined in our report, there are significant opportunities to
other attributes make it uniquely attractive as a place to live. expand and accelerate the delivery of a diverse range of homes,
This has long been the case, as workers, families, students suitable to the needs of current and future British Columbians.
and retirees come from all over Canada and indeed the world Beyond the important work your governments have already
to settle in this province. This trend will resume or even initiated, we believe that additional, sustained efforts by
accelerate as Canada recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic, all orders of government—the provincial government in
and barriers to migration are lifted. The pandemic period particular—will be required to stem and eventually reverse
itself has also been marked by strong demand for housing, current trends. To this end, our 23 recommendations fall
under five broad “calls to action”.

4
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Our first call to action is to create a planning framework Fourth, we call for improved coordination among and
that proactively encourages housing. In other words, within all orders of government. Though all orders of
the rules of the game governing how much housing gets government undertake important housing-related programs,
built, where it gets built, and how quickly, must be updated. these programs sometimes conflict with one another, causing
Provincial and local governments must better estimate and delays or adding costs for program applicants such as non-profit
anticipate how many homes are needed to house a growing housing providers. Or worse, these conflicts deter program
population with diverse needs. They must also clarify and participation. To improve coordination, we recommend
speed up approval processes for the planning and construction flexibility in program design and rollout, as well as in local
of homes. All orders of government invest in growth-related zoning bylaws, which can influence program participation
infrastructure too, and these investments are more efficient and project feasibility.
and equitable when serving the most households possible,
Fifth, we call for more equitable treatment of renters and
rather than a privileged few.
homeowners. Most Canadian households are or aspire to
Second, we call for the reform of government fees on property be homeowners, incented by the tax treatment of housing
development. These fees, which local governments levy on as an important way to build wealth. We recognize and
new homes, play an important role in funding growth-related support this aspiration, while also recognizing that capital
infrastructure and amenities such as sewers, drinking water, gains vary greatly among homeowners, and relative to renters,
libraries and community centres. However, some of these who end up paying higher taxes to offset revenue losses
fees—notably community amenity contributions—can be from homeowner exemptions. To bring more balance,
unpredictable or inconsistent, causing significant uncertainty, we recommend extending new income tax benefits to renter
raising costs and compromising supply. We recommend households, and a phasing out of British Columbia’s Home
clearer, more transparent fees designed to fund community Owner Grant program.
infrastructure and amenities reflecting established community
We believe, and indeed expect many of our recommendations
priorities, such as those identified by residents via the official
to generate robust discussion, or be met with resistance.
community planning process.
However, the sooner these issues and trade-offs are understood,
Third, we call for the expansion of community and affordable and actions are taken, the sooner British Columbia can
housing. Although the private market houses the vast majority meaningfully change its course on housing affordability.
of British Columbians, the housing needs of an increasing
The Panel would like to thank you for your foresight in
number of individuals and families are not being met by the
launching this initiative, and remain available to support
private rental market. We therefore recommend a more active
you as you look to implement these recommendations.
role for governments in helping non-profit housing providers
acquire existing affordable housing stock. We also recommend
important increases in long-term funding for this sector to Sincerely,
reach 10% of housing starts nationwide, as was the case prior
to the mid-1990s. Key updates to the legislation guiding Joy MacPhail (Chair)
non-profit housing providers is also needed to support Jill Atkey
innovation in this sector. Jock Finlayson
Brian McCauley
Sue Paish
Helmut Pastrick

5
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Table of Contents
Executive Summary 8
Five calls to action 8

1. Purpose 11
Why supply? 14

2. Panel proceedings, analysis and conclusions 21

Scope and interpretation 21
How the Panel did its work 21
The impact of COVID-19 22
What we heard from consultations 22
Summary of additional analysis 24
Conclusions and implications 24

3. Policy issues and recommendations 25

Creating a planning framework that proactively encourages housing 25
Reforming fees on property development 28
Expanding the supply of community and affordable housing 31
Improving coordination among and within all orders of government 34
Ensuring more equitable treatment of renters and homeowners 36

4. Appendices 39
Appendix 1: The state of affordability in B.C.’s largest urban regions 39
Appendix 2: Case study of supply patterns in the Vancouver region 50
Appendix 3: The two affordability problems in B.C. 58
Appendix 4: Land-use governance in B.C., key terminology,
and housing needs reports 61
Appendix 5: Population projections: what are they and how
do they influence housing supply? 67
Appendix 6: Fees on property development in B.C. 78
Appendix 7: Key principles for fees on property development:
Nexus and proportionality 79
Appendix 8: B.C.’s community housing sector 80
Appendix 9: Federal and provincial programs and policies
benefiting homeowners 81

7
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Executive Summary
Few issues in British Columbia (B.C.) are more persistent In September 2019, the governments of Canada and B.C.
or far-reaching than the issue of housing affordability. established the Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply
By almost any measure, British Columbians’ ability to and Affordability. The Panel was tasked with developing
rent or purchase homes that meet their needs at costs actionable recommendations to increase the supply of
they can afford has worsened in recent decades, with housing and improve affordability province-wide. To this end,
little or no sign of reversal. Indeed, housing affordability we held consultations with stakeholders, including experts
consistently features among the top concerns for voters in from academia, private and non-profit housing providers,
local, provincial and federal elections, prompting policy Indigenous housing providers, financial institutions, property
makers from all orders of government to respond. developers, tenant and housing advocacy organizations,
employers, public servants and elected officials. These initial
Despite significant policy responses in recent years,
consultations were completed in June 2020 and resulted in
many segments of the population still face major housing
the publication of our interim report, What We Heard: Interim
challenges. These segments include the most vulnerable
report of the Canada/British Columbia Expert Panel on the
individuals and families, many of whom lack adequate
Future of Housing Supply and Affordability.
shelter and tenure security, as well as middle-income
earners struggling to find suitable homes to rent or Building on What We Heard, the Panel gathered additional
buy. These challenges do not exist in isolation from contributions from experts, stakeholders and the public at
one another, and must all be addressed. Insufficient or large in early 2021, culminating in the publication of this
inadequate action on housing jeopardizes B.C.’s place report. After summarizing our five calls to action below,
as a welcoming, growing and innovative destination this report provides background on the Panel and the state
for current and future generations. of B.C.’s housing markets in section 1. It then summarizes
the proceedings and results from Panel consultations, as well
In addition to B.C.’s long-standing housing challenges,
as findings from additional research we commissioned in
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a public health
section 2. We conclude with our policy recommendations
crisis without precedent for generations, calling for
and the issues they seek to address under each of the five
swift and coordinated policy responses. Because of the
calls to action, in section 3.
importance of secure, stable and affordable shelter to
people’s physical, economic and mental well-being,
the pandemic has increased the sense of urgency to Five calls to action
address B.C.’s ongoing housing affordability challenges.
Our 23 recommendations fall under five broad calls to action:
The pandemic has also had a significant impact on
housing demand. Prices province-wide have risen sharply
• Creating a planning framework that proactively
as historically low interest rates have enabled borrowers encourages housing;
to qualify for larger mortgage loans, and as households • Reforming fees on property development;
seek more space to work or study from home. Rather than • Expanding the supply of community and affordable
cooling housing markets, the COVID-19 pandemic has housing;
accelerated a number of pre-existing trends, further
underscoring the need for substantive, coordinated
• Improving coordination among and within all orders
action by all orders of government. of government; and
• Ensuring more equitable treatment of renters and
homeowners.

8
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

The Panel recommends: Our four recommendations to reform fees on property

development (found on page 29) will reduce the
Creating a planning framework uncertainty these instruments create while tying fee
that proactively encourages amounts to specific criteria, including demonstrated
links between fees and the infrastructure or amenity
housing needs generated by growth. Specifically, we recommend
A dominant theme throughout the Panel’s consultations and the phase-out of community amenity contributions,
analysis was the slow and unpredictable pace at which new which are often negotiated and unpredictable, and the
housing—both for-profit and non-profit—receives regulatory expansion of infrastructure and amenity types allowed
approval from government authorities. Speeding up or to be funded by development cost charges, which are
streamlining processes, such as rezoning and development clearly defined in provincial legislation.
applications, was identified as critical to enabling a more
responsive housing supply. But beyond how long the various
steps in approval processes can take, the overarching
Expanding the supply of
framework of land-use planning that governs these steps
community and affordable
was identified as overly complex or unclear in many cities. housing
This framework, in turn, creates an environment that British Columbia’s housing supply includes a continuum
poorly anticipates the housing needs of current and future of housing providers, ranging from private, for-profit
British Columbians. developers to non-profit, co-operative and government
housing providers. These actors each play essential roles
The seven recommendations we make under the call to
in housing British Columbians of all ages and abilities,
create a planning framework that proactively encourages
including housing geared to low- and middle-income
housing (found on page 26) aim to speed up and streamline
earners. The need for community and affordable housing
approvals, while reforming the system governing urban
grows as rapidly rising home prices and rents increase the
growth in B.C. In particular, we recommend a stronger
number of households who can no longer afford market-rate
role for housing needs estimates and citywide official plans,
housing. Moreover, the capacity for community and affordable
which guide how entire communities are expected to grow.
housing providers to respond to this need is limited by their
We also recommend reduced reliance on site-by-site public
ability to secure funding from the provincial and federal
hearings and council approvals that delay homebuilding
governments. This compounds the challenges inherent to
and amplify the voices of groups opposing new housing at
expensive housing markets.
the expense of citywide objectives and affordability.
We offer five recommendations (found on page 32) to
Reforming fees on property expand the supply of community and affordable housing
development in B.C. aimed primarily at the provincial and federal
orders of government. Importantly, our recommendations
Closely linked to the creation of a more proactive call for a return to the historically high level of community
housing delivery system is the need to reform the fees housing construction—and the consistent federal funding
local governments collect from housing development. commitments that supported it—prior to the mid-1990s.
These fees, which in B.C. include development cost We also recommend measures to ensure that the affordability
charges (called development cost levies in the City of that currently exists in the rental market is protected, as well
Vancouver), density bonuses, and community amenity as further flexibility in the tax treatment of charitable housing
contributions, are all designed to fund local infrastructure providers, encouraging this sector’s growth and capacity
or amenities. Though well-intentioned, some of these to innovate.
instruments—most notably community amenity
contributions—lack transparency and predictability,
in turn discouraging homebuilding and increasing costs.

9
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Improving coordination Ensuring more equitable

among and within all treatment of renters and
orders of government homeowners
All orders of government, including many Indigenous Since the Second World War, several policies were
governing bodies, implement policies aimed at expanding introduced by federal and provincial governments with
housing options and affordability. We encourage these the aim of encouraging homeownership. Though well
initiatives, but an important barrier to their success is intentioned in their broad goal of growing the middle class,
a lack of alignment or coordination between program such policies have had unintended consequences for renters,
requirements, or even between government departments. who receive less favourable treatment by the federal and
For example, environmental and accessibility requirements provincial tax systems. Such differences worsen wealth
to obtain provincial funding for a non-profit housing project inequality, especially in expensive housing markets where
may conflict with requirements to obtain federal funding, more households are unable to afford homeownership.
creating additional costs and uncertainty for applicants.
To support a more equitable treatment of renter and
Similarly, federal funding may require municipal zoning
homeowner households, our three recommendations
bylaws to change to accommodate a project, further
(found on page 37) aim to extend tax advantages to
reducing applicant capacity.
renter households, ideally in proportion to those offered
We offer four recommendations (found on page 35) to homeowners, while phasing out certain subsidies
to improve coordination among and within all orders currently offered to homeowners, notably B.C.’s Home
of government. Crucially, we call for greater support of Owner Grant.
Indigenous housing initiatives and more flexibility by
all governments and their housing providers (including
BC Housing and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation)
as they assess applications that draw from multiple programs
to provide affordable housing.

10
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

1. Purpose
In June 2019, Canada joined a small group of countries areas (CMAs) have among the highest shares of households
that affirmed adequate housing as a human right, consistent in core housing need—an established government metric
with the United Nations International Bill of Rights and the identifying household vulnerability based on the cost and
UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.1 quality of their housing.3,4 Similarly, Metro Vancouver and
Indeed, adequate shelter is an important determinant of the Greater Toronto Area were the least affordable major
mental and physical health, as well as economic well-being metropolitan areas for first-time homebuyers in Canada at
and opportunity.2 But delivery on the right to housing is the time of the most recent census, with most home values
threatened by rents and prices that are simply too expensive in these markets priced beyond the reach of all but wealthy
for many British Columbians. As shown in figure 1, the costs first-time buyers. For a more detailed discussion of these
of renting and purchasing housing in B.C.’s four largest urban metrics, additional ways of measuring affordability and price
regions have risen sharply over the past 15 years with prices dynamics in B.C., see appendix 1, box ii and Simple metrics
rising on average between 5.0% and 6.5%, and rents rising for Deciding if You Have Enough Housing, a standalone report
on average between 3.4% and 4.2%, annually. Over the entire on the panel’s website.
period, home prices in these regions rose between 101% and
High rents and home prices present clear challenges for
157%, while rents rose between 64% and 82%.
renters and first-time buyers, and they also have broader
Beyond these two metrics, other indicators also show poor or consequences. Affordability challenges can deter workers
worsening housing affordability for British Columbians. Within young and old, skilled or unskilled, from relocating to or
Canada, the Victoria and Vancouver census metropolitan remaining in B.C.’s urban centres. Rapidly rising home

Figure 1: MLS HPI composite home prices and average rents in B.C.’s largest markets, 2005-2020

$ $
1,200,000 2,000

1,000,000

1,500
800,000

600,000
1,000

400,000

200,000 500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Okanagan Valley home prices Victoria home prices Kelowna-CMA rents Victoria CMA rents
Fraser Valley home prices Greater Vancouver home prices Abbotsford-Mission CMA rents Vancouver CMA rents

Sources: CREA, CMHC

1
See van den Berg (2019).
2
A large body of research has demonstrated the impacts of housing on health and well-being. For example: World Health Organization (2018); Baker et al. (2020);
Balestra & Sultan (2013).
3
A household is considered to be in core housing need if their home is overcrowded, in poor condition, or if they spend more than 30% of their household income
on shelter and cannot afford alternative suitable housing in their community. For more on how the metric is used, see: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/data-and-
research/core-housing-need.
4
See Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2021).

11
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

purchase prices and rents can also absorb a greater share of In this context of persistent house price and rent increases,
households’ budgets, at the expense of other spending and the governments of Canada and British Columbia established
saving priorities. Mounting financial barriers to renting or the Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and
purchasing homes in B.C. present risks for economic growth Affordability in September 2019, with the goal of achieving
and employment, while aggravating wealth inequalities. actionable recommendations that increase the supply of
housing and improve affordability.

BOX I: Joy MacPhail (Chair)

The Panel
Chair of ICBC and an owner
of OUTtv

Appointed by the ministers of finance of British Columbia Jill Atkey

and Canada, we are a joint federal-provincial panel whose CEO of BC Non-Profit
role is to advise government on policy recommendations Housing Association
to improve the future of housing supply and affordability
in British Columbia. The British Columbia and federal Jock Finlayson
Executive Vice President and Chief Policy
governments selected us, the Panel members, from a Officer at the Business Council of BC
range of fields related to various aspects of housing, urban
composition, development finance and demographics. Brian McCauley
The Panel is chaired by Joy MacPhail, and includes President and CEO of
Jill Atkey, Jock Finlayson, Brian McCauley, Sue Paish Concert Properties
and Helmut Pastrick. We are members of the public
Sue Paish
with relevant expertise, rather than government officials.
CEO of Canada’s Digital
Secretariat support was provided by the Canada Mortgage Technology Supercluster
and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Province of
Helmut Pastrick
British Columbia. Chief Economist for
Central 1 Credit Union

The evidence heard by this Panel, supported by extensive aging population and evolving living preferences. Failure
consultation and analysis, stresses that an essential element to ensure an adequate supply of housing undermines our
for improving long-term affordability is a more responsive social and economic future.
housing supply. Policy choices over housing supply effectively
The governments of Canada and British Columbia, through
reflect the sort of communities we—as British Columbians—
the National Housing Strategy and Homes for B.C.: A 30-Point
want to build. Do we want housing that is affordable,
Plan for Housing Affordability in British Columbia, have
adequate and suitable for all segments of the resident
made significant progress toward addressing diverse housing
population as well as newcomers, or only to those with
needs. These initiatives include programs targeted to lower-
the income and wealth to afford ever higher home prices
income households, Indigenous communities and vulnerable
and rents? Do we want communities that are more inclusive
populations, but also efforts to improve the supply of market
and equitable or ones that are increasingly divided by
rental homes. Building on these initiatives, the Panel directed
income and wealth to the detriment of social cohesion
its attention to housing supplied across the continuum,
and economic growth? Getting to grips with these issues
including private ownership and rental markets as well
is critical for today, as well as the future, as we adjust to an
as non-market housing.

12
 BOX II:
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

When is housing affordable?

Many British Columbians would likely agree with statements like “housing affordability is a persistent challenge,”
or “we need more affordable housing.” However, there is far less consensus regarding which metrics or definitions
best capture this sentiment.

Though often used interchangeably, the terms “affordable housing” and “housing affordability” represent different
concepts, each with their own set of metrics or definitions. Affordable housing refers to homes that meet a specific
definition or threshold of affordability. As discussed in this section, as well as in Simple metrics for Deciding if You Have
Enough Housing, a standalone report on the panel’s website, there are different ways of measuring and defining what
constitutes affordable housing, such as the 30% of total household income threshold frequently used by government
and non-government agencies. This threshold and others are listed below.

Housing affordability, unlike affordable housing, is a continuous concept related to how much housing costs. For example,
a household can move from spending 38% of its total income on housing to spending 32%, and experience greater housing
affordability, even though it has not met the 30% threshold to qualify as affordable housing. Likewise, a household moving
to a home costing 28% of total income from a home costing 20% would experience a decline in housing affordability, while
still living in housing that is considered affordable. Housing affordability can also be broken down by cost for particular
home types or sizes, such as the number of bedrooms or square footage.

Some common affordable housing and housing affordability metrics and definitions include:
• 30% of household income – Government and non- • Shelter rate housing – Homes with rents set to
government bodies frequently consider housing to match the shelter allowance maximum7 for
be affordable if it costs no more than 30% of a household’s households receiving income assistance in
total (before-tax) income. Because this metric is relative British Columbia.
to household income, the same home can be considered • Combined housing and transportation costs –
affordable for a higher income household and unaffordable Beyond traditional housing costs-to-income
for a lower-income household. The 30% threshold is used ratios, several attempts have been made to better
to calculate affordability in core housing need.5 integrate other costs into affordability equations,
• Housing income limits (HILs) – As applied by BC Housing, notably the transportation costs associated with
HILs represent the maximum gross household income for homes located in different neighbourhoods.8
eligibility in many affordable housing programs.6 They are • Basic needs threshold/residual income – Another
intended to reflect the minimum income required to afford method of measuring housing affordability is
appropriate accommodation in the private market and can to calculate how much money a household has
differ by city. left to spend on housing after paying for all
• Rent-geared-to-income – Households benefiting from non-shelter necessities.9
rent-geared-to-income programs have rents set to reflect
a specified threshold of their income, typically 30% of
total income.

These metrics and others underscore the complexity of the affordability challenges facing B.C. communities. As such,
the Panel has not chosen a single preferred measure or definition. Rather, we believe that increasing the supply of
all types of housing, suitable to the needs of all groups, is essential for improving affordability by any measure.

5
See footnote 3 for more on core housing need.
6
For BC Housing’s 2021 HILs see BC Housing (2020).
7
For the latest shelter allowance maximums see: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/policies-for-government/bcea-policy-and-procedure-manual/
bc-employment-and-assistance-rate-tables/income-assistance-rate-table.
8
See Metro Vancouver (2015) for combined housing and transportation cost estimates.
9
See Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2019).

13
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Why supply? secure mortgage loans. As shown in figure 2, population

and incomes in British Columbia have generally risen
The price of renting and owning housing is determined over the last two decades, adding more than a million
by the interaction of demand and supply. In other words, residents, while median nominal family income grew
prices are influenced by the number of households seeking by approximately 79%. When amplified by low mortgage
housing, the amounts they are willing to pay for housing, rates, rising incomes and wealth (in the form of down
and the number and variety of homes available to buy payment savings or other collateral), this allowed many
or rent. The primary forces influencing housing demand homebuyers to secure larger mortgages, in turn influencing
are population growth, specifically growth in the number their purchase decisions. For a more in-depth discussion
of households (individuals and families); these households’ of current and projected housing demand drivers, see
incomes and wealth, which determine their ability to pay appendices 1 and 5.
for housing; and the availability and cost of credit to

Figure 2: Population and income growth in British Columbia

$
6,000,000 100,000

5,500,000
80,000

5,000,000

60,000
4,500,000

4,000,000 40,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Population (Left scale) Median Couple Families Income* (Right scale)

Median market income plus government transfers (nominal) – 2019 and 2020 are forecasted
*

Source: Statistics Canada tables 17-10-0005-01 and 11-10-0012-01

14
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

A growing population with rising incomes increases the of incomes, over the same period. While mortgage applicants
demand for homes, both in quantity and quality. And could qualify for loans of approximately 2.5 times their
because most homes are not purchased outright, but through annual incomes in 1986, this ratio reached between 6 and
mortgages, the interest rates on loans further drive housing 7 times their incomes by the end of 2020 (see box iii for more
demand. Falling interest rates allow homebuyers to get bigger on housing demand during the COVID-19 pandemic). This
mortgages with the same income. As shown in figure 3, dynamic is especially important in markets where the supply
nominal mortgage rates in Canada have fallen from almost of housing lags demand, as buyers face stronger incentives
12% in 1986 to well under 2% in 2020. Figure 4 shows the to take larger mortgages and bid up prices on the relatively
evolution of mortgage borrowing power, shown as a multiple scarce set of available homes.

