The One Affordability Issue Being Ignored in the BC Election

Housing units under construction in Delta, B.C., on Aug. 12, 2024. The Canadian Press/Darryl Dyck

Commentary

The late great columnist Allan Fotheringham referred to British Columbia as Lotus Land, partly because of our reputation of being a tad out of touch with reality. Despite this well-deserved stereotype, the current election campaign in Canada’s westernmost province is being fought over the thoroughly practical issues of affordability and quality of life.

According to a new Ipsos poll, the top three issues for B.C. voters are the cost of living, health care, and housing. This list is exactly the same (even in the same order) for supporters of the NDP, Conservatives, and Greens.

Housing affordability in particular has become such a major concern that many B.C. residents say they are thinking of heading for greener pastures. According to an Angus Reid poll released in June, one in three B.C. residents—and half of those aged 18 to 34—are seriously considering leaving the province because of the cost of housing.

In a powerful moment two weeks ago, a 19-year-old from North Vancouver called into CBC’s “BC Today” show to explain that he and his friends “have no idea how they’re ever going to afford a home” in the province, and that some people he knows are even considering leaving Canada.

B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad has been repeating the Angus Reid figures on how many British Columbians want to leave in just about every speech and interview. But there is another population metric that has gone largely unmentioned since the campaign began—one that is crucial in explaining why housing affordability is top of mind for many voters.

B.C.’s population is skyrocketing. From April 2023 to April 2024, our population grew by a staggering 179,821—an annual growth rate of 3.3 percent.

This growth is not from interprovincial migration, which is running at a loss. Last year, 68,000 people left B.C. for other provinces (mostly to Alberta), while just 60,000 came to B.C. from elsewhere in the country. Neither is this growth from births. B.C.’s fertility rate has now declined to one birth per woman; 2.1 is the fertility rate at which a population replaces itself without shrinking.

The only source of B.C.’s population growth in the first quarter of 2024 was international migration.

In July, Premier David Eby summed up his concerns about the knock-on effects of this growth: “To add a new city of 180,000 people every year to our province is not sustainable. Our schools are full. We are unable to keep up with housing starts.” Both Rustad and Eby have opposed a federal government proposal to resettle asylum seekers in B.C.

Despite this, the issue hasn’t been brought up during the election campaign.

When he first became Conservative leader, Rustad promised that he would pressure Ottawa to grant B.C. more control over immigration, but this pledge is not currently mentioned in the “platform” section of the B.C. Conservative website.

As well, the words “population growth” and “immigration” were not mentioned during the official televised leaders’ debate on Oct. 8. The most obvious downstream effect of B.C.’s current population growth—the strain on housing capacity—was spoken of copiously. The word “housing” was uttered by the three candidates or the debate moderator no fewer than 65 times, and the word “rent” was said a total of 10 times.

Like all scarce goods and services, the price of housing is determined by both demand and supply. The reticence of B.C.’s party leaders to discuss demand resulted in a debate in which all three sounded strikingly similar.

Rustad pledged to “unleash the potential of the private sector” to boost supply. Green Leader Sonia Furstenau said B.C. should “build tens of thousands of units of non-market housing every year”. Eby said the NDP will “deliver 300,000 middle-income homes”.

The reluctance to point to growth-driven demand is not surprising in a political environment in which voters are demanding rapid action on housing.

If a candidate responded to a debate question on housing by explaining how they will tame population growth by entering into lengthy negotiations with Ottawa to transfer more control over immigration to B.C., the eyes of many voters would understandably glaze over.

People want more houses built yesterday, not an idealistic-sounding plan to stabilize prices by taming population growth years from now.

In times of economic hardship, speaking about problems in terms of long time frames and root causes is often not a smart political move. So, B.C. finds itself talking around and around the housing issue, while studiously averting its gaze from the elephant sitting in the corner of the room.

We may not be so far from Lotus Land, after all.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.