Figure 3: Nominal mortgage interest rates, 5-year fixed lending rate (1986 – 2020)

%
15

12

0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

5-year fixed rate Stress test rate*

The stress test rate is the rate at which mortgage applicants must qualify to obtain loans, while the rate actually paid remains set by the mortgage market.
*

Sources: Statistics Canada, Bank of Canada, Ratehub

Figure 4: Mortgage borrowing power as a multiple of income (1986 – 2020)

2
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Borrowing Multiple (32% GDS 25 Year Amortization)* Stress test loan-to-income max (39% GDS 30 Year Amortization)**

*
The gross debt service (GDS) ratio is the sum of housing expenses (mortgage loan principal and interest, taxes and heat) as a share of gross annual household
income. A GDS in excess of 32% reduces the likelihood of qualifying for the mortgage.
**
This is the maximum allowable mortgage borrowing power for applicants needing to pass the stress test.
Sources: Statistics Canada, Bank of Canada, Ratehub

15
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

BOX III:
Housing demand during the COVID-19 pandemic
Though it is too early to fully assess the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on housing systems, some clear trends
have emerged since its onset. These are explored in CMHC’s ongoing research efforts related to the pandemic.10

One such report, Home Sales and Prices in Major Markets During the COVID-19 Pandemic,11 shows how the pandemic’s
negative employment effects were concentrated on younger households and workers in specific sectors, such as
accommodation and food services. It also shows how these effects had a far more muted impact on employment
and incomes among older age groups and other economic sectors. Moreover, the most heavily affected groups tend
to live in less expensive housing types, including rental accommodation. This helps explain why demand for owned
accommodation has rebounded since the pandemic’s onset despite higher unemployment. Indeed, home sales across
Canada’s major metropolitan areas surpassed their pre-pandemic levels by the third quarter of 2020.

Several factors influenced the rise in home sales:

• Pent-up demand by homebuyers who did not make • Historically low mortgage rates.
purchases during the early months of the pandemic. • Shifts in preferences as some buyers sought larger
• Higher household savings as spending in areas such homes with more space for remote work, school
as travel, transport and entertainment fell. and leisure activities.

Combined, these factors boosted and reoriented demand—at least in the immediate term—leading to an even larger
mismatch with current supply than had already existed before the pandemic. Indeed, the recovery in home sales has
outpaced the recovery in new listings, placing strong upward pressure on home prices in many Canadian communities
even as the economy struggles to return to stable growth in the wake of the COVID-19 shock.

Whether and to what extent these shifts in demand will continue beyond the pandemic remains unclear. Nevertheless,
we believe it is important to highlight some of the impacts of the pandemic itself, as well as the technological and policy
developments that COVID-19 triggered or accelerated.

In response to housing demand pressures, property will be located.13 In Metro Vancouver, B.C.’s largest urban
developers (including for-profit, non-profit and government region, annual housing starts have ranged between
actors) acquire property, obtain permits and build homes. 10,000 and 20,000 units for most of the past three decades.
The supply of new homes is influenced by access to A recent increase in housing starts in this region, starting
developable land, construction costs including materials, after 2015, has consisted primarily of new condominium units,
labour and project financing, and the impact of the planning, accompanied by a decline in ground-oriented (single-family,
zoning and permitting procedures that govern land use semi-detached and row) housing starts. B.C.’s four largest
and homebuilding. urban regions, Vancouver, Victoria, Abbotsford-Mission
and Kelowna have all followed similar supply trajectories,
Figures 5 to 9 show the evolution of housing supply in
with relatively fewer units being built in the 1990s and
the Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna and Abbotsford-Mission
early 2010s, and more units being built in the mid 2000s
census metropolitan areas (CMAs),12 as measured by housing
and since 2015. For further discussion of supply dynamics
starts. Housing starts are defined as the beginning of
in Metro Vancouver, see appendix 2.
construction work on buildings where dwelling units

10
For the most up-to-date list of CMHC’s COVID-19-related research work see: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/coronavirus-update.
11
The full report is available at: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/housing-observer-online/2021/home-sales-prices-major-markets-during-pandemic.
12
Combined, these four urban regions had 3.2 million inhabitants at the time of the 2016 Census, representing 69% of B.C.’s total population (Statistics Canada, 2016).
13
For more on CMHC‘s definition and measurement of housing starts, see here: https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/ScsMasMethodology.

16
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 5: Total starts in the Vancouver census metropolitan area, by housing type (1990 – 2020)

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Single Semi-Detached + Row Apartment

Figure 6: Total starts in the Victoria census metropolitan area, by housing type (1990 – 2020)

4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Single Semi-Detached + Row Apartment

Figure 7: Total starts in the Kelowna census metropolitan area, by housing type (1990 – 2020)

4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

Single Semi-Detached + Row Apartment

17
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 8: Total starts in the Abbotsford-Mission census metropolitan area, by housing type (1990 – 2020)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Single Semi-Detached + Row Apartment

Source: CMHC, Starts and Completions Survey

Figure 9: Trends in housing starts in B.C.’s largest urban regions (indexed at 1 in 1990)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020
Vancouver Victoria Kelowna Abbotsford-Mission

Source: CMHC, Starts and Completions Survey

18
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

In 2018, CMHC published Examining Escalating House In addition to these demand-side policies, all orders of
Prices in Large Canadian Metropolitan Centres, which government have developed policies and programs intended
investigates factors driving housing demand and supply to boost supply of purpose-built rental, affordable private
in major urban regions, including Metro Vancouver.14 The market and non-profit housing. Federal programs include
authors found that price increases in Metro Vancouver the Rental Construction Financing initiative, the National
were explained relatively well by their “workhorse” Housing Co-Investment Fund, the Federal Lands Initiative
demand models, incorporating fundamental market and the Rapid Housing Initiative. The B.C. government has
features, such as population growth, income growth and developed the Provincial Rental Supply Program Framework
interest rates. But they also found significant problems and Building BC, which directly funds housing development
with the responsiveness (also called “elasticity”) of housing through BC Housing. Several municipal governments offer
supply in Metro Vancouver, suggesting that housing supply a range of development incentives for rental and affordable
was not keeping pace with rising demand, in turn placing housing, including fee waivers and land leases, or have
upward pressure on housing prices. In a similar vein, recent expanded the number of units allowed on single-family lots.16
research by Scotiabank found that the number of homes
In short, all orders of government have acted to improve
per 1,000 residents in Canada is lower than in any other
affordability, through both demand and supply measures.
G7 nation, and appears to be falling in several key markets.
Persistent growth in housing prices and rents, combined with
In order to match the G7 average, Canada would need to
perennially low rental vacancy rates17 indicate, however, that
build 1.8 million additional homes.15
supply remains below what is needed to moderate prices and
Recent policy responses by all orders of government have improve affordability. As discussed in appendices 1 and 3,
targeted housing demand. In B.C., these include, but are when housing is scarce, middle-income households compete
not limited to, the Additional Property Transfer Tax for more directly with low-income households for rental units,
Foreign Entities & Taxable Trustees (frequently called the in turn hurting low-income households’ chances of being
“foreign buyers’ tax”), the Speculation and Vacancy Tax, the housed adequately or at all. In expensive markets, addressing
Additional School Tax Rate, the City of Vancouver’s Empty the lack of any and all types of housing—rental or ownership,
Homes Tax, and short-term rental regulations in several affordable or high-end, high-rise, mid-rise or low-rise—helps
B.C. municipalities, including Victoria, Vancouver and reduce the upward pressure on prices citywide (see box iv).
Kelowna. The federal government also introduced minimum Based on the data and insights we have been presented with
qualifying rates for mortgage applicants (known as the throughout our time on this panel, we conclude that greater
mortgage “stress test”), and the First-Time Home Buyer progress in housing affordability in B.C. requires additional
Incentive. All the measures listed above either discourage policy efforts by all orders of government.
demand, by targeting select groups, such as non-residents
and mortgage applicants with taxes or credit constraints,
or they encourage it, by offering down-payment assistance
to first-time buyers.

14
CMHC (2018)
15
Scotiabank (2021).
16
Starting in 2009, the City of Vancouver has allowed many single-family lots to include laneway suites. In 2018, the City also allowed the construction of duplexes
on most single-family lots.
17
See Simple Metrics for Deciding if You Have Enough Housing, on the Panel’s website, for a more detailed discussion of rental vacancy rates and their influence
on rents, https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/121/2021/06/SimpleMetrics_appendix_2.pdf.

19
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

BOX IV:
Filtering: How building new homes can make existing
homes more affordable
Subsidized housing units, including housing owned and operated by non-profit organizations and government
agencies, represent one important avenue by which to provide lower-income individuals and families with homes
they can afford. Another major source of housing for these groups are older housing units in the private market that
have become more affordable over time.

To become more affordable, housing in many cities undergoes a process commonly referred to as filtering, whereby
apartments and homes gradually depreciate as the structures age, and as original residents move on to newer or larger
homes. In turn, these units are freed up for individuals and families further down the income or property ladder. In this
regard, sufficient increases in the supply and mix of new homes help reduce price and rent pressures on existing homes.
Conversely, insufficient increases in the quantity and mix of homes in a market can hold up the filtering process, leading
to higher rents and purchase prices for aging homes.

The study of this phenomenon has generated a growing body of academic literature spanning several decades. For
example, Asquith, Mast and Reed (2019) find that local rent increases are slowed by the construction of new homes
nearby, and even reversed in low-income neighbourhoods. Similarly, Zuk and Chapple (2016) find that both market-rate
and subsidized housing development reduce displacement pressures, but that subsidized housing is twice as effective
at doing so.

Somerville and Holmes (2001) explore both downward filtering (units becoming more affordable over time) and upward
filtering (units becoming less affordable over time), finding that neighbourhood characteristics play an important role
in determining which is likelier to occur. Indeed, in their review of recent studies on filtering, Phillips, Manville and Lens
(2021) argue that the promise of (downward) filtering, while minimizing undue impacts on lower-income neighbourhoods,
can best be achieved by ensuring housing supply is spread more evenly citywide, notably in low-density, high-income
neighbourhoods.

Analogy: Housing is a bit like musical chairs

• The impact of housing shortages is like a game of musical chairs in which players get priority access to chairs (homes)
based on how much money or credit they have. Player 1 goes first and may choose from among all the chairs, followed
by player 2, player 3, and so on. In each round, the player with the least amount of money is left without a chair and
must exit the game.
• Boosting the supply of housing is like adding another chair in each round, rather than taking one away. While the
first player will still have many more chairs to choose from compared to the last player, no one will be left without
a chair. For this analogy to work, either no new players can enter the game, or chairs (housing supply) must exceed
the increase in new players (households entering the market) for it to improve the overall ability for people to
access housing.
• Building more non-market housing is like adding in chairs that are reserved for players that might otherwise be left
without a chair, or without a suitable chair.

20
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

2. Panel proceedings,
analysis and conclusions
Scope and interpretation • While housing affordability is our goal, we did not select
a preferred metric or definition of affordability (see box ii
The task assigned to the Panel was to “examine housing and the Simple Metrics for Deciding if You Have Enough
trends for rental and homeownership, exploring options Housing, on the Panel’s website, for different ways to
to allow British Columbians to have further access to measure affordability). It is our belief that by achieving
housing that they need and can afford.”18 Our goal, as we greater balance between demand and supply, alongside
see it, is to develop comprehensive policy recommendations functional and targeted programs for those whose
on how to improve affordability by increasing the supply housing needs are not met by increased market supply,
of market and non-market housing, whether for rent or for affordability will improve across most if not all metrics.
homeownership. • We recognize that there are many factors that drive up
To achieve this goal, we interpreted our charge as follows: demand for housing, including continued population
and income growth, changing preferences, as well as
• We are concerned with housing affordability for all who low interest rates. There are also illegal activities, such
want to live and work in British Columbia. While there as money laundering, which can distort housing markets.
continue to be many challenges for low-income earners Given the important work already produced by the B.C.
and other vulnerable groups, our mandate is to look at government-commissioned Expert Panel on Money
overall housing affordability across the entire population. Laundering in B.C. Real Estate,19 and that the Cullen
• We take a broad view of the housing system. We think that Commission20 and the Canada-BC Ad Hoc Working
having a sound system of rental properties is at least of Group on the Real Estate Sector were formed to investigate
equal value to that of homeownership. Not only are rental these important phenomena, they are not the primary
homes more likely to house individuals and families with focus of our work.
low to moderate incomes, but they are also a cornerstone
for a mobile, welcoming society, housing students,
workers, families and newcomers to the province.
How the Panel did its work
• Our charge covers the entire province of British Columbia, The Panel began deliberating in October of 2019. Two broad
but we were asked to concentrate on areas where market approaches were used to organize the collection of feedback
prices for housing are highest and housing affordability and research.
problems are most severe. We sought information and First, starting early in 2020, we met with representatives of
data, and consulted with stakeholders from across the key sectors connected with housing in B.C., including owners
province. We recognize, however, that affordability and renters directly affected by higher housing costs, business
challenges are particularly acute in the Lower Mainland, leaders, academics and government officials. These extensive
the Greater Victoria and the Central Okanagan. discussions were held over the course of 2020 and, along with

18
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2019/09/governments-of-canada-and-british-columbia-announce-expert-panel-on-the-future-of-housing-
supply-and-affordability.html.
19
For the Expert Panel on Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate’s final report, see Maloney, Somerville & Unger (2019).
20
For more on the Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia (the Cullen Commission), see: https://cullencommission.ca/.

21
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

responses received via the Panel’s website through June 2020, emerged, driving noticeably higher home prices in the
are summarized in What We Heard, a separate Panel report.21 suburbs and in some rural communities (see box iii).
Additional consultations were held and the Panel‘s website As less money is spent on commuting and city-centre
reopened to another round of submissions in early 2021. living, more income becomes available for other spending,
This additional feedback is reflected in this report’s themes including upgrading housing or the purchase of more living
and recommendations. space. Further impacts from the COVID-19 experience will
undoubtedly emerge with time.
Second, we sought further data and analysis. Our starting
point was CMHC’s 2018 report Examining Escalating House Despite the changes in consumer and business behaviour
Prices in Large Canadian Metropolitan Centres, which that the pandemic may trigger, we believe Canada’s large
highlights the importance of the system governing how metropolitan regions will continue to be centres of commerce,
the supply side of housing responds to demand, as this education and entertainment. Many people, including new
interaction explains much of the long-term increase in house immigrants to Canada, will continue to want to live in or near
prices. We asked CMHC to provide us with further analysis these areas, but perhaps in different ways. They may be
and data on B.C., the highlights of which are discussed in willing and able to live farther from the city core, and only
this report. Additional data and analyses were commissioned commute occasionally for select face-to-face meetings and
from external analysts specializing in B.C. markets, which entertainment. Planning for such outcomes is difficult,
are briefly discussed below and are available as standalone so these changes in households’ behaviour will call for
documents on the panel’s website (see summaries and greater versatility and flexibility in planning for the future.
hyperlinks on page 24).

What we heard from

The impact of COVID-19 consultations
The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused
As part of its work toward establishing a vision for housing in
widespread hardship for many Canadians. The Panel extends
British Columbia, the Panel consulted with many key groups
its condolences to all who have experienced loss, and looks
and housing experts. We met with over 100 participants in the
forward to recovery from the pandemic and the many
housing system to discuss and identify challenges related
challenges it generated.
to supply and affordability, and potential opportunities
The pandemic affected the progress of the Panel both to overcome these challenges. Among those we consulted
directly, in the way we conducted our work, and indirectly, were academics, public servants, government officials,
through the broader social context. Beginning in March 2020, tenant and housing advocacy organizations, Indigenous
we replaced in-person consultations with videoconferencing. housing providers, as well as private and non-profit housing
Also, work with microdata requiring access to Statistics developers. Many of these consultations occurred virtually
Canada’s research data centres could not be undertaken as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.
because of facility closures.
Based on their contributions, we grouped responses into
More broadly, and as noted above, the COVID-19 outbreak three themes:
has and will shift housing demand around urban centres 1. Governance, or the way in which governments control
globally, but it is too early to say by how much and for how or influence the supply of housing.
long. Beyond the historically low mortgage interest rates
2. The diversity of housing supply for all income levels
offered throughout the pandemic (see figures 3 and 4), the
and tenures.
accelerated adoption of work-from-home technologies has
enabled more households to live farther from their place 3. Accelerating and adding certainty to the process of
of employment. Shifts in homebuying patterns have already adding new supply.

21
This report is available at: https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/588/2020/12/20200805_001_WhatWeHeard_Report_w_ACC.pdf.

22
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

The biggest focus was on governance matters. About 75% The Panel heard that diversity in the supply of housing in
of discussion time was spent on governance and when it B.C. must be improved in several areas. Specifically, there
came to housing solutions, an even greater percentage of needs to be a mix of:
respondents concentrated on this area. In fact, it has been • housing tenures, with no outright policy or legislative
repeatedly suggested in statements to the Panel that all orders preference for homeownership over rental;
of government have a role to play in improving governance
through their taxing, spending and regulatory powers.
• housing types whose form and function meet the needs
of different income groups; and
Governance is multi-faceted. Governance determines • organizations delivering housing types, whether operating
how plans are turned into reality, the taxation and fees on
for profit or in the non-profit sector.
housing and construction, and the coordination of housing
development with other critical government activities, such The final thematic area considered by the Panel was the
as the provision of water and transport infrastructure. length of the processes required to bring new housing supply
An important aspect of governance is the land-use planning to market in many urban communities in B.C. Indeed, this
process, which offers citizens opportunities to provide input was a dominant theme during our discussions with numerous
on new development based on both real and perceived stakeholders, who stressed the need to accelerate processing
impacts. We believe that democratic processes are important, times and increase certainty in approvals processes, which
but that overreliance on public hearings to make land-use include (but are not limited to) the need to assemble, subdivide
decisions tends to favour certain voices over others. This or rezone property, as well as to obtain building permits.
can result in perceptions of majority opposition to new Projects often take years to be approved, as evidenced by
development, especially when the citizens most motivated repeated analyses from academic,22 industry23 and public
and available to participate in the process generally oppose policy24 researchers. These delays add risks, create uncertainty
the development plans. and increase costs to both private and non-profit projects.

This opposition puts political pressure on the elected officials The 2019 publication of the Development Approvals Process
in charge of reviewing the proposals. Its influence strengthens Review (DAPR) report by the B.C. Ministry of Municipal
further as those who support or stand to benefit from new Affairs and Housing (discussed in box viii) further highlighted
housing supply often do not attend public hearings to voice the challenges faced by homebuilders, while outlining
their views and priorities. Such proceedings contribute to a opportunities to improve housing supply provincewide.
land-use planning system that prevents new housing supply Better, more consistent measurement of project approvals,
in two ways: first, by restricting or impeding growth as a as well as revisions to their timing to increase speed and
consequence of lengthy, uncertain and costly processes; certainty, should be priorities for action by policymakers.
and second, by allowing anti-development interests to apply
disproportionate political pressure on decision makers.

22
A growing academic literature measuring residential land-use regulations has emerged in the United States, including most notably the Wharton Residential Land
Use Regulation Index (Gyourko, Hartley, & Krimmel, 2019). In B.C., researchers from Simon Fraser University have produced the Getting to Groundbreaking series,
which tracks hypothetical housing project applications of different types and scales (for example, townhomes and wood-frame apartments) across different
Metro Vancouver municipalities (Holden & Sidhu, 2014; Holden, Sturgeon & Fung, 2016).
23
In 2020, the Canadian Home Builders’ Association (CHBA) published the Municipal Benchmarking Study. This study, which was undertaken by Altus Group
Economic Consulting, includes regulatory approval timelines for several large municipalities across Canada, including five in Metro Vancouver.
24
The New Homes and Red Tape series, designed and carried out by the Fraser Institute in 2014 and 2016, includes typical approval timelines and costs incurred
by homebuilders across major Canadian metropolitan areas, including municipalities in B.C.’s Lower Mainland and the Okanagan Valley.

23
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Summary of additional analysis Conclusions and implications

To further explore the themes identified in What We Heard, Our broad consultations, along with insights gleaned from
the Panel commissioned analyses on the state of affordability external analyses and expert reviews, have led to several
in B.C.’s major centres, what potential housing needs will be important conclusions. First, and to little surprise given
in years to come, and the current state of housing supply in our mandate, B.C.’s affordability challenges are severe and
the province. have worsened over time. The emergence of high home
prices and rents, insufficient or unsuitable unit availability,
The research and supporting data, discussed in appendix 1,
and shelter challenges for the province’s most vulnerable
show how home prices increased in B.C.’s four census
people are not new. This suggests that repeated efforts by
metropolitan areas (CMAs) over the last two decades.
governments, though helpful, have only partially stopped
Rents have also increased beyond income growth, especially
the otherwise relentless erosion of affordability across many
since 2015, a period marked with very low rental vacancy
of the province’s communities.
rates before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the
supply side, all four major B.C. markets have experienced Second, the far-reaching sources and effects of B.C.’s housing
increases in recent years and will likely require more affordability challenges require equally comprehensive
sustained housing stock growth to counter decades of solutions, involving all sectors and housing types. The
undersupply. Four additional topics that we examined for-profit, non-profit and government sectors all have
and received submissions on, some of which are located essential roles to play in growing the supply of market-rate
on the panel’s website were: ownership and rental housing, as well as the supply of
• how to measure housing supply adequacy and community and affordable housing, suitable to the needs
affordability; of groups as varied as growing families in search of more
living space, aging homeowners looking to downsize, and
• empirical testing of common narratives surrounding individuals and families under threat of eviction or with no
B.C. (and especially Metro Vancouver) housing markets, home at all.
namely concerning the role and impact of foreign buyers
and overseas investors, empty homes, building for the Third, all orders of government have unique tools to address
“wrong people,” incomes decoupling from rents, and the this multi-faceted problem, concerning both the demand
existence of an outsized real estate sector; for and the supply of housing, and we urge them to take
action accordingly. It is also our belief that many of the
• zoning bylaws across Metro Vancouver; and
most significant policy levers specifically pertaining to the
• the economics of fees on property development, supply of housing belong to local governments, which, for
and their potential impacts on housing markets. a number of reasons outlined in this report and elsewhere,
face important barriers—notably political—preventing them
These analyses’ findings and discussions supported many of
from making greater progress toward a more abundant
the themes identified in our broader consultations. In particular,
housing supply. We therefore believe that it falls on the
the research confirmed the often-severe difficulty with which
provincial government, which is ultimately responsible for
local land-use and infrastructure planning anticipates current
local governments, to enact many of our most impactful
and projected demand for housing. Further, the scarcity of
recommendations.
housing that is partly caused by regulatory environments
generates financial benefits for local governments, which can We believe that the implementation of the recommendations
negotiate the sale of development rights. In other words, the we present in the next section will have a significant positive
less new housing is built, the more existing developable land impact on housing affordability in B.C., especially in the
is worth, and the more local governments can collect in fees longer term.
or in-kind contributions from homebuilders, in turn reducing
local governments’ incentives to meaningfully increase the
supply of homes.

24
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

3. Policy issues and

recommendations
Having consulted with stakeholders provincewide, while non-legislative practices make up the land-use and
commissioning analyses aimed at answering key questions development governance system (see appendix 4 for a
about affordability and supply in B.C.’s metropolitan diagram of development approval processes and a lexicon
regions, the Panel’s deliberations resulted in 23 actionable of relevant terms). This overview focuses on residential
recommendations. The recommendations are tied to the land-use and property development governance, but many
orders of government we believe are best suited to enact of the components mentioned also apply to non-housing
them, though all are invited to consider how best to achieve land use and development.
the outcomes we prescribe.

To understand the overarching goals each recommendation Current challenges

supports, individual recommendations were grouped into
the following five thematic categories, or “calls to action.” It takes too long to navigate the
development process
• Creating a planning framework that proactively
encourages housing. The time needed to steer new housing projects from concept
through to groundbreaking can take years (see box v). These
• Reforming fees on property development.
delays often create a further disconnect between changing
• Expanding the supply of community and affordable demand for housing and its supply. Delays, revisions,
housing. additional steps and stalled negotiations all lengthen the
• Improving coordination among and within all orders development process and impede both for-profit and
of government. non-profit developers’ ability to make additional homes
available to meet growing demand.
• Ensuring more equitable treatment of renters and
homeowners.
Many proposals never make it to the
The following section provides some context for each formal application stage
thematic category, outlining current challenges and There is little to no reporting on pre-applications (initial,
actionable recommendations. exploratory discussions about projects with City staff )
Recommendations of the Expert Panel on the Future and whether projects did not move forward, either due
of Housing Supply and Affordability: to government-controlled factors, such as negotiated
fee expectations or external factors such as downturns
in the market.
Creating a planning
framework that proactively Rezoning can be difficult and amplifies
the voices of a few rather than the needs
encourages housing of the community at large
More than a dozen acts, associated regulations, and The rezoning process, especially for larger projects involving
guidelines shape land-use governance and property privately initiated applications (rather than government-led
development in B.C. Layered upon these are a host of rezoning stemming from official planning processes) can take
government and industry practices that have emerged many years and be a fraught process due to lengthy public
and evolved over time. Combined, these legislative and hearings and competing policy objectives.

25
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Future demographic estimates have persistently 4. the B.C. government and local governments implement
underestimated the housing supply needed to the following ideas presented in the Development
Approvals Process Review report (DAPR—see box viii):
improve affordability
a) Provincial review of public hearings and consideration
Demographic projections, produced or commissioned
of alternative options for more meaningful, earlier
by governments and statistical agencies, often influence
public input and in different formats,
regional and local land-use and infrastructure planning
decisions, including how much growth to plan for and where. b) Provincial policy review of official community plans with
These projections generally answer the following question: respect to development approvals—adoption process,
what should we expect to happen if past trends continue? update requirements, recommended levels of detail,
Problems with this approach arise when trying to tackle streamlining process for minor amendments, and
housing shortages, which by definition involves breaking with c) Provincial policy review to consider tying development
the status quo. As a result, planning to meet demographic approvals to housing targets;
projections often means planning to maintain or “bake in”
5. the B.C. government require provincewide interests
today’s affordability issues (see appendix 5 for a discussion
and priorities (such as those outlined in Homes for BC:
of demographic estimates and their influence on the supply
A 30-Point Plan for Housing in British Columbia) to be
of housing).
reflected in official community plans. Notably, minimum
To create a planning framework that proactively encourages density requirements and sufficient pre-zoned sites for the
housing, we recommend that: development of market and non-market homes around
provincially funded transit infrastructure;
1. the B.C. government impose statutory time limits to all
stages of the property development process, municipal or 6. federal and provincial governments make new infrastructure
other, for all types of development. Similar limits imposed investments conditional on OCPs, zoning bylaws and other
in Ontario and Alberta can serve as examples, if necessary local policies to allow for increased density and a mix of
(see box vi); housing types. To inform this, the federal government should
continue to provide dedicated funding for collaborative,
2. the B.C. government update the Housing Needs Reports
state-of-the-art urban land-use modelling in major urban
methodology to include an “affordability adjustment”
areas of Canada. Land-use modelling could be used to
(see box vii and appendix 4), and require local governments
guide decisions and actions required across the three
to use anticipated growth numbers from the Housing
orders of government to realize the timely delivery of
Needs Reports as binding minimum targets from which
benefits from joint infrastructure investments. To this end,
to determine land-use policies and decisions;
we recommend $60 million over 10 years. Though
3. the B.C. government require growing municipalities to federally funded, we also recommend provincial and
have official community plans (OCPs) that are updated municipal support, notably by providing data; and
every five years and developed in tandem with Housing
7. The B.C. government develop a provincewide digital
Needs Reports. The provincial government should cover
development permitting system designed to meet local
the associated costs. The B.C. government should also
government and industry needs in a streamlined, timely
require all local governments to proactively update
and cost efficient fashion. This system would consist
and orient zoning bylaws and infrastructure planning to
of two main parts: a central repository including all
reflect official community plans, as widely and as rapidly
development requirements and restrictions administered
as possible. Practices such as adopting plans without
by any order of government or organization, and a case
pre-zoning land or orienting infrastructure planning to
management system for efficient management and
match those changes, and relying on privately initiated
monitoring of development proposals from pre-application
rezoning (spot-zoning) should be strongly discouraged;
through to occupancy. We recommend a provincial
system that draws on registries operated by the Land
Title and Survey Authority, which would be operationally
efficient and cost effective for all parties.

26
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

BOX V:
Measuring the approvals process
Though some local governments do track development applications as they progress through the various stages of
approval, they are neither required to do so, nor obligated to make such data publicly available. As a result, there are
no comprehensive, comparable datasets featuring approval timelines, by local government or by project, and their
evolution over time. This significant data gap presents important challenges to fully understanding housing supply in
B.C., and Canada more generally, motivating independent research efforts such as Simon Fraser University’s Getting to
Groundbreaking series, which approximates such timelines for specific projects in specific years, while mapping various
regulatory hurdles. Similar research conducted by the Altus Group for the Canadian Home Builders’ Association, as well
as the Fraser Institute, share similar findings (see footnotes 22, 23 and 24). Namely, approvals often take years in Canada’s
most expensive cities, can cost tens of thousands of dollars per new unit in fees and often face significant uncertainty.

The Panel encourages such research efforts, but also believes that governments have a greater role to play in
comprehensively tracking the development approvals process over time (see recommendation 7).

BOX VI:
Capping development approvals timelines
in Ontario and Alberta
Having identified long and uncertain project approvals timelines as detrimental to housing supply in major cities,
the governments of Ontario and Alberta passed legislation (Bill 108 in Ontario and Bill 48 in Alberta) in 2019 and 2020,
respectively. Both pieces of legislation stipulate (or in the case of Alberta, update) maximum time limits on the various
types and stages of development applications. In Ontario, this includes a 120-day limit for official plan amendments
and subdivision applications, as well as a 90-day limit for rezoning applications. In Alberta, this includes a 20-day limit
to determine application completeness, a 60-day limit for subdivision applications, and a 40-day limit for development
permit applications. In both provinces, these limits are enforced by independent tribunals based on development
applicant appeals.

27
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

BOX VII:
Housing Needs Reports
Under the Housing Needs Report Regulation, B.C. Regulation 90/2019, municipalities and regional districts in B.C.
are required to complete Housing Needs Reports by April 2022 and every five years thereafter. Legislative requirements
took effect in April 2019 and require local governments to collect data, analyze trends and present reports that describe
current and anticipated housing needs in B.C. communities. The needs, in turn, help orient official community plans
and regional growth strategies around meeting current and future housing needs.

The introduction of Housing Needs Reports was an important step toward better understanding and anticipating
housing demand and supply dynamics. However, we believe these reports would benefit from additional refinements
(see appendix 4). In particular, an “affordability adjustment” is necessary to account for past undersupply. Household
growth on its own is insufficient as an indicator of future housing needs because household formation is constrained to
the available supply—new households cannot form if there is nowhere for them to live (see appendix 5).

One international example of the inclusion of an “affordability adjustment” can be found in the U.K. government’s
Housing and Economic Needs Assessments, which “identify the minimum number of homes expected to be planned for,
in a way which addresses projected household growth and historic undersupply.”25

BOX VIII:
Development Approvals Process Review (DAPR)
Led by the B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the DAPR report presents opportunities identified through
consultations held in 2018 and 2019 with local governments, developers, building professionals, non-profit organizations,
and government agencies, to eliminate barriers to affordable housing and accelerate the construction of homes people
need. The DAPR report was released in September 2019 and outlines opportunities covering seven broad areas from public
engagement to government charges on development. Many of the opportunities presented in the DAPR report reflect
themes and recommendations that emerged during Expert Panel consultations and deliberations, in turn reinforcing their
importance and the need to repeat them in our own report. The DAPR report is available online at: https://www2.gov.bc.
ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/local-governments/planning-land-use/dapr_2019_report.pdf

Reforming fees on include development cost charges (DCCs), density bonusing

and community amenity contributions (CACs), which,
property development despite sharing broad similarities as development-based
exactions, differ greatly in their application and impacts
Strong and persistent growth pressure in British Columbia’s in practice (see appendix 6 for brief descriptions of each
largest cities has contributed to the emergence of provincial tool). In particular, the negotiated and often unpredictable
and local government revenue instruments aimed at capturing nature of CACs can delay or discourage new homebuilding,
a portion of the value of new development to fund growth- and increase housing prices in the region. The challenges
related infrastructure and amenities. These instruments

25
United Kingdom Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2015). See appendix 4 for similar calculations applied to B.C.’s four CMAs.

28
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

presented by these instruments, as well as opportunities priorities (as outlined in regional growth strategies and
to reduce their negative effects on housing supply are official community plans) lose that revenue opportunity.
outlined below. Indeed, local governments can generate CAC revenue by
keeping zoning below levels that make redevelopment
Current challenges possible, and selling additional “air rights” through the
zoning powers they have been delegated. Consequently,
Fees on development can reduce the the additional costs, time, and uncertainty associated with
the rezoning process—including their negative impacts on
amount of developable land housing supply—persist.
The selling price of new housing is determined by the ability
and willingness of buyers to pay at a given point in time, Zoning-based charges (CACs) can undermine the
limiting the ability of developers to immediately raise selling participatory community planning process
prices. As a result of this effective “ceiling” on prices at a given
point in time, the additional costs imposed by fees and Because zoning-based revenue tools such as CACs discourage
charges must replace other items in developments’ cost local governments from updating zoning codes to better reflect
structures. Developers don’t determine construction or Regional Growth Strategy and OCP priorities, a fourth challenge
material costs, and they cannot reduce profits below that stemming from these tools is that they risk undermining the
required to obtain project financing, leaving the initial participatory planning process. For example, if a community
purchase price of land to absorb the cost of development has already consented to the creation of more density along a
fees. When developers offer less for land, more properties major new transit corridor, it arguably follows that zoning and
remain in their current use, and do not get turned into servicing infrastructure should be rapidly updated to reflect
additional homes, exacerbating supply shortages and this priority, rather than reflecting the pre-OCP consultation
their resulting pressures on prices citywide.26 While new status quo (see box ix for a case study of the Cambie Corridor).
development or redevelopment should be expected to To reform fees on property development, we recommend that:
pay its share of infrastructure or amenity costs incurred
by cities, setting fees too high means unnecessarily raising 8. local governments designate and prioritize infrastructure
the price of both new and existing housing across the city. needs and amenity preferences, as well as the associated
share of costs to be generated through development
charges, well in advance (for example, during the official
Zoning-based charges (CACs) increase
planning process, or alongside Housing Needs Reports);
approval timelines and uncertainty
9. the B.C. government phase out community amenity
CACs are often negotiated between property developers and contributions, as suggested in the Development Approvals
local governments, without clear indication of how long the Process Review (DAPR) report, while expanding the
process will take or the exact conditions for rezoning approval definition of development cost charges in legislation to
in advance of project proposals. Such delays not only add include a wider list of infrastructure and amenities directly
costs, including carrying costs of land and staff, but also risk tied to growth, such as those currently funded by CACs.
reducing the number of projects that would otherwise be The B.C. government should require any new or expanded
proposed. Moreover, the high transaction or expertise costs fees or taxation of development to only fund capital
associated with navigating these processes risk discouraging expenses, and not operating expenses. The B.C. government
new entrants in B.C.’s homebuilding industry. should also require any new or expanded municipally
levied fees or taxation of development to adhere to
Zoning-based charges (CACs) discourage principles of “nexus” and “proportionality.” Namely,
proactive zoning for more homes development fees should match the proportion of new
CACs are negotiated in exchange for rezoning property to amenity or infrastructure requirements directly generated
accommodate more homes. As a result, local governments by new development projects, rather than an exhaustive
that proactively increase zoned capacity or update zoning list of desired amenities. For further discussion of nexus
codes to better reflect anticipated growth and community and proportionality, see appendix 7.

26
For more on the mechanism by which fees, and especially CACs, influence the supply of developable land citywide, see British Columbia Ministry of Community,
Sport and Cultural Development (2014), as well as The Economics of Community Amenity Contributions and Real Estate Taxes, a standalone document on the Panel’s
website, https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/121/2021/06/Economics-of-CACs.pdf

29
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

10. the B.C. government conduct a full review of local 11. federal and provincial governments create a municipal
government revenue sources and spending responsibilities. housing incentive program rewarding the creation of net
This review should include consideration of additional or new housing supply wherever demand occurs. Conditions
enhanced funding sources for infrastructure and amenities may be tied to these funds, such as caps on new dwelling
that are more predictable and do not rely on rezoning or values or compensation for displaced renters, though their
the development process. Preference should be given to primary purpose is to recognize municipal costs incurred
means that capture land value through taxation, rather in growing the housing stock and reward growth of housing
than homebuilding;27 and supply where it is needed.28 The magnitude of this program
can vary, including a sliding scale based on the number
of new units added relative to the number they replace.

BOX IX:
Case study: The Cambie Corridor
Following the 2009 completion of the Canada Line SkyTrain expansion connecting downtown Vancouver to Vancouver
International Airport, the City of Vancouver conducted substantial public consultations to produce a corridor plan
guiding redevelopment near new transit stations. The Cambie Corridor Plan was rolled out in three phases, starting
in 2010, and continues to guide development patterns in the area. Important features of the Cambie Corridor Plan
include a public benefits strategy enumerating infrastructure and amenity requirements determined ahead of time
through the consultation process, as well as funding sources for these requirements, notably fixed-rate CACs.

The early identification, prioritization and costing of capital and amenity requirements, as well as a transparent fee
structure to pay for them are both preferable to more ad hoc or unpredictable processes and requirements. In this
regard, the Cambie Corridor Plan follows best practices linked to a better environment for growing the housing supply.
However, reliance on CACs means reliance on rezoning, in turn discouraging the City from changing zoning along the
Cambie Corridor to better reflect the area plan. Crucially, changes to zoning must be approved by the City council
rather than City staff, causing unnecessary delays and uncertainty.29

In order to accelerate the realization of area or citywide plans, municipalities can benefit from adopting transparent,
prioritized and costed lists of capital requirements well ahead of building applications (like the Public Benefits Strategy),
while the Province can shift development-based fees available to municipalities away from the need to rezone (CACs)
and toward more transparent, legislated tools (DCCs). Municipalities can also start developing area plans for transit
corridors well in advance of project completion, in order for housing development and transit development to occur
in tandem.

27
Examples of such means include, but are not limited to, special assessment districts or tax increment financing (TIF), which involve time-limited, neighbourhood-
level property tax increases to finance local improvements or amenities (for example, the revitalization of a former industrial district paid for by nearby and future
property owners). These tools are already used in several Canadian and U.S. cities, including Calgary and Winnipeg. The Panel expresses no a priori preference for
either of these tools, but encourages the consideration of all such options as part of a broader discussion on municipal revenue sources.
28
A similar program has been in place in England since 2011, where local councils receive annual grants, called the New Homes Bonus, from the central government
“based on the amount of extra Council Tax revenue raised for new-build homes, conversions and long-term empty homes brought back into use. There is also an
extra payment for providing affordable homes.” (United Kingdom Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2020).
29
The need for council hearings for rezoning was identified as an important cause of delays in the development process in the B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing’s 2019 Development Approvals Process Review (DAPR) report. The report identifies pre-zoning land to match planning priorities, as well as empowering City
staff to make more development-related decisions as potential solutions to address rezoning-induced delays.

30
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Expanding the supply Current challenges

of community and Affordable rental units are disappearing
affordable housing faster than they are being built
Persistent rent inflation, along with redevelopments and
Although the private market houses the vast majority of
demolitions of older rental buildings, has resulted in a
British Columbians, the housing needs of an increasing
significant loss of affordable rental stock in the private
number of individuals and families are not being met by the
market. Based on census data, nearly 34,000 units renting
private rental market. B.C. has a well-established community
below $750/month were lost in B.C. between 2011 and 2016.31
housing sector that manages around 87,000 units30 across
Assuming this same trend continued after 2016, the BC
the province, consisting of non-profit housing societies,
Non-profit Housing Association (BCNPHA) estimates that
co-operatives, and community land trusts (see appendix 8 for
for every new unit of community housing built, three units
a comprehensive list of this sector’s participants in B.C.). The
of low-rent housing in the private sector disappear. Unless
sector also includes a small number of public housing bodies
measures are taken to stem the loss of existing affordable
with a similar mission to preserve long-term affordability to
rental, it will be nearly impossible to address the need for
meet the needs of local residents. Community housing serves
affordable units through new supply alone.
a wide cross-section of B.C. residents, including veterans,
seniors, families, newcomers and households that require
supportive and assisted housing. The community housing There are more people in need of community
sector responds not only to the need for affordable homes, housing than there are homes available
but also for long-term residential stability, community All Canadian cities have wait lists of applicants for community
building and social inclusion. Importantly, the need for housing, so it is unsurprising that B.C.’s largest cities also
non-market homes can grow as market housing is increasingly feature lengthy lists of individuals and families seeking
priced out of reach of those earning local incomes (as explained housing that they can afford and that meets their needs.
in appendix 3). Based on the 2018 Canadian Housing Survey, 25,200
households in B.C. were on waiting lists for affordable
What distinguishes the community housing sector from
housing that year, and around half of these households had
the market sector is that it is mission-driven, rather than
been on a waiting list for two years or longer.32 This share of
profit-driven. Like their non-profit counterparts, many
unmet housing demand is attributable to multiple factors,
market sector housing developers and landlords may
including a mismatch between unit types required and unit
also be motivated to provide housing at affordable prices.
types available, processing or eligibility issues and, crucially,
Even so, it is unrealistic to expect the market sector to
housing prices that reflect induced scarcity rather than the
take on projects that will generate little or no profit. In fact,
simple cost of building homes. As explained in appendix 8,
having a healthy profit margin built into financial models
rising market rents and homeownership costs can create
is usually a requirement to access development loans
negative spillovers as households otherwise able to afford
from financial institutions.
market-rate housing find themselves priced out. This is
precisely what we have seen in parts of Metro Vancouver and
Greater Victoria in recent decades, where wages that could
more comfortably cover housing costs in other urban regions
are insufficient for market-rate rents or ownership costs.

30
This number differs from the number of assisted households reported by BC Housing, which includes subsidized households living in private market housing.
See: https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/facts-stats#:~:text=By%20end%20of%202019%2F20,90%20communities%20across%20the%20province.
31
Pomeroy, Lampert & Eberle (2019).
32
Statistics Canada table 46-10-0042-01 available at:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=4610004201&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.1.

31
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Building below the market rate, and To expand the supply of community and affordable
especially deeply affordable homes, housing, we recommend that:
is not economically viable on its own 12. the federal and provincial governments independently
or jointly create an acquisition fund to enable non-profit
Below-market-rate housing is typically not feasible
housing organizations to acquire currently affordable
as a for-profit venture, requiring public, private or
housing properties at risk of being repriced or redeveloped
charitable contributions to support its viability.
into more expensive units. Conditions should be attached
Non-profit providers usually need to pay the same
to this funding that will prevent forced displacement of
market prices for land and face the same construction
existing tenants when a building is acquired. The B.C.
costs as for-profit developers. They also must deal
government should exempt non-profit organizations from
with the same regulatory barriers that limit the quantity
the property transfer tax for building acquisitions that will
and quality of projects undertaken. Further regulatory
be used to provide affordable housing;
barriers, such as federal tax policies that limit the scope
of charitable and non-profit housing projects, present 13. the federal government make long-term funding
unnecessary administrative barriers to mixed-income commitments, as was done until the mid-1990s, rather
developments with significant additional administrative than offering short-term capital grants. We recommend
costs incurred by non-profit organizations. that the scale of these funding commitments reflects what
is required for the construction of new social housing
Demand-side supports (for example, units to return to historic levels, when nearly 10% of all
national housing starts were social housing units;
rent supplements) are less effective
in supply-constrained housing markets 14. the federal and provincial governments provide more
dedicated money to the community housing sector and
“Portable” benefits, such as rent supplements, are a increase contributions relative to loans under current
well-known approach to help low-income households National Housing Strategy (NHS) programs. Federal
find shelter in the private market. Such programs funding allocations to provinces should be tied to levels
can work well in many cities, and indeed help many of core housing need;
households across B.C. However, they are less effective
in supply-constrained housing markets, such as B.C.’s 15. all orders of government undertake land assembly
major urban centres, where low rental vacancy rates and provide long-term leases to private and non-profit
allow landlords to bid up rents rather than compete developers of affordable housing. Several municipalities
for tenants. In such markets, rent supplements either in B.C. are already doing this, and we recommend an
cost more or do not go as far in helping the households expansion of this practice (see box xi); and
they target.33 16. the federal government amend the Income Tax Act to
enable charitable housing providers to widen the cross-
section of groups they serve beyond low-income, disabled
and elderly households, allowing charities to undertake
mixed-income housing developments. This amendment
would enable charitable housing providers to scale their
operations, expand the number of households they serve
and use low-end of market-rate rents to cross-subsidize
affordable units.

33
Metcalf (2018).

32
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

BOX X:
A reduction in the construction of community
and affordable housing since the mid-1990s has
created a supply shortage
From the mid-1960s until the early-1990s, the federal government made significant financial contributions to the start-up,
capital and operating costs of social housing developments.34 At their height, these public, non-profit and co-operative
housing supply programs saw the creation of 25,000 new affordable homes built annually in Canada. The supply of
affordable housing diminished considerably in the mid-1990s, when the federal government withdrew from funding
new social housing and transferred program delivery to the provinces and territories.35

Following the offloading of affordable housing programs, The reduction in social housing construction since the
the Government of B.C. increased its contributions to social mid-1990s has been particularly impactful because it
and affordable housing. Despite the significant provincial occurred alongside the loss of federal incentives for
investments made, construction of new affordable units purpose-built rental developments in the 1980s. This,
has remained below historic heights. along with rising construction costs and low rents,
fostered a growing preference among developers for
Table 1: Social and affordable housing, number strata developments.37 Together, these forces contributed
of units by construction period, select provinces to a dramatic slowdown in new purpose-built rental
supply over several decades. Research conducted by the
Pre-1970 1970-1989 1990-2019 BC Rental Housing Coalition suggests that 80,000 rental
Canada 81,247 284,396 102,759 units are needed to fix the rental housing deficit in the
Alberta 3,288 27,699 9,612 province, and that an additional 7,000 new rental units
British Columbia 9,909 52,059 31,643 need to be constructed annually over the next decade
Ontario 33,191 118,186 34,748 to meet demand.38
Quebec 24,554 28,430 15,125

Source: CMHC (2019). Social and Affordable Housing Survey36

34
”Social housing” traditionally referred to housing owned and operated by public and non-profit groups and allocated on a non-market basis. The meaning
of the term has shifted over time, corresponding to changing subsidized housing approaches. In the 1990s, funding for social housing construction declined,
and increasingly governments have provided housing support to low-income households in the form of portable rental assistance. As a result, the term social
housing is now often used to include private, for-profit housing that is subsidized through rent supplement programs. The term “affordable housing” is a broad
term that is used to refer to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing with below to low end of market rents, or sometimes market-rate housing that costs less
than 30% of the median income by household size for a set geography (see box ii on definitions of affordability). Community housing includes public, non-profit
and co-operative social and affordable housing, but does not include private for-profit affordable housing.
35
For details of historical social housing programs, including historical starts, see Suttor (2016).
36
Available at https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/data-and-research/data-tables/social-affordable-housing-survey-rental-structures-data.
37
Strata legislation was introduced in the province in 1966, and expanded in 1974. By the mid-1980s, federal incentives for purpose-built rental development
had been phased out. These incentives included a combination of grants, low-cost loans and tax exemptions.
38
BC Rental Housing Coalition (2017).

33
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Though perfect alignment is unlikely, especially when

BOX XI: programs reflect the political priorities of different
legislative bodies and jurisdictions, most programs aim
City-owned land and the to expand the supply of affordable homes, presenting
Community Land Trust opportunities for flexibility in program delivery.

in Vancouver Current challenges

B.C.’s Community Land Trust (CLT) has partnered
with non-profit housing providers to develop or A lack of coordination limits the pool
preserve thousands of affordable units throughout of potential program applicants
the province. CLT is currently in the process of Long approval timelines, uncertainty and conflicting
developing over 1,000 homes through its partnership program criteria all add costs, in both time and money,
with the Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency, to program applicants. Such costs can restrict the pool
on land provided by the City of Vancouver through of potential applicants, as those without the budgets or
99-year leases at a nominal rate. The City of Vancouver staff to navigate approvals are prevented from participating
and the Land Trust anticipate operating surpluses that in the program altogether.
can be used for future expansions of affordable housing
and to deepen affordability for low-income households Federal construction dollars have a limited
living in Land Trust housing. Surpluses will be divided
impact without municipal collaboration
between the Land Trust and the City of Vancouver.
Because rezoning approvals can take several years,
and are not guaranteed, CMHC typically requires
that zoning be in place before approving projects for
Improving coordination development funding, rather than granting conditional

among and within all approval when a rezoning application is under review.
This presents an opportunity for CMHC to work with
orders of government municipalities to identify projects that, if approved for
rezoning, could greatly increase the impact of funding
All orders of government undertake important for affordable housing.
programs to increase the supply of affordable market
or non-market housing. However, housing programs Stringent program requirements with
are frequently misaligned, and sometimes conflict with
competing goals
one another, which can delay or discourage desirable
housing projects. For instance, different design and Many provincial and federal housing programs aim to
environmental requirements between federal and increase the supply of homes that are simultaneously
provincial programs create barriers to projects applying affordable, physically accessible and environmentally
for multiple programs (called program “stacking”), friendly. While all three goals are important, meeting rigid
even though both federal and provincial funding may accessibility and environmental requirements often adds
be needed to create projects with affordable units. substantial costs to new construction and redevelopment.
Municipal inclusionary zoning requirements can As a result, overly rigid program criteria can further stifle
add another layer of misalignment by enforcing a the supply of affordable housing such programs are
different set of eligibility criteria than required by designed to fund.
provincial and federal affordable housing programs.

34
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

To improve coordination between all orders

of government, we recommend that:
BOX XII:
Sen’ákw lands housing
17. to better address housing needs in Indigenous
communities and support Indigenous-led housing
initiatives, the federal government move forward
with co-developing an urban, rural and northern
development
housing strategy, and sufficiently fund the three The Squamish Nation is in the predevelopment stage
distinctions-based Indigenous housing strategies; of a 6,000-unit housing project on the Nation’s Sen’ákw
18. historically low interest rates be used to expand reserve lands at the edge of Vancouver’s Kitsilano
debt ceilings for federal and provincial programs neighbourhood. Between 10 and 30% of the units will be
providing long-term, low-cost financing supporting leasehold strata, with the remainder being rental.
affordable housing development. Proponent demand Because the development is on the Squamish Nation’s
should guide funding limits as these programs support Indian Reserve lands, it is subject to the Squamish
long-lived housing assets that will contribute to housing Nation’s zoning and development permitting
supply and affordability for generations. Along with requirements, and not the City of Vancouver’s
expanding funding, application processes should requirements. This more relaxed regulatory environment
be streamlined wherever possible to enable easier has enabled the development to have several features
access and timely rollout; that would not be allowed under current City rules,
including higher building densities and parking spaces
19. all orders of government grant their housing program
for only 10% of the units. In this regard, the Sen’ákw
providers (including BC Housing and CMHC) greater
project offers one vision of the possibilities associated
flexibility to align affordable housing program requirements
with a less restrictive land development system.
with those of other providers, enabling the delivery of
quality affordable housing across the country on a greater The Sen’ákw project also highlights how discussions
scale, and in a timely fashion. Potential ways to improve about housing are also always discussions about
flexibility include: land. Given that the governments of Canada and B.C.
a) federal programs deferring to provincial building have committed to reconciliation with Indigenous
and environmental codes, communities all orders of government should attempt,
wherever possible, to work with Indigenous communities
b) streamlined underwriting for projects funded
on agreements enabling land to support collective goals.
by both BC Housing and CMHC programs,
Sen’ákw provides an example of how returning powers
c) CMHC reviewing its underwriting requirements over land to Indigenous communities can also benefit
with the goal of removing unnecessary requirements provincial goals of supporting more housing construction.
and reducing application turnaround times, and In this sense, Sen’ákw provides a path forward for
d) CMHC granting conditional approval for projects co-operative reconciliation that might be repeated
under review for rezoning and, in some cases, in many locations, especially around high demand
actively sponsoring such applications; and metropolitan areas in B.C.

20. local governments offer density bonuses to affordable

housing developers that receive federal and provincial
construction and redevelopment funding. These bonuses
could be dependent on longer-term or deeper affordability
criteria for some proportion of the units than what the
construction funding program requires.

35
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Ensuring more equitable The Panel recognizes that homeownership is a widely

shared goal in Canada and that becoming a homeowner
treatment of renters and provides many benefits for individuals, families and
homeowners communities. Our report is not intended to actively
discourage homeownership. Rather, the focus of the
For many decades, Canadian housing policies have encouraged recommendations in this section is to achieve more
households to purchase, rather than rent, their homes. equitable treatment of renters relative to homeowners.
Owning one’s home means less vulnerability to the control
of landlords, protection from rising rents, the ability to invest Current challenges
in improvements that suit the household, and access to
potential capital gains. Today, both federal and provincial Policies favouring homeownership
governments continue to promote homeownership through exacerbate wealth inequality
a combination of direct and indirect subsidies and incentives.
Through tax advantages, Canadians have been encouraged Thanks in part to the financial advantages that come with
to see housing investments as a primary path to building homeownership, most Canadians with the means to purchase
wealth and economic security. Over time, this feature of a home have chosen to own rather than rent. This is also true
the tax system has arguably led Canadians to invest more in British Columbia, where nearly 70% of households are
in owned housing than they would have if housing were owners. High levels of homeownership amid steadily rising
taxed like other goods or assets.39 prices have contributed to a stratification of housing tenure
based on income; lower-income households are mostly
Both the provincial and federal governments offer tax renters, while higher-income households are predominantly
subsidies directed toward the private rental market, such homeowners. This stratification sharpens wealth inequality
as the exemption of rents from GST, and tax rebates for new between renters and owners, as housing values have risen
rental housing. There are also low-cost loan programs that dramatically over time and homeownership has become an
aim to boost the supply of rental housing, such as the Rental increasingly important means of wealth building for many
Construction Financing initiative (RCFi). For low-income households.40 This is particularly true in high-cost cities,
renters in the private market, direct subsidies also exist, such as Vancouver and Toronto, where growth in home
such as B.C.’s Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters (SAFER) and values has substantially boosted median net worth in
the Canada-B.C. Housing Benefit. However, these supports recent decades. In Vancouver, for example, between 1999
are provided to targeted groups of renters, while the vast and 2019, the median value of principal residences rose
majority of housing-related subsidies benefit all or most from $366,000 to $900,000, in constant dollars.41 The net
homeowners. Indeed, the two largest housing subsidies in worth of homeowners, particularly those without mortgages,
Canada are the exemption of capital gains tax on primary is significantly higher than that of renters in B.C. Based on
residences and the non-taxation of imputed rental income 2016 data, the average household net worth of homeowners
(see appendix 9 for a full list of incentives and definitions). without a mortgage was around $1.7 million, and for
homeowners with a mortgage, was around $1.05 million.
Renter households, by comparison, had an average net worth
of around $182,000.42

39
For a discussion of this trend internationally, see The Economist (2020).
40
A policy response to the tax advantages given to homeowners could be to make homeownership more accessible to renters, for instance by making it easier for
low-income households to access mortgages. However, supporting the expansion of homeownership, in the absence of increasing supply, will cause housing prices
to rise. Making it easier for households to access mortgages may also increase the indebtedness of Canadian households. High mortgage debt levels create financial
system risk that could be destabilizing in the event of a sharp downturn in housing prices, as occurred in many countries during the 2007-2008 financial crisis.
41
2019 constant dollars, Statistics Canada (2020).
42
Data comes from Statistics Canada Survey of Financial Security 2016 – Public Use Micro File (PUMF). It is important to note that these figures likely underestimate
the differences in net worth between homeowners and lifelong renters, given that households that have sold their homes to downsize into rental are also captured
in the average net worth of renter households.

36
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Policies favouring homeownership 22. in the absence of changes to the taxation of owner-occupied
are often regressive housing, the federal government provide tax savings
measures to renters to help offset the favourable tax
While all homeowners stand to benefit from tax exemptions, treatment of ownership. These tax benefits could come
notably in respect of capital gains on primary residences in the form of (but are not limited to):
and the non-taxation of imputed rent (see appendix 9 for
a) tax deductibility or tax credits for annual rent paid, and
descriptions), the tax benefits of homeownership tend
to disproportionately accrue to higher-income or higher- b) a renter’s tax-free savings account (TFSA) contribution
net-worth households (see above). Tax exemptions for amount in addition to regular TFSA limits as an
homeowners also represent lost revenue for governments, initial step toward greater housing tenure neutrality
resulting in less government funding available for those in the personal income tax system. The amount
in greatest housing need. should be geared to matching the tax relief available
to homeowners; and
Homeowners have disproportionate 23. the B.C. government phase out the Home Owner Grant.
political influence Monies saved from this should be used to fund social
Homeowners, who stand to benefit from both rising housing housing in addition to the commitments made in the
values and the tax advantages they are granted, also have 10-year plan.
considerable political influence, as they form the largest
voting bloc in many jurisdictions and tend to have higher
voter turnout than renters in local elections.43 Elected officials
may be reluctant to take actions to significantly boost the
supply and affordability of housing or change tax policies
that favour incumbent homeowners because of the potential
political backlash. This, in turn, is exacerbating housing
shortages and the inequalities they accentuate.44

To ensure more equitable treatment of renters and

homeowners, we recommend that:
21. the federal and provincial governments make changes
to tax programs to bring the treatment of renters and
homeowners into closer alignment. This would include
reviewing the impact of the capital gains tax exemption on
principal residences with careful consideration of fairness
and efficiency, and extending comparable support to other
forms of wealth building;

43
Several Canadian and international studies have found homeowners have higher voter turnout in elections, particularly local elections. See for instance,
Kushner & Siegel (2006).
44
See Fischel (2001), McGregor and Spicer (2016), and Metcalf (2018) for more on the political incentives of homeowners.

37
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

BOX XIII:
A note on the tax treatment of residential property
A recurring theme encountered in Panel consultations and discussions was the tax treatment of residential property.
In particular, the reluctance of local governments to levy higher property tax rates on homeowners to fund local services
or amenities was identified as a factor contributing to the demand for housing, which, when combined with the other tax
advantages associated with homeownership (identified in this section) can distort investment decisions. Low property
taxes (relative to property values) also reduce the carrying costs for investors holding residential property as an asset,
which along with historically low interest rates, makes property an especially attractive investment.

To address these distortions to demand while helping increase supply, potential solutions identified included shifting to
a land-value tax (rather than taxing built structures), a greater role for property tax revenue in funding infrastructure and
amenities, and greater balance between the property tax rates faced by different property classes (for example, residential,
commercial, industrial) to more closely tie the costs of services and amenities to those benefiting from them. However,
the Panel is sensitive to the political difficulties related to property tax reform—especially significant ones such as those
listed here—as homeowners often form the most significant voting bloc in local elections.

The Panel has therefore made fewer, but still important recommendations around property tax, recognizing that even
such changes would require strong leadership. For instance, one of the Panel’s recommendations is to phase out the
Home Owner Grant, which is currently offered in full to B.C. homeowners with a principal residence assessed at or
below $1,625,000. The projected cost of this tax expenditure for the 2020/2021 fiscal year is $848 million.45 While the
Panel believes that phasing this homeownership subsidy out is advisable, one potential drawback of this is it may
increase homeowners’ opposition to neighbourhood upzoning, which typically raises property values and therefore
results in higher property taxes.

Because housing markets and the taxation of housing are so tightly linked, the Panel recommends that all orders of
government consider the unintended consequences of policies that concentrate benefits on one group at the expense
of the remainder of the population.

45
This amount includes the northern and rural areas home owner benefit. See B.C. Ministry of Finance (2020).

38
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

4. Appendices
Appendix 1: The state years. Figure 10 shows trends in the average price of
homes by type for Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna and
of affordability in B.C.’s Abbotsford-Mission CMAs.
largest urban regions Price increases were similar across B.C.’s metropolitan
areas and housing types, with prices rising particularly
This appendix discusses and presents data on the state
quickly in 2001-2008 and since 2015. Annualized growth
and evolution of housing costs in British Columbia’s
rates ranged from 5.7 to 7.8% between 2000 and 2020,
major urban centres in recent years, identifies why these
while general inflation in the province averaged 1.6%
trends matter and highlights some of the consequences
over the same period.46 Vancouver CMA detached homes
of not tackling housing affordability comprehensively.
were an outlier, seeing near-persistent growth between
The cost of housing has been increasing rapidly 2000 and the introduction of new taxes on foreign buyers
in British Columbia’s major urban areas for many in 2016.

Figure 10: Mean MLS price by dwelling type, B.C. CMAs – annualized growth rate 2000-2020 in data labels

$ Vancouver
1,600,000 Detached
7.7%

1,400,000

1,200,000

Total
1,000,000 6.5%

Attached
800,000 6.6%
Apartment
600,000 6.7%

400,000

200,000

0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: CREA

46
Statistics Canada table 18-10-0005-01.

39
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 10: (Continued)

$ Victoria
1,000,000
Detached
7.0%

800,000
Total
6.3%
Attached
600,000 5.7%

Apartment
6.3%

400,000

200,000

0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020
$ Kelowna
1,000,000

Detached
7.4%
800,000

Total
6.8%

600,000
Attached
6.4%

400,000 Apartment
6.2%

200,000

0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: CREA

40
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 10: (Continued)

$ Abbotsford-Mission
1,000,000
Detached
7.8%

800,000
Total
7.2%

600,000
Attached
6.7%

400,000
Apartment
7.2%

200,000

0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020
Source: CREA

Despite rapid price growth, lower interest rates have house prices. Although low interest rates and income
increased the mortgage carrying capacity of almost all growth have matched much of the rise in housing costs,
households. This, along with household income growth, households increasingly require larger down payments and
has mostly, but not completely, offset rising prices to larger mortgages to purchase a home. The associated high
maintain carrying cost affordability levels in 2020 similar levels of debt make such households more vulnerable to
to those in 2006, notwithstanding significantly higher potential interest rate hikes, downturns in housing prices
or income losses in the future. 47

Figure 11: Median MLS price (all types) divided by median couple family income, B.C. CMAs –
2019-2020 are forecasted46

3
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Vancouver Victoria Kelowna Abbotsford-Mission

47
Census family income is available annually based on tax filings. 2018 was the most recent data point available at the time of publication.

41
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 12: Median couple family income, B.C. (indexed 1=2006) – annualized growth rate 2000-2020 in
data labels – 2019-2020 are forecasted

2.2
2.10 6.4% Median couple
family income
2.0 carrying capacity
(2019-2020
1.77 forecasted)
1.8
1.74 Borrowing Multiple
1.59
1.6 (32% Mortgage
1.46 1.48 3.3% Payment Share of
1.39 1.37 Income, 25 Year
1.4 1.32 1.42 3.0%
1.29 Amortization)
1.27
1.2 1.21 1.27
1.2 1.13
1.00 1.13 Median Couple
1.08 1.16
1.00 Family Income
0.96 1.06
1.0 1.05 (2019-2020
0.88 0.90 1.00
forecasted)
0.79 0.85 0.87
0.8 0.75
0.77
0.61
0.6
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020
Sources: Statistics Canada and Ratehub

Figure 13: Median couple family income carrying capacity and MLS median prices, B.C. CMAs (indexed
1=2006) – 2019-2020 income is forecasted

2.2 Vancouver 2.2 Victoria

2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2.2 Kelowna 2.2 Abbotsford-Mission
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

Median price Median family income carrying capacity

Sources: Statistics Canada, Ratehub and CREA

42
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 14: Median monthly rents, B.C. CMAs – annualized growth rate 2000-2020 in data labels

$
1,500
Vancouver
3.6%

Victoria
3.7%

1,200 Kelowna
3.7%

Abbotsford-Mission
2.9%

900

600

300
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020
Source: CMHC

Rents have risen at a slower pace than housing prices, Table 2: Median rents annualized growth rate
but they have grown quickly since 2015. High and escalating 2015-2020
rents directly lower living standards for renters, particularly
CMA Rate
those with low to moderate incomes, by reducing the amount
Vancouver 6.0%
of money left over for other expenses. High rents also
limit the capacity of many renters to save, which makes Victoria 6.9%
homeownership and other long-term financial goals more Kelowna 6.5%
difficult or impossible to achieve. High housing costs have Abbotsford-Mission 5.9%
wider economic and social effects as well, such as curbing
Source: CMHC
choices on where to live or whether to move, limiting
economic opportunity and potentially making the economy
less productive and efficient by decreasing labour mobility.

43
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 15: Median monthly rents and median couple family income, B.C. CMAs (indexed 1=2006) –
2019-2020 income is forecasted

Vancouver Victoria
2.2 2.2
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Kelowna Abbotsford-Mission
2.2 2.2
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Median Rent Median Couple Household Income

Sources: Statistics Canada and CMHC

As shown in table 3 below, a much larger proportion of renters than owners experience housing affordability challenges.
In 2016, more than twice as many renters than owners in B.C. spent over 30% of their household income on shelter. Given
the growth in rents since 2015 (see table 2), the affordability challenges faced by many renters have worsened since they
were last captured in the census.

Table 3: Percentage of households spending more than 30% of income on housing

2016 2011 2006 2001
Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner
Canada 40 17 40 19 40 18 40 16
B.C. 43 21 45 24 43 23 44 21
Vancouver 44 25 45 28 43 27 43 24
Victoria 44 19 47 23 44 21 45 19
Kelowna 46 19 50 25 48 23 46 20
Abbotsford-Mission 39 20 40 26 43 21 42 24

Source: Statistics Canada

44
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Cities need a variety of people with a diversity of skills, The difficulties faced by lower-income households in finding
experience and knowledge. Everyone from waiters, childcare a place to live reasonably close to workplaces and urban
providers, grocery store employees and paramedics amenities is just one of the ways in which access to housing
contribute to the quality of life and vibrancy of cities, feeds into growing inequality. While many higher-income
while seeking and creating opportunities to get the most households have seen substantial unrealized capital gains
from their skills. By being more accessible and affordable on their homes, lower-income households may struggle to
to workers and families of all types, including newcomers find a place to rent. Tensions are even higher if homeowners
from around the world, cities can and do contribute seek to restrict the development of more multi-unit housing,
substantially to Canada’s current and future prosperity. such as rental, in urban areas that offer more job opportunities.

45
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Population growth and home prices A key factor affecting households’ decisions on where to live
and whether or not to move is housing costs. High housing
Panel A of figure 16 below shows that population growth in costs deter in-migration while encouraging others to ”cash
British Columbia, along with Ontario and Quebec, has been out“ and leave. Workers who are unable to afford homes in
much slower than in Alberta since 2000. In contrast, panel B these markets are faced with longer commutes and perhaps
of figure 16 shows that house prices have increased much are even deterred from working in the region entirely,49
more in Ontario and British Columbia, and increasingly in raising the likelihood of tighter labour markets.
Quebec, when compared to Alberta. Yet, Alberta has achieved
its significant population growth with slower-growing home Interprovincial mobility has generally declined in Canada,50
prices. This highlights a common trade-off that can be but to our knowledge, no recent research has concentrated
observed in cities around the world: growth pressures in on linking these trends to house prices. A cursory look at
cities manifest themselves either through a faster growing reported population movements does highlight where high
population, greater housing supply, and more moderate house prices may be having an economic impact. Panel A
home prices on the one hand, or in slower population of figure 17 shows how the Vancouver CMA has been losing
growth, lower housing supply, and higher home prices, population to the rest of the province (while still growing
on the other.48 While stronger population inflows can overall)—a trend that has accelerated since around 2013,
contribute to house price increases, higher house prices can when the price of housing started rising quite significantly.
also encourage some residents to leave while discouraging As panel B suggests, these movements correspond to the
others from arriving, limiting economic opportunity and relocation of workers in the prime-age groups. Conversely,
a region’s long-term potential. the Victoria and Kelowna CMAs have been net recipients of
intraprovincial migration during the same period.

Figure 16: Growth in average home prices and population for Canada, Alberta, British Columbia,
Ontario and Quebec

Panel A: Growth in population (index 1=2000) Panel B: Growth in home prices (index 1=2000)
1.6 4.0

1.5 3.6

3.2
1.4
2.8
1.3
2.4
1.2
2.0
1.1
1.6

1.0 1.2

0.9 0.8
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

Canada Quebec Ontario Alberta British Columbia

Sources: Statistics Canada table 17-10-0005-01 and CREA

48
For similar findings in the U.S., see for example Glaeser (2007).
49
Caldera Sánchez & Andrews (2011).
50
Saunders (2018).

46
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 17: Patterns of population movements, by B.C. CMAs (Panel A)

Panel A: Population movements, by type

60,000 Vancouver
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
-10,000
-20,000 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

5,000 Victoria
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
-500 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

3,000 Kelowna
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
-500
-1,000 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

4,000 Abbotsford-Mission
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
-500
-1,000 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Net International Net interprovincial migration Net intraprovincial migration

Source: Statistics Canada 17-10-0136-01

47
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 17: Patterns of population movements, by B.C. CMAs (Panel B)

Panel B: Net intraprovincial migration, by age

Vancouver
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-2,000
-3,000
-4,000
-5,000
-6,000 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Victoria
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

1,000 Kelowna

800

600

400

200

-200 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

800 Abbotsford-Mission
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

15-24 25-44 25-44 65+

Source: Statistics Canada 17-10-0136-01

48
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Planning for future supply Newly built units tend to be more expensive, meaning they
do not directly serve all segments of the population. However,
Cities have great economic and social potential. Housing that new construction is fundamental to a process known as
is affordable is the cornerstone of cities that enable current “filtering,” which, as discussed in box iv, is an essential way
and future residents to access jobs, education and leisure. of improving affordability market-wide.51 Filtering is the
Ensuring sufficient housing can be difficult because of the process whereby newly built, higher-priced housing is
time and costs required to build new units. It is therefore purchased by higher-income households who—by moving
critical for cities and urban regions to remain flexible yet into these higher-priced units—free up space in relatively
responsive in the face of growth pressures. more affordable homes. These homes—being older and less
Anticipating demographic growth can be challenging, well equipped—are generally cheaper. To put it another way,
as it involves not just the additional homes needed to much of the housing that is considered more affordable today
accommodate newcomers but also transportation options, was originally built as higher-end or even luxury housing
water and wastewater infrastructure, and other essential that has since depreciated relative to newer construction.
local services and facilities. Indeed, doing so will require An adequate supply of new housing—even if it is higher
answering important questions. How will locations of priced—“filters down” to being affordable to those with
employment change over time in an urban region as the lower incomes over time. This process can be held up or
mix of industries changes, or technology enables looser unfold very slowly in markets without sufficient supply,
ties to physical workspaces? How will an aging population however, as older housing is at higher risk of “filtering up”
impact the types of housing that needs to be built? How can as higher-income households compete more directly with
transportation and housing be developed in a coordinated lower-income households for scarce homes.
manner across the entire region? For the filtering process to be effective, new units should
The uncertainty associated with these questions is not simply replace older units that are more affordable on
significant, meaning growth and land-use planning a one-to-one basis, but rather should add to the total stock
processes need to remain flexible. This is especially true of housing and do so at all price brackets. It is also important
for demographic projections, which ultimately guide that the supply of newly constructed units responds to the
broader growth planning decisions. Appendix 4 highlights evolving demand for housing. The filtering process is less
how demographic projections, on their own, are insufficient likely to succeed if, for example, households earning higher
to quantify housing supply requirements, but are rather incomes do not get access to better quality homes, or if aging
a complement to other important indicators of demand. households cannot move into appropriate smaller units.52

New housing supply obviously comes from building

additional dwelling units. However, with limited availability
of vacant developable land in the Lower Mainland, the
Capital Region and the Okanagan, much of this new supply
will have to come from redevelopment of existing stock and
repurposing land that was devoted to other uses or that
currently is underutilized. For example, land currently used
by shopping malls and associated outdoor parking spaces
can be redeveloped for housing. By improving the flexibility
of planning and land-use governance and related processes,
such transformations can unfold more quickly.

51
Beyond the sources outlined in box iv of this report, the impact of filtering is discussed in Rosenthal (2014) and Mast (2019).
52
Quigley & Raphael (2004).

49
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Appendix 2: Case study Supply responsiveness is a vital indicator of a housing

system’s health and flexibility. Analyses around the world
of supply patterns in have found that cities with low responsiveness have higher
the Vancouver region house prices, both absolutely and relative to household
incomes. Indeed, affordability is a problem from Auckland
This section reviews patterns of housing supply to San Francisco to New York to London, with each of these
in the Vancouver region (the Vancouver Census cities characterized by low housing supply responsiveness.
Metropolitan Area). Population and income growth In a region experiencing high demand, combined with low
will lead to increased demand for housing, as will housing supply responsiveness, house prices are expected
sustained lower interest rates. Thus, a growing supply to rise faster than local incomes and population. Such a
of housing is critical to maintaining affordability at market also risks attracting speculators who come to perceive
a time of rising demand. housing as a “one-way bet.”

As shown in figure 19, the Vancouver region’s housing

Supply responsiveness in supply system did eventually respond to higher prices.
Vancouver region has been slow Housing starts increased, but the response was slow and
significantly lagged the onset of the rise in home prices.
In the 2018 report, Examining Escalating House Prices
From 1990 to 2015, the trend in housing starts remained
in Large Canadian Metropolitan Centres, CMHC found
roughly constant in Metro Vancouver (with cyclical
that housing supply responsiveness—also called
fluctuations) and rarely exceeded 20,000 units a year.
“elasticity”—in the Vancouver region lagged behind
Given the consistent upward trend in prices, however,
other metropolitan regions, notably Edmonton and
the recent upswing in supply has not been sufficient to
Montréal (figure 18).
restore or materially improve affordability.

Figure 18: CMHC found that the supply responsiveness of housing in the Vancouver CMA was low

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
Calgary Edmonton Montréal Toronto Vancouver Group Mean

OLS Panel SUR Panel SUR Time Series 2SLS Time Series Model Average

Source: CMHC (2018)

50
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 20 breaks down this growth in supply, showing that These big-picture patterns suggest a housing system that
many of the new dwellings in the Vancouver CMA have been does not respond rapidly to changing demand. Developing
condominium apartments. Even though price increases have a finer understanding of what is going on in the Vancouver
particularly affected single-detached homes, which tend to CMA requires digging deeper into the data at a more local
have more living space, the supply response has been stronger level. To this end, we take a closer look at the data and
for condominium apartments, which generally provide highlight important geographic divergences underlying
less living space. Construction of rental structures has also the prevailing housing supply conditions.
increased since 2016, but from a historically low level.

Figure 19: Vancouver CMA starts, by built form

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Single Semi-Detached + Row Apartment

Source: CMHC

Figure 20: Vancouver CMA starts, by target market

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

Homeowner Rental Condo Co-Op

Source: CMHC

51
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Local housing patterns show a in these areas. Hence, single-detached housing will be built
muted supply response in areas where the price of land is low—usually in the suburbs. As a
result of these economic factors, housing density is generally
very close to downtown Vancouver higher in city centres relative to suburbs.
A common way of quantifying the effects of housing patterns
Land prices close to city centres tend to rise with long-term
is to look at changes in them relative to distance from city
economic and population growth. This pattern emerges over
centres or any other central node of economic activity. In our
time, and in many cities the trend has also led to densification
case, we take that node to be the Central Business District
as smaller, often single-detached dwellings were transformed
(CBD) on the downtown peninsula of the city of Vancouver.
into multi-unit dwellings in areas of high land values close
Much business activity has traditionally taken place in
to city centres. Our first indication of challenges in Metro
such locations, which has encouraged workers to move
Vancouver’s housing-supply system is that this pattern of
or commute from outlying areas.53
declining density with increased distance from downtown in
However, the concentration of business activity in CBDs Vancouver differs. Instead, it has more of a U-shaped pattern.
typically makes land in these areas expensive. As a result, Panel A of figure 21 shows the pattern of housing completions
new construction of dwellings tends to feature taller, denser over the years 1990 to 2018, by distance from the Vancouver
housing types in order to save on the price of land. As the CBD. Housing completions are proportionately lower in
price of land is usually lower further out from city centres, less districts that are 5 to 15 km from the CBD compared to the
dense and shorter dwelling types become more widespread downtown core and areas further out.

Figure 21: The impact of distance on housing by distance from downtown Vancouver, by forward
sortation area

Panel A: Average completions in FSA by distance Panel B: Share of single-detached homes

52%
204 203
191
44%

34%

113

20%

< 5km 5-15km 15-30km ≥ 30km < 5km 5-15km 15-30km ≥ 30km

Source: CMHC

53
Though Metro Vancouver has many centres of employment, the latest census confirms the City of Vancouver’s place as the primary commuting destination within
Metro Vancouver. Indeed, although Surrey is growing more quickly than Vancouver, and will likely become the region’s most populous city over the longer term,
most of Surrey’s commuters work in other cities, while Vancouver is a net recipient of workers commuting from nearby communities. For more on Vancouver‘s
continued importance as an employment centre, see: https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2017/11/29/journey-to-work/, https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/
social-indicators-profile-city-of-vancouver.pdf

52
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

This pattern of housing completions in Metro Vancouver Of course, the Vancouver region is polycentric. That is,
leads to a situation where even areas relatively close to the although Downtown Vancouver remains a primary centre
region’s primary business district (downtown Vancouver) of economic activity and relatively high paying jobs,
have relatively low densities. Figure 22 shows density by the region has many other urban cores or “nodes,”
district compared to a rough theoretical prediction. Closer including older city centres, such as New Westminster,
to the CBD, the density gradient is considerably higher and more recent pockets of density and commerce
than in locations within the 5 to 15 km distance band. such as Metrotown in Burnaby, Surrey City Centre
Further out, meanwhile, density increases with distance and Coquitlam Town Centre. Metro Vancouver’s Regional
to a level that is higher than predicted. This pattern Growth Strategy54 also encourages development in
suggests that the housing supply system is altered by designated growth centres located throughout the
factors other than the simple impact of commuting region, notably near major transportation hubs. However,
time and costs. another fundamental factor cited throughout the industry

Figure 22: Density and distance in the Vancouver CMA (naïve model versus a spatially lagged model)

80,000

60,000
Bedrooms per sq.km

40,000

20,000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Distance from CBD (km)

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2016

54
See: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/metro-vancouver-2040/about-metro-2040/Pages/default.aspx

53
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

consultations conducted by the Panel is the continued Figure 24 shows how widespread single-detached zoning
prevalence of single-detached housing close to the bylaws (notably in the City of Vancouver) are distorting
regional urban core. This is shown in figure 23 , which supply patterns. Construction of apartment buildings—
maps the most common dwelling types by district (also generally a more affordable type of housing—is sharply
summarized in panel B of figure 21). The preponderance lower in the 5 to 15 km distance band. The construction
of single-detached housing corresponds very closely of these more affordable dwelling types beyond 15 km
to what is allowed to be built according to zoning laws, from downtown could result in either longer commutes
as shown in figure 24.55 Single-detached housing covers for workers living there or cause them to search for jobs
areas where the unrestricted price of land is very high, closer to home, in turn inhibiting the efficiency of the
suggesting it could support much higher density. regional labour market.

Figure 23: Simple dwelling classification,

Vancouver CMA Figure 24A: Metro Vancouver zoning

Most Common Dwelling Type Single/Duplex Commercial

Attached Townhouse Comprehensive Development
High-Rise Apartment Low-Rise Industrial
Low-Rise Apartment High-Rise Recreational/Civic

Mobile Home Mixed Low-Rise Agricultural

Mixed High-Rise Unclassified
Single-Detached

Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2016 Source: UBC Sociology Zoning Project

55
For a more in-depth discussion of zoning in Metro Vancouver, see UBC Sociology Zoning Project, on the Panel’s website, https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/
sites/121/2021/06/UBCSociologyZoningProject_appendix_3.pdf.

54
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 24B: Metro Vancouver zoning –

City of Vancouver and Burrard Inlet Figure 24C: Metro Vancouver zoning – Lulu Island

Single/Duplex Mixed Low-Rise Industrial Single/Duplex Mixed Low-Rise Industrial

Townhouse Mixed High-Rise Recreational/Civic Townhouse Mixed High-Rise Recreational/Civic
Low-Rise Commercial Agricultural Low-Rise Commercial Agricultural
High-Rise Comprehensive Development Unclassified High-Rise Comprehensive Development Unclassified

Source: UBC Sociology Zoning Project Source: UBC Sociology Zoning Project

Figure 24D: Metro Vancouver zoning – North Shore

Single/Duplex
Townhouse
Low-Rise
High-Rise
Mixed Low-Rise
Mixed High-Rise
Commercial
Comprehensive Development
Industrial
Recreational/Civic
Agricultural
Unclassified

Source: UBC Sociology Zoning Project

55
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 24E: Metro Vancouver zoning – Figure 24F: Metro Vancouver zoning –
Burnaby/New Westminster Surrey/South of the Fraser
Single/Duplex Single/Duplex
Townhouse Townhouse
Low-Rise Low-Rise
High-Rise High-Rise
Mixed Low-Rise Mixed Low-Rise
Mixed High-Rise Mixed High-Rise
Commercial Commercial
Comprehensive Development Comprehensive Development
Industrial Industrial
Recreational/Civic Recreational/Civic
Agricultural Agricultural
Unclassified Unclassified

Source: UBC Sociology Zoning Project Source: UBC Sociology Zoning Project

Figure 24G: Metro Vancouver zoning – Figure 24H: Metro Vancouver zoning –
Port Moody Arm/Pitt River/North of the Fraser Fraser Valley/Langley/Ridge Meadows
Single/Duplex
Townhouse
Low-Rise
High-Rise
Mixed Low-Rise
Mixed High-Rise
Commercial
Comprehensive Development
Industrial
Recreational/Civic
Agricultural
Unclassified

Single/Duplex Mixed Low-Rise Industrial

Townhouse Mixed High-Rise Recreational/Civic
Low-Rise Commercial Agricultural
High-Rise Comprehensive Development Unclassified

Source: UBC Sociology Zoning Project Source: UBC Sociology Zoning Project

56
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

In addition to being zoned for single-detached Figure 25: Average completions per FSA by dwelling
housing, the 5 to 15 km distance band also tends type and distance to the CBD, Vancouver CMA
to have disproportionately higher household
incomes, as seen in figure 25. A finer-grained 200
analysis in figure 26 shows low completion rates
of new dwellings in many higher-income areas
of the region. 150

Implications of the geographic 100

divergences underlying housing
supply in Metro Vancouver 50
This pattern of restricted housing supply for local
geographies in Metro Vancouver poses challenges
to workers and businesses. Workers may curtail 0
< 5km 5-15km 15-30km ≥ 30km
their search for jobs in Vancouver if they cannot
find homes close enough to the workplace, or if
Apartment Semi-detached and Row Single
faced with longer commutes. For those willing
to tolerate longer commutes, more time may be
spent in traffic, leading to greater pollution and Source: CMHC

greenhouse gas emissions. These challenges are

likely to be particularly problematic for younger Figure 26: Average income by distance,
workers and their families who may need the living Vancouver CMA
space that is only available in suburbs.
100,000 94,824 92,748
87,192
79,351
80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0
< 5 km 5 - 15 km 15 - 30 km ≥ 30 km

Source: CMHC calculations based on Statistics Canada data

57
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Appendix 3: The two The solution to this affordability gap is for the federal
and/or provincial governments to provide means-tested
affordability problems in B.C. subsidized housing (either portable rental subsidies or
through funding non-profit units) to all households that
When discussing the housing affordability crisis in B.C.,
cannot afford market rents. Alternatively, federal and/or
two different kinds of affordability problems are often
provincial governments could address this housing
combined. Although the second problem contributes
affordability gap through income support that is not
to the first, each has different underlying causes and as
tied specifically to housing.
such requires different policy responses.
Portable rental subsidies and income support will only be an
Affordability problem #1: effective solution to this affordability problem where rental
vacancy rates are healthy (that is, subsidies are more likely
Many Low-income households to be effective in a housing market with 5% vacancy than 1%
cannot afford any market-rate vacancy). In 2019, the overall vacancy rate in the province
housing (even if market rates was 1.5%, and was much lower in many municipalities.56
were significantly lower) Chronically low rental vacancies, particularly in Metro
Vancouver, have contributed to steep and persistent rent
Across the province, many low-income households
inflation, which poses a second kind of affordability challenge.
cannot afford to pay the basic operating costs of minimum
quality rental housing. The underlying cause of this
affordability gap is insufficient incomes, rather than Affordability problem #2: Housing
the unaffordability of housing, as such, although the supply shortages in some regions
declining stock of single-room occupancy (SRO) and are pushing up prices beyond what
other low-rent units in some locations has contributed moderate and middle-income
to this affordability gap. There is no market solution to
this affordability problem, as the private rental market
households can afford
will not create a sufficient supply of code-compliant In specific parts of the province, house prices and rents
housing at below-market rates without subsidies. are so high that they are unaffordable for moderate- and
middle-income renters, first-time homebuyers and other
Policy solution: Provide subsidized housing new entrants to the local market. The underlying cause of
this affordability gap is that there is not enough housing to
or income support
meet demand. When there is a shortage of supply and high
The policy failure underlying this first affordability problem demand, housing becomes universally expensive because
is that only a fraction of low-income households receives people at the higher end of the income distribution drive
subsidized housing. This is partly the result of federal and house prices. When there is a shortage of housing in affluent
provincial governments not treating housing as a public neighbourhoods, higher-income households purchase
good in the same way that health care is treated and access and renovate housing outside of affluent neighbourhoods,
to health services is protected. which pushes up property values in formerly affordable
neighbourhoods. This makes it more difficult for moderate
and middle-income households to purchase homes, which
adds to demand for rental housing.

56
Vacancy rates in B.C.’s major urban centres increased in 2020, due to the impact of COVID-19 on rental demand. For example, in Vancouver, vacancy in purpose-
built rental apartments increased from 1.1% in 2019 to 2.6% in 2020. See CMHC’s 2020 Rental Market Report: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/housing-observer-
online/2021/2020-rental-market-report, 2019 data on vacancy rates, which shows more normal pre-pandemic trends, is available for B.C. and some municipalities
here: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/data-and-research/data-tables/rental-market-report-data-tables.

58
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Meanwhile, decades of underbuilding have created a cities in B.C. have also developed programs to encourage the
significant deficit in rental homes, and the competition supply of purpose-built rental housing, such as Vancouver’s
among the growing number of renters for a limited supply Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program (MIRHPP)
of rental homes puts upward pressure on market rents. Rising and the Secured Rental Policy. Such programs have helped
market rents encourages owners of older and more affordable bridge the gap between current and past rates of rental
rental housing to renovate or redevelop their units and raise development, which reached historic highs in the 1960s and
rents. The declining number of low-rent options displaces 1970s before falling significantly over the following decades.
renters who cannot afford to pay higher rents and increases
the number of households that cannot afford any market-rate Table 8: Privately initiated purpose-built
rents. This results in a growing number of households that rental housing by period of construction,
require subsidized housing to avoid falling into core housing Canada and British Columbia
need or homelessness, thus contributing to the first type of Before 1960- 1980- 2000-
affordability problem. 1960 1979 1999 2020
Canada 540,021 1,027,311 287,535 318,710
Policy solution: Build significantly more housing British Columbia 23,477 109,950 26,166 33,772

A major underlying policy failure driving this second Source: CMHC Rental Market Survey, 2020
affordability problem (and ultimately impacting the first)
is that local governments have restricted the supply of new While much more market-rate housing is needed to address
housing, especially in neighbourhoods zoned exclusively for this second affordability challenge in B.C.’s urban areas,
single-detached houses. In neighbourhoods that only allow increasing the supply of non-profit housing can also be an
single-detached houses to be built, either through zoning, important part of the solution. Building more non-profit
conservation policies or other design guidelines, the scarcity housing can help to address the affordability gap between
of homes keeps prices high, in turn excluding all but the market rents and incomes for a range of income groups,
wealthiest buyers or renters. The solution is to build a lot while also helping to relieve upward pressure on rents
more housing, and particularly higher-density housing in the due to overall supply shortages.
neighbourhoods that currently only allow single-detached
houses. This requires local governments to change restrictive Why the second affordability
zoning practices and to remove other barriers to development
problem is harder to address
to boost the supply, such as lengthy, costly and uncertain
project approvals, which will have a positive impact on the than the first
affordability of housing (see box v). In cities with a more abundant supply of housing, addressing
affordability challenges is more straightforward because
In addition to changes at the municipal level to allow more
funding to subsidize the rents of low-income households
homes to be built, the federal and provincial governments
goes a lot further. A sufficient supply of rental housing
can help address the shortage of purpose-built rental housing
also means that average rents will not rapidly increase,
by, for instance, providing financial assistance or tax
so the ongoing per capita costs of subsidizing rent will be
incentives to developers of rental housing. The federal Rental
relatively stable.
Construction Financing initiative is an example of a recent
program that has encouraged the development of market In cities without sufficient supply, affordability challenges
rental housing in the province and across Canada. Several are much harder to address. A main barrier to growing the
supply of housing is that attempts by local governments
to change zoning to allow for more housing development
are politically contentious and often met with strong
public opposition.

59
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

NIMBYism Unlike renters, existing homeowners will not necessarily

benefit from increased density,60 making this group more
Public opposition to development—often referred likely to resist neighbourhood changes. Of course, not all
to as “Not in my backyard” or NIMBYism—is rooted homeowners oppose zoning changes to permit higher
in a range of concerns. These concerns include the density redevelopment in their neighbourhoods. However,
potential for development to cause gentrification and there are invariably vocal groups of residents—particularly
displace lower-income and marginalized households, neighbourhood associations—that can make it politically
and to erode existing social ties, community cohesion difficult for local governments to implement such changes.
and a sense of belonging. Other expressions of NIMBYism It is important to note that opponents to development,
focus on attachment to neighbourhood characteristics including but not limited to neighbourhood associations,
and concerns that higher density development could may not be representative of the broader population. For
increase noise, traffic or crime, or reduce property values.57 instance, research has found that in Vancouver and Toronto,
NIMBY sentiment can be expressed by both homeowners and members of neighbour associations are more likely to be
renters, with the latter worrying more about displacement white, older, more educated, homeowners, who have lived
or rent increases than property price effects. In the long run, in their homes for longer and hold different policy priorities
however, renters and prospective homebuyers stand to than the general population.61 To make inroads toward fairer,
benefit from an increased supply of housing. A growing more representative discussions on land use and the way
number of homes available for purchase or rent will reduce our neighbourhoods evolve, it is therefore important to make
the upward pressure on prices and give renters and buyers sure that all voices and interests are able to shape how our
more options. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge cities grow.
that development does not benefit everyone equally, and
displacement can occur when buildings are redeveloped.
However, if higher density development was permitted in
areas currently zoned exclusively for single-family homes,
there would be less redevelopment pressure in the relatively
small number of neighbourhoods where higher density
is allowed.58 Spreading out development throughout a
metropolitan area would reduce the displacement of existing
tenants in higher density neighbourhoods (see box iv). Local
governments can also create policies to ensure that existing
tenants are protected from, or compensated for, forced
displacement from their homes due to redevelopment.59

57
Numerous Canadian and international studies have explored NIMBYism. See for instance, Doberstein, Hickey & Li (2016) ; Holleran (2020); Payton Scally (2012).
58
See figure 24 of appendix 2 for a map for current zoning in Metro Vancouver. Currently, higher-density building types are allowed primarily along major road
and transit arteries, while much of the space in between these narrow bands are zoned for low-density or single-family housing.
59
Vancouver and Burnaby are among the B.C. municipalities with policies to protect tenants living in purpose-built rental units. See: https://www.burnaby.ca/
About-Burnaby/News-and-Media/Newsroom/Burnaby-tenants-protected-by-comprehensive-Tenant-Assistance-Policy_s2_p7276.html.
60
This is especially the case if they experience negative spillovers (also called ”externalities”), such as shadows or increased noise from adjacent development, or if
a growing housing supply reduces their home’s resale value. However, depending on a city’s development fee structure, those homeowners selling their homes to
property developers stand to gain substantial financial benefit from the increased value in their land resulting from the development and rezoning process—also
called the land ”lift.” NIMBYism, therefore, is more likely (though by no means exclusively) to be expressed by nearby residents than those selling their properties.
61
Moore& McGregor (2020)

60
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Appendix 4: Land-use governance in B.C., key terminology,

and housing needs reports
Land Use, Development Governance, and Development Taxation
in British Columbia

Land Use Governance

Order of
Government/Organization Regional Growth
Strategy
Municipal
Regional
TransLink* Regional Context
Provincial Statement
Federal

Official Community Other Community

Plan (OCP) Plans
Housing Needs
Reports
Zoning Bylaw

Direct Development Development Governance

Taxations**

Community Amenity Rezoning Pre Application Inquiries

Contributions (CACs)

Development Cost Development Guidelines

Changes (DCCs) Permitting and Norms

Connection and Other Building

Engineering Fees Permitting Building Codes

Goods and Services Environmental

Construction
Tax (GST) Regulations

*
In the Metro Vancouver Regional District only.
Many other taxes are indirectly applied to new development including: property taxes, vacancy taxes, and land transfer taxes to name a few. These taxes
**

while not levied on development directly, are costs borne by develepers through the development process and impact projects' profitability and viability.

61
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Land-use planning and governance terminology

Component Description

1 Regional Growth Region-wide general plan setting broad land use policy and providing demographic projections. It is an
Strategy authoritative plan for prioritizing regional transit and water infrastructure projects.

2 Regional Context A description of how municipalities’ official community plans (OCPs) and other local plans are aligned with
Statement the Regional Growth Strategy.

3 Official Community The main plan outlining municipal land use planning. The City of Vancouver is an outlier due to not being
Plan (OCP) required to have an OCP under the Vancouver Charter. However, the combination of other neighbourhoods
and local plans make up the City of Vancouver’s de facto OCP.

4 Other Community Other plans for particular neighbourhoods or covering broader issues such as the environment, recreation
Plans and public spaces, among many others.

5 Housing Needs A newer provincially mandated report containing data on housing affordability and local demographics.
Report Five-year estimates of future housing needs are included, but no standardized methodology is prescribed.

6a Zoning Bylaw Bylaw regulating land and structure use, density and general form.

6b Rezoning Process for altering the zoning bylaw for a site or a wider area. Can be publicly initiated (pre-zoning) or
privately initiated (rezoning). Zoning changes are done through municipal councils.

7 Community Negotiated fees paid by developers to rezone a site. Can be paid in-kind and/or in cash. The ability to charge
Amenity CACs is not a specified municipal power in provincial legislation. However the Province provides guidance on
Contributions the appropriate application of CACs and the trade-offs CACs introduce.
(CACs)

8 Pre-Application Process for developers to discuss potential projects with municipal staff. In this stage municipal staff will
Inquiries typically signal their support, request modifications and voice any objections for projects.

9 Guidelines and Guidelines and norms established at the council and/or staff level shape proposals and impact the scale
Norms and number of projects that enter the formal development process. View cones and shadowing impacts
are examples of development considerations that tend to be regulated outside of community plans, zoning
and the development permitting process.

10 Development Like the zoning bylaw, the development permit process regulates built form and finer-grain building
Permits characteristics than those considered in zoning. Development permitting is a municipal staff-level process
that can occur at the same time as rezoning or after.

11 Development Cost Fees levied on new home construction to recoup downstream infrastructure costs. DCCs are set on a cost-
Charges (DCCs) recovery basis and are regulated through provincial legislation.

12 Building Permitting Building permitting regulates the health and safety of development and renovations to existing structures
based on building codes and other engineering considerations.

13 Connection and Fees associated with the connecting of buildings to infrastructure.

Other Engineering
Fees

14 Building Codes Building codes regulate the construction and renovation of buildings for structural soundness, energy
use and accessibility, among other construction standards. The National Building Code serves as a general
template for provinces to use to create their own codes for their jurisdictions. For example, the BC Building
Code is enhanced standards for wood-frame construction, seismic and energy efficiency, for example, the
Energy Step Code that sets levels of energy performance that local governments can voluntarily adopt in
their communities. The City of Vancouver also maintains its own Building Bylaw through the Vancouver
Charter, which is largely based on the BC Building Code.

15 Environmental Regulations for managing the environmental impact of development. Examples include regulations
Regulations protecting ground water, sensitive wildlife habitats and reducing local impacts from development.
Environmental regulations impact both the number and complexity of needed approvals and influences
other regulations, such as building codes.

62
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Housing Needs Reports: Definition The U.K. government has a detailed and extensive process
and potential improvements to determine housing needs and land availability at the local
level. In some respects, the B.C. government’s approach
Under the Housing Needs Report Regulation, B.C. Regulation is similar but not as complete. Links to the U.K. materials
90/2019, municipalities and regional districts in B.C. are are below.
required to complete housing needs reports by April 2022
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-
and every five years thereafter. Legislative requirements
development-needs-assessments
took effect April 16, 2019, and require local governments to
collect data, analyze trends and present reports that describe https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-land-
current and anticipated housing needs in B.C. communities. availability-assessment
Affected jurisdictions are required to gather data on an
The following are excerpts from that material:
annual basis and evaluate the data every five years
The National Planning Policy Framework expects strategic
The Housing Needs Report (HNR) methodology as currently policy-making authorities to follow the standard method in
constituted is a good starting point, but improvements are this guidance for assessing local housing need. The standard
needed. These reports require additional identification and method uses a formula to identify the minimum number of
quantification of total housing requirements by tenure that homes expected to be planned for, in a way which addresses
include replacement demand and vacancy allowances, and projected household growth and historic under-supply. The
also an “affordability allowance”. Projections by household standard method set out below identifies a minimum annual
and dwelling types and tenure would further refine housing housing need figure.
needs estimates.
The standard method can be used to calculate a minimum
Currently, HNRs use household projections without any annual local housing need figure as follows:
adjustments. In particular, an affordability adjustment is
Step 1 – Setting the baseline using national household
necessary to account for past undersupply (see box vii).
growth projections for the area of the local authority.
Household growth on its own is insufficient as an indicator
Using these projections, calculate the projected average
of future housing need because household formation is
annual household growth over a 10-year period (this
limited by the available supply. New households cannot
should be 10 consecutive years, with the current year
form if there is nowhere for them to live and people may
being used as the starting point from which to calculate
want to live in an area in which they do not reside currently,
growth over that period).
for example to be near their work, but be unable to find
appropriate, affordable accommodation. Using household Step 2 – An adjustment to take account of affordability.
projections based only on past trends can “bake in” persistent Adjust the average annual projected household growth
undersupply and unaffordability (see appendix 5). figure (as calculated in step 1) based on the affordability
HNRs should identify and quantify historical price and of the area. The most recent median workplace-based
rent trends up to the current period. Prices and rents affordability ratios, (house price to workplace-based
disaggregated to the main housing types will provide earnings ratio), published by the Office for National
further insights on specific housing market imbalances. Statistics at a local authority level, should be used.
No adjustment is applied where the ratio is 4 or below.
The size of the housing affordability adjustment is somewhat
For each 1% the ratio is above 4, the average household
arbitrary but it should place the estimated number of housing
growth baseline should be increased by a quarter of a
units needed above the projected number of households to
per cent. An authority with a ratio of 8 will have a 25%
close the undersupply and affordability gap. The adjustment
increase on its annual average household growth baseline.
is set at a level to ensure that minimum annual housing
production addresses the affordability of homes.

63
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

However, rarely will it be possible to meet all of these Median sale prices are derived from the BC Assessment
needs in a single year—indeed, it may take many years Authority and median household income is taken from
to fully eliminate backlog needs in a more pressured Statistics Canada’s table 11-10-0190-01, the latest census,
region. Where an adjustment is to be made, the precise and updated to 2020 using the latest survey data on wages
formula is as follows: and earnings.
Adjustment factor = The benchmark price-income ratio is 3.33, which is
(local affordability ratio – 4/4) x 0.25 +1 the inverse of 30% of gross income spent on housing.
Thirty per cent of income is a widely used general rule
For B.C., the median price-to-median income ratio is
on housing affordability.
used to calibrate the affordability adjustment. While this
measure is more applicable to the homeownership market Table 4 contains the median sale price and income as
than to the rental market, it is indicative of the overall state of 2020 with the resulting price-income ratio. Various
of housing affordability. A further refinement would be affordability adjustment factors to close the affordability
to apply an affordability adjustment to the owner and gap are shown.
rental markets separately, which requires household
growth projections by tenure.

Table 4: Affordability Adjustment Factors

Price to Affordability Affordability Affordability
Median sale Median income ratio adjustment adjustment adjustment
CMA price 2020 income 2020 2020 factor 25% factor 20% factor 15%
Abbotsford-Mission 610,000 79,000 7.68 1.33 1.26 1.20
Kelowna 575,000 78,500 7.32 1.30 1.24 1.18
Vancouver 725,900 77,100 9.42 1.46 1.37 1.27
Victoria 655,900 75,800 8.65 1.40 1.32 1.24

Table 5 below shows the affordability adjustments in housing units relative to projected household growth.

Table 5: Affordability Housing Unit Adjustments

Projected household Rate of Rate of Rate of
CMA growth 21-26 adjustment 25% adjustment 20% adjustment 15%
Abbotsford-Mission 4,480 1,464 1,171 878

Kelowna 6,403 1,920 1,536 1,152

Vancouver 87,204 39,838 31,870 23,903
Victoria 11,173 4,465 3,572 2,679

64
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

In addition to an affordability adjustment, other adjustments to account for demolitions, conversions, and a vacancy
allowance for new household growth are necessary. A vacancy allowance for the stock of housing is also necessary though
not included in the table. The result is an estimate of total housing units required in the five-year projection period.
The affordability adjustment in the table uses a 20% adjustment rate.

Table 6: Housing Unit Requirements, 2021-2026

Household Demolitions
growth and Vacancy Affordability Total Average
CMA projection conversions allowance adjustment requirements annual
Abbotsford-Mission 4,480 800 130 1,170 6,580 1,316
Kelowna 6,400 900 190 1,540 9,030 1,806
Vancouver 87,200 15,500 2,620 31,870 137,190 27,438
Victoria 11,170 700 340 3,570 15,780 3,156

Table 7: Housing Needs and Requirements Worksheet Example

Households, actuals and projections

CMA 2006 2011 2016 2021p 2026p

Abbotsford-Mission 58,983 62,409 70,276 74,799 79,279
Kelowna 69,195 76,569 85,700 92,646 99,049
Vancouver 843,148 916,229 1,019,031 1,099,832 1,187,036
Victoria 148,351 156,972 173,892 184,425 195,598

Change in Households
CMA 2006 2011 2016 2021p 2026p
Abbotsford-Mission 4,675 3,426 7,867 4,523 4,480
Kelowna 6,619 7,374 9,131 6,946 6,403
Vancouver 45,444 73,081 102,802 80,801 87,204
Victoria 7,433 8,621 16,920 10,533 11,173

Housing Unit Requirements, 2021-2026

Household Demolitions
growth and Vacancy Affordability Total housing Average
CMA projection conversions allowance adjustment requirement annual
Abbotsford-Mission 4,480 800 134 1,171 6,586 1,317
Kelowna 6,403 900 192 1,536 9,031 1,806
Vancouver 87,204 15,500 2,616 31,870 137,190 27,438
Victoria 11,173 700 335 3,572 15,780 3,156

65
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Core need rate of unaffordability

CMA 2006 2011 2016
Abbotsford-Mission 28.0 31.0 26.2
Kelowna 29.8 29.1 25.5
Vancouver 32.0 33.5 32.0
Victoria 28.2 31.1 28.5

Housing units completed 5 yr % change in median price

CMA 2001-05 2006-10 2011-15 2016-20 CMA 2005 2010 2015 2020
Abbotsford-Mission 4,299 4,677 2,656 5,773 Abbotsford-Mission 77.4 12.4 35.8 34.1
Kelowna 8,087 10,467 5,433 11,260 Kelowna 93.5 23.4 16.0 31.9
Vancouver 68,959 84,633 86,780 110,252 Vancouver 57.9 35.6 20.6 20.6
Victoria 8,036 10,247 8,120 14,707 Victoria 76.6 20.2 13.8 32.5

Housing units conversions Rental vacancy rate

CMA 2001-05 2006-10 2011-15 2016-20 CMA 2005 2010 2015 2020
Abbotsford-Mission 6 43 50 107 Abbotsford-Mission 1.9 6.5 0.7 0.6
Kelowna 5 194 307 806 Kelowna 0.7 3.1 0.6 2.1

Vancouver 1,413 3,108 2,893 5,618 Vancouver 0.8 1.4 0.7 2.6

Victoria 458 944 1,003 2,077 Victoria 0.5 2.1 0.5 2.2

Housing demolitions 5 yr % change median rent

CMA 2001-05 2006-10 2011-15 2016-20 CMA 2005 2010 2015 2020

Abbotsford-Mission 503 548 354 925 Abbotsford-Mission 11.9 12.9 7.4 27.8

Kelowna 866 1,121 671 1,691 Kelowna 21.7 13.0 12.1 29.7

Vancouver 10,144 12,450 14,182 20,969 Vancouver 10.9 16.6 21.0 24.9

Victoria 1,182 1,507 1,327 2,797 Victoria 14.8 20.0 8.7 34.7

Net change in housing supply 5 yr % change in CPI

CMA 2001-05 2006-10 2011-15 2016-20 CMA 2005 2010 2015 2020

Abbotsford-Mission 3,802 4,172 2,352 4,955 Abbotsford-Mission 8.8 5.3 3.1 8.2

Kelowna 7,226 9,540 5,069 10,375 Kelowna 8.8 5.3 3.1 8.2

Vancouver 60,228 75,291 75,491 94,901 Vancouver 8.4 6.4 3.8 8.3

Victoria 7,312 9,684 7,796 13,987 Victoria 9.8 4.2 2.7 8.0

Source: BC Stats Household Projections, Statistics Canada Census, Statistics Canada Consumer Price Index, Statistics Canada Building Permits, CMHC Starts and
Complietions Survey, CMHC Rental Market Survey, BC Assessment Authority

66
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Appendix 5: Population Additional issues identified with demographic estimates

and their use in setting future housing supply targets include
projections: what are they the following:
and how do they influence • Housing targets are based on household projections and
housing supply? not the required housing stock. Housing targets need to
account for vacancy and transitional uses.
Demographic projections sit at the centre of both • There can be a lack of clarity on what housing targets
regional growth strategies and housing needs reports represent. Are they floors or ceilings? Are they the most
(see appendix 4). These projections can be done in-house, likely outcome of the continuation of current policies
by consultants, or be provided by government agencies, or an idealized allocation of future growth?
such as Statistics Canada, BC Stats, or CMHC. A complete
• There are no consequences for municipalities repeatedly
review of methods available for doing demographic
building below projections or targets.
projections is beyond the scope of this report, but broadly
speaking, demographic projections typically answer the Despite the caveats noted above, assessing demand for
following question: what should we expect to happen if housing according to the number and type of households
past trends continue? is the bare minimum for judging how much housing supply
This methodological feature can pose problems when is required. As the number of households and households’
trying to improve housing affordability, which by definition incomes grow, so will the demand for housing, including
means breaking from the past. Put simply, demographic demand for more living space. Lack of supply of adequate
estimates usually do not tell us much about how much living space to meet household demand risks further
additional housing is required to reduce or moderate prices escalations in home prices and rents. Fully assessing how
and rents—they only tell us what it would take to extend much housing “should” be built therefore requires more
the status quo into the future. Relying on demographic advanced modelling that integrates both demographics
estimates to set housing supply targets that are based on and economics, as discussed in appendix 4.
observed demographics from past trends, especially during
periods of persistent price increases and perpetually low Population projections for B.C.’s
rental vacancy rates, runs the risk of “baking in” pre-existing census metropolitan areas
housing scarcity if those estimates are the sole determinant
The following population growth projections were drawn
of housing targets set by local policy makers.
from Statistics Canada and CMHC. Notwithstanding the
Further, sustained lower home prices and rents in B.C.’s concerns raised above, they offer some insight into future
major urban areas, all else equal, could result in more housing needs in B.C.’s four largest urban regions.
housing demand being realized through the formation
of additional households, increased in-migration, and Vancouver CMA
fewer households leaving high-priced areas. In short,
Between 2009 and 2019, the Vancouver CMA’s population
demographic projections are better suited to extend
grew by 17% with population growth mainly observed in the
current trends, and less well suited to anticipate changes,
20 to 35 and 55 and over age groups. According to Statistics
such as those required to reduce or mitigate future
Canada’s baseline growth scenario, Vancouver’s population
increases in rents and home prices.
is projected to increase by 18% through 2030. By 2030,
Vancouver’s population will have reached 3.2 million people.

67
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Figure 27: Projected population, Vancouver CMA

Projected total population

3,600,000

3,400,000

3,200,000

3,000,000

2,800,000

2,600,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Projected population by age group

<14 15-24 25-44
600,000 450,000 1,000,000

550,000 420,000 950,000

500,000 900,000
390,000

850,000
450,000 360,000
800,000
400,000
330,000

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

45-64 65-84 85+

850,000 600,000 90,000

550,000
80,000
800,000
500,000
70,000
750,000 450,000

60,000
400,000
2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

Source: StatCan, CMHC

Alternate scenarios suggest growth during this period could According to CMHC’s baseline scenario, the number
range from 7 to 26%. While all age categories are expected of households in the Vancouver CMA will also increase
to grow, the slowest growth rate is expected for the 25 to steadily to 2030, adding roughly 190,000 to 200,000
44 group. While the 65+ group is expected to show the households. Annual household formation is expected
strongest growth, it will still represent less than 20% of the to hold at approximately 19,000 to 20,000 per year.
CMA’s population by the end of the projection period.

68
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

When assuming that new households make similar housing of multi-residential housing, and 6,000 would occupy
choices as past generations—an assumption which may single-family homes. When taking account of the full
become strained in a post-pandemic context—close to 70% range of alternative choices and trends, both the levels
of new households are predicted to occupy multi-unit and shares of households occupying a given building
housing. Between now and 2030, and on an annual basis, type shift considerably. Nevertheless, we highlight the
approximately 8,000 new households would occupy increasing need for family-sized housing regardless of
an apartment, 5,500 would occupy an alternate form assumed built form.

Figure 28: Projected annual household formation, Vancouver CMA

Projected annual household formation

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Projected annual household formation by dwelling type

Apartment Other multi-unit Single-detached

12,000 12,000 12,000

10,000 10,000 10,000

8,000 8,000 8,000

6,000 6,000 6,000

4,000 4,000 4,000

2,000 2,000 2,000

2020 2023 2026 2029 2020 2023 2026 2029 2020 2023 2026 2029

Source: CMHC

69
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Victoria CMA
Figure 29: Projected population, Victoria CMA

460,000 Total population growth

440,000

420,000

400,000

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

Projected population by age group

<14 15-24 25-44
65,000 46,000 120,000

60,000 44,000
115,000

55,000 42,000
110,000
50,000 40,000

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

45-64 65-84 85+

108,000 100,000 120,000

106,000
90,000 115,000

104,000

80,000 110,000
102,000

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

Source: StatCan, CMHC

Like the Vancouver CMA, the Victoria CMA’s population has to 2030 is projected to be lower than the Vancouver CMA’s,
increased steadily since 2011, posting growth of 16% overall. according to Statistics Canada’s baseline scenario. By 2030,
As in Metro Vancouver, population growth was also mainly the Victoria CMA’s population is predicted to approach
observed in the 20 to 35 and 55 and over age groups. Growth 440,000 people. The 65+ age group will post the strongest
has stemmed solely from in-migration (both international growth rate, and make up 26% of this region’s population
and domestic). At 12%, the Victoria CMA’s population growth by 2030.

70
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Steady growth to 2030 will amount to an additional 20,000 will fall into the ownership category. Between now and 2030,
to 23,000 households (resulting in 194,000 households in and on a yearly basis, 600 to 700 new households would
total by 2030). This translates to approximately 2,000 to 2,300 occupy apartments, 500 to 600 would occupy alternate forms
additional households per year. When applying assumptions of multi-residential housing and 900 to 1,000 would occupy
about new households making similar housing choices as single-family homes.
past generations, roughly three-quarters of new households

Figure 30: Projected annual household formation, Victoria CMA

Projected annual household formation

200,000

190,000

180,000

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Projected annual household formation by dwelling type

Apartment Other multi-unit Single-detached

1,400 1,400 1,400
1,200 1,200 1,200
1,000 1,000 1,000
800 800 800
600 600 600
400 400 400
200 200 200
0 0 0
2020 2023 2026 2029 2020 2023 2026 2029 2020 2023 2026 2029

Source: CMHC

71
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Kelowna CMA Statistics Canada’s baseline scenario predicts that the

Kelowna CMA’s population will climb by 17% by 2030.
During the past decade, the Kelowna CMA experienced
This would bring the region’s population close to 245,000
higher population growth (22% between 2009 and 2019)
people by that time. While all age categories will show
than the Vancouver and Victoria CMAs. However, Kelowna’s
increases, growth in the 25 to 44 group will begin to flatten
recent population growth has been driven primarily by
by 2024. The 65 and over age group will make up 27% of
in-migration (interprovincial and intraprovincial). Like the
the CMA’s population by 2030. The under 45 age group will
Vancouver and Victoria CMAs, the Kelowna CMA’s highest-
make up close to half of the projected population.
growth groups have been the 20 to 35 and 55 and over cohorts.

Figure 31: Projected population, Kelowna CMA

Projected total population

250,000

240,000

230,000

220,000

210,000

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

Projected population by age group

<14 15-24 25-44
38,000 26,000 60,000

36,000 25,000 60,000

34,000
24,000 58,000
32,000
23,000 56,000
30,000

22,000
2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

45-64 65-84 85+

62,000 60,000 10 ,000

61,000 55,000
9,000

60,000 50,000

8,000
59,000 45,000

58,000 40,000 7,000

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

Source: StatCan, CMHC

72
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

The number of households in the region will increase generations, close to 80% of new households will be
steadily to 2030. In the baseline scenario, roughly in the ownership category. Between now and 2030,
15,000 to 17,000 households will be added by then, and on a yearly basis, 350 to 400 new households
bringing the regional total to approximately 105,000 would occupy apartments, 350 to 400 would occupy
households. Annual household formation is predicted alternate forms of multi-residential housing and 800
to rise steadily, by around 1,500 to 1,700 per year. If new to 900 would occupy single-family homes.
households make similar housing choices as past

Figure 32: Projected annual household formation, Kelowna CMA

Projected annual household formation

105,000

100,000

95,000

90,000

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

Projected annual household formation by dwelling type

Apartment Other multi-unit Single-detached

1,000 1,000 1,000

800 800 800

600 600 600

400 400 400

200 200 200

0 0 0
2020 2023 2026 2029 2020 2023 2026 2029 2020 2023 2026 2029

Source: CMHC

73
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Abbotsford-Mission CMA 55 to 70 and over age groups. Statistics Canada’s baseline

scenario calls for the CMA’s population to grow by 13%
In the Abbotsford-Mission CMA, population growth
through 2030. By that time, the population is expected
accelerated in the middle of the last decade. Of note,
to have surpassed 220,000 people.
growth was mainly observed in different age groups
than in the three other CMAs, namely in the 15 to 40 and

Figure 33: Projected population, Abbotsford-Mission CMA

Projected total population

230,000

220,000

210,000

200,000

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

Projected population by age group

<14 15-24 25-44
42,500 29,000 60,000

40,000 28,000 57,500

37,500 27,000
55,000

35,000 26,000
52,500
32,500 25,000
2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

45-64 65-84 85+

56,000 44,000 6,500

6,500
40,000
54,000
6,000

36,000 5,500
52,000
5,000
32,000

50,000 4,500

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030 2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

Source: StatCan, CMHC

74
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

While all age categories in this region are expected to increase, Applying the assumption that new households make similar
growth of the 25 to 44 age group will be slower. The 65+ age housing choices as past generations, close to 60% of new
group is expected to record the strongest growth and account households will occupy multi-unit housing. Between now
for 22% of the population by 2030. Nearly 55% of the projected and 2030, and on a yearly basis, approximately 350 new
2030 population is projected to be below the age of 45. Below households would occupy an apartment, while roughly
the age of 65, the population will be evenly distributed by age. 325 would occupy an alternate form of multi-residential
housing and 400 to 500 would occupy single-family homes.
According to the baseline projection, approximately 10,000
households will be added in the next decade, bringing the
total to 80,000 by 2030. In this baseline scenario, roughly
1,000 to 1,200 households will be added each year.

Figure 34: Projected annual household formation, Abbotsford-Mission CMA

Projected annual household formation

85,000

80,000

75,000

70,000

65,000

2020 2022 2025 2028 2030

Projected annual household formation by dwelling type

Apartment Other multi-unit Single-detached

700 700 700
600 600 600
500 500 500
400 400 400
300 300 300
200 200 200
100 100 100
0 0 0
2020 2023 2026 2029 2020 2023 2026 2029 2020 2023 2026 2029

Source: CMHC

75
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

The importance of the age Assumptions about migration are important but not easy to
distribution and assumptions make. A host of factors, such as evolving economic conditions,
both domestically and externally, affect migratory flows,
on migration as seen in figure 36, which shows annual total net migration
The shape of the age distribution (or the “age pyramid”) and for the Vancouver CMA. For this reason, household projections
the assumptions made on migration are critically important should not be used as a benchmark for short-term analysis.
when projecting population and households. As shown in This is particularly the case with the COVID-19 pandemic
figure 35, when compared to the Calgary and Edmonton having reduced the number of international migrants in the
CMAs, Metro Vancouver’s age distribution shows a relatively short term. It is possible that the number of international
lower percentage of children and a relatively higher share migrants will rebound even more strongly in future years if
of young adults. When projecting forward by 20 years and Canada maintains a more aggressive immigration policy.
assuming a constant population growth, the share of the
population entering the phase of household formation and
of first-time homebuying will be relatively higher in Calgary
and Edmonton than in Metro Vancouver.

Figure 35: Age distribution in large Canadian metropolitan areas

2.0%
Calgary
Edmonton
Montréal
Distribution of Population

1.5% Toronto
Vancouver

1.0%

0.5%

0
20 40 60 80 100

Source: StatCan, CMHC

Figure 36: Vancouver (CMA), British Columbia, total net migration

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Source: Statistics Canada. Table 17-10-0136-01

Components of population change by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, 2016 boundaries

76
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

How sensitive are the not negligible) when comparing Statistics Canada’s medium
population projections? (or M1) projections with the other agencies’ projections.
Doing this yields a difference of approximately 150,000 for the
When comparing Statistics Canada’s and CMHC’s 2026 projection and around 300,000 for the 2031 projection.
projections to those of other B.C. agencies, we first identify
the respective methodologies employed as well as their Figure 38 presents the alternative household projections.
underlying assumptions. With regard to the methodologies When comparing the CMHC household projections that
used for projecting the population, all employ the “cohort were based on Statistics Canada’s M1 scenario to those
component” method. As for the underlying assumptions, of other institutions, we see that the difference in 2026 is
these may differ across agencies. approximately 64,000 households. The difference in 2031
grows to 85,000 (see figure below). These estimates give a
Figure 37 shows the population projections according to three sense of how much uncertainty there is in projecting how
sources: Statistics Canada, BC Stats (B.C. P.E.O.P.L.E.) and much housing should be built. Policy makers need to ensure
Metro Vancouver. Whereas Statistics Canada’s “high” and the development processes they create account for this
“low” population projections for 2031 differ by more than half considerable uncertainty.
a million people, the difference is significantly smaller (but

Figure 37: Vancouver, total population (projected 5-year change)

4,000,000
StatCan (H)

StatCan (M1)
3,500,000 B.C P.E.O.P.L.E

Metro Van

3,000,000 StatCan (L)

2,500,000

2,000,000
2021 2026 2031

Source: StatCan, Metro Van, BC Stats CMHC

Figure 38: Vancouver, total households (projected)

1,500,000
StatCan (H)

B.C P.E.O.P.L.E
1,400,000
StatCan (M1)

1,300,000 Metro Van

StatCan (L)
1,200,000

1,100,000

1,000,000
2021 2026 2031

Source: StatCan, Metro Van, BC Stats CMHC

77
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Appendix 6: Fees on property The Local Government Act also allows local governments
to exchange additional density for amenities or non-market
development in B.C. housing through density bonus provisions in zoning. Where
used, this instrument is considered voluntary as opposed to
Development cost charges are a revenue tool made available
obligatory for all building permits, since property developers
to municipalities and regional districts by the Province,
have the option not to include additional density.
as specified in the Local Government Act. The purpose of
DCCs, which are collected from property developers at the The third development-based revenue instrument is
time of subdivision approval or building permit approval, community amenity contributions (CACs), which some
is to fund off-site growth-related infrastructure. Specifically, B.C. municipalities levy as a fixed rate or through negotiations
DCCs may fund road, sewerage, waterworks and drainage with developers when real estate projects require rezoning.
infrastructure, as well as the acquisition and improvement Unlike DCCs and density bonusing, CACs are not defined
of parks.62 DCCs are only allowed to cover the capital costs in provincial legislation. Instead, they are grounded in
of such infrastructure and must be levied in proportion to municipalities’ discretionary power over land-use regulation—
the infrastructure needs directly generated by development. specifically zoning—by which local councils may accept or
DCC design must also tie infrastructure needs assessments reject rezoning applications. In practice, this broad autonomy
to regional growth strategies and official community plans. in the design and use of CACs has allowed for a wide array
If a local draft DCC bylaw does not follow these requirements, of amenity preconditions in exchange for rezoning, including
it does not receive approval by the provincial government.63 libraries, fire hall expansions, non-market housing, public art
and funds-in-lieu.

62
Two exceptions are the City of Vancouver (through the Vancouver Charter) and the Resort Municipality of Whistler (through the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act),
where DCCs—called Development Cost Levies (DCLs) in Vancouver—may include a broader range of items, such as non-market housing and childcare facilities.
63
Specifically, it does not receive approval by the Inspector of Municipalities, who must consider a wide range of factors and best practices, including those outlined
in the Development Cost Charge Best Practices Guide, available here: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/local-governments/
finance/dcc_best_practice_guide_2005.pdf.

78
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Appendix 7: Key principles Proportionality: Beyond a clear, demonstrable link or

“nexus” between the impacts of property development and
for fees on property the fees meant to address them, it is also important for the
development: Nexus fee amount to be “proportionate” to these impacts. That is,
the fee amount should not be greater than the cost of
and proportionality addressing the impacts of new homes or businesses. For
example, a fee meant to cover the cost of a road widening
A common justification for the implementation of fees
to account for increased traffic generated by residents of a
on property development is that “growth pays for growth.”
new neighbourhood should not be expected to also cover
Also known as the “user pays” principle, this justification
the costs of additional widening in anticipation of future,
requires that the upfront capital costs associated with
unrealized growth.
new homes and businesses, such as sewers, waterworks
and roadway expansions, should be paid for by those There are several risks associated with the neglect of these
new homes and businesses rather than all homes and two principles. First, ignoring nexus and proportionality
businesses within a municipality. Once built, the ongoing in fee design can reduce balance or fairness between
costs for maintenance or operations of this infrastructure current residents and newcomers. Importantly, nexus
are shared citywide. and proportionality requirements reduce the temptation of
shifting the costs of amenities or facilities enjoyed primarily
In order to achieve a close linkage between the upfront
by current residents onto new homes and businesses, rather
costs of this infrastructure and those new residents and
than raising the necessary property tax or user fee revenue
businesses generating a need for it, two key principles
to do so.
are commonly identified as best practices: nexus and
proportionality.64 Second, undue or overly burdensome fees may impede
the pace and amount of homebuilding in a city, creating or
Nexus: Fees imposed on development should be
exacerbating housing shortages.65 These shortages, in turn,
demonstrably tied to the needs or impacts generated by
negatively impact the availability and affordability of housing
it. In other words, there should be a clear link, or “nexus,”
in desirable cities and neighbourhoods.
between what the fee or exaction is requiring, and the
proposed development it applies to. For example, the
construction of a new neighbourhood on farmland will
increase demands on local sewer and water infrastructure,
both in terms of nearby pipe capacity and overall treatment
plant capacity. This increase in the demands on local
infrastructure demonstrates clear “nexus” with the new
neighbourhood, in turn justifying a fee to pay for the
resulting infrastructure upgrades.

64
These two principles, and the language surrounding them, emerged in part from two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,
483 U.S. 825 (1987),and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
65
For more on the mechanism by which fees can exacerbate citywide housing shortages, see the 2014 B.C. government study, Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability, here: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/local-
governments/planning-land-use/community_amenity_contributions_guide.pdf.

79
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Appendix 8: B.C.’s community Community land trusts (CLTs)

housing sector A community land trust is a non-profit corporation that
acquires and holds land in perpetuity for the benefit of
The community housing sector in B.C. has significant assets a community. CLTs in Canada often partner with local
in its ownership and under its management, owing in many governments, existing co-operatives and a broad range
cases to historical government investments. of other housing providers to build new homes or acquire
existing homes to keep them permanently affordable.
Non-profit housing
More than 800 non-profit organizations in B.C. own and BC Housing directly managed
manage approximately 65,000 affordable homes in communities housing
throughout the province, ranging from supportive housing to In addition to the community housing described above,
workforce housing for middle-income workers. The non-profit another 7,000 affordable homes in B.C. are directly managed
portfolio includes the four municipal housing authorities by BC Housing, the Crown Corporation responsible for
in B.C., each of which is structured as a non-profit entity: housing in the province.
Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, Whistler Housing
Authority, Capital Regional Housing Corporation and City
of Vancouver.

Co-operatives
Co-operatives are legal entities owned and managed by
their members. While most housing co-operatives in B.C.
are non-profit organizations, a small number are equity
co-operatives, meaning that their members can build equity,
as is the case for homeowners. There are over 265 non-profit
housing co-operatives in B.C., with more than 15,300 homes,
most of which are in the Lower Mainland and on southern
Vancouver Island. Co-operatives are not registered charities
and are not social housing, although some co-operatives
receive operating subsidies to provide a portion of their
homes to low-income households at rents geared to their
incomes. Because they operate at cost on a non-profit basis,
over time co-operatives are typically much more affordable
than similar market units.

80
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Appendix 9: Federal and First-time home buyers’ amount

provincial programs First-time home buyers are eligible for a $5,000 income tax
credit on a home purchase, which provides up to $750 in
and policies benefiting federal tax relief.
homeowners
First-Time Home Buyer Incentive
Federal programs and policies Eligible first-time homebuyers can receive a shared equity
mortgage for 5% of a resale home and up to 10% of a new
Capital gains exemption on principal residence construction home. Homebuyers repay the same percentage
that was borrowed when the home is sold or within 25 years.
Canadians must pay capital gains tax on 50% of the gain
from their investments. However, an exception is made
for investments in principal residences. If a home’s value Provincial programs and policies
increases between the time it is bought and sold, the
homeowner is exempt from paying tax on this profit.
Regular Home Owner Grant
Non-taxation of capital gains on principal residences is Eligible B.C. homeowners can receive a provincial grant to
the fourth largest federal tax expenditure. In 2017, this tax reduce the property taxes they must pay each year on their
expenditure cost an estimated $7.52 billion nationally.66 principal residences. The annual grant is $570 in the Capital
Regional District, Metro Vancouver Regional District and the
Non-taxation of net imputed rent for Fraser Valley Regional District. In the rest of the province
homeowners the amount is $770. The grant is only available in full for
homes with an assessed value below a specific threshold.
In Canada, there is a discrepancy between how rental
For 2021, the threshold has been set at $1.625 million.
and owner-occupied housing is taxed. Owners of rental
housing pay tax on their rental income, but owners
Grant supplement for seniors
occupying their own housing effectively pay no tax on the
“rents” they might be understood as paying themselves. Eligible seniors can receive a grant on top of the Regular
This provides homeowners with an implicit subsidy on Home Owner Grant to reduce the property tax on their
the non-taxation of their monthly housing costs. Put principal residence.
differently, we might think of renters as paying sales tax
on their rents, which ultimately shows up as income tax First-Time Home Buyers’ Program
for their landlords. Owner-occupiers pay no such sales Eligible first-time homebuyers in B.C. can receive a reduction
tax on the rent they might be understood as paying or elimination of the property transfer tax, worth up to $8,000.
to themselves as landlords. This federal subsidy was
estimated to cost $8 billion in 2017.67 Property tax deferment
Eligible homeowners68 can receive a low-interest loan to pay
Home Buyers’ Plan
property taxes on a principal residence that is designed to be
Homebuyers may withdraw up to $35,000 from their RRSPs used in conjunction with the Regular Home Owner Grant.
to purchase a home without penalty, provided the amount
withdrawn is repaid within 15 years.

66
Canada Department of Finance (2020).
67
Clayton (2020).
68
To qualify, homeowners must meet one or more of the following criteria: aged 55 or older; be a surviving spouse of any age; have a disability; be a parent,
stepparent or financially supporting a child.

81
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Acknowledgments Canadian Home Builders’ Association British Columbia

We would like to thank the many people that provided us Catherine Holt, Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce
input through consultations and online submissions. The list Claudia Kempe, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade
of stakeholders we engaged with can be found below. Special Clayton Buckinghamon, VanCity
thanks to Tsur Somerville, Frank Clayton, Nathanael Lauster,
and Gregory Steves, who provided feedback on earlier drafts Craig Crawford, C.Crawford Consulting Ltd.
of this report. Thanks to Tsur Somerville and Tom Davidoff Cyrus Navabi, Qualex-Landmark
at the UBC Centre for Urban Economics and Real Estate, and
Dallas Alderson, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
to Jens von Bergmann and the team at the UBC Sociology
Zoning Project for providing research to help inform the Dan Garrison, City of Vancouver
recommendations in this report. We would also like to Dan Rogers, Kelowna Chamber of Commerce
acknowledge the valuable input provided by Cimarron Corpe,
Daniel Oleksiuk, BC Government & Services
the Director of the Housing Secretariat of the B.C. Ministry
Employees’ Union
of Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing,
and the Secretariat support provided by the following people Danika Dudzik, City of West Kelowna
at CMHC: Michel Tremblay, Kathie Howes, Bert Pereboom, Dave Hutniak, Landlord BC
Bob Dugan, Tiffany Brousseau, Aled ab lorwerth, Josef
David Screech, Town of View Royal
Filipowicz, Keith Stewart, Laura Caldwell, Kristjana Loptson,
Michael Oram, Zoë Thanopoulos and Élisabeth Koulouris. Debbie Cannon, City of Salmon Arm

Thanks to: Duncan Maclennan, University of Glasgow

Elisa Campbell, Canada Lands Company (CLC)
411 Seniors Centre Society
Erin Seeley, Real Estate Council of BC
Active Manufactured Home Owners Society
Fred Haynes, District of Saanich
Agata Kosinski, British Columbia Hotel Association (BCHA)
Gavin Jones, Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce
Alain Bertaud, Marron Institute
Geoff Orr, District of North Saanich
Alan Harrison, City of Salmon Arm
George Harvie, City of Delta
Alex Hemmingway, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Grant Stevens, Flight Craft
Andrew Lis, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing (MMAH)
Greg Steves, BC Land Title and Survey Authority (LTSA)
Andrey Pavlov, Simon Fraser University
Homes for Heroes Foundation
Andy Yan, Simon Fraser University
James Munro, Greater Victoria Housing Society
Anita Huberman, Surrey Board of Trade
Jamie Cassels, University of Victoria
B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union
Janice Abbott, Atira Women’s Resource Society
Bailey Mumford, Metis Nation British Columbia
Jason Middleton, Landlord BC
Barbara Desjardins, Township of Esquimalt
Jean Lamontagne, City of Surrey
BC Federation of Retired Union Members
Jenny Schuetz, Brookings Institution
Beau Jarvis, Urban Development Institute Pacific
Jessica Brooks, Government of BC
Ben Dachis, CD Howe Institute
Jim Hamilton, Okanagan College
Bob Rennie, Rennie & Associates Realty Ltd.
Jodi Dong, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing (MMAH)

82
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

John Kearns, British Columbia Hotel Association (BCHA) Rebecca Ataya, Federation of Community Social
Jonathan Cote, City of New Westminister Services of BC

Kaye Krishna, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing Rich Threlfall, Urban Development Institute (UDI)
(MMAH) Okanagan Chapter

Ken Peacock, Business Council of B.C Richard Stewart, City of Coquitlam

Ken Williams, District of Highlands Rob Martin, City of Colwood

Kennedy Stewart, City of Vancouver Ron Rapp, Home Builders Association of Vancouver (HAVAN)

Kevin Albers, M’akola, Housing Society Ryan Smith, City of Kelowna

Kevin Murdoch, District of Oak Bay Ryan Windsor, District of Central Saanich

Khelsilem, Squamish Nation Council SAFERhome Standards Society

Lee Coonfer, BC Seniors Living Association Samantha Howard, Canadian Federation of Independent
Businesses in BC
Lee-Ann Garnett, City of Burnaby
Sarah Silva, Squamish Nation Council
Linda Buchanan, City of North Vancouver
Scott Butler, Highstreetliving
Lindsay Hardie, BC Land Title and Survey Authority (LTSA)
Scott Kristjanson, City of WhiteRock
Lisa Helps, City of Victoria
Shayne Ramsay, BC Housing
Lisa Muri, City of North Vancouver
Stephanie Allen, BC Housing
Maja Tait, District of Sooke
Stephanie Salaman, Regional District Central Okanagan
Marc Lee, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Steve Pomeroy, Focus Consulting
Margaret Mason, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Susan Haid, City of Vancouver
Marijke Edmondson, Government of BC
Susan Tatoosh, Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Center
Mary-Ann Booth, City of West Vancouver
The Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of BC (COSCO)
Matthew Bond, City of North Vancouver
Thom Armstrong, Co-operative Housing Federation
Michael Geller, Geller Group of BC (CHFBC)
Mike Hurley, City of Burnaby Thomas Lancaster, Granville Island CMHC
Neil Monckton, City of Vancouver Tiffany Duzita, Community Land Trust
Neil Moody, CHBA BC Tim McEwan, Independent Contractors and Business
Neil Belenkie, Village of Belcarra Association of BC
Nora Brooks, City of Colwood Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM)
Olga Ilich, Vancouver Housing Task Force Val Van Den Broek, City of Langley
One Filipino Cooperative of BC (One FilCo-op) Vancouver and District Labour Council Housing Action Team
and Filco-operative One Housing Society Victor Cumming, City of Vernon
Paul Kershaw, UBC and Generation Squeeze Victoria Residential Builders Association
Penny Gurstein, University of British Columbia
Ray Wynsouw, Kelowna Chamber of Commerce

83
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

References
Altus Group Economic Consulting, 2020, Municipal Benchmarking Study. Canadian Home Builders’ Association (CHBA).
Available at: https://www.chba.ca/CHBADocs/CHBA/HousingCanada/Government-Role/2020-09-21-Report-CHBA-
Municipal-Benchmarking-Study.pdf

Baker, Emma, Ngoc Anh Pham, Lyrian Daniel and Rebecca Bentley, 2020, “New Evidence on Mental Health and
Housing Affordability in Cities: A Quantile Regression Approach.” Cities, Vol. 96, Iss. 102455, January. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102455

Balestra, Carlotta, and Joyce Sultan, 2013, “Home Sweet Home: The Determinants of Residential Satisfaction and
its Relation with Well-being.” OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2013/05, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1787/5jzbcx0czc0x-en

BC Housing, 2020, 2021 Housing Income Limits (HILs). Available at: https://www.bchousing.org/publications/2021-Housing-
Income-Limits-HILs.pdf

BC Rental Housing Coalition, 2017, An Affordable Housing Plan for BC. Available at: https://bcnpha.ca/wp_bcnpha/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/BC_Affordable_Housing_Plan.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Community Services, 2005, Development Cost Charge: Best Practices Guide. Available at: https://
www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/local-governments/finance/dcc_best_practice_guide_2005.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, 2014, Community Amenity Contributions:
Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/
british-columbians-our-governments/local-governments/planning-land-use/community_amenity_contributions_guide.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Finance, 2020, Budget and Fiscal Plan 2020/21-2022/23. Available at: https://www.bcbudget.gov.
bc.ca/2020/pdf/2020_budget_and_fiscal_plan.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2019, Development Approvals Process Review: Final Report from
a Province-Wide Stakeholder Consultation. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-
governments/local-governments/planning-land-use/dapr_2019_report.pdf

Caldera Sánchez, Aida and Dan Andrews, 2011, “Residential Mobility and Public Policy in OECD Countries.” OECD Journal:
Economic Studies, Vol. 2011/1. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_studies-2011-5kg0vswqt240

Canada/British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability, 2020, What We Heard: Interim
Report of the Canada/British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability. Available at:
https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/588/2020/12/20200805_001_WhatWeHeard_Report_w_ACC.pdf

Canada Department of Finance, 2020, Report on Federal Tax Expenditures. Available at:
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/fin/publications/taxexp-depfisc/2020/taxexp-depfisc20-eng.pdf

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2019, “Defining the Affordability of Housing in Canada.” Research Insight, January.
Available at: https://assets.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/sf/project/cmhc/pubsandreports/research-insights/2019/research-insight-
defining-affordability-housing-canada-69468-en.pdf?rev=365474b3-823c-4a54-b18d-5b138c0215f9

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2018, Examining Escalating House Prices in Large Canadian Metropolitan Centres.
Available at: https://assets.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/sf/project/cmhc/pdfs/content/en/69262.pdf?rev=2a923257-c691-4968-b2f1-
0d91cd13624e

Dachis, Benjamin, 2020, Gimme Shelter: How High Municipal Housing Charges and Taxes Decrease Housing Supply,
available at: https://www.cdhowe.org/public-policy-research/gimme-shelter-how-high-municipal-housing-charges-and-
taxes-decrease-housing-supply

84
 OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2021. Incidence of Urban Households in Core Housing Need (%) 2012 – 2019.
Available at: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/professionals/housing-markets-data-and-research/housing-data/data-tables/
household-characteristics/incidence-urban-households-core-housing-need

Clayton, Frank, 2020, “Federal Tax Expenditures Favour Homeowners.” Centre for Urban Research and Land Development.
Available at: https://www.ryerson.ca/cur/Blog/blogentry49/

Doberstein, Carey, Ross Hickey and Eric Li, 2016, “Nudging NIMBY: Do positive messages regarding the benefits of increased
housing density influence resident stated housing development preferences?” Land Use Policy, Vol. 54, July, pp. 276-289.

Fischel, William A., 2001, “Homevoters, Municipal Corporate Governance, and the Benefit View of the Property Tax.”
National Tax Journal, Vol. 54, No.1, pp.157-173.

Glaeser, Edward L., 2007, “The Economics Approach to Cities.” NBER Working Paper, No. 13696. Available at:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w13696

Green, Kenneth P. and Josef Filipowicz, 2016, New Homes and Red Tape in British Columbia: Residential Land-Use Regulation
in the Lower Mainland. Fraser Institute. Available at: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/new-homes-and-red-
tape-in-bc-residential-land-use-regulation-in-the-lower-mainland.pdf

Gyourko, Joseph, Jonathan Hartley and Jacob Krimmel, 2019, “The Local Residential Land Use Regulatory Environment across
U.S. Housing Markets: Evidence from a New Wharton Index.” NBER Working Paper, No. 26573, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc. Available at: https://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Working-Paper-2020.pdf

Holden, Meg, Sophie Fung and Daniel Sturgeon, 2016, Getting to Groundbreaking: Residential Building Approval Processes in
Metro Vancouver. Year 2: Focus on WoodFrame Apartments. Available at: https://havan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/
G2G_2015_web.pdf

Holden, Meg and Terry Sidhu, 2014, Getting to Groundbreaking: Residential Building Approval Processes in Metro Vancouver.
Year 1: Focus on Townhouses. Available at: https://havan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/G2G_Report2014v5.pdf

Holleran, Max, 2020, “Millennial ‘YIMBYs’ and boomer ‘NIMBYs’: Generational views on housing affordability in the United
States.” The Sociological Review. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120916121

Kushner, Joseph, and David Siegel, 2006, “Why do Municipal Electors not Vote?” Canadian Journal of Urban Research,
Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 264-277.

Maloney, Maureen, Tsur Somerville and Brigitte Unger, 2019, Combatting Money Laundering in BC Real Estate. Expert Panel on
Money Laundering in BC Real Estate. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/real-estate-in-bc/
combatting-money-laundering-report.pdf

Mast, Evan, 2019, “The Effect of New Market-Rate Housing Construction on the Low-Income Housing Market.” Upjohn
Institute Working Paper No. 19-307, Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.17848/wp19-307

McGregor, Michael and Zachary Spicer, 2016, “The Canadian Homevoter: Property Values and Municipal Politics in Canada.”
Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.123-139.

Metcalf, Gabriel, 2018, “Sand Castles before the Tide? Affordable Housing in Expensive Cities.” Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter, pp. 59-80.

Metro Vancouver, 2015, The Metro Vancouver Housing and Transportation Cost Burden Study: A New Way of Looking at
Affordability. Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/
HousingAndTransportCostBurdenReport2015.pdf

85
OPENING DOORS - Final report of the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability

Moore, Aaron A., and R. Michael McGregor, 2020, “The Representativeness of Neighbourhood Associations in Toronto and
Vancouver.” Urban Studies. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0042098020964439

Payton Scally, Corianne, 2012, “The Nuances of NIMBY: Context and Perceptions of Affordable Rental Housing Development.”
Urban Affairs Review. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087412469341

Pomeroy, Steve, Greg Lampert and Margaret Eberle, 2019, “Facilitating Non-Profit Acquisition of Purpose Built Rental Housing.”
Prepared for BC Non-Profit Housing Association (BCNPHA). November.

Quigley, John M. and Steven Raphael, 2004, “Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn’t it More Affordable?” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 18, No. 1, Winter, pp. 191-214. Available at: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/089533004773563494

Rosenthal, Stuart S., 2014, “Are Private Markets and Filtering a Viable Source of Low-Income Housing? Estimates from a
‘Repeat-Income’ Model.” American Economic Review, Vol. 104, No. 2, February, pp. 687-706.

Saunders, Dylan, 2018, “Internal Migration: Overview 2015/2016.” Statistics Canada Report on the Demographic Situation
in Canada. Available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-209-x/2018001/article/54958-eng.htm

Scotiabank, 2021, “Estimating the Structural Housing Shortage in Canada: Are we 100 Thousand or Nearly 2 Million Units Short?.”
Global Economics Housing Note. May 12. Available at: https://scotia.bluematrix.com/sellside/EmailDocViewer?encrypt=c4ec2243-
cd24-49ac-96b2-ab670bb7d9c8&mime=pdf&co=Scotia&[email protected]&source=mail

Statistics Canada, 2020, “Survey of Financial Security, 2019.” Available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-
quotidien/201222/dq201222b-eng.htm

Statistics Canada, 2017, “Population Projections for Census Metropolitan Areas of Canada (NPP2016CMA): Technical
Specifications.” Produced for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. October.

Suttor, Greg, 2016, Still Renovating: A History of Canadian Social Housing Policy. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

The Economist, 2020, “Home Ownership is the West’s Biggest Economic-Policy Mistake.” January 18th edition. Available at:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/01/16/home-ownership-is-the-wests-biggest-economic-policy-mistake

United Kingdom Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2015, Housing and Economic Needs Assessment.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessments

van den Berg, Ryan, 2019, A Primer on Housing Rights in Canada. Economics, Resources and International Affairs Division,
Library of Parliament. Available at: https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201916E

World Health Organization (WHO), 2018, Housing and Health Guidelines. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/
item/9789241550376

86
 engage.gov.bc.ca
20210329-001